Adoption
History - Interview with Barbara Melosh
By Allison
Martin
 Barbara
Melosh, the author of Strangers and Kin:
The American Way of Adoption, reveals a surprising fact: Even as adoptions
grow in acceptance, they are not as numerous as they once were.
How has our understanding of adoption changed over the last century?
In what respects do we raise our families differently today from the way
we did 50 years ago? In her eye-opening new book, Strangers and Kin: The
American Way of Adoption, Barbara Melosh tackles questions like these
as she traces the history of adoption in this country.
Melosh is both an historian and an adoptive mother. Her book is based
on the detailed study of hundreds of adoption case records, as well as
on volumes of adoption studies and historical data. Using a multitude
of real-life examples, Melosh brings to light the underlying (and sometimes
unspoken) attitudes of different eras—and how they have influenced
widely held beliefs about what makes a family.
Adoption is more common and better accepted in the United States than
in any other industrialized nation. At the same time, Melosh argues, there
remains a lingering sense that “no social relationship can match
the natural kinship of blood.” And while adoption is more visible
today than ever before—due in part to the proliferation of interracial
families and the trend toward greater openness—Melosh points out
that the number of adoptions in this country actually peaked in 1970 and
has never come close since.
Why and how has this happened? Strangers and Kin revisits the social
movements and historical currents that brought us to where we are today.
The author talked to Adoptive Families recently about her book and how
she’s come to see the American way of adoption as inextricably intertwined
with our nation’s rich history and culture.
AF: Could you give us a brief synopsis of the history of adoption you
provide in Strangers and Kin?
BM: In the early decades of the twentieth century, adoption was rather
unusual. Although it had been a legal institution for some time, it was
not a common way to form a family.
But in the 1920s and 1930s there was an increase in the number of adults
inquiring about children unattached to families so that they could form
families of their own. At the same time, social workers were emerging
as a professional group—a group reluctant, at first, regarding adoption.
They were actively searching for more “homelike” alternatives
to institutional care for children. But they didn’t imagine that
parents would be able to make children not born to them truly their own.
During this period, adoption gradually became more acceptable to social
workers. They also developed professional standards that gave them more
confidence about placing children in adoptive homes.
After World War II, adoption really took off. Not only was it an established
practice by this time, but there also happened to be a great increase
in the number of pregnancies out of wedlock in a new group—white
middle-class women. In this time of considerable economic mobility, respectability
took on a new significance. Adoption was seen as a fresh start for everyone
involved—the young woman who could erase her past by placing her
baby for adoption, the child who could join a normative family rather
than be raised by a single parent, and the adoptive parents who could
join the baby boom that was otherwise closed to them because of infertility.
Adoption flourished in the 1950s and 1960s, as measured both by number
and by the enthusiastic support of a broad white middle class.
The 1960s and 1970s brought dramatic changes to society as a whole, and
adoption was no exception. In 1970 there were more adoptions than there
ever had been (around 89,000 adoptions by non-relatives). However, by
1975 the numbers had dropped sharply (to 48,000). Since then, the numbers
have gone up and down a little, but have never reached the peak of 1970.
AF: What do you think has caused adoption to decline in numbers?
BM: The first reason people think of is abortion. I don’t think it
is that simple. The number of births out of wedlock actually continued
to rise sharply in the 1970s and 1980s, after the Roe v. Wade Supreme
Court decision. But now there was less stigma attached to the single-parent
home.
Welfare workers and the welfare system as a whole came under fire in
the late 1960s and 1970s, too. What was once thought of as benign social
engineering came to be seen as social control.
Finally, we have to consider the increase in legal support for the rights
of unmarried fathers. In the past, they didn’t have to grant consent
and generally had no say in what happened to children born out of wedlock.
But in the early 1970s, consent became an issue. Then came highly visible
challenges to adoption, like the Baby Jessica case (1993). Even though
such cases are, in fact, very rare, many people believe there have been
more of them recently. Sensational news stories generate a lot of alarm.
AF: The percentage of agency adoptions in the U.S. has also declined.
Why?
BM: During the peak period of adoption, in the 1950s and 1960s, most adoptions
were conducted through agencies. Agencies acted as the intermediary—and
insured confidentiality for both the birthmother and the adoptive parents.
Today, most infants are placed through private adoptions, some through
private agencies and some independently. Public agencies work with children
who are older, have special needs, or are from racial groups in which
children needing homes outnumber prospective adopters, as is the case
with African-American children.
Open and independent adoption were largely driven by birthparents reluctant
to relinquish babies to an impersonal agency. They want to know that the
baby is going directly to a good family (without making a stop in foster
care) and often want to choose the adoptive parents. Many private agencies
have emerged to meet that need. But the intermediary could also be a lawyer,
a minister, even a next-door neighbor.
One finding that surprised me as I researched was the fact that adoption
in this country is actually very lightly regulated. If you had told me
this when I was going through the process, I would have laughed. There
is so much paperwork! However, U.S. adoption is regulated by the states,
and there have never been more than a handful of states that required
social worker involvement. Today, only six states require that adoptions
be conducted via a licensed agency.
AF: You provide a detailed history on disclosure of adoption information
in your book. Where do you draw the line between secrecy and privacy?
BM: I agree that the truth about their adoption should be disclosed to
children; this is a crucial part of an adopted person’s history and
identity. Yet I think that at times the adoption rights movement has gone
too far in demonizing secrecy. Anything not fully disclosed is taken as
an admission that adoption is shameful. But shouldn’t adoptive parents
have the same prerogative other parents have—to keep some details
of family life private?
I think open adoption is the wave of the future. We are already in an
era of increasing openness. But in cases of birthmothers who placed children
for adoption long ago, should access to records for adoptees trump every
other consideration? This seems to be the way the social consensus is
moving: a few states already facilitate adopted persons’ access to
identifying information without any intermediary approaching birthparents
for their consent. My guess is that this will soon be widespread.
AF: How would you define the prevailing attitude toward adoption today
in the media and society?
BM: Generally, adoption is viewed favorably. However, one of the biggest
recent changes in the way many people see adoption stems from the trickledown
of sociobiology into popular discussion. The idea is taking hold that
many important characteristics are genetically hard-wired. In the 1960s,
it was widely maintained that we are shaped more by experiences than by
biology. In the 1980s and 1990s, biological determinism became much more
prominent in assessing individual potential. This emphasis on biology
has made some people more skeptical about adoption.
AF: What can we do to counter misconceptions?
BM: The visibility of our families shows that adoption works. Today, almost
everyone can say that he or she knows an adoptive family. I think it really
changes attitudes when others see that adoptive families are not so different
from biological families.
Adoption also demonstrates that difference is a resource. In our nation’s
history, diversity has always been a great strength—part of the richness
of American culture. In that way, adoption is very mainstream. We are
a nation of immigrants, and in some ways, a nation of strangers. At its
best, our culture affirms that we don’t have to be the same to share
common dreams and to live together in peace and mutual respect.
This article was first printed in the terrific magazine Adoptive Families.
Allison Martin’s
family support Web site, www.ComeUnity.com, provides information on adoption,
parenting, and special needs. She is also the director of a national support
group, Families with Children from Vietnam. |
Talking About
Adoption
