Southern United States and White People

DBQ Essay Many African Americans picked up opportunity of servitude from 1775 to 1830 during a similar period the establishment of bondage was extended. Bondage was extended in light of the benefits from developing cotton and the industrialization the North had. Despite the fact that there were free African Americans in America, they were still taunted. (Doc . I) The individuals during this timespan were as yet oblivious and were not edified. David Walker was a free African American who proposed to white individuals since it was very like the American Revolution. (Doc.J) Walker demonstrated the white individuals that African Americans merited opportunity. A few slaves would not like to trust that the white individuals will allow them there opportunity, so hence they made a move to pick up that opportunity. (Doc. G) As the African American made a move, Nat Turner began his own uproar and slaughtered around 50 individuals. This would be the motivation behind why slaves ought not be giv en opportunity since they were vicious. During the previous timespan, obligated workers were offered by the British with opportunity in America on the off chance that they joined the British. (Doc.A) This was pleasing to the slaves since they were not, at this point vulnerable. Be that as it may, slaves endeavored to out of control in light of the fact that the cost was high to pick up opportunity. The British lost the war and didn't save the guarantee for slaves. The slaves were viewed as savages; they would be in peril in the public eye yet additionally to themselves on the off chance that they were liberated. (Doc. E) If slaves were liberated, the white and African Americans would not be getting along on the grounds that there are not grower. In Doc. C, the image indicated the contrast between the rates of the slaves from 1790 to 1830.The North had enough industry so they needed to give up a portion of the slaves. The South increased a great deal of slaves so as to keep their ind ustry well off. In the south slaves were utilized on ranches to develop their cotton, tobacco, and sugar. There were numerous difficulties that drove the two slaves and free African Americans to strive to pick up their opportunity. They had some assistance with the North also. Without the three gatherings, King Cotton, King Wheat, and King Corn, cooperating, subjection would have been proceeding for a very long time.

At the very back of your eye is the retina

At the extremely back of your eye is the retina. It's about the size of a postage stamp, and it contains a great many cells that are delicate to light. Some of these phones are called cones. Cones let you see shading by joining the three principle hues (red, blue, and green) to make a huge number of hues, from the orange of your macaroni and cheddar to the turquoise of a tropical fish.Even despite the fact that numerous individuals believe that being partially blind methods an individual can't see any shading, this isn't accurate. Not many partially blind individuals see life the manner in which it is on an old high contrast TV appear. Rather, a great many people who are visually challenged simply have a tough time differentiating between certain colors.If you don't have the right synthetic concoctions during the cones, they may not let you see the correct number of fundamental hues. The vast majority who are visually challenged can't see red or green. For model, when a child who is visually challenged takes a gander at a green leaf, he sees a leaf that is either a nonpartisan shading (like a light tan) or a shade of dim. visual deformity bringing about the failure to recognize hues. About 8% of men and 0.5% of ladies experience some trouble in shading discernment. Partial blindness is generally an acquired sex-connected trademark, transmitted through, yet latent in, females. Obtained partial blindness results from certain degenerative infections of the eyes. The vast majority of those with imperfect shading vision are just incompletely partially blind to red and green, i.e., they have a restricted capacity to recognize rosy and greenish conceals. The individuals who are totally visually challenged to red and green see both hues as a shade of yellow. Totally partially blind people can perceive just dark, white, and shades of dim. Partial blindness is typically not identified with visual sharpness; it is huge, along these lines, just when people who experience the ill effects of it look for work in occupations where shading acknowledgment is significant, such...

The 5 Types of Swears You Find in Speculative Fiction

The 5 Types of Swears You Find in Speculative Fiction While we at the Riot are taking this lovely summer week off to rest (translation: read by the pool/ocean/on our couches), were re-running some of our  favorite posts from the last several months. Enjoy our highlight reel, and well be back with new stuff on Wednesday, July 8th. This post originally ran June 19, 2015. _________________________ Swearing can get weird in speculative fiction. In any other genre, it’s no big deal. Characters either curse or they don’t. But in science fiction and fantasy, where authors have to build whole universes, cultures and languages, cursing can get …creative. Profanity in speculative fiction runs the gamut, from nonsense words (“Tanj you!”) to phrases that hint at the world-building work an author has done. (“Blackened body of god!”) These invented curses can either trip up a reader by making them check a glossary at the back of a book, or act as Chekov’s Gun by giving readers important clues about a story’s mythology. Some are silly, some are shockers, but generally, I find that swearing in speculative fiction tends to fall into five dirty, dirty categories. 1) The PG curse. These are the hecks and goshdarnits of speculative fiction. They are completely made up, but clearly not very vulgar in their own fictional universe. Think “Merlin’s beard, “ from the Harry Potter books, and its slightly-nastier cousin “Merlin’s Pants.” Or, even saltier, “Merlins most baggy Y-fronts.” Then there’s “Fewmets!” from Madeleine L’Engle’s  A Wind in the Door. (Fewmets are described in the book as dragon poop.) All of these are said pretty lightly; no one clutches their wizard pearls when Merlin’s name is taken in vain. 2) The F-bomb stand-in Sometimes an author decides to make up a swear. It makes sense: the author had to make up a whole society, why not include swears? What you end up with, sometimes, are nonsense words that are supposed to sound like languages. Jo Walton wrote a great piece about made up swears in fantasy and science fiction for Tor. Back in the ‘80s, and before, she says, swears were invented or avoided. Now, not so much. Were the made-up curses an attempt to get past publishers that wanted cleaner books? Did they reflect the times? Was it just the way people built world? No idea, but here’s some food for thought: you know where you see creative swearing now? YA books. The Maze Runner by James Dashner has shuck, klunk, and shank. (Guess what “shuck” replaces.) The weird thing about made up swears is that they seem to work on television (how many of us know people who say “frak” or “smeg”? How many Boomer nerds say “Shazbot?” But for some reason, similar words in written sci-fi don’t seem to catch on the same way. 3) The actual, real F-bomb Because in a gritty universe, made up of grimdark characters, some swears are the same. Here’s the logic: fucking and shit are real things that happen in this universe, so why shouldn’t they also be used as curses? This is something you see in recent fantasy epics with darker elements, where the taverns are dirty and the people there would just as soon stab you and rob your corpse as look at you. There are tons of authors who let their characters swear, but my favorite offender here is the obvious one: George R.R. Martin. (In Jo Walton’s Tor essay she mentions a fan artist who made new covers for popular books. A Game of Thrones new title was Knights Who Say Fuck.) 4) The expletive deleted Why make up a swear when you can just bleep it out? For years, authors have experimented with swearing by just omitting it. Because sometimes you can’t ____ing curse even if you really #$%ing want to because it’s a expletive deleted necessary part of your character’s BLEEPing development. Case in point: In Piers Anthony’s Xanth books, symbol swearing is part of the plot since curse words actually cause curses. All curses said in the presence of minors, for example, are represented by punctuation or blanks in the text. Kiersten White takes bleeping to a whole new level in Paranormalcy. It starts as an in-joke, but the main character doesn’t swear, she bleeps. An even more subtle way of deleting expletives? No swears at all. This isn’t unique to speculative fiction, but recently I was looking through Imaro by Charles R. Saunders. Although the reader is told that plenty of people curse in the book, the actual swears in the dialogue are pretty mild. Imaro was published in 1981, which goes back to Walton’s point about language being cleaner in the genre books of the ‘70s and ‘80s. I can think of one last way to bleep out a swear: the character that curses in another language. We’ve all seen it: Something bad happens and the protagonist’s alien/elven/werewolf friend breathes a curse in their own language. For example, from Patrick Rothfuss’s Kingkiller Chronicles “Kraemet brevetan Aerin!” I fought down the sudden urge to laugh. My Siaru wasn’t perfect, but I was fairly certain Kilvin had said “Shit in God’s beard.” And that brings me to my next category. 5) The religious curse You might be an alien, you might be a wizard or you might be a demon, but no matter who you are, I think we can all agree that there’s nothing so cathartic as taking your own personal deity’s name in vain.  I love religious swears in speculative fiction. There’s just enough blasphemy for me to accept that the curse holds weight, but just enough of a difference to remind me that this is not in my world. Sometimes the curse is mild. In N.K. Jemisin’s Inheritance Trilogy, the characters use “gods” as a swear, despite the fact that gods are actual characters in these books and even they use “gods” as a swear. My favorite at the moment is probably “Bilford Bogin!” from Kurtis Wiebe and Roc Upchurch’s Rat Queens. I’ve caught myself saying it aloud. I’m still not sure what I’m taking in vain (the comic hasn’t gotten to it yet) but it’s satisfying to say. Religious curses are so interesting because they reflect world-building more accurately that the other types of swears do. So when Patrick Rothfuss’s character says “Shit in God’s beard,” you know beards are important to the culture of the guy who is swearing, and when N.K. Jemisin has one of her characters, a god, say “gods,” in a moment of frustration, a reader learns something about this world: there is more than one god, for example, and this particular god probably prays to a god higher than herself. Swearing is about taking the name of something important in vain. You can learn a lot about a culture’s values by looking at the things it considers to be obscene. That’s the best kind of (expletive deleted) world-building there is. What are your favorite #$#ing fictional swears? Let us know in the comments. Sign up to Swords Spaceships to  receive news and recommendations from the world of science fiction and fantasy. The 5 Types of Swears You Find in Speculative Fiction Swearing can get weird in speculative fiction. In any other genre, it’s no big deal. Characters either curse or they don’t. But in science fiction and fantasy, where authors have to build whole universes, cultures and languages, cursing can get …creative. Profanity in speculative fiction runs the gamut, from nonsense words (“Tanj you!”) to phrases that hint at the world-building work an author has done. (“Blackened body of god!”) These invented curses can either trip up a reader by making them check a glossary at the back of a book, or act as Chekov’s Gun by giving readers important clues about a story’s mythology. Some are silly, some are shockers, but generally, I find that swearing in speculative fiction tends to fall into five dirty, dirty categories. 1) The PG curse. These are the hecks and goshdarnits of speculative fiction. They are completely made up, but clearly not very vulgar in their own fictional universe. Think “Merlin’s beard, “ from the Harry Potter books, and its slightly-nastier cousin “Merlin’s Pants.” Or, even saltier, “Merlins most baggy Y-fronts.” Then there’s “Fewmets!” from Madeleine L’Engle’s  A Wind in the Door. (Fewmets are described in the book as dragon poop.) All of these are said pretty lightly; no one clutches their wizard pearls when Merlin’s name is taken in vain. 2) The F-bomb stand-in Sometimes an author decides to make up a swear. It makes sense: the author had to make up a whole society, why not include swears? What you end up with, sometimes, are nonsense words that are supposed to sound like languages. Jo Walton wrote a great piece about made up swears in fantasy and science fiction for Tor. Back in the ‘80s, and before, she says, swears were invented or avoided. Now, not so much. Were the made-up curses an attempt to get past publishers that wanted cleaner books? Did they reflect the times? Was it just the way people built world? No idea, but here’s some food for thought: you know where you see creative swearing now? YA books. The Maze Runner by James Dashner has shuck, klunk, and shank. (Guess what “shuck” replaces.) The weird thing about made up swears is that they seem to work on television (how many of us know people who say “frak” or “smeg”? How many Boomer nerds say “Shazbot?” But for some reason, similar words in written sci-fi don’t seem to catch on the same way. 3) The actual, real F-bomb Because in a gritty universe, made up of grimdark characters, some swears are the same. Here’s the logic: fucking and shit are real things that happen in this universe, so why shouldn’t they also be used as curses? This is something you see in recent fantasy epics with darker elements, where the taverns are dirty and the people there would just as soon stab you and rob your corpse as look at you. There are tons of authors who let their characters swear, but my favorite offender here is the obvious one: George R.R. Martin. (In Jo Walton’s Tor essay she mentions a fan artist who made new covers for popular books. A Game of Thrones new title was Knights Who Say Fuck.) 4) The expletive deleted Why make up a swear when you can just bleep it out? For years, authors have experimented with swearing by just omitting it. Because sometimes you can’t ____ing curse even if you really #$%ing want to because it’s a expletive deleted necessary part of your character’s BLEEPing development. Case in point: In Piers Anthony’s Xanth books, symbol swearing is part of the plot since curse words actually cause curses. All curses said in the presence of minors, for example, are represented by punctuation or blanks in the text. Kiersten White takes bleeping to a whole new level in Paranormalcy. It starts as an in-joke, but the main character doesn’t swear, she bleeps. An even more subtle way of deleting expletives? No swears at all. This isn’t unique to speculative fiction, but recently I was looking through Imaro by Charles R. Saunders. Although the reader is told that plenty of people curse in the book, the actual swears in the dialogue are pretty mild. Imaro was published in 1981, which goes back to Walton’s point about language being cleaner in the genre books of the ‘70s and ‘80s. I can think of one last way to bleep out a swear: the character that curses in another language. We’ve all seen it: Something bad happens and the protagonist’s alien/elven/werewolf friend breathes a curse in their own language. For example, from Patrick Rothfuss’s Kingkiller Chronicles “Kraemet brevetan Aerin!” I fought down the sudden urge to laugh. My Siaru wasn’t perfect, but I was fairly certain Kilvin had said “Shit in God’s beard.” And that brings me to my next category. 5) The religious curse You might be an alien, you might be a wizard or you might be a demon, but no matter who you are, I think we can all agree that there’s nothing so cathartic as taking your own personal deity’s name in vain.  I love religious swears in speculative fiction. There’s just enough blasphemy for me to accept that the curse holds weight, but just enough of a difference to remind me that this is not in my world. Sometimes the curse is mild. In N.K. Jemisin’s Inheritance Trilogy, the characters use “gods” as a swear, despite the fact that gods are actual characters in these books and even they use “gods” as a swear. My favorite at the moment is probably “Bilford Bogin!” from Kurtis Wiebe and Roc Upchurch’s Rat Queens. I’ve caught myself saying it aloud. I’m still not sure what I’m taking in vain (the comic hasn’t gotten to it yet) but it’s satisfying to say. Religious curses are so interesting because they reflect world-building more accurately that the other types of swears do. So when Patrick Rothfuss’s character says “Shit in God’s beard,” you know beards are important to the culture of the guy who is swearing, and when N.K. Jemisin has one of her characters, a god, say “gods,” in a moment of frustration, a reader learns something about this world: there is more than one god, for example, and this particular god probably prays to a god higher than herself. Swearing is about taking the name of something important in vain. You can learn a lot about a culture’s values by looking at the things it considers to be obscene. That’s the best kind of (expletive deleted) world-building there is. What are your favorite #$#ing fictional swears? Let us know in the comments. ____________________ Follow us on Twitter for more bookish goodness! Sign up to Swords Spaceships to  receive news and recommendations from the world of science fiction and fantasy.

Top 10 New Deal Programs of the 1930s

Biography of Mother Jones, Labor Organizer and Agitator

Mother Jones (born Mary Harris; 1837–November 30, 1930) was a key radical figure in United States labor history. She was a fiery orator, a union agitator for mine workers, and a co-founder of the International Workers of the World (IWW). The current-day political magazine Mother Jones was named for her and maintains her legacy of left-wing politics. Fast Facts: Mother Jones Known For:  Radical political activist, orator, organizer of mine worker union, co-founder of the International Workers of the WorldAlso Known As:  Mother of All Agitators. the Miners Angel, Mary Harris, Mary Harris JonesBorn:  c. August 1, 1837 (although she claimed May 1, 1830 as her birth date) in County Cork, IrelandParents: Mary Harris and Robert HarrisDied:  November 30, 1930 in Adelphi, MarylandEducation: Toronto Normal SchoolPublished Works:  The New Right, Letter of Love and Labor, Autobiography of Mother JonesSpouse: George JonesChildren: Four children (all of whom died in a yellow fever epidemic)Notable Quote: In spite of oppressors, in spite of false leaders, in spite of labor’s own lack of understanding of its needs, the cause of the worker continues onward. Slowly his hours are shortened, giving him leisure to read and to think. Slowly, his standard of living rises to include some of the good and beautiful things of the world. Slowly the cause of his ch ildren becomes the cause of all....Slowly those who create wealth of the world are permitted to share it.  The future is in labor’s strong, rough hands. Early Life Born Mary Harris in 1837 in County Cork, Ireland, young Mary Harris was the daughter of Mary Harris and Robert Harris.  Her father worked as a hired hand and the family lived on the estate where he worked. The family followed Robert Harris to America, where he had fled after taking part in a revolt against the landowners. The family then moved to Canada, where Mary went to public school. Work and Family Harris became a schoolteacher first in Canada, where, as a Roman Catholic, she could only teach in the parochial schools. She moved to Maine to teach as a private tutor and then to Michigan, where she got a teaching job in a convent. Harris then moved to Chicago and worked as a dressmaker. After two years, she moved to Memphis to teach and met George Jones in 1861. They married and had four  children.  George was an iron moulder and also worked as a union organizer. During their marriage, he began working full-time in his union job. George Jones and all four children died in a yellow fever epidemic in Memphis, Tennessee, in September and October 1867. Begins Organizing After the death of her family, Mary Harris Jones moved to Chicago, where she returned to work as a dressmaker. Mary claimed that her pull to the labor movement increased when she sewed for wealthy Chicago families. I would look out of the plate glass windows and see the poor, shivering wretches, jobless and hungry, walking alongside the frozen lake front....The tropical contrast of their condition with that of the tropical comfort of the people for whom I sewed was painful to me. My employers seemed neither to notice nor to care. Tragedy struck Jones life again in 1871. She lost her home, shop, and belongings in the Great Chicago Fire. She had already connected with the secretive workers organization Knights of Labor and was active in speaking for the group and organizing. After the fire, she left her dressmaking to take up full-time organizing with the Knights. Increasingly Radical By the mid-1880s, Mary Jones had left the Knights of Labor, finding them too conservative. She became involved in more radical organizing by 1890. A fiery orator, she spoke at the location of strikes around the country. She helped coordinate hundreds of strikes, including those with coal miners in Pennsylvania in 1873 and railroad workers in 1877. She was named often in newspapers as Mother Jones, a white-haired radical labor organizer in her signature black dress, lace collar, and plain head covering. Mother Jones was a loving moniker given her by workers, grateful for her care of and devotion to working people. United Mine Workers and Wobblies Mother Jones principally worked with the United Mine Workers, although her role was unofficial. Among other activist actions, she helped organize strikers wives.  Often ordered to stay away from miners, she refused to do so and frequently challenged the armed guards to shoot her. Mother Jones focused on the issue of child labor as well. In 1903, Mother Jones led a childrens march from Kensington, Pennsylvania, to New York to protest child labor to President Roosevelt. In 1905, Mother Jones was among the founders of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW, the Wobblies). She worked within the political system as well, and was a founder of the Social Democratic Party in 1898. Later Years In the 1920s, as rheumatism made it more difficult for her to get around, Mother Jones wrote her Autobiography of Mother Jones. Famed lawyer Clarence Darrow wrote an introduction to the book. Mother Jones became less active as her health failed. She moved to Maryland and lived with a retired couple. Death One of her last public appearances was at a birthday celebration on May 1, 1930, when she claimed to be 100. (May 1 is the international labor holiday in most of the world.) This birthday was celebrated at workers events around the country. Mother Jones died on November 30 of that year. She was buried at the Miners Cemetery at Mount Olive, Illinois, at her request: It was the only cemetery owned by a union. Legacy Mother Jones was once labeled the most dangerous woman in America by a U.S. district attorney. Her activism left a strong mark on U.S. labor history. The 2001 biography by Elliott Gorn has added significantly to the details known of Mother Jones life and work. The radical political magazine Mother Jones is named for her and she remains a symbol for passionate labor activism. Sources Gorn, Elliott J. Mother Jones: The Most Dangerous Woman in America. Hill and Wang, 2001.Josephson, Judith P. Mother Jones: Fierce Fighter for Workers Rights. Lerner Publications, 1997.

McDonalds and Social Responsibility Free Essays

All companies have a responsibility to the public to ensure that their products are not harmful in any manner.   Presently, America is facing a national health crisis as the number of adults and children suffering from obesity continue to rise.   Companies that provide food to the public need to make sure their foods are nutritious and fit for human consumption. We will write a custom essay sample on McDonalds and Social Responsibility or any similar topic only for you Order Now McDonalds was socially responsible in their actions to stop super-sizing food items.   McDonalds is aware of the obesity epidemic in America, and eliminating the oversized food servings might help in some small way.  Ã‚  Ã‚   After all, McDonalds has been nicknamed the â€Å"calorie king,† (Good Business Deeds, 2004).   Moreover, Morgan Spurlock caused McDonalds to be pressured even more after making a documentary of his experience of eating only food from McDonalds for a month.   He â€Å"gained 25 pounds, his cholesterol level soared, and his liver became impaired,† (McDocumented – One Month of living on Only McDonalds Food, n.d.). On the other hand, is McDonalds to blame for the obesity problems in America?   Hasn’t McDonalds always been socially responsible?   McDonalds has been in business for decades and has maintained life long customers and many of them are not obese.   McDonalds provides most of the same food products that it has always provided, including salads.   Is it their fault that people choose to order a burger and fries instead?   Maybe we need to look at the personal responsibility of consumers.   Society has changed, and more Americans lead a sedentary lifestyle than in the past.   Becoming more physically active definitely plays a role in the obesity crisis as much as our diets. Why has McDonalds been singled out over the super-sizing issue?   Even convenience stores provide super-sized soft drinks.   McDonalds is socially responsible, but individuals need to take more personal responsibility in eating a balanced diet and exercising. â€Å"In the 1990s, McDonalds spent over $3 billion dollars on recycled products,† (Good Business Deeds, 2004).   This clearly demonstrates that McDonalds is making an effort to be socially responsible.   Not just for show, but because of the values of the company.   â€Å"We take seriously our commitment to conducting our business in a way that respects the world around us and the issues that matter most to you,† (McDonalds Corporation, 2004). Although they will no longer continue to super-size, some consumers will eat twice as much of the regular size.   McDonalds is not to blame for gluttony.   McDonalds is simply providing a service that consumers want, fast and convenient foods.  Ã‚   That is what restaurants do.   They provide the types of food that people want to eat.   If consumers didn’t enjoy the food at McDonalds they wouldn’t buy it.   The problem with obesity is not a McDonalds issue. The problem is that too many Americans do not want to take responsibility for their personal choices.   McDonalds has restaurants all over the world, including most countries in Asia.   However, most people in Asian countries are fit and trim.   McDonalds is serving up the same food to them as it is to Americans, but they are not suffering from obesity.   May our problem is greed.   We are a materialistic society and we stuff our mouths with food, our closets with excessive clothing, and our bank accounts with money. We never seem to be able to satisfy our appetites.   So when McDonalds eliminated super-sized products we started eating twice as much of the smaller portions.   Whether or not a restaurant serves large or small portions, we will eat as much food as we want to eat.   The ‘food police’ cannot control how much anyone chooses to eat.   And we will continue to gain weight and suffer from poor health.   But this is the law of cause and effect.   Because we eat in excess we are affecting our health.   Because we refuse to exercise, our bodies will fail us.   It is not up to the government to punish the companies that make or provide food.   It is up to each person to take the time to plan and eat balance and healthy meals. We eat at McDonalds because we want instant gratification.   Isn’t it faster and easier to grab a burger on the way home from work, than to go home and good real food?   Isn’t it easier to take diet pills than to take a 30-minute walk each day?   We have the option of making decisions that are best for our health.   Unfortunately, the sad truth is that many of us are choosing to be obese, and we are in denial.   Our health is our responsibility. References Good Business Deeds (2004).   Retrieved April 8, 2007 from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec04/corporate_12-23.html McDocument – One Month of Living on Only McDonalds Food (n.d.).   Retrieved April 8, 2007 from http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=04/01/28/07585282 McDonalds Corporation (2004).   Responsibility.   Retrieved April 8, 2007 from http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp/values/report/archive.RowPar.0001.ContentPar.0001.ContentPar0007.DownloadFiles.0001.File.tmp/CR_Report_(Revised).pdf             How to cite McDonalds and Social Responsibility, Essay examples

The Gilligan-Kohlberg Moral Theory Controversy free essay sample

Feminist ethics explores the fundamental effect of this imbalance on moral philosophy and seeks to rectify it. So the questions we face are: Do women have a distinct moral perspective? How if at all is gender relevant to moral theory? Questions such as these will be answered in this essay. The concept of morality has long been one of intense interest and debate for many disciplines, from ancient philosophy to contemporary psychology. However, it could be questioned the extent to which we have developed in terms of understanding such an abstract entity. Carol Gilligan follows the cognitive developmental models of Lawrence Kohlberg in her argument concerning female morality, yet can her perspective be supported, or does her theoretical model raise broader issues surrounding the explanation of moral thought and behavior? According to Gilligan, the model of a distinct female moral development is in response to the lack of attention paid to women in previous models of moral development, namely Kohlberg. We will write a custom essay sample on The Gilligan-Kohlberg Moral Theory Controversy or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page I want to begin by comparing two well-known scholars and their debate, Carol Gilligan and Lawrence Kohlberg. My purpose here is to review the Gilligan-Kohlberg controversy and show the relevance of gender diversity in moral theory. I will discuss some of the implicit and explicit philosophical differences between Gilligans and Kohlbergs out-looks and will then illustrate that Gilligan’s claims that women have a distinctive moral voice cannot be fully justified. Lawrence Kohlberg, born in 1927, taught at Harvard University where he taught both education and social psychology. Kohlberg’s stages of moral development are the stages in thinking about right and wrong that everyone goes through growing up. Each stage builds on the one before so you have to go through them in order. There were six stages (three levels): avoiding punishment, self-interest, good boy attitude, law and order morality, social contract, and principle. The first level of moral thinking, â€Å"pre-conventional,† is generally found at the elementary school level. In the first stage of this level, people behave according to socially acceptable norms because they are told to do so by some authority figure (e. g. , parent or teacher). This obedience is compelled by the threat or application of punishment. The second stage of this level is characterized by a view that right behavior means acting in ones own best interests. The second level of moral thinking, â€Å"conventional,† is generally found in society. The first stage of this level (stage 3) is characterized by an attitude, which seeks to do what will gain the approval of others. The second stage is one oriented to abiding by the law and responding to the obligations of duty. The third level of moral thinking, â€Å"post-conventional,† is one that Kohlberg felt is not reached by the majority of adults. Its first stage (stage 5) is an understanding of social mutuality and a genuine interest in the welfare of others. The last stage (stage 6) is based on respect for universal principle and the demands of individual conscience. While Kohlberg always believed in the existence of Stage 6 and had some nominees for it, he could never get enough subjects to define it, much less observe their longitudinal movement to it. Gilligan (â€Å"In a Different Voice) challenges Kohlberg’s â€Å"stage theory† of moral development. Carol Gilligan, born in 1936, received her doctrine then taught at Harvard University, where she became Kohlberg’s research assistant. Gilligan argued that by building his model on a sample of men, Kohlberg had failed to include the perspectives of women, and further, had relegated women to the status of deviants from the norm. According to Gilligan, she thinks that men are characteristically concerned with practical moral matters of justice and that women are more often concerned with the moral matters of care. Gilligan suggested, â€Å"Women spoke a language which was not decodable by Kohlberg’s system. She thought that women were fundamentally unheard in the Kohlberg’s methodology. In 1977 Carol Gilligan challenged Kohlberg’s model in saying that there was sex bias. In conducting interviews for a project with Kohlberg, Gilligan found what she called â€Å"a different voice,† the perspective, voiced mainly by women, that morality was not defined by justice, fairness, or universal rights, as Kohlberg argued. Instead, this perspective described morality based on care, on responsibility to others, on the continuity of interdependent relationships. When one begins with the study of women and derives developmental constructs from their lives, the outline of a moral conception different from that described by Freud, Piaget, or Kohlberg begins to emerge and informs a different description of development. In this conception, the moral problem arises from conflicting responsibilities rather than from competing rights and requires for its resolution a mode of thinking that is contextual and narrative rather than formal and abstract. This conception of morality as concerned with the activity of care centers moral development around the understanding of responsibility and relationships, just as the conception of morality as fairness ties moral development to the understanding of rights and rules (Gilligan, 1982). Gilligan illustrated this view as a morality of care and argued that it was a distinct moral orientation, not just one of Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. She believed that this orientation resulted in different reasoning and ways of resolving moral conflict situations. Kohlberg’s response to Gilligan was to recognize the significance of distinguishing the concept of morality, which focuses on special relationships and obligations, but to deny that it was a distinct moral orientation. He saw it as an addition rather than alternative to justice solutions. We believe that Gilligan’s distinction between a morality of care and a morality of justice is a distinction held in the minds of all human beings†¦ However, these two senses of the word moral do not represent two different moral orientations existing at the same level of generality and validity. We see justice as both rational and implying an attitude of empathy. It is for this reason that we make the following proposal: i. e. that there is a dimension along which various moral dilemmas and orientations can be placed. Personal moral dilemmas and orientations of specials obligation, as we have just discussed them, represent one end of this dimension and the standard hypothetical justice dilemmas and justice orientation represent the other end (Kohlberg, Levine, and Hewer, 1983). Therefore, Kohlberg expanded his view of morality to include obligations based on special relationships. Gilligan maintained that a primary concern with morality as care often extended beyond ties of family and close friendships. According to Gilligan, the process of defining a moral conflict was crucial to understanding ones moral reasoning (Gilligan, 1982). Reviewing Kohlberg’s methodology, Gilligan critiqued his hypothetical dilemmas presupposed a definition of morality as justice and were biased towards justice-based resolutions. Gilligan, along with other researchers, developed an interview to determine the different types of moral reasoning. The interview is designed to permit an interaction between two people that makes it possible to present as fully as possible how one of them thinks about some important issues†¦ Thus the set of questions put to a person in an interview is designed to allow the person to present his or her thinking and to elaborate the ways between two people. For the interviewer, two things are necessary: (1) to listen, that is, to follow the train of thinking of the person interviewed; and (2) to have – as Piaget suggests – some directing hypothesis to guide the probing (Lyons, 1984). The objective of the interview was to explore the hypothesis that men and women define moral issues differently and use different bases on which they reason them out. Results found showed that Gilligan’s thesis that two distinct moral orientations were significantly related to gender. In both of the studies, the ethics of care predominated in female thinking and the ethics of justice predominated in the male thinking. Most of Gilligan’s work focused on her views of the care – justice distinction. It is an argument that many men and women find very appealing. However, in conducting her hypothesis, she developed a methodological innovation. Since she used open-minded interview questions about real life dilemmas, the participants were able to define morality in the context of their own lives. Because of this methodological approach, Gilligan was able to â€Å"hear† the voices of women and men describing their own experience of moral conflict. These provided the data for her articulation of â€Å"a different voice†. Gilligan’s method is less biased than Kohlberg’s in that it enables people to provide their own moral dilemmas as the basis for examining their reasoning. However, a third argument has come into play. Carol Stack found errors in her findings of Gilligan. Stack argues persuasively for a greater understanding of relative factors in defining gender identity. Her appeal does not contradict Gilligan’s criticism of Kohlberg, but takes it a step further. Gilligan’s theory of women’s moral development has taken root in native soil. It is a powerful and persuasive theory that derives a female model of moral development from the moral reasoning of primarily white, middle-class women in the United States. The model fits the data, and it fits the conceptualizations of many feminist researchers. However as black and third-world feminist researchers have emphasized, gender is a construct shaped by the experience of race, class, culture, caste, and consciousness. Feminist research must contribute another dimension to the construction of feminist theory: it should provide a critical framework for analyzing gender consciousness and a cautionary reminder to those theorists who think that gender construction is the same in all societies (Stack, 1986). With that perspective being revealed, Gilligan now appears to be in the same trap as Kohlberg. Both Gilligan and Kohlberg have major criticisms in their studies conducted. While gathering empirical research, a sample is selected to represent the larger population. How the population is described and how the sample is chosen are important to the conclusions made about the research gatherings. For instance, if Kohlberg’s population norm is â€Å"people like us,† and that is what we believe, then we will relegate people that are â€Å"not like us. Kohlberg’s norm was men, and later on women were taken into account and measured as â€Å"others. † Gilligan’s norms were white, educated, middle-class women. When researchers see themselves as the norm, those who do not fall under that category are different and become the â€Å"other. † In this case, the people that do not categorize under the norm, their voices are not considered important enough t o acknowledge. The words may be physically heard, but the import of them is dismissed as insignificant. Listening to women’s views and trying to tie them into the research model does not mean that all women think in the same way, nor does it mean that all women have been left out. Throughout the research, it indicates within the models, methods, and in our society as a whole, it is hard to understand and translate the experiences. Gilligan argues, in regards to moral reasoning, that those experiences can be heard by listening more carefully to women. On the other hand, listening to men share their experiences are hard to hear also within the context of narrowly defined frameworks of moral development. The lesson is not that all women are caring, but in this development to exclude women’s experience, a type of reasoning and expression has also been excluded which is also an aspect of men’s thinking. Summing up care as a form of moral reasoning does not authorize the idea that all women are the same and engage in caring resolutions. In general, it gives an overall better understanding of the reasoning of people. With that being said, both men and women practice the act of caring. In conclusion, I feel that Gilligan’s claims that women have a distinctive moral voice cannot be fully justified. Gilligan is on the right track when she writes about the dual context of morality and moral maturity. Nevertheless Gilligan is wrong in the respect that she thinks, like Kohlberg, that these matters can be proven by empirical research and data. Men and women across various cultures appear to have the capacity to adopt either the justice or care driven approach to moral dilemmas, yet there does not appear to be a fixed pattern or system of thought. Regardless of whether her theory of female moral development is accurate, Carol Gilligan’s work helped to encourage the field of psychology to include women and girls in studies and theories.