Adoptee vs. Adoptee

Like many other international and transracial adoptees, I am often asked to state my “official position” on IA or TRA.

People are curious after they read my poetry or essays and my blog or listen to my presentations to adoptive parent groups. Sometimes I’m hard to pin down. They look for clues in how I write about my adoptive parents. Am I more negative in how I describe how I was raised, or do I seem sufficiently “grateful” and “positive?”

If I write or say something critical of adoptive parent attitudes or behaviors, or adoption agencies, or adoption policies, folks rush to the conclusion that I’m one of those “angry” adoptees who hate all adoptive parents and think IA and TRA should be banned.

On the other hand, if I write or say something positive about adoptive parent attitudes or behaviors, or adoption agencies, or adoption policies, folks decide that I’m one of those “happy” adoptees who think IA and TRA is wonderful and should continue.

Like spaces in a crossword puzzle, these clues are mentally penciled in, one after another in an attempt to flesh out the hidden “statement” within.

It’s a precarious tightrope for us IA’s and TRA’s to walk on, and any slight puff of wind could cause us to lose our hard-earned balance and tumble to the ground.

Never more is this unfairly thrust upon us than when we are asked to defend a position against others of us.

Recently, the largest adoption agency in my state sent out an e-mail response to the news article I previously linked to, legislation proposed in South Korea that would end international adoption. The adoption agency, naturally, does not want international adoptions from South Korea to end.

One of the crucial points, according to this agency, is the assumed influence of “angry” Korean adoptees living in Korea, who are talking about their negative experiences. The agency's strategy was to contact all the Korean adoptees connected with said agency, urging them to write to the legislator and tell her their “happy” adoption experiences and encouraging the South Korean government to continue IA’s.

The assumption that adoptees who had “positive” adoption experiences believe that international adoptions from Korea should continue and that adoptees who had “negative” adoption experiences think it should end is problematic. Again, this kind of either/or positioning is what makes adoptees such as myself want to scream.

The adoption agency has positioned us in the boxing ring, with the :-) and the :-( adoptees taking jabs and punches at each other. Meanwhile, I can’t help but think that it’s all just diverting everyone’s attention away from the real issue.

Which is: that South Korea has decided that it’s time for them to implement a stronger domestic adoption policy and work towards solving the child welfare problems in their own country. After over 50 years of North Americans and Europeans telling them what to do with their children, South Korea has decided to take control for themselves. This is nothing new; many stunted attempts have been made before. And, this new attempt may not ultimately prevail either – but it’s clear that continued efforts will be made, and I think that the rest of the world should back off. It is ethnocentric and arrogant to think that the United States has any business telling another country how they should manage the problem of orphaned, abandoned or relinquished children. We can’t even solve this problem within our own shores.

As a social worker in the field of adoption and child welfare, I rejoice in being able to work towards making my job obsolete. That is the ultimate goal, is it not?

We say that as a society we want children to be raised in loving families. A whole profession has been built on this belief.

It is a dangerous thing for us to be more concerned with the self-preservation of our profession than the cause for which we were created.

Positioning adoptees against each other in order sway public opinion is exploitative. It is reinforcing a polemic battle, of which there has to be a winner or a loser. Why must we continue to look at things in binary ways? It also reduces the human experience into opposing paradigms of either/or when in actuality, our experiences are more like waves on the ocean; sometimes moving forward and sometimes receding, but forever changing.

I refuse to participate in this battle. I do not want to be reduced to :-) or :-( just because it is easier for people to categorize. My thoughts and opinions on TRA and IA change almost daily, as I educate myself more about these issues and as I listen to those who have been through the experience – both adoptees and adoptive parents.

When it comes to looking at the future, let's not forget to consult the past. History has shown that especially in regards to children and families, what has been considered "best" practice in one decade is often considered bad practice one generation later.

Comments

[Gershom]

That was freakin beautiful!

[VHM]

This should be required reading for everyone interested in adoption issues.

[aruffo]

Good for South Korea. As a recent adoptive parent with a daughter from Guatemala my constant issue with Guatemala is the contradictory nature of "safe guarding" children from IA because it the process they have created in their own country isn't "transparent" enough. Meanwhile, their government is doing nothing to effect social change and support for unwed, single, or young mothers. And, the Mayan people are not afforded appropriate polictical power. I would like to see the government actually effect change on social welfare and encourage and make it affordable for domestic adoptions to occur - until then the idea that stoping IA is somehow "better" just doesn't quite compute for me - or at least is full of contradictions.

PS - I am so happy to have found this and have been passing it on to every gringo mother of latina and latino sweeties I meet.

thanks ---

amy

[Faith, who happens to be an adoptee]

I agree with you 100%!!!

[Brenda R]

I agree. Beautiful!