Because of Buffy
May. 3rd, 2005 05:22 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chaniI came to the Internet realm because of Buffy...posting on the Cross and Stake Spoiler Board first, and then on other boards...So it's time to talk about the Whedonverse in here!
A Structuralist philosopher, Lawrence Kohlberg who was a professor at Harward, has likened six stages of moral development. His ideas can be criticized of course, but they are quite interesting. Lately I read two novels by Dan Simmons in which the author mentioned Kohlberg’s theory to explain the moral behaviour of his characters. This gave me the idea to do the same with the characters of the Jossverse. After all morality was very important in BTVS and Ats! BTVS mostly was about growing-up, which includes moral development.
But first here’s the stages defined by Kohlberg.
I. Preconventional Level
At this level, the child is responsive to cultural rules and labels of good and bad, right or wrong, but he interprets the labels in terms of either the physical or hedonistic consequences of action (punishment, reward, exchange of favors) or the physical power of those who enunciate the rules and labels.
Stage 0: Egocentric judgement.
The child makes judgements of good on the basis of what he likes and wants or what helps him, and bad on the basis of what he does not like or what hurts him. He has no concept of rules or of obligations to obey or conform independent of his wish.
Dan Simmons wrote his villains based on this stage, according to him this is the stage of sociopaths!
Stage 1: The punishment and obedience orientation.
The physical consequences of action determine its goodness or badness regardless of the human meaning or value of these consequences. Avoidance of punishment and unquestioning deference to power are values in their own right, not in terms of respect for an underlying moral order supported by punishment and authority (the latter is stage 4).
Stage 2: The instrumental relativist orientation.
Right action consists of what instrumentally satisfies one's own needs and occasionally the needs of others. Human relations are viewed in terms such as those of the market place. Elements of fairness, reciprocity, and equal sharing are present, but they are always interpreted in a physical, pragmatic way. Reciprocity is a matter of "you scratch my back and I'll scratch your", not loyalty, gratitude, or justice.
II. Conventional Level
At this level, the individual perceives the maintenance of the expectations of his family, group, or nation as valuable in its own right, regardless of immediate and obvious consequences. The attitude is not only one of conformity to personal expectations and social order, but of loyalty to it, of actively maintaining, supporting, and justifying the order and identifying with the persons or group involved in it.
Stage 3: The interpersonal concordance or "good boy-nice girl" orientation.
Good behaviour is what pleases or helps others and is approved by them. There is much conformity to stereotypical images of what is majority or "natural" behaviour. The individual is motivated to avoid social disapproval for nonconformity, and would like to be judged by his intentions. "he means well" becomes important for the first time.
Stage 4: The "law and order" orientation.
The individual is oriented toward authority, fixed rules, and the maintenance of the social order. Right behaviour consists in doing one's duty, showing respect for authority, and maintaining the given social order for its own sake.
Many societies including totalitarianism are based on this stage. The Nazi Germany would fit in this it for instance.
III. Post-Conventional, Autonomous, or Principled Level.
The individual makes a clear effort to define moral values and principles that have validity and application apart from the authority of the groups of persons holding them and apart from the individual's own identification with the group. The level has the two following stages:
Stage 5: The social-contract legalistic orientation (generally with utilitarian overtones).
Right action tends to be defined in terms of general individual rights and standards that have been critically examined and agreed upon by the whole society. The Law rules. There is a clear awareness of the relativism of personal values and opinions and a corresponding emphasis upon procedural rules for reaching consensus. Aside from what is constitutionally and democratically agreed upon, right action is a matter of personal values and opinions. The result is an emphasis upon the "legal point of view", but with an additional emphasis upon the possibility of changing the law in terms of rational considerations of social utility (rather than freezing it in terms of stage 4 "law and order"). Outside the legal realm, free agreement, and contract, is the binding element of obligation.
The "official" morality of the American government and Constitution is at this stage.
Stage 6: The universal ethical-principle orientation.
Right is defined by the decision of conscience in accord with self-chosen ethical principles that appeal to logical comprehensiveness, universality, and consistency. These principles are abstract and ethical (the Golden Rule, the categorical imperative); they are not concrete moral rules like the Ten Commandments. At heart, these are universal principles of justice, of the reciprocity and equality of the human rights, and of respect for the dignity of human beings as individual persons.
I guess that civil disobedience, for instance, would belong to this stage.
Kohlberg found that in many cultures young people between the ages of 2 - 25, develop from Stage 1 onwards in an invariable, irreversible, step-wise sequence; the majority reach Stages 3 or 4 but few reach Stage 6.
In his novels Dan Simmons, for instance, keeps saying that the United States were founded by people from stage 6, defended by people from stage 5 and inhabited by level II or I.
Later Kohlberg speculated that a 7th stage may exist (Transcendental Morality) which would link religion with moral reasoning: Buddha, Gandhi, Socrates might have been Stage 7 people…
I think that Caleb, the priest-killer of season 7, is typically a stage 0 guy, a sociopath. Most of the monsters, regular vampires and demons were stage 1-2 IMO,. For instance Mr Trick, a fairly intelligent vampire in season 3 was a stage 2. But what about the regular characters?
Spike being my favourite character I'm going to focus on his case. He's a very good example of moral development and one of the ME writers, David Fury, said that Spike was morally superior to Angel. I think it's so very true.
I think he was a stage 3 person from the beginning. Well actually as a human, the awful bloody poet in the victorian society he started as a stage 4, but his journey really began when he became a vampire. After being sired William wanted nothing but to be accepted, he wanted to please...both Drusilla and Angelus who were only stage 2 people(Harmony is typically a stage 3 too, as a vampire as well as a human btw...). After being chipped by The Initiative Spike mostly stayed a stage 3, but we saw glimpses of a potential stage 5 in season 5 and 6 through his relationship with the Summers women, especially Dawn. Then Spike skipped stage 4, which was the level of his human self...because basically he's a rules breaker.
He fought to get his soul back and reached a new level suddenly! From then on, souled Spike was a stage 5 person...quite crazy too, but sure that he was a bad man according to the legal point of view. Yet his journey didn't end up when he sacrificed himself in "Chosen"...
Stuck in L.A after his resurrection, Spike had to work with Angel and his team. I think that Angel is mostly a stage 5 person (while he's only stage 2 when soulless). At the beginning of the season, we could have thought that Spike has reversed to a stage 3 (through his relationship with Fred), or even 2...but it was only a façade. I actually think that Spike reached a stage 6 in Ats. It's obvious in "A Hole in the World", or in the end of the season. So yes he's morally superior to Angel.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
What a great basis for debate...
Date: 2005-05-03 05:50 pm (UTC)It almost begs for some Kinseyesque analyses of the series to see if we could scientifically attribute levels based on canon. I wonder if there's enough evidence available to extrapolate reasonable data? I must say, I would expect to see a Slayer demonstrate a progressive movement toward the 'higher' end of the scale based on her supposedly 'higher calling' (it'd be interesting to see where someone like Buffy, who clearly resented her role, actually appeared). I'd hope that Spike was clearly evidenced higher on the scale and not just in our hearts (my confusion betwixt canon and fic sometimes attributes him with higher morality than he actually merits in canon). Would the fact of Angel's cursed soul spoil evidence?
Aaargh! So much to consider. I'll go off into my bedroom and ponder.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-03 06:45 pm (UTC)As a teacher I actually use these categories to make up dilemma's. By the answer of your students you can see in which category they are. Most of them understand at the age of 17-18 they should be thinking according to category 6, but they mainly are in 4 or maybe 5. It depends a bit on the the occasion.
And now I have to think about this and I'll come up with something tomorrow, when I have time!
Good post.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-03 06:55 pm (UTC)I posted this on the board btw if you want to join in the debate...
Unlike Chrissie I don't feel the need to connect Kohlberg to Kinsey though.
Re: What a great basis for debate...
Date: 2005-05-03 07:05 pm (UTC)As for season 7 Buffy, well I actually don't know for sure. One could say she behaved as a stage 6 because she mostly made self-conscious choices...like removing Spike's chip or giving him the amulet...or getting rid of the calling and sharing her power...Or does this ultimate choice put her on the 7th level?
My take on Spike's level is only based on the show and on what Fury said. The soul must have led him to a higher level than in season 6...and I don't thik he was lower than 3 before. I know that some people would say that chipped Spike was only a 2 but I think it's missing many sides of the character, especially his ability to put someone else's sake before his own sake (like in Lie To Me, or later with Glory).
no subject
Date: 2005-05-03 08:06 pm (UTC)As Frances herself infers over on her LJ, Kinsey himself was so fixated on his own scientific hypotheses that he omitted to incorporate (or consider) the moral standards of his own group. This, I believe, substantiates my feeling that all subjects within the sphere of any social behavioural analyses will be influenced by a moral code. If morality is excluded from consideration when analysing test results, conclusions cannot be considered absolute.
Am I the only one off down this road? *whistles a lonely tune and wanders off to make a mug of decaf coffee*
no subject
Date: 2005-05-03 08:11 pm (UTC):- )
no subject
Date: 2005-05-04 05:21 am (UTC)Oh, I guess the structure and prescience go hand in hand; afterall as moral outlook (prescience) increases it presupposes that structure which is human society. Why do I even post my mistakes on the Net anymore? LOL!
no subject
Date: 2005-05-04 05:29 am (UTC)Afterall, isn't your behavior representative of your moral outlook?
Else one would generally be labelled a hypocrite!
What would it matter to know that I am (was) Roman Catholic and should therefore consider homogenic sex to be immoral, if my behavior is that of a gay man?
no subject
Date: 2005-05-05 11:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-05 11:43 am (UTC)Or as we say in French:
Faites ce que je dis mais ne faites pas ec que je fais!!!
no subject
Date: 2005-05-05 12:03 pm (UTC)BTW I do think that the weakness in Kohlberg's system is the sequence of the stage, the fact they are successive I mean.
it seems to me that someone such as Caleb had a highly structured moral outlook (though not structured towards societal views)and yet his moral prescience (for want of a better term) was in the dumper (though I would put him overall at Kohlberg's level 1-2)
Could you elaborate trésor? I don't really get the difference/opposition between moral outlook and moral prescience that you seem to point actually...
When Caleb thinks of strong girls as "dirty" it's nothing but his own outlook, probably fed by his past, but it's an egocentric judgement.
Anyway I think that Kohlberg's stages are mostly based on behaviour but I may be wrong...We need the help of a Morality Teacher here! Frances!!!!
Caleb's behaviour fits in stage 0 because he doesn't fear punishment and he chose to embrace evil (the metaphor of the merging)and I don't think he cares about reciprocity (Satge 2). He's pure ego. He's compeletly alone talking to what he pictures as the source of his evil behaviour.
Stage 0 people and Stage 7 people are probably the most lonely individuals...Except that Stage 7 people want to share their wisdom...or power!
Caleb and Buffy are the ultimate perfect opposite.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-05 02:20 pm (UTC)For instance: a little kid in stage one can say "I won't be late in school, for I will be punished." whereas someone in stage 5 will say "I won't be late in school, for it will disrupt the right order of things we have agreed upon at the beginning of the school year."
So to see in which stage the different characters are, you must find out what their reasoning is regarding their behaviour.
I don't know for sure for Caleb. I'd say he's a stage four: he's doing what he thinks is his duty. His authority is his god and he tries to uphold a twisted version of a social structure.
On the other hand he also uses stage two reasons. His relationship with the first is pure pleasure, sexual even maybe. So doing his evil deeds will give him pleasure through the relationship with the first. Hmm... that can even be viewed as a stage three!! Caleb wishes to please the first.
So I think Caleb goes as high as a stage four, but not higher than that. He isn't autonomous in behaviour, but always starts from an existing morality (=conventional behaviour).
The fact that Caleb's behaviour can be placed under three different stages makes me believe that Kohlberg's stages incorporate one another. If you for instance act autonomously in stage 5, you will please others anyway! We mustn't forget that Kohlberg uses the Kantian notion of autonomy. These are steps towards autonomous moral behaviour and according to Kant a person who acts autonomously will also act for the good of all! Remember Kant's categorical imperative: "One must act only according to those maxims that can be consistently willed as a universal law." This is ultimately Kohlberg's sixth stage!
Although you may doubt it, Kohlberg is correct in his stages. Small children will behave according to stages one and two and will only in later life develop an understanding for morality that goes beyond punishment or self-fulfilment. Kohlberg says this happens from the age of 9. From the age of 19 on up people will develop the higher moral reasoning of stages 5 and 6. I do think this will start earlier than 19. Smart kids in the last years of secondary school understand the autonomous moral reasoning and even try to do it. They go beyong conventions and try to make their own rules.
Kohlberg's stages are stages of moral learning. They are irreversable because once you've learned to reason in a certain way, you cannot go back to a previous stage (unlike Freud who says that sexually you can regress back into an earlier stage if you come into a distressing situation). Kohlberg's stages are based on intellect, so small children cannot reason autonomously, because they haven't got the ability to do that yet. This is ultimately an idea of enlightenment: we learn to use our mind and because of that learn to to do the right thing.
One more thing: to actually know in which stage people are you must give them a moral dilemma and ask what they would do in that given situation. A dilemma means that different values from different stages clash. People will choose that value that matches their stage of moral development. Kohlberg's best known dilemma is the one about Heinz and his wife who's very ill. The only treatment available that will cure her is a very expensive drug. Heinz cannot afford the drug. Should he steal it?
People that are according to a dilemma like this in a higher stage of moral reasoning, can still act using reasons that actually fit better into lower stages. Kohlberg's stages show what people are capable of, but not if they actually do it!
no subject
Date: 2005-05-05 02:29 pm (UTC)But I still disagree about Caleb. Probably because of my thory about the First that is not, according to me, a character but a reflection. When we see Caleb and the First on screen, we only see what's happening in Caleb's inner world.
But that is another discussion...
no subject
Date: 2005-05-05 02:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-05 07:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-05 07:14 pm (UTC)