Back in 1982 Dr. Carol Gilligan, an Associate Professor of Education at Harvard University published this ground-breaking book, In A Different Voice.
In it she sought to trace and focus the different ethical perspectives between young boys and young girls. She suggested that when it comes to moral questions girls, and thus perhaps women as well, think and feel differently from boys and men. She had done extensive study of numerous young people of both genders in order to highlight these differences.
Gilligan’s central assumption was “That the way people talk about their lives is of significance, that the language they use and the connections they make reveal the world that they see and in which they act.” (p.2) Gilligan had studied and worked with well-known socio-psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg as a graduate student at Harvard and in her work there she began to question Kohlberg’s work on human moral development because as it turned out all of his studies had involved only young men. The major result of Kohlberg’s work was the conclusion that young males’ sense of morality is primarily based on a sense of rights and obligations, much as it is studied in philosophy and religion classes.
On the other hand, according to Gilligan’s empirical studies with young girls, a young girl might respond by first asking about the circumstances of the posed situation. She might ask if there are no other ways for obtaining the needed drug. She might ask not whether one should steal the drug, but what other options might there be to solving the difficult situation other than stealing. In short, Gilligan found that by and large young girls took a broader perspective on such issues in order to avoid both of the proposed possible scenarios. Where Kohlberg’s analysis offered only two options here, Gilligan’s analysis broadened the scope of the issue to not only include but to begin with more contextual questions about what is involved and why.
Repeatedly Gilligan found that in such situations, young girls always began by asking questions that would bring out more details and thus more possibilities. She describes this difference as that between coming at the issue contextuality or with categorical thinking. To put it differently, between what is categorically “right” and what is contextually “best” or most helpful. Gilligan concluded that whereas men generally try to determine what is “right” or “wrong” thing to do in the situation, focusing on rules, etc. women generally approach the situation by focusing on the relationships involved and how to fulfill them.
Throughout her very insightful book Gilligan offers numerous examples, both from real life and creative literature, of this sort of difference, but the case which strikes me the as the most clear and powerful is that of the dilemma confronting the rabbits who have offered to share their nest with a porcupine but soon find out that whenever the porcupine moves some rabbit gets stuck. The dilemma then is whether to find some form of compromise or to ban the porcupine from the nest.
This dilemma reminds me of what we who play pick-up basketball must often do when there are no referees. We make adjustments for the guy who keeps committing a double-dribble, or the clumsy guy who inadvertently fouls people. The responsible thing to do, assuming we want to continue to play together in such cases is not cart blanch follow the rules, but to bend the rules a bit so that we can continue to play together. Of course, such “bending” will have to have limits.
The crucial point is that in order to live together our “morality” must take into account various important differences of situation: male and female, black and white, poor and rich, young and elderly. If we are going to live together our ethics must be able to “bend” a bit here and there. I think this is what Gilligan meant by her title: “In a Different Voice”, a voice that seeks to find solutions for complicated situations without necessitating bringing our game to an end. We usually tried taking turns taking the ball out of bounds. This issue is not easy, but it’s crucial for our life together. ANY QUESTIONS OR OBSERVATIONS?

Back in the 1940s the Trotters were the best basketball team in the world. Every year they played the NBA champs in Madison Square Garden two out of three and won. They were created by one Abe Saperstein back before World War and toured the country every year sometimes even playing in swimming pools and barns but almost always winning. The names of their stars, Goose Tatum, Marcus Hanes, and Ted Strong were famous. The trotters had three teams, one toured the East coast, another the West, and a third the Midwest.
When I was a kid, they came to our town Bellingham Washington every year and became very popular all around the world. They clowned around a lot, but still managed to win almost every game. They made fun at the opponents’ expense and the crowds loved it. I saw the Trotters three times in my youth and our local team won all three games. As it happened there was a small professional league in the Pacific Northwest at that time and our town had the best team, The Bellingham Fircrest.
Our team was led by a former All-American player named Gale Bishop. As the star of the Washington State University team he had once scored 50 points in a Madison Square Garden game. Two of our players had been stars on our local college team, and two had played at The University of Oregon and the University of Washington. In short, we had an excellent team. The first year I saw the Trotters our team beat them seemingly easily. The next year the trotters imported several players from their two other teams so as to guarantee a victory.
However, each of those years our Fircrest team beat the Trotters in overtime. Abe Saperstein himself came to the game and declared Bellingham “The Flatbush of basketball”, alluding to the crowds at Ebbits Field in Brooklyn, because our fans were so loud and raucous. The third year our team had hired a former Trotters player, Ziggy Marcel to play for us. He seemed to know all the plays the Trotters tried to run. They still did their tricks and got lots of laughs, but we were proud to win. It was amazing to have beat the Trotters three years in a row.
My own special connection here was on this wise. I was the waterboy for a city league team and their captain also handled details for the Fircrest team. He asked me if I would like to be waterboy for the Trotters when they came to town. Of course, I was overjoyed by the opportunity to be waterboy for the Trotters. You must understand that these guys were the only Black people we had ever seen in person. There were no Negroes in our town. Not only was it a great honor for me, but it was a bit weird, if not scary, to have this opportunity.
I had, of course, read all about the Trotters and seen them play in newsreels and had even seen a promotional movie they had made. But to sit on their bench and provide towels and drinks for them was way beyond my imagination. The fellow who sat next to me was the blackest person I had ever seen. His name was Robert Hall and he was a new player. His skin was absolutely pure black!! I still consider it one of the great moments of my young life to have been the waterboy for the Trotters. And once again our team managed to beat them.