ndicated, however, that difference continues to be relational. Thus, white women's lives have the history that they do at least partially because black and Hispanic women's lives have their specific history. There is an interdependence.
In looking at Gilligan's work, Brown might find that a lack in the discussion. Certainly Gilligan also leaves out issue of race and class in her discussion, which would be problematic for Brown. But, even so, Brown might also critique the work for not emphasizing the relationality of women's and men's moral development more clearly. How, in other words, does men's morality the focus on principle and the rule of law depend upon the way in which women construct their moral stance? Is there a relationship here? Does the fact that women focus on relationality allow men to ignore that, and vice versa? Does the fact that men ignore relationality in making moral decisions force women to take account of it in order to sustain the community? This would be an interesting exploration and, for Brown, a necessary one in working toward change.
In moving to the work of Uma Narayan, what is striking is the way that her work is concerned with voice, with speaking and with silence. These are all important issues for Gilligan, too, not only in this work, but in her work with adolescent girls. There the focus is on the time when girls begin to lose their voice, or to actively suppress it in order to remain in relationship (Gilligan, p. Xx). The situation that Gilligan described was a situation familiar to Third World feminists. For them, the dilemma is to speak up and assert their truth, losing relationship and being acc
...