.....I think the following information would be useful
.....to help us survive in this gendered world of ours
.....and would be useful to help us in our individual
.....and communal reconciliation efforts:

.....(in true "scholar mode", I shall give you the
..... theory first and ~then~ show how it applies to
..... our daily lives <wry self-conscious grin>)

Dr. Carol Gilligan of Harvard once wrote a fascinating
study of the differing ethical systems between males
and females which have resulted from the different
gender role expectations and upbringings in a gendered
society such as the United States.  Her study was not
the essentialist nonsense of a John Gray but rather
a careful study of our socially created division of
people into two different cultural domains, based on
their anatomical sex.  The book which resulted from
her study was titled IN A DIFFERENT VOICE.

Obviously, no one strictly conforms to his or her
gender role as defined by culture (as can be seen
through the Jungian idea of the anima and animus in
each individual), but we all feel the pressure to
conform to these gendered cultural domains, and they
often become the default for habitual reactions as
opposed to thought-out reactions.  To avoid the taint
of gender essentialism, I will rename the traditional
United States male gender domain as X and and the
traditional United States female gender domain as Y.

According to Dr. Gilligan, the primary differences
between the X approach and the Y approach involve
(among other things) different goals for conflict
resolution and for the determination of right from
wrong.  I'd like to explain this, while expanding it
a bit with my learning from other gender scholars and
social scientists.

In the X approach, conflict resolution involves
analyzing the conflict through reference to abstract
principles and to precedents based on those principles
(as in citation competitions and battles of witty
sayings), followed by the use of logical extrapolation
to determine who is right and who is at fault in a
conflict -- such as occurs in a court of law with
lawyer debating lawyer.  The ideal is to establish
right and wrong free from emotional bias and free from
extraneous factors of charisma or power or money.
(Note: this is the ~ideal~!)  The human goal is to
absolve the innocent of blame and shame and to extract
repentence from the guilty either through apology or
punishment.  The communal goal is to set things right
by reaffirming the preeminence of universal ethical
principles which apply to one and all equally and
without bias -- all are equal and all are equally
protected by law and protocol.

In the Y approach, conflict resolution involves
re-establishing ties of community and the network of
inter-reliance -- such as occurs in family counselling
and in the sort of community mediation ascribed to
idealized small towns as appear in *Crocodile*Dundee*
and *The*Andy*Griffith*Show*.  Culpability must be
established not to assign guilt but to discern the
causes of the problems between the people in conflict
so that it can be prevented from happening in the
future.  The ideal is to focus on sustaining communal
and interpersonal ties, resulting in a harmonious
community.  (Note: this harmony is the ~ideal~!)  The
human goal is to mend ties.  The communal goal is to
set things right by reaffirming the preeminence of
smooth community relationships and to avoid the
communal violence of revenge from the victim and of
continued cruelty from the perpetrator.

The strength of the X approach is that it is logical,
universal, and unbiased by "touchy-feely" emotionalism
-- an ethical democracy of pure reason.  The flaw is
that it can be legalistic and coldly inhuman in its
logic, as pointed out in numerous courtroom dramas on
injustices which are technically within the law.
Another flaw is that it can turn into a mere game of
rhetorical tactics between debaters.

The strength of the Y approach is that it emphases the
humanity and interconnectedness of everyone involved
and that it avoids self-righteous legalism and
vengefulness.  The flaw is that it can be emotionally
manipulated to the point of assessing culpability on
the basis of who sheds the most tears or looks the
most sympathetic.  Another flaw is that it can focus
on harmony so much that the individual is lost in the
pressure to conform for the group's sake.

Again, remember that no one in real life strictly
follows gender role expectations, even in a society as
gender divisive as the United States can be.  Men and
women will use both approaches depending upon the
situation; both male and female lawyers use the X
approach in the courtroom, for example, and both male
and female counselors use the Y approach when helping
heal a dysfunctional family.

Now then . . . so what?  How is this applicable to
our day-to-day lives?

Well, if I am trying to mend a quarrel between us via
the X approach, I should be pointing out flaws in your
logic and providing proof that you not I violated the
rules or protocols of our relationship.  In theory,
only one of us can be right, so one of us must be
wrong (if only wrong in becoming angry at the other
person).  This approach works well in a criminal court
case or in a case involving serious wrongs in a club
or fraternity, such as if someone in our organization
is accused of stealing funds.  We need to establish
culpability to know which person is innocent and which
person is subject to punishment or shaming, even if
only by the need to apologize and promise to go forth
and sin no more.  So if you're arguing with me this
way, you need to focus on debate; in proving your
innocence you are proving my guilt or at least my
failure for accusing you.  Right is right.

If I am trying to mend a quarrel between us via the
Y approach, I should be focusing on discerning what we
did to foment this quarrel in the first place and on
defining better our relationship and its obligations.
We need to establish culpability to clear the air for
mutual understanding so we can reconnect -- or choose
to dissolve the relationship.  The Y approach works
well when a fraternity is torn up by in-fighting, for
example, and needs to strengthen the group camraderie,
and it works well for families who value emotional
closeness.  So if you're arguing with me in this way,
you need to focus on expressing your feelings -- yes,
that dreaded word, 'feelings'! -- and on listening to
me express mine.

Things really go wrong is when one side in a conflict
turns to the X approach while the other side turns to
the Y approach.

I think we need to make sure we know which approach
we are using in a conflict and make sure it's the
appropriate one.

For example, I would prefer the Y approach in dealing
with the problems with the current _Undercurrent_.
Re-establishing community (or reluctantly recognizing
that community with them is impossible and moving
on) is more important than establishing any sort of
guilt.  That community is what I hope occurs, with
no powerploys or such.

I think it would be helpful for campus groups to
consider when they ought use the X approach and when
they ought use the Y approach.

I hope this helps.

Yours,
W. Everett Chesnut, Ph.D.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1