Abstract
Adoption is an old story with a new twist: international adoptions are reshaping American families and cultural landscape. In the long view, the authors believe international adoption is an immigration story that must be contextualized within research not only on individual adoptees, but within the waves of immigration that have altered American history.
Keywords
While adoption may be as old as humanity itself, legal adoptions across national borders and racial lines are a relatively recent development in the United States. The origins of international (originally known as inter-country) adoption can be traced back to the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 and the Refugee Relief Act of 1953, which enabled white American couples to adopt roughly 7,000 children, mostly war orphans from Korea, Japan, and China. The major expansion of international adoption programs in the following decades has gone well beyond these modest beginnings, to the point where international adoption has become a regular part of America’s social and cultural landscape and a popular way to start a family.
Nearly one out of every five children adopted in the U.S. today is an international adoptee. Among children adopted under the age of two, that figure doubles to nearly two out of every five. Adoption agencies, voluntary organizations, and self-help groups facilitate adoptions by providing a wealth of information on a scale that was unimaginable before the Internet. In the meantime, federal policies promote international adoption through tax credits, and current immigration law grants automatic citizenship to all children adopted by American citizens. The stories of these adoptions are transmitted and celebrated widely in the media, and these days, seemingly everyone is linked to someone whose life has been touched by international adoption.
The rising popularity of international adoption has also been noticed (and, arguably, manipulated) by big business. For instance, a 2001 IKEA catalog cover featured an evocative homage to modern domesticity: an adorable, pig-tailed Asian girl and her white mother were pictured standing in a bright and cheery kitchen (VÄRDE counter unit nicely featured). To many, it came as little surprise that the world’s largest furniture retailer, with its reputation as a leader in socially progressive practices, would choose to highlight an international transracial adoptive family. What was surprising was the steady stream of similar commercials that followed from other, arguably more staid, corporations such as Morgan Stanley, John Hancock Insurance and Financial Services, Eastman Kodak Company, JCPenney, and heartland favorite Walmart. With its embrace by the corporate mainstream, it would appear that international adoption has become a fresh symbol for modern race and global relations, reflecting a world where love has no bounds.
Of course, actual international adoption belies such uncritical generalization. In fact, it is a social practice that is complicated and complex in both racial and global terms, a terrain that brings out some of the contradictory positive and problematic aspects of contemporary American race relations, and a practice with ramifications reaching well beyond American borders. In this article we examine international adoption from various perspectives, including those that relate to immigration, cultural diversity, color blindness, and race relations more broadly. In order to bring race front and center, we focus on international adoptions originating in Asia, Latin America, and Africa.
Recent Trends
The adoption of foreign-born children by Americans was already underway in the 1950s-80s, expanded significantly in the 1990s, and continued to increase after the turn of the century (as seen in the graph). Since then, the numbers have declined, to 17,483 in 2008 and 12,753 in 2009.
Throughout international adoption’s history, adoptions of foreign-born Asian children by white Americans far outnumbered any other combination. And while Korea currently ranks third among countries of origin, for decades it was the main source for international adoption. Placements stretch back to 1955 when Henry and Bertha Holt, a white evangelical couple, first adopted eight Korean children and brought them home to Oregon. Korea remained the main source for adopting children from Asia for about 40 years, corresponding to a period in which South Korea transformed itself from a poor to a highly developed country with one of the world’s lowest fertility rates. By 2010, approximately 165,000 children had been adopted worldwide from Korea.
Laundry hangs outside the Sanyu Babies Home for orphaned children in Kampala, Uganda. Uganda has not yet become a prominent sending country for U.S. adoptions, but, like so many places, it is home to many orphaned children.
Starting in the early 1990s, though, China became the most important Asian “sending country.” China sent approximately 77,500 children to the U.S. between 1992 and 2010, the vast majority of whom were girls. In contrast, South Korea sent approximately 12,000 children, Vietnam sent about 9,000 children, and India sent about 6,350 worldwide during the same period. Chinese adoptions in the U.S. peaked in 2005, with 7,906 adoptions in one year, but have since been on the decline with just 3,001 adoptions in 2009 and 3,401 in 2010.
Latin America has also been a popular location for adoptive parents. In 1975, Columbia was second only to Korea as a source for international adoption, and in the 1980s six of the top ten sending countries were in Latin America. But during the 1990s, adoption programs throughout Latin America waned (excepting Columbia which held steady and Guatemala which increased). One notable outlier is Haiti, as its foreign adoptions increased following the devastating earthquake in January 2010.
Before the 21st century, Africa was not an important source for international adoptions. Only 137 African children were adopted by U.S. citizens between 1979 and 1987. This makes the recent surge in adoptions from Africa all the more remarkable—Ethiopia alone sent 4,552 children worldwide in 2009, including 2,277 to the U.S. Publicity over the adoption of an Ethiopian child by film stars Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt certainly increased awareness of opportunities for adoption from Ethiopia, but it is probably the decline in opportunities for adoption from Asia and Latin America that has so spurred the increase in foreign adoptions from Ethiopia in the past several years.
International Adoptees as Immigrants
It can’t be forgotten that international adoption is an immigration story. Children adopted internationally continue in a tradition of immigration to America, while also comprising a new immigrant segment. These children come to the U.S. in very different circumstances than many other immigrants; their stories often begin with abandonment and life in an orphanage. In contrast to other first generation immigrants, their material lives are dramatically improved as soon as they arrive in America–they mostly settle into privileged homes and a standard of living that other immigrants have to struggle for years or generations to achieve (if at all).
That their families are highly educated and influential in American society, though, is no guarantee that children adopted internationally will be accepted as real Americans. For example, Korean and Chinese adoptees must cope with the conditional acceptance of Asian Americans embodied by the dual attitude toward them as both perpetual foreigners and “honorary whites.” Regardless of generation or degree of acculturation, individuals with Asian features are often presumed to have a closer affinity with Asia than America, and to be “foreigners” rather than organic members of the American mainstream.
Top 10 countries sending children, 2003-2009
Source: Peter Selman, Newcastle University
International adoptees are a very special type of immigrant not just because they are so often raised in upper-middle-class families with status and influence, but also because their upbringing in otherwise white families may separate them, socially and psychologically, from other immigrants. In contrast to many other immigrants, past and present, they are unlikely to live in neighborhoods reflecting their ethnicity. Most international adoptees live in white neighborhoods, have white doctors and dentists, and go to schools where their teachers are overwhelmingly white as are their classmates. In terms of English fluency and level of acculturation in American society, they are more similar to second (and sometimes third) generation immigrants. Yet, a number of researchers have noted a lack of contact between international adoptees and the children of recent immigrants from the same countries of origin—even the second and third generation immigrants who would seem to have even more in common with the adoptees.
Cultural Diversity
The impact of international adoption on promoting cultural diversity in American society is difficult to quantify, but easy to illustrate. Examples range from the teaching of Chinese in public and private schools, to Asian adoptee websites and newsletters, heritage camps, motherland tours, and consumer items (including, for example, “culturally appropriate” books and dolls). Underlying these cultural symbols is an emerging belief among many (but certainly not all) adoptive parents in bi-cultural socialization.
Bi-cultural socialization is based on the idea that building cultural bridges early in a child’s life will be helpful in forging ethnic pride. It requires the creation of opportunities for adopted children to learn about everyday facets of their birth culture, from its holidays and customs to its music and arts, cooking and food, and spoken and written languages. As challenging as bi-cultural socialization is for immigrant families who face pressures to assimilate, it requires extraordinary efforts for adoptive parents who must socially construct a birth culture for their children from whole cloth. Few adoptive parents encourage their children to identify totally with their birth culture. Most strive for a balance with American culture. Whatever the point of emphasis, bi-cultural socialization implies some degree of competence in both cultures sufficient to allow adoptees to feel at ease in either one. Ethnic exploration can also produce other benefits. A recent survey of early adolescent Chinese adoptees found that ethnic exploration was associated with higher self-esteem, more positive attitudes about being adopted, and better relationships with adoptive parents.
Top 10 countries receiving children, 2003-2009
Source: Peter Selman, Newcastle University
It can’t be forgotten that international adoption is an immigration story.
It is important not to overstate the evidence for bi-cultural socialization. Most of the research on it derives from the experiences of Asian adoptees; bi-cultural socialization is less apparent in adoptions from Latin America, past and present. Until recently, adoptions from Africa were too few in number to evaluate in terms of how parents were approaching multiculturalism and whether they were linking up with Americans who have adopted African American children born in the U.S. Even for Asian adoptees, the cultural diversity programming used in bi-cultural socialization is often very superficial and at times stereotypic.
Cross-Race Relationships
International adoptions, by their nature, create cross-race relationships within the most fundamental social unit in any society—the family—and each newly created family sets into motion a larger web of cross-race relationships. Through their associations with children adopted internationally, many white Americans are having their first meaningful relationships with persons born in Asia, Latin America, and Africa. Aunts, uncles, grandparents, other extended family members, and friends are becoming attached to these children and sometimes joining in celebrations of their birth cultures. In addition, neighbors, co-workers, teachers, childcare providers, and others who might not ordinarily come into contact with recent immigrants are getting first-hand experience with foreign-born persons of color.
International adoptions to the United States
Source: Peter Selman, Newcastle University
Whether race is truly salient in these relationships is another matter. Many adoptive parents choose to emphasize the cross-national rather than the cross-racial character of the adoptions. Inside the home, adoptees are sometimes perceived and treated by loved ones as if they are members of the majority culture (that is, as if they are racially white and ethnically European). Outside the home, they sometimes evoke similar responses. “Color blind” responses from neighbors, teachers, and others may also be an extension of growing up in white families with the considerable advantages of education, class, and social position. While this “honorary whiteness” is a more general experience for light-skinned ethnic minorities, it is probably amplified for international adoptees. Color-blind treatment, though, actually highlights their status as non-white and remains a salient feature informing their lives.
Adoptions from China to the United States
Source: Peter Selman, Newcastle University
A public library displays books about adoption, including the children’s book Just Add One Chinese Sister: An Adoption Story.
As adoptees grow up and become more independent of their families, they experience first-hand what it’s like to be viewed and treated as minority group members. For some, there are warning signs even in early adolescence when they first encounter racial prejudice and discrimination. By early adulthood, many more will experience racial stereotyping, exclusion, and teasing similar to other minority group members. Racialization tends to occur, albeit in different forms, regardless of ethnic identification or interest in cultural exploration.
A troubling issue involves racial hierarchies that affect the preferences and behavior of adoptees. In one study, who some Korean adoptees considered to be a suitable romantic partner was found to be deeply shaped by a racial hierarchy according highest preference to whites, lowest to blacks, and situating others in between. Another troubling issue concerns the hierarchies of preference that inform which children parents are willing to adopt in the first place. Despite recent high-profile adoptions by pop culture luminaries like Madonna, adoptees from Africa simply aren’t viewed in the same light as light-skinned Asians or Latinos.
Global Relations
Over time, we’re sure to see increasing dialogue with Asia, Latin America, and Africa, through which the U.S. will learn from other countries and come to appreciate what they have to offer in more than just economic terms. Families that were created through international adoption can be part of this international dialogue for improving understanding and building goodwill globally.
On the other hand, these same families are implicated, however indirectly, in global relationships that are marked by inequality and disadvantage. Most international adoptions involve the transfer of children from disadvantaged circumstances in the third world (or third world segments of emerging economic powers) to more advantaged ones. There are reliable reports of profiteering and of birth mothers surrendering their children involuntarily. Financial incentives for international adoptions may even retard the development of child welfare services and discourage domestic adoptions. International adoptions also tend to remove healthy children from sending countries, leaving behind many older and disabled orphans for long-term institutional care.
Adoptions from China to the United States
Source: Peter Selman, Newcastle University
Interestingly, there are recent indications that the U.S. has also become a sending country. In a 2004 article, the Christian Science Monitor estimated that every year as many as several hundred children (most were black or bi-racial) born in the U.S. were being adopted abroad. The receiving countries included Canada, France, Germany, England, The Netherlands, and Belgium. Anecdotal evidence suggests that African American birth mothers hoped that their children would encounter less racism abroad.
International adoption provides an important window for understanding American attitudes toward race and kinship. Looking through this window, one can see reason for both optimism and doubt. To be sure, the mainstreaming of international adoption signals an important shift in how white Americans conceive of family and who they are willing to embrace as family members. More and more, white Americans do not think twice about adopting internationally—they see the practice as an uncontroversial means to creating a family. However, the juxtaposition of desirable Asian and Latino children and less desirable African children, as well as the complex reasons that lead many prospective adoptive parents to forego domestic adoptions, raise disturbing issues about racial hierarchies in America. So, while international adoption may be a genuine step toward interracial acceptance, in its preference for light-skinned children of color, this widespread way of forming families also accommodates prevailing racial attitudes.
Americans who have adopted children from other societies have opened an important chapter of the 21st century, one that is intensely personal at the same time that it carries social and political ramifications. In many ways international adoption is a success story uniting tens of thousands of children and families and providing living examples about what it means to embrace diversity. Yet, international adoption also exposes deep fault lines that divide whites from blacks, rich from poor, and west from east.