1. How do we reconcile the fact that, according to both Briggs and Karen, many prospective parents who adopt transnationally fancy themselves to be left-wing cultural radicals when in fact they're engaging in a process that perpetuates the global power relations they profess to oppose? How do we explain this explicit desire for a "postmodern," "nontraditional" family? 2. Chin argues that childhood is a social construction, but there is a point in her article in which it is suggested that differences in notions of childhood are based on economic status as well as cultural background. By approaching this issue from a strictly relativist perspective (i.e. who are we to tell them how to raise their children), are we not potentially consigning poor families/children to an experience of childhood that they may not actually be choosing for themselves? If a poor mother doesn't send her daughter to school because she can't afford it, can we consider that to be her making a choice about how to raise that child? 3. All three readings mentioned the idea of trans-nationally adopted children being brought back to Canada and "raised in their own culture" by their, more often than not, white parents. Is it actually possible for somebody to raise a child in a culture they themselves are not actually a part of? 4. (Since I never get to talk about HIV/AIDS in any of my classes, I'm going to shamelessly take the opportunity to do so here...) African AIDS orphans are arguably the new fashion on the transnational adoption circuit. Can we classify this as a representation of global power relations/imperialism? If so, how? Can we apply the same critiques that are made about the Guatamalan case to AIDS babies? It is argued by many that their home countries literally do not have the capacity to care for the sheer number of orphans that now exist and extended families are either equally decimated by HIV or already overburdened with other orphans already in their care.
-What is the role of men in the politics of transnational adoption? Dubinsky briefly addresses the common arguments made regarding the sexism of Guatemalan men causing the preponderance of transnational over domestic adoption and the lack of a domestic adoption culture in Guatemala. Does the pigeon holing of Guatemalan men into such a negative role adequately provide a representation of their position within this highly complex process? Are Guatemalan men’s views of adoption so radically different from their western counterparts so as to hinder the process of adoption which is highly subscribed to in the west?
-What role does age play in the construction of childhood? Different countries create laws and bestow certain legal rights to individuals at different ages (age of consent, drinking age, gambling). What do these large discrepancies between countries with seemingly similar judicial processes and courts indicate? What makes 18 the “magic bench mark” for the majority of people.
-Adding to Leslie’s third question, why has the concept of raising an adoptive child in “their own culture” become such a significant phenomenon? By adopting a child from a culturally different country or locale, can you also adopt that culture? Is this child seen to ‘adopt’ western culture even though he/she has been raised within it?
1. Using Chin’s model, are all of the children covered in Karen’s study necessarily “out of bounds,” and are then brought “in bounds” when they are adopted into the dominant model of childhood in the United States or Canada? Does adoption change the status of a child in society, in light of the fact that children are generally adopted into a higher socio-economic status than that into which they were born?
2. How might our perspective be changed if children’s voices were included in the official documents, transcripts, and case files that were consulted for the various readings this week? Many of the other pieces that we’ve read for this seminar have included the voices of the colonized, or those who are othered; what, other than the obvious constraints of physical age, make the voices of children different/more liable to be omitted?
1. What are we to make of the fact, as Dubinsky explained, that most countries that have been subject to US "intervention" have a high tendency to also have a high rate of "rescue" adoptions?
2. As Chin has pointed out, merely existing for 18 consecutive years seems a rather poor, if not arbitrary manner of gauging someone's socially and culturally-established aptitude, maturity, reasoning, abilities etc. Yet, chronological age as the best measure for nearly anything is deeply engrained in our society. When does childhood end and adulthood begin?
3. What is to be made of a society that demarcates much of its "vice" concerns (again socially/culturally established), such as sexual activity, or the legal purchase and use of stimulants (nicotine) or depressants (alcohol) - especially considering Chin's argument that there is no universality for chronological assessment for aptitude? Could these change, as the times do, or are they to remain the same "because they've always been that way"?
4. Where were the voices of the children? Could they have aided our discussion, or interpretation of the social climates they existed in? Or, is there a chance that by even the time they were able to speak, they would have been "weaponized" by self-interested authorities - such as the lawyers Dubinsky speaks of - in order to further a specific agenda?
Historians must allow readers the opportunity to seek out and read the sources that they cite in their work. Or at least that seems to be the orthodoxy. Karen was granted a unique opportunity to access confidential adoption records and read a sample of these documents. Other historians might not be granted the same access. How do we deal with such situations, especially if this field of inquiry is to grow and develop?
The individual and the nation. It seems that debates over child adoption can slide between these two ideas. If cultural concerns are raised, one rebukes them by focusing on the child and proclaiming a universal right to a decent life, and vice versa. Does mark one of the main problems of discussing the morality of adoption, in both national and transnational senses?
Should we be attentive to the colonial subtext of orphanages? Offhand I could think of language politics in Soviet Eastern Europe, where children raised in orphanages were denied access to languages other than Russian.
How might a baby be an easily-consumed symbol of new ideologies of liberal multiculturalism in ways that no adult ever could? Do discourses of adoption in examples like those of the Open Door Society in Montreal allow for discussions of racism and multiculturalism that avoid the messy intersections of race and class? Does this explain their appeal? (Isn't it easier to talk about 'blackness' in a colour-blind way when you're separating it from any community?) If yes, then how do we explain the nearly opposite discourse surrounding white adoption of First Nations babies? Is there too much white guilt associated with the image of present-day native realities to fit Aboriginal babies into discourses of multiculturalism? Does native-ness get to remain a biological category that relates to character?
Is 'child' a valid category here? Don't babies make much better symbols than preteens?
Are the ethics of representation the same when talking about age and childhood as when we discuss identities that people don't so often grow out of? Does depicting the image of a child as statically 'innocent' have the same or similar implications as doing the same for 'woman'?
The readings this week present mixed ideas about where children hold race and culture in their bodies. At times it is implied that it is nothing more than the color of their skin; a black child for example, can be raised in a white family. At other times the aboriginal child carries a native soul. Are children born without culture? Is the notion of a child coming into this world as a blank slate ethnocentric? What does it mean for assimilation projects if children can carry the history of their people in their bodies?
As Brigga mentions, now surrogate mothers are also available internationally, for a lower price than nationally. How does the woman’s body/ uterus, also become an international symbol.
How do legal processes of adoption simultaneously parenthood?
Dubinsky introduces her book by briefly stating the existing stereotypes and disconnects between historians and adoptive parents surrounding the issue of adoption. She states that part of her purpose is to break down these stereotypes and disconnections and straddle the line between the two. In what ways does Dubinsky (and in some ways Chin) bridge this gap? What are some limitations encountered and spaces for further study? More broadly, how can an historian (or any academic) reconcile their personal interests/identities with their area of study?
At the conclusion of her book, Dubinsky advocates for increased public discussion around adoption. What would this discussion look like? In what venue would this conversation can place and how would the situation change the discussion direction? How does Chin's article contribute to such a public discussion?
1. For Briggs, the split between Latin American and American ideologies of intercountry adoption is explained by both the actual stories of children and as "an allegory for all of US foreign policy." (350) Would the story be different if we were talking about , for example, Australians (still white, but less interventionist, especially in Latin America)? Would it be different if we were talking about Americans adopting children from somewhere that does not have such a long and usually tragic history of American intervention (if one can think of such a place)?
2. After reading Chin, is it still possible to understand childhood as universal and children as having some kind of basic similarity? Can it be argued that it is not the definition of childhood that is inconsistent, but rather the age that childhood ends? Is there a common belief that children at some point need to be cared for, do not work, and do not engage in activities outside of the private realm? Is it possible to argue that childhood ends at 18 in one country and at 4 in another, and that age is really the only schism in a broad understanding?
3. In Dr. Dubinsky's book we see that children perform many political jobs. In the case of interracial adoption in Montreal, we learn that some families, mothers, were inclined to adopt black babies for many reasons. These adoptions were seen as patriotic (demonstrating Canada's racial tolerance and liberalism) and as bridging the colour divide. What else could have prompted organizations like the ODS to encourage interracial adoption? How did the culture of activism during this time play into the story? Is it possible that these adoptions were fulled by other social issues of the time, say the women's rights movement?
1. Both Briggs and Dr. Dubinsky provide a treatment of Elizabeth Bartholet's work "Family Bonds." Dr. Dubinsky generally uses Bartholet to explore the transformative quality of international adoption, whereas Briggs points to the uneven quality of the balance of power within her specific adoptions. What do we make of the way each author treats this work?
2. We have already explored the way historians may or may not insert themselves into their work, but Babies Without Borders, as well as last week's SNID talk, seem to push that boundary further. I understand a historian's biases or leanings being stated in their work, but what happens when the scholar (or their families, in this case) becomes a leading character in their research?
Chin does a good job of highlighting some of the more ridiculous problems of 'dealing' with children in an international context, such as regulating (or standardizing) and defining 'childhood' and what it should consist of, or trying to control something as subtle and omnipresent as globalization. Are there other grand narratives present in this subject? How much time should we spend wrestling or regulating a subject that has no specific answers?
Combining Briggs' emphasis on the gendering of internal colonialism with the topic of international adoption makes for interesting questions about North American cultural perceptions. The media loves to latch onto stories about celebrity 'foreign' adoptions, but almost only do so when it involves a female celebrity. Is this just a traditional binary association that only women/the domestic should be seen with children? Why is this 'trend' of international adoption so frequently mocked?
1. As both Dubinsky and Briggs argue, a more accurate narrative of transnational adoption lies somewhere between the conflicting tales of rescue and theft. It is interesting to force ourselves to consider then, under what kinds of material, social, political circumstances is transnational adoption considered to be ‘the right thing’ for the child? Briggs suggests that in the minds of people like Bartholet, the realities of poverty are enough to justify the separation of families. Also, how does one consider this question without ultimately placing children as a symbol of the quality of life of a nation? 2. Language of intervention is used fairly prominently in these histories of adoption. How does this highlight the political cultures that inform adoption campaigns? How does this work to make a pronounced association between imperial histories of intimate control and contemporary adoption processes? 3. Both Dubinsky and Briggs make use of important feminist theory and thought in their discussions of the politics of childhood. As we have read in a number of books over the semester, women are often the grounds upon which political conflicts are fought out. As this week’s readings have highlighted, children are also consistently placed in this symbolic position, as Dubinsky says, “…transfer of children between nations or races can be the most powerful weapon, or trophy, imaginable” (129). Does this role of the symbolic child speak to a paternalistic or masculine ideology in the same way as it is argued to in the case of symbolic women? Is there a gendered aspect to the universalist notion of childhood or does this ideology escape from the gendering which characterizes so many other ideological forces which guide imperialism and intervention?
1. How do we reconcile the fact that, according to both Briggs and Karen, many prospective parents who adopt transnationally fancy themselves to be left-wing cultural radicals when in fact they're engaging in a process that perpetuates the global power relations they profess to oppose? How do we explain this explicit desire for a "postmodern," "nontraditional" family?
ReplyDelete2. Chin argues that childhood is a social construction, but there is a point in her article in which it is suggested that differences in notions of childhood are based on economic status as well as cultural background. By approaching this issue from a strictly relativist perspective (i.e. who are we to tell them how to raise their children), are we not potentially consigning poor families/children to an experience of childhood that they may not actually be choosing for themselves? If a poor mother doesn't send her daughter to school because she can't afford it, can we consider that to be her making a choice about how to raise that child?
3. All three readings mentioned the idea of trans-nationally adopted children being brought back to Canada and "raised in their own culture" by their, more often than not, white parents. Is it actually possible for somebody to raise a child in a culture they themselves are not actually a part of?
4. (Since I never get to talk about HIV/AIDS in any of my classes, I'm going to shamelessly take the opportunity to do so here...) African AIDS orphans are arguably the new fashion on the transnational adoption circuit. Can we classify this as a representation of global power relations/imperialism? If so, how? Can we apply the same critiques that are made about the Guatamalan case to AIDS babies? It is argued by many that their home countries literally do not have the capacity to care for the sheer number of orphans that now exist and extended families are either equally decimated by HIV or already overburdened with other orphans already in their care.
-What is the role of men in the politics of transnational adoption? Dubinsky briefly addresses the common arguments made regarding the sexism of Guatemalan men causing the preponderance of transnational over domestic adoption and the lack of a domestic adoption culture in Guatemala. Does the pigeon holing of Guatemalan men into such a negative role adequately provide a representation of their position within this highly complex process? Are Guatemalan men’s views of adoption so radically different from their western counterparts so as to hinder the process of adoption which is highly subscribed to in the west?
ReplyDelete-What role does age play in the construction of childhood? Different countries create laws and bestow certain legal rights to individuals at different ages (age of consent, drinking age, gambling). What do these large discrepancies between countries with seemingly similar judicial processes and courts indicate? What makes 18 the “magic bench mark” for the majority of people.
-Adding to Leslie’s third question, why has the concept of raising an adoptive child in “their own culture” become such a significant phenomenon? By adopting a child from a culturally different country or locale, can you also adopt that culture? Is this child seen to ‘adopt’ western culture even though he/she has been raised within it?
1. Using Chin’s model, are all of the children covered in Karen’s study necessarily “out of bounds,” and are then brought “in bounds” when they are adopted into the dominant model of childhood in the United States or Canada? Does adoption change the status of a child in society, in light of the fact that children are generally adopted into a higher socio-economic status than that into which they were born?
ReplyDelete2. How might our perspective be changed if children’s voices were included in the official documents, transcripts, and case files that were consulted for the various readings this week? Many of the other pieces that we’ve read for this seminar have included the voices of the colonized, or those who are othered; what, other than the obvious constraints of physical age, make the voices of children different/more liable to be omitted?
1. What are we to make of the fact, as Dubinsky explained, that most countries that have been subject to US "intervention" have a high tendency to also have a high rate of "rescue" adoptions?
ReplyDelete2. As Chin has pointed out, merely existing for 18 consecutive years seems a rather poor, if not arbitrary manner of gauging someone's socially and culturally-established aptitude, maturity, reasoning, abilities etc. Yet, chronological age as the best measure for nearly anything is deeply engrained in our society. When does childhood end and adulthood begin?
3. What is to be made of a society that demarcates much of its "vice" concerns (again socially/culturally established), such as sexual activity, or the legal purchase and use of stimulants (nicotine) or depressants (alcohol) - especially considering Chin's argument that there is no universality for chronological assessment for aptitude? Could these change, as the times do, or are they to remain the same "because they've always been that way"?
4. Where were the voices of the children? Could they have aided our discussion, or interpretation of the social climates they existed in? Or, is there a chance that by even the time they were able to speak, they would have been "weaponized" by self-interested authorities - such as the lawyers Dubinsky speaks of - in order to further a specific agenda?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHistorians must allow readers the opportunity to seek out and read the sources that they cite in their work. Or at least that seems to be the orthodoxy. Karen was granted a unique opportunity to access confidential adoption records and read a sample of these documents. Other historians might not be granted the same access. How do we deal with such situations, especially if this field of inquiry is to grow and develop?
ReplyDeleteThe individual and the nation. It seems that debates over child adoption can slide between these two ideas. If cultural concerns are raised, one rebukes them by focusing on the child and proclaiming a universal right to a decent life, and vice versa. Does mark one of the main problems of discussing the morality of adoption, in both national and transnational senses?
Should we be attentive to the colonial subtext of orphanages? Offhand I could think of language politics in Soviet Eastern Europe, where children raised in orphanages were denied access to languages other than Russian.
How might a baby be an easily-consumed symbol of new ideologies of liberal multiculturalism in ways that no adult ever could? Do discourses of adoption in examples like those of the Open Door Society in Montreal allow for discussions of racism and multiculturalism that avoid the messy intersections of race and class? Does this explain their appeal? (Isn't it easier to talk about 'blackness' in a colour-blind way when you're separating it from any community?)
ReplyDeleteIf yes, then how do we explain the nearly opposite discourse surrounding white adoption of First Nations babies? Is there too much white guilt associated with the image of present-day native realities to fit Aboriginal babies into discourses of multiculturalism? Does native-ness get to remain a biological category that relates to character?
Is 'child' a valid category here? Don't babies make much better symbols than preteens?
Are the ethics of representation the same when talking about age and childhood as when we discuss identities that people don't so often grow out of? Does depicting the image of a child as statically 'innocent' have the same or similar implications as doing the same for 'woman'?
The readings this week present mixed ideas about where children hold race and culture in their bodies. At times it is implied that it is nothing more than the color of their skin; a black child for example, can be raised in a white family. At other times the aboriginal child carries a native soul. Are children born without culture? Is the notion of a child coming into this world as a blank slate ethnocentric? What does it mean for assimilation projects if children can carry the history of their people in their bodies?
ReplyDeleteAs Brigga mentions, now surrogate mothers are also available internationally, for a lower price than nationally. How does the woman’s body/ uterus, also become an international symbol.
How do legal processes of adoption simultaneously parenthood?
Dubinsky introduces her book by briefly stating the existing stereotypes and disconnects between historians and adoptive parents surrounding the issue of adoption. She states that part of her purpose is to break down these stereotypes and disconnections and straddle the line between the two. In what ways does Dubinsky (and in some ways Chin) bridge this gap? What are some limitations encountered and spaces for further study? More broadly, how can an historian (or any academic) reconcile their personal interests/identities with their area of study?
ReplyDeleteAt the conclusion of her book, Dubinsky advocates for increased public discussion around adoption. What would this discussion look like? In what venue would this conversation can place and how would the situation change the discussion direction? How does Chin's article contribute to such a public discussion?
1. For Briggs, the split between Latin American and American ideologies of intercountry adoption is explained by both the actual stories of children and as "an allegory for all of US foreign policy." (350) Would the story be different if we were talking about , for example, Australians (still white, but less interventionist, especially in Latin America)? Would it be different if we were talking about Americans adopting children from somewhere that does not have such a long and usually tragic history of American intervention (if one can think of such a place)?
ReplyDelete2. After reading Chin, is it still possible to understand childhood as universal and children as having some kind of basic similarity? Can it be argued that it is not the definition of childhood that is inconsistent, but rather the age that childhood ends? Is there a common belief that children at some point need to be cared for, do not work, and do not engage in activities outside of the private realm? Is it possible to argue that childhood ends at 18 in one country and at 4 in another, and that age is really the only schism in a broad understanding?
3. In Dr. Dubinsky's book we see that children perform many political jobs. In the case of interracial adoption in Montreal, we learn that some families, mothers, were inclined to adopt black babies for many reasons. These adoptions were seen as patriotic (demonstrating Canada's racial tolerance and liberalism) and as bridging the colour divide. What else could have prompted organizations like the ODS to encourage interracial adoption? How did the culture of activism during this time play into the story? Is it possible that these adoptions were fulled by other social issues of the time, say the women's rights movement?
1. Both Briggs and Dr. Dubinsky provide a treatment of Elizabeth Bartholet's work "Family Bonds." Dr. Dubinsky generally uses Bartholet to explore the transformative quality of international adoption, whereas Briggs points to the uneven quality of the balance of power within her specific adoptions. What do we make of the way each author treats this work?
ReplyDelete2. We have already explored the way historians may or may not insert themselves into their work, but Babies Without Borders, as well as last week's SNID talk, seem to push that boundary further. I understand a historian's biases or leanings being stated in their work, but what happens when the scholar (or their families, in this case) becomes a leading character in their research?
Chin does a good job of highlighting some of the more ridiculous problems of 'dealing' with children in an international context, such as regulating (or standardizing) and defining 'childhood' and what it should consist of, or trying to control something as subtle and omnipresent as globalization. Are there other grand narratives present in this subject? How much time should we spend wrestling or regulating a subject that has no specific answers?
ReplyDeleteCombining Briggs' emphasis on the gendering of internal colonialism with the topic of international adoption makes for interesting questions about North American cultural perceptions. The media loves to latch onto stories about celebrity 'foreign' adoptions, but almost only do so when it involves a female celebrity. Is this just a traditional binary association that only women/the domestic should be seen with children? Why is this 'trend' of international adoption so frequently mocked?
1. As both Dubinsky and Briggs argue, a more accurate narrative of transnational adoption lies somewhere between the conflicting tales of rescue and theft. It is interesting to force ourselves to consider then, under what kinds of material, social, political circumstances is transnational adoption considered to be ‘the right thing’ for the child? Briggs suggests that in the minds of people like Bartholet, the realities of poverty are enough to justify the separation of families. Also, how does one consider this question without ultimately placing children as a symbol of the quality of life of a nation?
ReplyDelete2. Language of intervention is used fairly prominently in these histories of adoption. How does this highlight the political cultures that inform adoption campaigns? How does this work to make a pronounced association between imperial histories of intimate control and contemporary adoption processes?
3. Both Dubinsky and Briggs make use of important feminist theory and thought in their discussions of the politics of childhood. As we have read in a number of books over the semester, women are often the grounds upon which political conflicts are fought out. As this week’s readings have highlighted, children are also consistently placed in this symbolic position, as Dubinsky says, “…transfer of children between nations or races can be the most powerful weapon, or trophy, imaginable” (129). Does this role of the symbolic child speak to a paternalistic or masculine ideology in the same way as it is argued to in the case of symbolic women? Is there a gendered aspect to the universalist notion of childhood or does this ideology escape from the gendering which characterizes so many other ideological forces which guide imperialism and intervention?