t rather a matter of finding a healthy balance between other and self, between the community and the individual. Both King and Gilligan agree on this point, but Gilligan is concerned with theory and psychological subtlety where King is concerned with the soul of the individual and of the nation. Gilligan's work is more subtle, more literary, more abstract. Gilligan ultimately appeals to the mind of the reader, whereas King appeals to the heart and soul. Again, this is a description rather than a criticism, for the books are finally on the same wavelength with respect to intent. Both King and Gilligan seek to open individual human beings and the human race in general to a more loving and creative and compassionate way of life.
With respect to the specific moral issue of separation as it relates to gender differences, Gilligan uses literature to make her point. Referring to Chekhov's The Cherry Orchard, Gilligan argues that the perception of "giants" by a man and a woman demonstrates their different perspectives on the relationship of the individual to his or her environment. The man identifies with the giant and his capacity to dominate the environment. This obviously brings about a situation of separation between the individual and the community. The woman, on the other hand, responds, "You feel the need for giants---they are good only in fairy tales, anywhere else they only frighten us" (Gilligan 5). Gilligan writes:
Different judgments of the image of man as giant imply different ideas about human development, different ways of imagining the human condition, different notions of what is of value in life (Gilligan 5).
Gilligan's basic thesis is that woman's perspective has historically and culturally been seen as deviant compared to the male norm. Woman's outlook on such issues as community and separation is different than man's, says Gilligan, with convincing research to back up the claim: "In any given society," she quotes...