KOHLBERGS THEORY CRITIQUE; AN INTERSECTIONALITY FRAMEWORK 1

Kohlbergs Theory through an Intersectionality Framework

Josiel Marrufo
Northern Illinois University
KOHLBERGS THEORY CRITIQUE; AN INTERSECTIONALITY FRAMEWORK 2

The objective of the following content is to better understand Kohlbergs student

development theory and why this theory is not compatible to current college students. Even

though this theory has been popularly used when considering student development, I take a

counter approach and reflect on why this theory is not valid to all students by using the

framework of intersectionality. We begin by understanding the structure and levels of

Kohlbergs theory and transition into how intersectionality is used as a framework. We move

along to view Kohlbergs theory through the lens of intersectionality in which we will critique

the 6 stages within the theory. Lastly, we share our opinion on how intersectionality can either

enhance our understanding of Kohlbergs student development theory or if they directly counter

each other.

Kohlbergs Theory of Moral Student Development

Lawrence Kohlberg was one of the first to research the moral reasoning of college

students after basing his work from Jean Piagets three stages of moral development (Renn &

Reason, 2013). Kohlberg revised and extended Piagets work, along with his own, which

originally focused on the moral development of adolescents (Renn & Reason, 2013). Kohlberg

revised his past work and incorporated three more stages that included the development of

college students (Renn & Reason, 2013). Kohlbergs student development theory is based on

three characteristics: structure, sequence, and hierarchy (Renn & Reason, 2013). Along with the

mentioned characteristics to this student development theory, there are also three levels of moral

development that further breaks down to two stages per level equaling six total stages.

The three levels of Kohlbergs student development theory are identified in a sequential

order as: pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional. Level one (pre-conventional) is

described as having no understanding of societal rules and individuals focus to avoid punishment
KOHLBERGS THEORY CRITIQUE; AN INTERSECTIONALITY FRAMEWORK 3

and to please authorities (Renn & Reason, 2013). Within this level, the rules that benefit the

individual are followed. Level two (conventional) is identified as the time where individuals

seek to meet expectations, especially those of authority (Renn & Reason, 2013). Furthermore,

this level emphasized how the world perceives you as an individual and focuses on being seen as

a good person that supports the system of rules in place (Renn & Reason, 2013). Level three

(post-conventional) is the last level in which the individual has a moral foundation that is

reflected in their overarching principles that considers law and societal systems (Renn & Reason,

2013). The participation in the societal system is considered voluntary and not mandatory.

Intersectionality; a Tool and a Framework

The creator of the term intersectionality was credited to a legal scholar by the name of

Kimberle Crenshaw (Jones & Abes, 2013). Crenshaw is the author to a landmark article by the

name Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of

Color in which she used the framework of intersectionality to analyze the violence against

women; specifically women of color (Jones & Abes, 2013). The importance to this framework

grew through constant study of the reproduction of inequalities, dominance, and oppression

(Jones & Abes, 2013).

Intersectionality was picked up by Bonnie Thornton Dill who is claimed to be the leading

scholar within this framework and states that intersectionality is about identity (Jones & Abes,

2013). Intersectionality does not only rely on its identities, but it also includes how the

convergence of those identities is affected by larger structures of power that maintain

discriminatory practices and support oppression. Furthermore, intersectionality is considered to

be interlinked to other oppressed identities in which isolating them cannot solve the problem and

instead must be seen as a whole problem and not as independent problems.

KOHLBERGS THEORY CRITIQUE; AN INTERSECTIONALITY FRAMEWORK 4

Intersectionality has four theoretical interventions in which it links together individual,

interpersonal, and structural domains of experience with the purpose of encouraging social

justice movements (Jones & Abes, 2013). The first tenet of intersectionality centers the

experiences of people of color and how race and ethnicity intersect with other categories of

identity (Jones & Abes, 2013). Through this framework we can utilize the lived experiences of

marginalized people and voice the story of those uncommonly heard. The second tenet, known

as complicating identity, focuses on both individual and group identity in which individual

characteristics are combined as one (Jones & Abes, 2013). Within this tenet, higher education

professionals are encouraged to not assume students identities through physical appearance and

that they should be conscious of other possible identities not physically shown. The third tenet

expressed the importance of unveiling power in interconnected structures of inequality and

attends to how power shapes privilege, oppression, opportunities and constraints (Jones & Abes,

2013). The final tenet is promoting social justice and social change with a direct approach to

eliminating inequality and acts of oppression. The approach to change is necessary and by

unveiling the past tenets of intersectionality the ultimate outcome is the promotion of social

justice (Jones & Abes, 2013).

Kohlbergs Theory Critique

Kohlbergs theory through the lens of intersectionality disrupts the notion of theories

needing to be sequential or developed by hierarchy. Through the framework of intersectionality

there are no salient identities to focus on, rather a holistic approach to all identities without the

need of having a sequential structure. The first tenet of intersectionality enforces the perspective

of people of color and in level one of Kohlbergs model, rules followed by people of color does

not always mean they will benefit from them. Through an intersectionality lens, the rules that
KOHLBERGS THEORY CRITIQUE; AN INTERSECTIONALITY FRAMEWORK 5

should be followed are those that oppose oppressive practices. Furthermore, intersectionality

remains to be a trick up approach, in which it begins from the most oppressive point of view and

transfers itself to update societal law and practices. Social justice being the cycled answer for

intersectionality allows a consistent space for the marginalized stories to be told.

Complicated identities, tenet two, forces people in level one of Kohlbergs theory to

acknowledge the fact a certain system is in place, possibly against them, and to be more aware of

what aspects of society are right or wrong. When placing this tenet in level two of Kohlbergs

theory, marginalized people are placing themselves into harms way by abiding by rules that are

already set to de-centralize them and their quality of life.

Tenet three and four allows us to become aware of unethical practices to certain groups

and how to prevent them from repeating themselves. Level three and both of these tenets are

surprisingly similar by requiring heavy content of social justice. In the lens of intersectionality,

level three of Kohlbergs theory would need to apply social justice acts not as an option of

participation but for equality and fairness to others. Level one through these tenets would

require to update practices to current societal wants that are produced through social justice and

certified by the people.

Conclusion

Ultimately, I believe Kohlbergs theory of moral development could benefit from an

intersectionality framework of lens but I do not believe it would be more effective than what

intersectionality already is. All six stages can be converted by using this tool but I do not

envision a reconceptualized model being overtaking the full elements of the evolving framework

of intersectionality.
KOHLBERGS THEORY CRITIQUE; AN INTERSECTIONALITY FRAMEWORK 6

References
Jones, S. R., & Abes, E. S. (2013). Identity development of college students: advancing
frameworks for multiple dimensions of identity. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Renn, K. A., & Reason, R. D. (2013). College students in the United States: characteristics,
experiences, and outcomes. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.