HOW IS ADOPTION SOCIALLY DEFINED?

In societies of European origins such as ours where family is equated with biology and kinship with blood ties, a great deal of ambivalence exists concerning adoption (Wegar, 1992). In contrast, in other societies, adoption is more widespread and the adoption of kin may be routine. In North America, a woman's fertility is still considered an important mark of self-esteem and social recognition despite a general liberalization of gender role norms (Letherby, 1994). Biological motherhood is often considered superior to adoptive motherhood, even by some feminists such as Phylis Chesler (1989). This new alliance of biology with feminism presents an anomalous situation at the ideological level because feminist theories generally reject gender roles based on biological constraints (Rothman, 1989). Who has not heard the well-known feminist slogan "biology is not destiny"? Yet infertility and adoption are stigmatized even from these same well-meaning quarters (Bartholet, 1993). Other feminists, however, point out that "we can recognize and appreciate the genetic tie without making it the determining connection" (Rothman, 1989:39). Still other feminists and scholars such as Arlene Skolnick (1998) critique this "new biologicm" as a cultural phenomenon with policy implications.

It is probably because of this ambivalence and even duality between what is natural versus different or natural versus biological that adoption has captured the public interest. Wegar (1997:97) reveals that, in 1993, adoption was featured 113 times in nationwide radio and television programs in comparison to 186 times for abortion, 95 times for divorce, and 31 times for birth control. Furthermore, adoption is often portrayed in television soap operas. This large number of mentions and portrayals reflects a preoccupation rather than a reality because adoption by nonkin is far less frequent in our society than either divorce, abortion, or particularly birth control. Adoption obviously has dramatic and mediatic value, in part because it is socially constructed in an ambivalent way. In another society with a different social construction of family life and ties, adoption would go unnoticed.

Adoption is a topic that has been newsworthy for several decades, but each decade puts a different spin on the matter. The focus in the 1950s was more practical and centered on advice given to prospective adoptive parents. The realities of the baby shortage as well as international and transracial adoption did not surface until the 1960s. By 1974, sealed adoption records had become an issue and by the early 1980s this focus was accompanied by one on the search for biological parents and subsequent reunions. Birth parents became more visible socially and more acceptable (Wegar, 1997). They were also given more rights by the courts. In the 1990s, newscasts reported on several heartbreaking cases of small children taken away from the only family they had ever known, crying and totally devastated emotionally, to be given to a natural parent who had reappeared in their lives and sued for custody.

Therefore, an evolution has occurred in the cultural description of issues surrounding adoption and in the consequences for the children involved. This evolution in itself well illustrates that ideas about adoption change and are cultural rather than "natural." At any rate, even something natural, such as mothering, is redefined or reconstituted as we go along. The more recent development of reunions of adopted children with their birth mothers is a case in point. It has seized the public's interest and has been constructed within the language of other values that are currently prevailing in our culture. First, the language used reaffirms the merits of biological over social parenting (Rothman, 1989; Skolnick, 1998). It equates biology or genes with nurturance and, as such, accords with the new scientific trends in molecular genetics. This is referred to as "the DNA mystique" by Nelkin and Lindee (1995).

Second, search and reunion have come to be equated with the triumph of nature over the oppression of the adoption system. Searchmovement activists have depicted the psychological need to search as a universal one, while there are indications to the contrary (Wegar, 1997): in other words, not every adopted child feels a need to search or will remain "incomplete" without a reunion. What "incomplete" means is also a social construction but it is an effective imagery because it currently has high value in our "psychobabble." Furthermore, this presumed universal "need" to locate one's roots is couched within other very modern psychological and individualistic themes such as the need to "find oneself," for "self-fulfillment," "freedom," "choice," and the presumed personal problems and "repression" of those who do not search. As Bartholet (1993) points out, the search movement has inadvertently contributed to the further stigmatization of adoption and particularly adoptive parents, as well as of adopted children who are not interested in finding their birth parents.

THE PROFESSIONAL REPRESENTATION OF ADOPTED CHILDREN

The literature on adoption is divided between those researchers who have not found any significant difference in adjustment levels and outcomes between adopted and nonadopted persons and those who do (for a review, see Sharma, McGue, and Benson, 1998). A few studies even find that adopted children show certain ego strengths and resil-ience (Benson, Sharma, and Roehlkepartain, 1994). But, overall, adopt, children and their parents do not show any appreciable deficit that consistent and would warrant concern (Bartholet, 1993). Nevertheless superficial reviews of the research reported in popular outlets tend highlight the negative rather that the positive, a focus which is unlike to make adoptive parents feel secure in their role and adopted children secure in their sense of belongingness.

The deficits and strengths that are detected in the studies depend largely on the methodology used; that is, the type of adopted children included in the sample (for example, their age at adoption), the compa son group, and the outcomes measured. As a result of this research ambi alence, professionals who come into contact with troubled adopt children or adolescents may be too hasty to attribute the problems adoption (Miall, 1996). These youngsters may not be treated for the re problems that affect them: instead, they may be queried about "how you feel about being adopted." Such a line of inquiry simply reinforces the adopted child's thinking that something is wrong with being adopte This will not solve whatever other problems they might have.

More adopted than nonadopted children, including adoptions older children, are found among the psychologists' and psychiatrist clientele (Brodzinsky, 1993). The explanations that have been offer are twofold. First, some adopted children may have a more difficult time growing up because of identity problems or because their parents may not have properly bonded with them. Here, "bonding theorie constitute a great disservice to adoptive parents because such theories" often posit the necessity of bearing a child as well as touching an infa immediately after birth so that attachment can take place. If v extended this line of reasoning, one could well say that husbands ar wives cannot bond because they were not together at birth!

The second explanation posits that there may be no real develol mental difference between adopted and nonadopted children. Rathe what may actually occur is that adoptive parents are of higher socio economic status and are more familiar with mental health service Consequently, they may be more inclined to consult professionals; soon as their children evidence some problems (Warren, 1992). The may also consult professionals quickly because they have heard th adopted children "have more problems." Biological parents, in con trast, may seek help only after more serious problems have developed. Hence, comparatively fewer nonadopted children would appear in the psychologists' statistics.

A third explanation has not been highlighted: it is cultural and stems from the negative social construction of adoption. Although adopted children may feel as loved and as accepted by their parents as nonadopted children, their peers and even other adults often openly express doubts to them on this topic.

A respondent in March's (1995:656) study said that outside the family people "never believe that your adoptive parents love you like their parents love them. Because you aren't biological." One of my students recalls returning home one day quite distressed around age ten and asking her mother, "is it true that you can't love me as much because I am adopted?" The mother was shocked and found it difficult to accept the cruelty or incomprehension of other children. A twelve-year-old girl received this reaction from a classmate; "Oh, no, you're adopted! You, poor, poor thing. You don't have real parents." The classmate shrieked while covering her mouth with her hands, to the bewilderment of the adopted girl who then told her mother, "You can imagine that this did not make me feel very good." Another girl has been asked about her "fake" mother.

And, of course, parents feel very sorry for their children and have to explain that adoption is not common enough for people to be used to it and that they do not understand it, and so on. Nevertheless, parental explanations and reassurances may not be sufficient to offset the damage created by peers' reactions. After all, as we have seen in Chapter 7, peers are an extremely important reference group in the formation of a child's self-definition. Thus, this stigmatization may constitute a heavy mental burden for some adoptees and may perhaps explain all of the problems that adoption causes to children's adjustment in life. Instead, if children received the message that adoption is either neutral or natural or good, they would experience fewer feelings of ambivalence.

Other parents are saddened when their own parents prefer grandchildren who are of their "own blood." Or parents become upset when a teacher says, "Of course, your child is difficult, but you never know what you get when you adopt them." Or another points out, "Well, I understand, you can't quite love them as much as if they were your own." Then there is the case of a new acquaintance who insists upon asking, "What about children of your own?" In other words, the social response constitutes a form of discrimination, and it is somewhat surprising that researchers have failed to grasp this phenomenon and its effects on parents and children.

The view on adoptive parents is equally mixed (Groze, 1996). Some writers have suggested that adoptive parents may be less confident, more anxious, and harbor feelings of stigmatization because of their infertility, while other researchers have not found any support for this "at-risk" perspective (for a review, see Borders, Black, and Pasley, 1998). Research questions are unfortunately framed within a pathological or deficit view of adoption. Such questions assume a social construction of adoption that creates problems rather than prevents them. It may perhaps not be surprising that the results are what they are: the social constructions create the very problems attributed to the adoption itself.