In the “Shopping for Children”
article by Kim Park Nelson I was intrigued by Park’s use of economic terms such
as commodity and supply and demand to describe adoption practices. Throughout the readings this semester, it has
been fairly apparent that there are different groups of power and privilege,
but she was the first to really emphasize the material aspect of adoption. Her idea of the “adoption marketplace” (90)
really puts a negative spin on the entire process by reducing children to a
mere “spice” to add to a family rather than a precious child to love and care
for. One thing that I found rather
implausible is Park’s idea that white families are driven to adopt because they
believe “they are enriched through their consumption of the ‘exotic’”
(93). She then goes on to metaphorically
describe the adoptees as “spices”, as mentioned earlier, which will help the
family become more cultured. Although
families probably greatly value the cultural experience a transracially adopted
child will provide, I think it is wrong to say this is a main motivating
factor. I think it is more plausible that
these families choose international adoption to avoid the problems associated
with domestic adoption.
After
reading the Park article, what struck me most about the Pertman reading was
simply the emphasis on positivity. The adoptive
parents are not seen as exploiters in a marketplace but rather people
exercising “compassion and altruism” (69).
I expected his article would be more upbeat, but I think he may lean
towards the extreme in some of his interpretations. For example, in the opening he discusses how
Americans, “invariably succeed in weaving their facial structures, their skin
tones, and their heritages into our cultural tapestry” (64). He is addressing immigrants as the “they” and
strongly implies that the United States has had a long tradition of integrating
different cultures rather than trying to eliminate them. Overall, I think that American culture is less
accepting of immigration than Pertman illustrates. There are many cultures that are represented
in the society and the media, but they are not all welcomingly received. The surprising results of the black doll
study expose the harsh reality of the racism still prevalent in our society.
Reanna N.
After reading your blogpost I couldn't help but think about how Nelson described adoption practices. With words such as "adoption marketplace" and "spice" she really puts a bad taste in the reader's mouth. It was my first time too viewing adoption in a material aspect and in a way that the adoptive parents just wanted to become more cultured. This goes against my whole view on Adoption being a positive process. Even though families may think they are being "enriched" it’s hard to think that this is the main reason for adoption. I agree with your point that families adopt internationally to avoid the problems with domestic adoption. Another reason I think and to add to your argument is the fact that adoptive parents are afraid of birthparents resurfacing in the child's life. This can be a scary aspect of domestic adoption for some parents and adopting internationally can eliminate that fear. Overall, I disagree with Nelson's view on why people adopt internationally and it’s even harder to agree with her when she has NO evidence to back her statements.
ReplyDeleteIn your second part of your blogpost you touched on how Pertman is very "positive" in his writing. I think that Pertman always has an optimistic view on adoption and thinks that things are changing for the better. It always makes me think that things are changing for the better but I think its ok to touch on the negative aspects of adoption too. In addition, by addressing the negative side, it can help to point out what needs to change in order to have a positive view on adoption.
Great job on your post, enjoyable read!
Jordan Radel
Graded Reply #4