What is an adopted
kid supposed to do?
Adoptees are the most oppressed and
powerless group in the adoption triad and this has been proven by the
literature we have read in class this semester. In this paper I would like to
focus on the powerlessness adoptees experience by their adoptive parents. I
wish to address this ethical topic because it is a very touchy subject and it
has been a recurring theme in our class this semester. I will give examples on
how to approach this touchy subject as an adoptive parent in order to make the
adoptee feel more in power with his/her life. We must also understand that
adoptees from the beginning are already placed into a powerless role but there
are methods, such as open adoption, that will help with the powerlessness. I
would also like to analyze this topic because I hope to address some of my own
thoughts regarding my own adoption and how I feel as an adoptee. As a precursor
for this paper I would like to state how happy I am about my life and how
amazing my mother, Jean, is (my adoptive mother). I couldn’t have asked for a
better mother who is more supportive than anyone in my life. I owe her my life
and she has made me be the person I am today. This paper in no way, shape, or
form is degrading adoptive parents. I only wish to address the sort of
powerlessness adoptees have and its relation to adoptive parents.
I would like
to begin by addressing what powerlessness is and how it pertains to adoption.
In Five Faces of Oppression by Iris
Young “The powerless are those who lack
authority or power even in this mediated sense, those over whom power is
exercised without their exercising it; the powerless are situated so that they
must take orders and rarely have the right to give them. …powerless status is perhaps best
described negatively: the powerless (adoptees) lack the authority, status, and
sense of self that professionals (non-adoptees or adoptive parents) tend to
have” (Young p.56-57). Young is arguing here how those who have the least
amount of power are basically viewed as the weaker and lower class citizens of
society who get pushed around because they don’t have the
confidence/self-knowledge as compared to those who are in touch with their
authoritative behavior and higher self-image. The professionals are already
born as privileged compared to the nonprofessionals or the adoptees. Young goes
on to state, “The life of the nonprofessional (adoptee) by comparison is
powerless in the sense that it lacks this orientation toward the progressive
development of capacities and avenues for recognition” (Young p. 57). My own
interpretation of what this quote is saying about adoptees is that they lack
the experience and societal comparison to what is known as the normal life or
normal family. An adoptee is already disempowered because they aren’t blood
related to their parents and they know they were relinquished for adoption by
their birth parents. The following is a great explanation of the powerlessness
of adoptees and the privileged group of the adoption triad, the adoptive
parents:
“Adoptive parents are more privileged because they have a lot more
control. Adoptees are definitely the most oppressed and powerless. They
literally have no influence over what the outcome is, because they do not know
‘what is good for them’. Adoptive parents that are white, have more power
over those that are not. There is power even in the realm of adoptive
parents” (Adoption Ethics KBJM Group Blog Post).
The question of why this is important
is easily answered by the “Rights and Moral Principles Handout.” The ethical
theories/principals/concepts that go into adoptee powerlessness via adoptive
parents include but aren’t limited to: right to autonomy or respect for adoptee
autonomy, best interest standard, non-maleficence, lack of birth/relation
knowledge, and implicit/unintentional oppression by adoptive parents on
adoptees. I will discuss these concepts in more detail and how they apply later
in the essay.
Now that I have established what
powerlessness is exactly for adoptees and the ethical concepts involved I wish
to incorporate the opposing sides for my ethical topic and their arguments. The
first side I would like to address is the adoptee group or the powerless group
I am arguing for. Adoptees are put up for adoption because the birth parent/s
are not ready or don’t have the resources to raise a child at that time. This
automatically places adoptees in the powerless category because they aren’t
able to determine their own future and who they will be raised by. This brings
in the best interest standard mentioned above. The handout states, “… as
children are more vulnerable than adults and adoptees are typically the one
party who had no choice regarding adoption… the best interest of the
child should be the guiding principle.” This places almost all of the power of
the adoption triad in the hands of the adoptive parents because they are the
ones who will be raising a child. Sherrie Eldridge states:
“Because our birth mothers made a choice for us (adoptees)
that dramatically changed the course of our lives and over which we had no
control, many of us have a foundational belief (often unconscious) that we
don’t have the right to choose our own course in life. We feel instead that we
are at the mercy of others” (Eldridge p. 34).
As an adoptee I can’t help but agree with this statement.
This quote ties in with our adoptive parents because we are shaped by our
guardians and those who take us in and show us love. This is also where
non-maleficence comes into play. The handout states, “The principle of
non-maleficence or do no harm maintains that we should, as a moral minimum,
refrain from harming others.” Adoptees are so dependent on our adoptive
parents, possibly even more so than birth children with their birth parents
because of our extreme loss early on, that we are subject to harm by our
adoptive parents because they are the first party displaying love and affection
to us. It might play out differently with those adoptees who are adopted later
in their lives, but the same thought goes into the ‘mercy of others’ as
Eldridge exclaims because of the love and affection experience by their
adoptive parents when they might not have experienced those sorts of feelings
in foster homes or children’s shelters. If an adoptee is harmed, shown
maleficence, early in life by their adoptive parents then the child’s mentality
could turn untrusting of others or even harmful towards others because they
don’t know how to trust or deal with loss.
The opposing
side I will address includes those who don’t believe adoptees are powerless. An
argument this side would try to make would be adoptees have the ability to
start a whole new life when they are adopted. My counter argument consists of
my agreement with them as adoptees are able to start a new life; but the
problem with the new life thought is how the adoptee feels inferior to others
because their birth parents decided to give them up for adoption. The
powerlessness has already taken place because adoptees will always wonder why
the parents didn’t want them or couldn’t keep them. The right to autonomy is
extremely important when addressing this argument. The handout states,
“autonomy=self-determination—the capacity to make one’s own decisions as to how
to live one’s life… or to figure out for oneself what actions are right and
which are wrong.” This is extremely important in my story as an adoptee because
I had a closed adoption until I turned 18. I had no idea who my birth parents
were, where they lived, or even if I had any genetic health problems. All I
knew was that my brother and I were adopted from different families, even
different countries. I wanted to learn about my birth parents since I was 12
but my parents denied me any information for reasons I do not know. I was
powerless to their wishes.
Another
argument the opposing side might try to uphold can be found in Anita Allen’s
“Open Adoption is Not for Everyone.” She argues that “Birth parents and their
families do not have a prima facie
moral right to maintain contact with adopted kin, because such an ascription of
right would be inconsistent with adoptive parents’ prima facie rights and
responsibilities as caretakers” (Allen p. 51). I would agree that if the
adoptive parents don’t want their child to have a relationship with their birth
parents they don’t have to allow it. But my counter argument would be shouldn’t
both sets of parents ask the child for what he/she wants? What if a
relationship with the birth parents could be extremely helpful for the child? I
understand the adoptive parents most definitely wouldn’t want to lose their
child to the birth parents but if the child is old enough to understand the
implications of this decision and is able to analyze the feelings/wants of the
adoptive parents shouldn’t these children have a say? Allen brings in a lot of
good points supporting closed adoption being a good choice but I hardly see her
mention what the adoptee might want or what would be best for the adoptee. As
parents wouldn’t you want to put your child’s problems before your own? This is
a huge thought. The child should have the say on if they want an open or closed
adoption. This is another power adoptees lack in their own lives because Allen
argues the adoptive parents’ well-being should come first. Then where does the
adoptees’ well-being come into play? The ethical principle tied with this
argument, I would say, is lack of birth/relation knowledge. Growing up I wanted
to know my whole family, this includes my adoptive family and my birth
family because being able to connect with people who are a part of me is as
important as being able to connect with the people I grow up with. Aside from
knowing these people I would also be able to ask the questions I have always
wanted answered, like “Why was I placed for adoption?” or “Do I have any
complications with my health?” or even “Who shares my blood?” With open
adoption I would be able to have these questions answered. It wasn’t until I
met my birth father and birth mother that I realized I had 12 more brothers
(bringing the total to 13) and that I am genetically inclined to be allergic to
cats and susceptible to occasional migraines. These answers explained a lot
about my health.
The last
ethical concept I would like to discuss is the implicit/unintentional
oppression by adoptive parents on adoptees. This
is an issue rarely talked about in adoption but I believe it is almost the most
important one because all of what goes into this category takes place in the
mind of the adoptee. I will be drawing all of my support for this argument by
expressing my own experiences because I haven’t found any studies or peer
reviewed information about this subject. What I mean by implicit/unintentional
oppression is what goes through the adoptees mind as they are trying to think
about how their adoptive parents might truly react when the adoptee is meeting
somebody from their birth family. My first experience with this came on the
night of my 18th birthday when I asked/told my mother that I would
like to meet my birth parents now that I am 18. Since my adoptive parents are
divorced I knew this was most likely going to be hard on my mother because it
was just her and I living in our house and because I was denied the opportunity
to meet my birth parents earlier. That night my mother responded, “Okay. I will
show you the box of things I have been collecting about them.” I had no idea
they were in contact so I went to my room and anxiously waited for ten minutes
before I went back out to the kitchen where I found my mom sitting at the
table, crying. I didn’t approach her or say anything. I walked away. For weeks
I was urgently trying to analyze what my mother must be going through; I also
tried to think about if I made the right decision in wanting to meet my parents
or not. I fell into a depression because I knew that I had made my mother cry
because she was so afraid of losing me. I was powerless because I now didn’t
want to meet my birth parents. The unintentional reaction by my mother (because
she didn’t realize that I saw her crying) was enough to make me immediately
hate the fact of me being an adoptee. There are more examples of this sort of
ethical concept but for the sake of page restrictions I will limit myself to
this paragraph.
In order to limit these sorts of
ethical/personal conflicts in the adoption triad I propose open adoption as a
major help in addressing the powerlessness of adoptees. Adoptive parents should
sit down with their child/children and discuss the implications of open
adoption and what it truly means. They should also talk about any questions
and/or touchy subjects adoptees might want to address because we don’t know how
we should live and feel when compared to the professionals (the majority).
In conclusion, I propose discussion
and open adoption as being the solution to the powerlessness of adoptees. Both
of these concepts would give adoptees the power and answers we strive for
because we would be on the same level as both sets of parents. All we really
want are answers to our questions and the ability to relate to those closest to
us. We don’t want to live the way others want us to, we want to be able to make
decisions on our own and live our own lives without having the question of “Who
am I?” in the back of our heads. This would be a great weight off of our
shoulders.
Bibliography
Allen, A. “Open
Adoption is Not for Everyone” in Adoption
Matters: Philosophical and Feminist Essays. Ed.
By Sally Haslanger and Charlotte Witt. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005: (pp.
47-67).
Eldridge,
Sherrie. Twenty
Life-Transforming Choices Adoptees Need to Make. Colorado Springs: NavPress
Publishing Group, 2003. (pp. 1-287).
Pertman, A. Adoption
nation. Boston: Harvard Common Press, 2011. (pp. 1-295).
Rights and Moral Principles Handout
Young, I. M., Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, New Jersey,
1990. (pp. 39-65).
