Bardige73, Ward74, Gilligan, Taylor75, and Cohen76 (1988:159) noted that one of the oversights in the empirical studies included that most of the research involved mostly white, middle- and upper-middle class participants. Similar to the case of women being left out of the studies done by Kohlberg, the studies on morality would not be considered valid if it could not be applied to all people and could have left some important contributions out of consideration (Bardige et al 1988:159). This led them to consider the effect of growing up in a different social context, for they believed that a person’s moral development could be affected in differing ways depending on whether said person grew up in a poor, middle-class, or well-off neighbourhood (Bardige et al 1988:159).
They set out to investigate the finding of adolescents of varying ages in low- income areas in an effort to gather information on how these adolescents think about morality, moral decision-making, justice, and indifference (Bardige et al 1988:160). They wanted to know whether both the justice and care orientations would be present in the participants’ thinking by means of directly speaking about certain laws, rules, and values, or referring to the needs of other, relationships with other people, and concern for the upkeep of relationships (Bardige et al 1988:160). They were also keen to see whether the language that the participants would use may contribute in a new way to the concept of the justice and care orientations and whether the participants would approach a moral situation in the same way that privileged participants would (Bardige et al 1988:160-161). They
73 Betty Bardige, at the time of writing this article, was the vice-president of Learning Ways, an educational software firm.
74 Jane Victoria Ward, at the time of writing this article, was a professor of education and Human Services at Simmons College in Boston, Massachusetts.
75 Jill McLean Taylor, at the time of writing this article, was a doctoral candidate at Harvard Graduate School of Education in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
76 Gina Cohen, at the time of writing this article, was a law student at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
89 also aimed to determine whether there would be a gender difference in the participant’s moral thinking, as was the case with the more privileged participants (Bardige et al 1988:161).
The results of the study showed that almost every participant had had experiences that included being treated unfairly (Bardige et al 1988:163). It also showed that morality had an enormous impact on the identity of the participants in that they constantly faced concerns regarding their self-image and the way in which they perceive themselves (Bardige et al 1988:163). When it came to the moral language that was used, it was noted that it was a language that knew when it was required to overrule the generally accepted rules within society (Bardige et al 1988:167).77 The participants showed an ability to use both the language of rights and the language of care at the same time (Bardige et al 1988:168). In these studies, it showed that the participants battled the same moral conflicts that privileged participants did in that they also faced situations of pressure by their friends into doing something wrong when they knew that it was clearly wrong to do it (Bardige et al 1988:169). They also faced situations where their loyalty was tested in situations where they were confronted with having to choose between individuals they cared for and larger groups of friends (Bardige et al 1988:169). Bardige et al (1988:169) noted that these participants, like the privileged participants in similar studies, also showed the ability to think in terms of both justice and care. These participants, like the privileged participants, lived
77 The example that was used by Bardige et al (1988:167) was that of a girl, who was told not to leave her house, who needed to make a decision as to whether she had to take bandages to a neighbour who had cut herself badly and needed bandages desperately. For the girl it was a moral issue whether to stay home, as she had been told, or to help the neighbour who had cut herself and was in need of help (Bardige et al 1988:167). The moral language that was clearly recognisable was that of a necessity in that the girl used words like “had to”, “need”, and “absolutely necessary” during her discussion (Bardige et al 1988:167). This would have been considered a heteronomous morality according to Piaget and similarly would have scored the girl very low on Kohlberg’s scale of moral development for they would have regarded the girl’s decision as an inability to do what is right by staying home like she was told to do (Bardige et al 1988:168). The girl, however, believed that she did what is right by going to the neighbour and giving her bandages when she needed it and it is this firm belief that led Birdage et al (1988:168) to also notice a rights orientation to morality. In this way the girl shows both a language of rights and a language of care (Bardige et al 1988:168).
90 according to moral standards, whether it is justice or care oriented (Bardige et al 1988:170). They did, however, have a hard time to stick to their moral standards when they were faced with situations where injustice, violence, and uncaring situations were happening (Bardige et al 1988:170). When it came to the different orientations and gender, the studies revealed the same results as it did during the studies with the more privileged participants (Bardige et al 1988:170). For almost all of the male participants, the orientation tended to lean towards the justice orientation, while almost all of the female participants’ dilemmas somehow involved loyalty that leaned more toward the care orientation (Bardige et al 1988:170). During the study it was found that the female participants would speak about dilemmas that stretched over an extended period of time, as opposed to a dilemma that was a once-off occasion only (Bardige et al 1988:171).
Interestingly, the female participants tended to stay connected to the dilemma, not letting it go for any reason, while the male participants tended to want to leave a problematic situation as soon as possible (Bardige et al 1988:171).78 Bardige et al (1988:172) concluded that the participants of the lower-income neighbourhoods showed an appreciation for morality, whether it is used in the way of the justice orientation, the care orientation, or a combination of the justice and care orientations. They, once again, stressed the importance of the care orientation being a part of morality and moral concepts by saying that a lot of developmental traits would have been considered less developed or problematic had it been measured solely according to the justice orientation (Bardige et al 1988:172). They noted that these participants naturally shared the same moral language as their privileged counterparts, even though some participants used
78 This is an example of what Carol Gilligan (1988) would describe as an exit-voice dilemma. The exit option would refer to the attempt to escape from a given situation in order to avoid dealing with the problem or wanting to get away from, for instance, conflict within the family (Gilligan 1988:143). The exit option, according to Gilligan (1988:143), may leave a person feeling freer to speak and more accepting of possible alternative perspectives. The voice option would refer to the loyalty found in relationship where, for example, an adolescent would attempt to integrate incorporate both the new image of the self and the experience of being part of a relationship (Gilligan 1988:143). Gilligan (1988:143) explained that in order for the voice option to develop, the continuation of loyalty over a period of time is needed.
91 the language of necessity more often than others, leading to an enriched view of the care perspective (Bardige et al 1988:172). For Bardige et al (1988:172), one of the most important implications that was noted during this study, was that there was a connection between moral development and social class, thereby also pointing out that context plays an important role in moral development. It should, however, be pointed out that it does not necessarily mean that low-income people do not develop as well as their more privileged counterparts, but rather asks that moral development be interpreted with the context in mind (Bardige et al, 1988:173). The next section will deal with the question of the development of morality in areas that are prone to violence and how people think about morality and violence.