.....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