Retell a hard choice as a story of relationships over time
Before stating the rule that settles a hard choice, tell it as a sequence of relationships: who depends on whom, and how that has changed.
Why it works
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy reports that, in Gilligan’s account of the Heinz dilemma, Amy saw the problem as “a narrative of relations over time,” while Jake saw it as “a math problem with people,” in which the right to life outweighs the right to property. The two children framed the same situation differently, and Gilligan read the relational framing as a different voice. On this page’s reading, retelling a choice as a relational story brings into view connections that a rule-first framing removes.
How to do it
- Write the situation as a short story: who is involved, and what each one has relied on the others for so far.
- Mark how those relationships have changed over time, and what each change asks of you.
- Only then state the rule or principle that applies, and check whether it still fits the story.
- Note any relationship the rule leaves out.
Evidence
The Amy and Jake framing is reported by the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Sander-Staudt), which gives no inline citation for it. The retelling exercise is an application of that report and has not been tested. (anecdotal)
Gilligan’s original study was not read for this page. Jaffee and Hyde (2000) found only small sex differences in moral orientation, so, on this page’s reading, this is a reasoning style available to anyone rather than a trait of one sex.
Sources
Common mistake
Writing the story to justify the rule you already chose. The story has to be allowed to change the answer.
Practice this with IX Coach
More practices for Carol Gilligan’s Ethics of Care, Explained
- Look at one decision through justice and through care
Take one decision you face and ask it twice: what does fairness require, and what do the people involved need from me?
- Judge the reasons someone gave, not the sex they are
Before reading a colleague’s position as “caring” or “principled” because of who they are, check what they actually argued.
- Check who carries the caring load before calling it care
When a decision is framed as caring for others, ask who ends up doing the caring and what it costs them.
- Name the specific people a decision makes you responsible to
Before settling on a principle, list the particular people you are responsible to and what each one is counting on from you.
- Trace a caring task through noticing, owning, doing and receiving
Follow one act of care through four phases: noticing the need, taking responsibility for it, doing the work, and seeing how it is received.
- Receive the person on their own terms before judging their need
Before deciding what someone needs, take up their situation as they describe it and set aside your own motives for helping.
Related concepts
- Kegan’s Subject-Object Theory, Made Practical
Moving from being run by your assumptions to being able to examine them
- Torbert’s Seven Action Logics of Leadership
Seven ways leaders make sense of pressure, how common each is, and how to work with your own
- The Construct-Aware and Unitive Stages of Adult Development
Seeing the self and its stories as constructions — what it looks like, how rare it is, and what it does not promise
- Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development, Made Practical
Six stages of moral reasoning, how they are scored, and how to work with the reasons you give
Free to reuse under CC BY 4.0: cite or embed this practice · more practices graded Practitioner experience