Orphanages & Diamonds: Socioeconomic Status & Adoption

This post is somewhat a continuation from an ongoing discussion that began with the original posts, "The choice to adopt is a luxury choice" and "Response to comments" and also extending from another related and more recent entry, "A reader asks me: Should we adopt?"

And yes, I know this is another dang long post. (It might help to print it out and use it for some light bathroom reading...ha.) But seriously, these issues are so complex and so potentially controversial that I felt it necessary to take the time to attempt to deal with them in detail. I spent a lot of time trying to think through this entry, and yet I still feel as though it is incomplete and in need of even more thought and editing...

Kudos to you if you actually read the whole thing!

Excerpted from a recent report, Families, Not Orphanages, by Better Care Network, which is affiliated with Unicef and USAID (italics are my own emphasis):

"Studies focusing on the reasons for institutional placements consistently reflect that poverty is the driving force behind their placement. For example, a study based on case studies of Sri Lanka, Bulgaria and Moldova found, 'that poverty is a major underlying cause of children being received into institutional care and that such reception into care is a costly, inappropriate and often harmful response to adverse economic circumstances.' Furthermore, the case studies show 'that resources committed to institutions can be more effectively used to combat poverty if provided to alternative, community-based support organizations for children and families.' (p. 7)

* * * Exposing ourselves to differing perspectives

I am first going to revisit and clarify a couple of statements made in the comments section of the original posts, "The choice to adopt is a luxury choice" and "Response to comments." I'm not trying to dig up controversy nor am I looking for a fight nor am I trying to single out any particular individual. I simply want to make sure that I respond to and do not neglect or ignore issues or concerns raised by readers.

A reader wrote in response to the original post ("The choice to adopt..."), "one has to wonder how healthy it is to keep reading [Yoon's Blur]." And yet she also wrote later, "I get frustrated by the implications...that if I don’t come to the exact same conclusions that I’m stopping my ears to someone’s process."

There is a contradiction in these two statements, is there not? Again, I'm not picking on her in particular, but I think there are other AP's and the like who do this very thing. They claim that they are "open" to hearing what adult adoptees have to say, but if an adult adoptee says something that rubs an AP the wrong way or that the AP perceives a certain way, the AP pulls away with reactions like "one has to wonder how healthy it is to keep reading."

The initial statement of "one has to wonder how healthy it is to keep reading" alarmed me such that I felt it necessary to respond by saying, ""I do humbly ask that before you write me off..." I was so surprised that an AP who had been following my blog for a while would have reacted so strongly to my "process," and I felt compelled to try to clarify myself.

When an AP makes a statement like "one has to wonder how healthy it is to keep reading," the AP definitely communicates quite the opposite of the proclamation that you are not "stopping [your] ear's to someone's process."

Again, I'm not trying to be combative or argumentative, and I'm not incriminating anyone (I'm not even certain that the reader to whom I'm referring visits this blog any longer). I'm simply using this as an example to demonstrate a practice, whether subconsciously or consciously, that I have encountered among adoptive parents--the practice of claiming and even believing you're "open" to listening to differing perspectives, and yet when you do encounter perspectives that challenge your own, you ultimately pull away, whether actively or passively, from those who expose you to those differing perspectives.

I address this practice, because I believe that it is detrimental in the long run to both the AP's and their adopted children. We may ultimately have to "agree to disagree" on certain topics or issues, which is inevitable and acceptable. But to react by closing oneself off to those views with which you disagree is counterproductive to understanding the adoption experience as a whole. One day your children will grow to be adults. And then what? What will you do if your adult child comes to similar conclusions or asks similar questions as I and other adult adoptees have and do?

The adoptee life is a process. My views have changed drastically, albeit slowly, over the years as I have matured and as I continue to do the hard work of trying to synthesize all the varying facets of adoption. But I also work very hard to keep my mind and heart open to these varying facets. The list of blogs featured on my blog under "More Blogs and Resources" features a range of adoptee experiences--some that would probably be considered more "adoptive parent friendly" and others that would probably feel "less friendly."

To prevent ending up in an echo chamber and to continue to recognize the complexity of the adoption experience, I think it is crucial to make sure we each make efforts to expose ourselves to experiences and perspectives that differ from our own.

* * * The role of socioeconomic status & adoptive parents in the practice of adoption

The reader to whom I referred above also took issue with some of the statements I made in the original post, specifically the following:

“a practice in which those who live in luxury (relatively-speaking) get to take the children of those who live in poverty”

“we are so quick to take another mother's child and yet slow to help her keep her child. “

“since I live in luxury over here while you live in poverty over there, I should get to raise your child.”

To me, it's painting a subtle picture of adoptive parents as "takers" and birth parents as their victims. I acknowledge that direct abduction of children may be true in some cases. But in the vast majority, adoptive parents have taken children out of orphanages, not out of families.

I hope that folks realize that I'm not accusing adoptive parents of stealing children nor am I creating a narrative in which AP's are the evil villain and birth mothers are the clueless victim. (If you have not read the original post in its entirety, I encourage you to do so for the full context of the above statements.)

I would also hope, however, that folks would be willing to recognize that although many AP's have adopted children out of orphanages or foster care and have not directly removed children from their original families, there is still a role that AP's have played in the complex social system that supports the current practice of [international] adoption. I'm simply hoping and asking that AP's be willing to acknowledge this role that they have played, not as a guilt trip or a confession to wrong, but simply as a fact. Being able to acknowledge this fact is significant, because in order to do so it requires that one must also acknowledge the whole of the social and economic factors and circumstances that surround the current practices of IA.

But ultimately, with an issue as complex as adoption, I think it is often the case that some of us simply have to "agree to disagree," particularly because contrary to what some adoptive parents have communicated over time, I do think socioeconomic status plays a crucial role in the how & why of the adoption process (specifically that it is the rich who are adopting, or "taking," from the poor, that is, in the majority of IA cases). I do believe that many of the birth mothers have been victimized by the larger social and cultural structure and system, whether directly or indirectly, in these situations, along with their children.

I also believe that adoptive parents do play a role in the adoption industry, just as much as social workers & otherwise (As I've stated before, I am not incriminating particular individuals, but rather trying to provoke thought about each of our roles in the adoption system).

Again, the above reader's interpretation of my viewpoint is her own, and I can see how she might misinterpret what I mean. But those who know me personally and have followed my blog from its inception, know that I am not anti-adoption or anti-adoptive parents. Furthermore, when I refer to the "rich taking from the poor," I am not pushing some kind of conspiracy theory, folks. The rich taking from the poor has been going on for ages. This idea just gets touchy when we're no longer talking about simple material resources but when we're suddenly talking about human life (although it's an illusion to think that the two are mutually exclusive).

Again, I'm not implying that somehow we, the rich, are abducting children from the poor, or that those who adopt are evil villains. Rather, I am addressing a complex social system that in very practical and very real ways supports and promotes international adoption more so than it does family preservation. This isn't a subversive attempt to undermine adoptive parents or adoption, but instead it is a clear and honest acknowledgment of the facts. Just do a search for adoption agencies versus organizations that support unwed mothers and family preservation, and the results alone indicate the imbalance of resources and power. (Click here for some telling statistics of what $20,000 - an average estimate of fees & cost for an international adoption - can do toward family preservation...)

As I stated in the previous post, "A reader asks me: Should we adopt?": The truth is that where the money goes is where the people go, and where the people go is where the money goes. Wherever the funds are being funneled is where real, practical support will burgeon. So, if the bulk of the money is going to international adoption, well, that's where the practical support is going to remain. If the people are pouring their resources into international adoption, well, then, the cycle will keep on turning.

It's simply that I think these are truths that are obvious, and quite honestly it puzzles me when AP's resist these truths so ardently: the role of socioeconomic status and the part that AP's play in the adoption system. As Amanda (The Declassified Adoptee) stated, "We see what type of children are demanded and prefered by those looking to adopt, simply by looking at the adoption rates, practices, laws, and costs in all realms of adoption" & "The current state of adoption is a huge reaction to preventable problems. Do I want children to languish in orphanages? No. I want to prevent the need for them to be placed in orphanages in the first place."

Also as quoted by Amanda, "Women in developing nations who place children for adoption abroad usually do so because they are disadvantaged by terrible poverty and/or by the stigma of illegitimacy." --Fisher, A. (2003). Still not quite as good as having your own? Toward a sociology of adoption. Annual Review of Sociology

Why is it so hard to acknowledge that adoptive parents are ultimately, the "takers," the benefactors in the case of adoption? They're certainly not the ones "giving away" in this situation. If you want to get technical, here are some general definitions of the word "take": lay hold of (something) with one's hands; reach for and hold; remove (someone or something) from a particular place; gain or acquire (possession or ownership of something); accept or receive (someone or something)...

Again, according to these definitions, is it not accurate to acknowledge that AP's are the "takers." I don't mean it in a negative, scandalous way, but simply at face value.

Is it so "controversial" because it perhaps puts a crack in the veneer that adoptive parents are the veritable saints because they have committed the ultimate act of charity? Why is it so hard to admit that adoptive parents have benefited from the compromised and disadvantaged situation of another mother? Have not adoptive parents received while another has lost? Why is this so offensive?

Now, for clarity's sake, again, I'm not saying that all AP's and social workers are therefore malicious, evil people who directly and knowingly "steal" children away from their biological families. C'mon, now, I'd have to be equally ignorant to generalize such a claim. (Again, I've said many, many times how much I respect & admire my own parents, while I'm the first to say that the social worker who has helped me over the past decade is a near saint!)

I'm not saying that AP's are wrong for having adopted. I am saying, though, that they are not exactly doing right when they choose to ignore the issues that I'm discussing here in this post and in previous posts. AP's need to be willing to burst their nice, neat adoption bubble for the sake of the children at the mercy of current adoption practices.

Look, I realize that good people with good intentions can work within a broken system--it happens every day. Just as Amanda acknowledged, "Some APs have very good intentions and ethical hearts; I am friends with several of them." But that does not mean they have not played a part, whether ignorantly or knowingly, in perpetuating that which is broken in the adoption system.

I did use some strong, albeit respectful, language in the original post, but I did so to provoke us to think about the very real role we ALL play, and to provoke thought about the assumptions made in American culture (every culture has flaws), particularly when it comes to adoption. ("I don't think the average person realizes how much we can tend to favor our American way of life to the point where we are unable to empathize with another group of people as to how important their way of life and belief systems are to them." The US & the Well Being of Children, at Declassified Adoptee)

Now, as I have tried to make clear previously, I am not saying that I therefore would have preferred to grow up in an orphanage or that we should just let the children currently in orphanages remain there. What I am saying is this: We can address one without letting go of the other. In other words, we can promote social and cultural change in the countries adopting out to decrease the number of children that end up in orphanages in the first place, while we continue to recognize that there are currently children in orphanages who need homes.

With that said, I believe socioeconomic status is an obvious contributing factor that results in children being relinquished for adoption and landing in orphanages, while I also believe that we all play a role. I think it is chosen ignorance--choosing to ignore the facts--to claim that socioeconomic status plays no role whatsoever in international adoption (and it's more complicated that doling out birth control to every woman). I also think it's chosen ignorance to deny the very obvious fact that it is the rich adopting the children of the poor--to say that the demand from couples in wealthy, Western countries has no effect or bearing on current adoption practices is to bury one's head in the sand, to stop one's ears to the truth.

Again, for the record, I know it is complicated. Social culture and economic status are not issues easily remedied--there are complex reasons as to why certain people end up in certain socioeconomic positions. Sometimes, it's personal choices. Sometimes, it's a neglectful, corrupt government. Sometimes, it's a long history of oppression. But most of the time, it's a combination of several factors.

[To make it clear, the term "socioeconomic status" indicates the inclusion of both social and economic factors in an individual's perceived status. For example, a drug dealer may have a high economic status, yet his or her occupation results in a compromised social status--hence overall socioeconomic status is influenced by both social and economic characteristics as determined within a particular culture.]

* * * A helpful analogy: Diamonds & clothing

I think a helpful, although not perfect, analogy can be found in the diamond or clothing industry. If I buy a diamond bracelet I am not directly responsible for the unethical and inhumane practices that were employed to obtain the diamonds.

If I buy clothing from a store that uses child labor and/or sweat shops to manufacture that clothing, again, I am not the one who is directly enslaving the children or workers in those sweat shops.

And I can even tell myself, well, at least these shops are providing money for families that otherwise might starve to death. But such rationalizations do not nullify the fact that the practices employed to make the clothing involve unethical and inhumane working conditions. Even though the meager wages offered may keep a family from starving, I don't think any of us would accept working under such conditions! Just because someone is poor does not justify suboptimal and substandard conditions with the pretense that at least they're not starving to death--that is in fact, taking advantage of their desperation.

In both scenarios, I may not be directly responsible for the circumstances in which the diamonds or clothing were obtained or manufactured, but can I honestly say that my choice to purchase those items plays NO ROLE whatsoever in perpetuating those practices?

If I am to be honest with myself, I must recognize my role--although not direct-- that I have contributed to creating a demand for those specific products. I as one person may not be able to demolish such circumstances or practices alone, but I can still recognize my part and make a small difference by trying to educate others--just think, if everyone were willing to speak out or take a stand, change truly would happen. That's what the Civil Rights Movement was about--individuals took a stand together.

Now of course, it's always complicated. Different folks may choose different roles. Some may choose to buy diamonds but demand to see a "Kimberley report" every time to establish that the diamonds were obtained ethically & humanely. Of course, there are times that the report may be falsified & folks have to again realize their role & the repercussions involved.

Others may choose to never purchase clothes again from that particular store or may choose never to buy diamonds again. Some may start up their own organizations to promote reform and support. Or they may decide to work within existing organizations with the intention of fighting for changes to the current practices to abolish the inhumane & unethical practices.

* * * The assumptions: It's only poor, uneducated teens, and besides, what can I do anyway?

Furthermore, the assumption that it is only poor, uneducated adolescents who end up in situations of being unwed and pregnant is a gross misassumption. My own biological mother was in her early twenties when she became pregnant with me. Unforeseen circumstances rendered my biological father unable to provide for her and for me. Because of Korean social culture, she could not rely on her family nor could she obtain employment or support otherwise.

Also, my husband and I visited a home for unwed pregnant women during our first trip to Korea. There we met a woman, whom I'll call J. She was 30 years old--an intelligent and fully capable adult. In fact before becoming pregnant she had a full-time job and lived on her own. But in Korea, if you become pregnant and are not married, the persecution and ostracism either lead to you being fired or become so unbearable that you are forced out. Unlike in the States, common practice is that employers will not employ unwed pregnant women or single mothers, and often, even when seeking a job, personal information can be demanded, including reference letters from family members specifically, while employers can and often do ask, "Who is the father?"

In the situations of unwed mothers, family has often cast them out, while the father most often has fled and shirked responsibility. And be careful before assuming that these women took part in a one night stand. (Even if that were the case, ostracizing and shutting them out is still not justified--however, quite often a one night stand is not the case.) J, to whom I referred earlier had been in a long-term relationship with her boyfriend. He left her after she became pregnant.

I've also read autobiographical accounts of Korean women being turned away from clinics and hospitals while they were in the midst of labor! If this is not an indication of the social injustice and obstacles set against unwed pregnant women/single mothers and their children, then I don't know what is!

To ignore the role that social culture plays in the ability of an unwed pregnant woman or a single mom to provide for her child is questionable at the least and cruel at most. And even in the cases in which a young, poor, uneducated teen finds herself pregnant and abandoned by the father, this does not somehow mean she deserves to have her child taken away from her or that she deserves to have to give up her child for someone else to raise.

Who are we to assign such judgment to justify ourselves? And for those in particular claiming a Christian faith, it may help to recall John 8 in which the Pharisees dragged out a woman caught in adultery proclaiming she must be stoned, to which Jesus famously replied, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

And for those who think it's impossible to make a difference? If folks had just shrugged their shoulders and said, "Well, what can I, just one person, do?" when segregation and oppression of the African-American community dominated the social culture of America, or apartheid ruled South Africa, nothing would have ever changed.

You may not be able to move to Korea, as some adult Korean adoptees have chosen to do, to work for social change through the legislature and local community. You may not be able to start up an organization that supports unwed mothers who want to raise their children. You may not be in a place in life that allows you to work within organizations that actively advocate for social and cultural transformation and infrastructure.

But you know what you can do? You can be willing to educate yourself with the humility to acknowledge and embrace the complexities, no matter how unsettling or uncomfortable it makes you, of a system that is flawed and in need of reform. Furthermore, you can also work to educate others, whether in small or large ways.

I promise you, it makes a difference, because ultimately, one by one leads to many. And it can either be the many stacked and overcrowded in an orphanage, or it can be the many who finally get the chance to remain in the arms of the mother who gave them birth and never wanted to say good-bye in the first place.