Respectful Adoption Language
Honest and Accurate but Probably Not What You'd Expect
by Jessica DelBalzo
“Language shapes the way we think, and determines what
we can think about.” – Benjamin Lee Whorf
We all know how powerful words can be. We may comfort our
children with the old saying, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but
words will never harm me,” but the truth is that offensive language can
bruise the psyche of its target. Currently, the words used by the media
to describe adoption range from dishonest and inaccurate to hurtful and
discriminatory. Many of these labels are tantamount to the racial slurs
used against African Americans prior to the abolition of slavery and the
advent of the civil rights movement. Just as journalists (and all members
of polite society) steer clear of using names like “nigger” and “colored
person,” degrading adoption terms need to be removed from our collective
vocabulary.
The same is true for adoption-related words that disguise
reality or perpetuate the myths that the $1.4 billion adoption industry
would have us believe. First, let’s examine the discriminatory labels
that have been applied to parents who have lost their children to adoption.
“Birth” and “Biological” are common prefixes that the media and others
apply to parents, grandparents, and extended family members of adopted
children. Often, adoption agencies and would-be adopters refer to “birth”
mothers and fathers whose children have yet to be born. These labels are
an attempt to degrade the importance of a child’s true family, reducing
them to a single function in their children’s lives.
In the case of pre-birth labeling, the users of this offensive
language are clearly aiming to convince parents that they are dispensable
even before their children have come into the world. Rather than perpetuating
the unbelievable and degrading notion that one’s family can be “switched
at birth” (or even later, in the case of older children’s adoptions),
we need to take care to use respectful and honest language. It is not
necessary to separate parents who have lost children to the adoption industry
from any other parents in our society. Mother, father, grandparents, aunt,
uncle, and cousin are all perfectly descriptive words on their own. Knowing
that a child has only one true family makes it unnecessary to use discriminatory
words to mark the difference between relatives and adopters.
When one needs to convey the fact that a parent has lost
a child to the adoption industry, it is more appropriate to describe them
as a “natural mother/father,” “parent exiled by adoption,” or “mother/father
of adoption loss.” These terms are accurate in relaying the experience
of losing a child to adoption, but they don’t reduce a parent’s role to
that of an incubator or sperm donor.
The second set of offensive adoption words is degrading
to children and their true families, as well as dishonest and deceptive.
These words – “adoptive mother/father/family” – describe something that
simply doesn’t exist. Families are not created on paper, upon payment
of the necessary legal fees. Families are created by nature, through the
unbreakable bond that ties together past and future generations. Despite
being separated over many years or many miles, family members still manage
to share their traits with one another, and it is only natural for them
to do so. It is a fallacy to suggest that strangers can step in to replace
a child’s true family in any situation.
Pretending that adopters are the parents of another family’s
child is incredibly disrespectful to that child, his or her heritage,
and the real family that he was given by nature. It implies that children
can be passed around and sold to the highest bidder as slaves were sold
in the 17th century. In the interest of honesty, it is far better to describe
the people who adopt children as “adopters,” “caregivers,” or “guardians.”
Adoptees shouldn’t be expected to play make-believe when
it comes to something as serious as their families, and the rest of us
shouldn’t perpetuate the lies created by the adoption industry as a means
of peddling children to wealthy, infertile couples. In the end, the most
important thing is respect for children and the families that nature has
given them. Growing up, we’ve all been taught that honesty is the best
policy. What are we teaching today’s children if we force them to accept
strangers as parents and to deny their true families? What message are
they being sent about themselves, if their own mothers and fathers are
constantly being degraded and abused by our society’s adoption vocabulary?
Whether they’re adopted as infants, toddlers, or older, children deserve
better than the lies the adoption industry offers them.
|