The article highlights gender-specific elements in the notions of duty (kartavya) in the Indian familial context. Using a hypothetical dilemma about gender roles and employment, in depth interviews were conducted with 120 respondents comprising young adults and their parents from the Maharashtrian community of Vadodara city, Gujarat, India. A majority of respondents, men as well as women, could recognize the unfairness (towards women) in the scenario but did not accord it enough importance because doing so could result in negative consequences (like family disharmony or social isolation) for the self as well as the family. Classifying the justifications under the Big Three Ethics of Autonomy, Community and Divinity (Jensen, 1996, Coding manual: Ethics of autonomy, community and divinity, Unpublished Manuscript) showed maximum use of the ethic of community, closely followed by autonomy. There was negligible use of the ethic of divinity. Indicating cultural continuity amidst social change, younger respondents and older women showed flexible mentalities about gender roles and corresponding responsibilities as compared to those of older men. At the interface of gender and culture, the article highlights complexities, which shape ideas of autonomy and fairness in the Indian context.
DerneS. (1992). Beyond institutional and impulsive conceptions of self: Family structure and the socially anchored self. Ethos, 20(3), 259–288.
2.
EckensbergerL. H.ZimbaR. F. (1997). The development of moral judgment. In DasenP. R.SaraswathiT. S. (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Vol. 2. Basic processes and human development (2nd ed., pp. 299–338). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
3.
GilliganC. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4.
HollosM.LeisP.TurielE. (1986). Social reasoning in IJO children and adolescents in Nigerian communities. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 17(3), 352–374.
5.
HuebnerA.GarrodA. (1991). Moral reasoning in a Karmic world. Human Development, 34(6), 341–352.
KapadiaS. (1999). Self, women and empowerment: A conceptual inquiry. In SaraswathiT. S. (Ed.), Culture, socialization and human development: Theory, research and applications in India (pp. 255–277). New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
8.
KellerM.EdelsteinW.SchmidC.FangF.FangG. (1998). Reasoning about responsibilities and obligations in close relationships: A comparison across two cultures. Developmental Psychology, 34(4), 731–741.
9.
KumarU. (2001). Indian women and work: A paradigm for research. In DalalA.MisraG. (Eds.), New directions in Indian psychology: Vol. 1. Social psychology (pp. 366–388). New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
10.
MaH. K. (1988). The Chinese perspectives on moral judgment development. International Journal of Psychology, 23, 201–227.
11.
MascoloM. F.MisraG.RapisardiC. (2004). Individual and relational conceptions of self in India and the United States. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 104, 9–26.
12.
MenonU. (2002). Making Sakti: Controlling (natural) impurity for female (cultural) power. Ethos, 30(1/2), 140–157.
13.
MilesM. B.HubermanM. A. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed). New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
14.
MillerJ. G. (2005). Essential role of culture in developmental psychology. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 109, 33–41.
15.
MillerJ. G.BersoffD. (1995). Development in the context of everyday family relationships: Culture, interpersonal morality, and adaptation. In KillenM.HartD. (Eds.), Morality in everyday life: Developmental perspectives (pp.259–282). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
MinesM. (1988). Conceptualizing the person: Hierarchical society and individual autonomy. American Anthropologist, 90(3), 568–579.
17.
NussbaumM. C. (2000). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. New Delhi: Kali for Women.
18.
PandaM. (2013). Madhyam marg: How it constitutes Indian mind?Psychology and Developing Societies, 25(1), 77–107.
ParikhB. (1980). Development of moral judgment and its relation to family environmental factors in Indian and American families. Child Development, 51(4), 1030–1039.
21.
RamanujanA. K. (1990). Is there an Indian way of thinking? An informal essay. In. MarriottM. (Ed.), India through Hindu categories (pp. 1–40). New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
22.
SaraswathiT. S. (2005). Hindu worldview in the development of selfways: The ‘Atman’ as the real self. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 109, 43–50.
23.
SenguptaJ.SaraswathiT. S.KonantambigiR. (1994). Gender differences in moral orientations: How different is the voice? (Unpublished Manuscript). Vadodara: M. S. University of Baroda, India.
24.
ShimizuH. (2001). Japanese adolescent boys’ senses of empathy (omoiyari) and Carol Gilligan’s perspectives on morality of care: A phenomenological approach. Culture & Psychology, 7(4), 453–475.
25.
ShwederR. A.GoodnowJ.HatanoG.LeVineR. A.MarkusH.MillerP. (1998). The cultural psychology of development: One mind, many mentalities. In DamonW. (Series Ed.), LernerR. M. (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (5th edn., pp. 867–937). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
26.
ShwederR. A.HaidtJ. (1993). The future of moral psychology: Truth, intuition, and the pluralist way. Psychological Science, 4(6), 360–365.
27.
ShwederR. A.MenonU. (1998). The return of the “white man’s burden”: The moral discourse of anthropology and the domestic life of Hindu women. In ShwederR. A. (Ed.). Welcome to Middle Age! (and other cultural fictions) (pp.139–188). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
28.
ShwederR. A.MillerJ. G. (1985). The social construction of the person: How is it possible? In GergenK. J.DavisK. E. (Eds.), The social construction of the person (pp. 41–69). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
29.
ShwederR. A.MuchN. C.MahapatraM.ParkL. (1997). The ‘big three’ of morality (autonomy, community, divinity) and the ‘big three’ explanations of suffering. In BrandtA. M.RozinP. (Eds.), Morality and health: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 119–169). New York, NY: Routledge.
30.
SinhaD.TripathiR. (2001). Individualism in a collectivistic culture: A case of coexistence of opposites. In DalalA.MisraG. (Eds.), New directions in Indian psychology: Vol. 1. Social psychology (pp. 241–258). New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
31.
TripathiR. C. (2001). Aligning development to values in India. In DalalA. K.MisraG. (Eds.), New Directions in Indian Psychology (pp. 307–325). New Delhi: Sage.
32.
TurielE. (2002). The culture of morality: Social development, context, and conflict. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33.
VasudevJ.HummelR. C. (1987). Moral stage sequence and principled reasoning in an Indian sample. Human Development, 30(2), 105–118.
34.
ZimbaR. F. (1994). The understanding of morality, convention, and personal preference in an African setting: Findings from Zambia. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 25(3), 369–393.
