Visionaries:
Frankly, the "adopt-a" issue is not a real hot button one for me, nor (obviously) for all the people connected with adoption on this list. But it is for many. And since it is such a simple issue to deal with, I think, "why not?" To address those of you who have asked:
*why not just explain the difference to children?
*why isn't anyone else concerned with this?
*what else can we do?
The following article was reprinted with permission. Pat Johnston is the author of several books and the founder of Perspectives Press, a publishing company specializing in adoption and infertility issues. At the end of the article Pat lists some of the institutions that have changed their "adopt-a" programs, including the Minnesota Zoo and National Wildlife Federation.
================================================================
PERSPECTIVES PRESS' FACT SHEETS
P.O. Box 90318, Indianapolis, IN 46290 USA * (317)872-3055 * ppress@iquest.net
ADOPT-A CONFUSION
How Using Adoption to Catch Attention, Touch Heartstrings and Raise Big Bucks Exploits Children Who Were Adopted and Those Waiting for Permanency
by Pat Johnston
People who are involved with adoption issues on a daily basis are becoming increasingly concerned about the negative impact of programs taking an "ADOPT-A-" theme which have proliferated since the Cabbage Patch doll craze of the early 1980's. People are urged to adopt zoo animals, highways, potholes, whales, manatees, patches of rain forest, city parks, light bulbs in city holiday programs, used video tapes, and even library books. These programs range from the extremely worthy to the absolutely silly: from Humane Society animal placement programs to the franchised Adopt-A-Rubber-Duck river races sponsored by radio or TV stations to benefit various local charities.
The problem lies in the misuse of the word adoption. Granted, the words
adopt/adoption have more than one meaning. The primary definition describes the
legal process of transferring parental rights from birthparents to adoptive
parents; the second and third definitions "To take and follow by
assent" and "To take up and use as one's own," describe
non-family-related meanings, such as the processes by which schools adopt
textbooks, campaigns adopt themes, etc. The adopt-a projects, with their
gimmicky "adoption certificates" and "adoptive parent"
labels, trade on the primary definition of adoption, which relates to family
planning and family building, creating a striking mental image which packs a
marketing wallop. Every marketing person we've ever spoken to about our concern
about this admits that it is the immediately recognizable image of sheltering an
otherwise unwanted "orphan" that makes such a theme attractive and
successful.
Those of us who are parents by adoption and adoption
activists believe that, in turning upon a kind of "save the rejects"
image, such programs trivialize a serious topic. Though these programs may seem
innocuous to abstract thinking adults, they confuse and alarm children and and
further myths and misconceptions about this family planning method to yet
another generation of children.
Those who are skeptical about the very
existence of adopt-a confusion argue that it is up to adoptive parents to work
with our kids to explain the realities of adoption. The reply is that yes, of
course, as adoptive parents we work with our children (and with the children of
friends and relatives) to help them sort through the differences between
adoption of people and adoption of animals or adoption promotions. But because
children are not abstract thinkers, this is not an easy task. Research by David
Brodzinsky at Rutgers University has shown that children who were adopted are
really no quicker to understand the complex social issues which underlie
adoption than are their non-adopted peers, though children who were adopted do
learn to parrot the terminology much earlier. Adoption is confusing enough an
issue for young children without adding to the confusion through commercial
projects. We wonder why we adoptive parents should have to spend all this time
explaining, when, by just sensitizing good people responsible for developing
marketing programs we could instead eliminate the confusion
entirely!
Perhaps you have not experienced adopt-a confusion in your own
family (or at least you may not be aware that such a confusion is at work,) but
such misconceptions are widespread among 3 to 12 year olds, nearly all of whom
are intellectually too undeveloped to reason logically. Three examples of
adopt-a confusion among children under 10 typify those occurring regularly in
cities across the country...
A five year old adoptee was
"given" a giraffe by her grandparents through their much-loved zoo's
Adopt-An-Animal program. Over the course of several months the child was very
upset to learn that not only could she not take "her" animal home or
care for it directly, but she also could not consider it "hers" after
the year had passed, when a different animal was substituted for "her"
giraffe in the next year's campaign. In another city, another child was
distressed when he learned that an acquaintance had been assigned the same
specific animal as had he! A third child was told by a non-adopted friend who
had participated in such a program that if his parents wanted to, they could
trade him for a "better" child next year, as his family had in
"upgrading" their zoo adoption. Children waiting in foster care for
permanency have been teased by peers with taunts such as, "We adopted a
giraffe. Nobody wants you!"
A child who was eight at the time of the first round of Cabbage-Patch-mania,
watched an evening news feature story on the black market developing in these
ugly little creatures who spring from the dirt accompanied by adoption papers
and turned to ask, "Mommy, is that the way adoption really works? Do they
give babies to the people with the most money?" Similarly, school-aged
children who look at the lists offered in programs such as that of most zoos',
which offer different "prices" for different varieties of "wild
children" are often led to ask their parents how much they themselves cost
and whether a brother or sister was more or less expensive and why! No amount of
explanation about how adoption fees work and how they are disbursed can be
absorbed by a non-reasoning small child.
We've heard from several
families who have "adopted" an animal from Humane Societies. In
contrast to other "adoption" projects, on the surface these seem
"like" human adoption, in that there actually is an investigation and
approval process, the animal is the family's to take home and nurture, and thus
participation in the program seems a good "lesson" for children in
what adoption is about. Despite good intentions, these programs, too, can be
confusing. In several cases problems have started when animals brought home
turned out to be serious problems-- biting, failing obedience training, etc.--
and the family have come to the realization that they would have to find the
animal another home or return him to the Society. Soon after, their children
began to experience nightmares or other acting out behavior. Upon investigation
it has been discovered that these kids were afraid that if they were
"bad" they, too, would be "returned."
Each of these
children has become very confused and concerned about his own situation. In each
case parents had had no idea before this experience that they were participating
in a program which would lead to such stress for their kids or others' children.
That's because the adults involved in the projects-- program administrators,
parents, etc.-- could think abstractly and thus were able to see clearly the
difference between adoption of people and sponsorships sold as adoption. These
adults simply forgot that children are incapable of following a line of
reasoning this complex to a clear conclusion and that they take everything very
personally.
The way to prevent these confusions is really quite simple.
Adoption is a process by which families are planned and formed. To trivialize it
in a commercial way insults the birthparents, adoptive parents, and adoptees who
have been personally touched by this process. We no longer find it acceptable to
trivialize other minority groups in this society. The proliferation of
adopt-a-promotions has become about as humorous to many of those personally
touched by adoption as are shuffle-footed picaninny humor or Pollack jokes to
the minority groups they deride. For the sake of children waiting for adoption
and those who have already found their permanent families in adoption, we adults
must insist that adoption be treated in a dignified manner.
Credit where credit is due... Change is in the wind! As of May, 1999, we are aware that the following have responded to concerns raised world-wide by members of the adoption community and have renamed their adopt-a fundraising programs out of respect for adoption-expanded families: Indianapolis Zoo, Carmel-Clay (Indiana) Public Library, Milwaukee Zoo, National Wildlife Federation's Ranger Rick Magazine, LaPine National Forest in Oregon, Gleaners Food Bank of Central Indiana, Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Nassau Cty NY, Stoneybrook Farm (IL), Minnesota Zoo, The Toy library of Chester and Area Family Resource Centre, in Chester, Nova Scotia, Stoneyfield Yogurt of Londonderry NH., Prairie Park of Peoria IL. Also responding sensitively to the need to reconsider program names: New England Aquarium, Association of Booksellers for Children, Central Mass Regional Library System. Help us add to this list!
