Ethnic Identity Formation

Ethnic Identity Formation 1

Crystal Elizabeth Rizzo

Ethnic Identity Formation in Transracial Adoptees

University of Colorado at Colorado Springs

Spring 2008

Abstract

In this paper, I define and present a brief history of race and transracial adoption in the United States. I show how systems of privilege and oppression create social pathologies such as alcoholism, physical and sexual abuse, and poverty that lead to the abduction of children of color from their biological homes and placed in other homes. Through examination of the current literature regarding transracial adoption, ethnic, and adoptive identity, I draw conclusions in regards to the ethnic identity formation process in transracial adoptees which suggests more attention needs to be given to the social construction of identities for adoptees. I conclude with a personal narrative and a call for education and activism around issues of privilege and oppression in hope that children of color will remain within families of color.

Introduction

After reading a number of works about racial and adoptive identity, it is evident that the current study of adoption and racial formation from a psychological viewpoint needs to be expanded to include a broader sociological perspective. In part, we form our sense of identity from language and definitions that are socially constructed; thus, it is important for sociologist to integrate current work that addresses the psychological impacts of stigmatization placed on individuals due to race, ethnicity, and from being adopted. In his book, Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity, Erving Goffman, writes “[s]ociety establishes the means of categorizing persons and the complement of attributes felt to be extraordinary and natural for members of each of these categories” (Goffman 1963: 2). If society creates the method of categorization, then a sociological basis is necessary in order to gain the fullest understanding of racial and adoptive identity formation. As researchers have pointed out, “[t]he development of your ethnic identity is a complex, continuous, process related to many factors” and in a society where race relations are less than perfect, it is no surprise that there is constant discourse surrounding racial and ethnic identity formation (Guanipa-Ho and Guanipa 1998: 1). While many researchers have completed generalized studies of identity formation, the research is limited in regards to ethnic identity in the case of transracially adopted individuals and consequently should be expanded. In addition to the problem of limited research, a number of sociologists have attempted to identify and apply a suitable monolithic theoretical model to study ethnic identity formation in adoptees, but have arguably fallen short of an appropriate model. The identity of an individual as an adoptee and that as a member of a racial or ethnic group other than that of their adopted parents must initially be studied separately and later combined, which I believe inevitably calls for the creation of a completely new theoretical model. Research has found “The dilemma for [ethnic minorities] was, and still is, how to construct a positive identity for themselves in the light of the ‘racial’ identity imposed on them by the dominant society” (Smedley 1998: 695). If this is true, how can racial and ethnic minorities adopted by white parents form a positive identity? While studies have shown that with support it is possible to form a positive identity, more importantly one must ask why the larger social pathologies forcing the removal of children from their homes are still not fully addressed. Although, many of those social pathologies will not be addressed in this paper, these are the questions I feel should be addressed and analyzed in a new transracial adoption model.

In this paper, I will define and present a brief history of race and transracial adoption in the United States. I will also examine how systems of privilege and oppression create social pathologies such as alcoholism, physical and sexual abuse, and poverty that lead to children of color being abducted from their biological homes and placed in other homes. I will conclude with a personal narrative and a call for education and activism around issues of privilege and oppression in communities of color.

Definitions

In order to have a clear foundation, it is important to define the main terms that will be used in this analysis. Race will be understood as “[a] social construct that artificially divides people into distinct groups based on characteristics such as: physical appearance; ancestral heritage; cultural affiliation and history; ethnic classification; and social, economic, and political needs of society” (White Privilege Dictionary). Ethnicity is “[a] social construct that divides people into smaller social groups based on characteristics such as: shared sense of group membership; values; behavioral patterns; language; political and economic interests; history; and ancestral geographical base” (White Privilege Dictionary). Racial and Ethnic Identity will be understood as “[a]n individual’s awareness and experience of being a member of a racial and ethnic group; the racial and ethnic categories that an individual chooses to describe him- or herself based on such factors as biological heritage, physical appearance, cultural affiliation, early socialization, and personal experience” (White Privilege Dictionary). Adoptive identity development is “how the individual constructs meaning about his/her adoption” (Spencer and Markstrom-Adams 1990: 290). Stigma(tization) refers to, “…an attribute that is deeply discrediting,” for example, a visible physical disability (Goffman 1963: 3). Finally, privilege exists “…when one group has something of value that is denied to others simply because of the groups they belong to, rather than because of anything they’ve done or failed to do” (Johnson 2001: 23). These definitions and concepts will be included and should be kept in mind to fully understand this paper.

Race in the United States

The social construction of race is subjective and over time the meaning has shifted. In her book, Race in North America: Origin and Evolution of a Worldview, Audrey Smedley points out how “…few topics in Western intellectual and social history [] have been subjected to as much investigation, speculation, analysis, and theoretical scrutiny as the phenomenon of race,” for this reason, when addressing racial and ethnic identity formation in adoptees, it is important to give a brief history of race and race relations in the United States (Smedley 2007: 1).

According to Smedley, “[i]n the eighteenth century [the] mode of structuring inequality in human societies evolved in the American colonies…” (Smedley 1998: 694). She goes on to explain, “race was a form of social identification and stratification that was seemingly grounded in the physical differences of populations interacting…but whose real meaning rested in social and political realities” (Smedley 1998: 694). Throughout the history of the United States, we see how the social and political construction of race has been used to privilege some groups and oppress others. For example, the United States government has continuously broken treaties with Indigenous groups in order to gain economic and political power. In Racial Conditions: Politics, Theory, Comparisons, Howard Winant writes, “Enslavement, conquest, and exclusion, then were the chief means through which U.S. society was racialized beginning with its colonial origins. Racialization varied over time, across regions, and in respect to particular groups. But it was always present, always crucial to the construction of what Saxton calls “the white republic” (Winant 1994: 43). As the meaning and politics of race are continuously changing, it is essential to examine race relations in the United States to deconstruct the systems of privilege and oppression that have led to social injustices and inequalities leading to children of color being removed from their homes.

Race is socially constructed; consequently, it outlines the expected interaction and behavior between individuals. Individuals are expected to conform to the normative behavior of the dominant society, in this case, that of white America. “There is some evidence that suggests prior to slavery; individuals of color, specifically blacks had a uniform or widespread social antipathy on account of their color” (Smedley 2007: 104). Unfortunately, “[b]y the turn of the nineteenth century, the vision that Americans shared about human group variations had taken on full racial coloration” and “…authors of such theories thought of races as homogenous biophysical entities” (Smedley 2007: 196). In his book The Archaeology of Race and Racialization in Historic America, Charles E. Orser Jr. writes, “[t]he European preoccupation with race dawned in its modern form in the post-Columbian era, and as European travelers transported their views on race across the Atlantic, a frequently acrimonious debate began in American intellectual circles” (Orser Jr. 2007: 3). Because of the created social categorization, presently in the United States there exists a social construction of difference and reality. Allan G. Johnson argues “socially constructed reality is so powerful [] that we rarely if ever experience it as that” and “…the name quickly takes on a life of its own as we forget the social process that created it and start treating it as ‘real’ in and of itself” (Johnson 2001: 22-23). It is important to have an understanding of the social and political ramifications of race when addressing transracial adoption. It is also crucial to recognize how the United States constructs social categories and understand how race, class, gender, ableism, sexual orientation, and privilege intersect with adoption.

Adoption in the United States

“Adoption is a social and legal construction that has been shaped over time by social trends and problems, cultural values and conflicts, historical events and forces as well as public policy and legislation” (qtd. in Zamostny et al. 2003: 653). In her book, Adoption in a Color-Blind Society, Pamela Anne Quiroz, argues that early adoption practices were shaped by “the child welfare reform movement and the eugenics movement” and that later changes in the practices of adoption were influenced by the civil rights and women’s liberation movement (Quiroz 2007: 31,36). She goes on to write that as a result of the civil rights and women’s liberation movement, “…professionals and policy makers began to rethink their practices regarding children of color. To comprehend the relationship between the ideological construct of racism, the ways in which it shaped adoption practices for ethnic children, and how this construct was ultimately challenged, the cultural conditions that gave rise to this challenge much be reconstructed” (Quiroz 2007: 36). “Although the roots of U.S. adoption were established legally and socially by the late 1800s, the cultural and political changes of the latter part of the 20th century were most crucial in defining the current practice of adoption” (Zamostny et al. 2003: 653).

There are several different types of adoption in practice today including domestic, international, public, special need, and transracial adoption. Although transracial adoption can include international adoption, for purposes of this paper, attention will be given specifically to issues concerning domestic transracial adoption. Transracial adoption is the “…joining of racially different parents and children together in adoptive families” (Silverman 1993: 104). Below is a table taken from the work of Zamostny, et al., intended to demonstrate the social changes of adoption in the United States.

Table 1: Historical and Legal Developments in the Practice of Adoption (Zamostny, et. al 2003:654-655)

Date / Historical/Sociocultural Context / Trends in Adoption Practices
1700s / Colonizing of America / Informal customs of child transfer (e.g) indenture borrowed from England
1800s / Industrial Revolution
Massive immigration to United States
Western frontier expansion
Social problem reform
Fears about “bad seed” traits / Informal solutions are inadequate for growing numbers of urban dependent children.
Dependent children sent West via “orphan trains” to be cared for by farm families.
Foundling homes established in urban areas to care for dependent children.
Older child adoptions are the norm; infant adoptions are rare.
1851 / Formal practice of adoptions begins with Massachusetts statute ensuring care and heir rights for adopted children
Early 1900s / WWI, WWII
Influenza outbreak
Advent of formula feeding
“Nurture” grows important / Decreased birth rates lead to interest in adoption.
International adoption begins with adoption of war orphans.
Unregulated, unscrupulous baby brokers proliferate.
Agencies develop strict, questionable criteria for screening out adoptive parents.
1917 / Shift to secrecy and anonymity with Minnesota statute sealing adoptions records.
1955 / National Conference of Adoption (Child Welfare League) reorients practice of adoption toward “best interest of the child”.
1960s-
1970s / Civil Rights Movement
Women’s Movement
Contraception, abortion
Consumer Rights Movement / Discrepancy between numbers of White babies released for adoption and those adopting.
White, infertile couples turn to transracial, international, and special needs adoptions.
Adoptees and birthmothers challenge secrecy laws via searches, open adoption
1972
[1978] / National Association of Black Social Workers labels transracial placements as cultural genocide.
[Passing of the Indian Child Welfare Act]
1980 / Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act legislates quick return of foster children to biological families when possible or permanent placement through adoption, which increases the number of children available for adoption.
1980s-present / Diverse families increase
Increased infertility / Increase in single persons seeking to adopt including lesbian/gay individuals.
Increase in private, independent adoptions.
Openness in adoption grows.
Special needs and international adoptions continue to increase.
1997 / Adoption and Safe Families Act mandates shorter timelines for adoptive placements.

Table 1. gives a visual timeline for the historical adoption practices since colonization in the United States, in addition to the social acceptance of transracial adoption. It is important to note that “[a]doption has points of controversy that are not surprising, given the interplay between race, social issues, cultural values and adoption practices” (Zamostny, et al. 2003: 656). Much of the controversy and outcry against transracial adoption has come from communities of color, specifically the Native and African American communities.

As Schulman and Behrman observe, “From the outset, transracial adoption has generated great concern about potential negative effects on the children, primarily those relating to identity confusion, prejudice, and bigotry” (Schulman and Behrman 1993:11). In the 1950s and 1960s there was an increase in transracial adoption (Forde-Mazrui 1994: 925), therefore calling on, “…adoption policymakers [] to reevaluate earlier adoption standards which discouraged this practice” (Silverman 1993: 105). In addition to many other social factors, this increase was due in part to “the number of children in the placement system and an insufficient number of minority homes in which to place minority children” (Forde-Mazrui 1993: 925). In her work, Quiroz brings to light the organizing by communities of color to challenge the dominant ideology of family and attempt to solidify a positive ethnic identity and discontinue the cultural genocide. In 1972, the National Association of Black Social Workers labeled transracial placement as cultural genocide. They believe that placing children of color in white homes “…threat[ens] the minority communities as a whole as they [struggle] for equal opportunity in all aspects of American life and the elimination of racism” (Schulman and Behrman 1993: 11). Similarly, in response to high numbers of Native American children being placed in non-native homes, indigenous groups throughout the United States also argued that placing Native American children in non-native homes is a continuous form of cultural genocide and should not be allowed, thus leading to Congress passing the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) in 1978. The Indian Child Welfare Act is a federal law that works with families and tribal entities to keep Native American children with Native American families and communities. In passing the ICWA, congress held that it is “…the policy of this Nation to protect the best interest of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families…” (25 U.S.C §1902). Unfortunately, as Andrea Smith points out the, “ICWA is not consistently enforced since many case workers are unaware of its provisions” (Smith 2005: 42). Although, communities of color have organized against the removal of children of color from their communities, there are still many groups that feel race should not be a determining factor in adoption laws and have argued that such laws prohibiting whites from adopting children of color is a form of reverse racism. On the opposing side, proponents of transracial adoption present three points: “(1) current policies of race matching conflict with the basic law of the land concerning racial discrimination; (2) these laws cause serious harm to children by delaying their placement for months or even years; (3) virtually every empirical study which has been done thus far indicates that the majority of transracially placed children do very well in overall adjustment, self-esteem, and sense of identity” (Schulman and Behrman 1993:11-12). Unfortunately, many of the supporters of race neutral adoption laws fail to acknowledge how children are “…categorized, labeled, described, and priced along racial lines” (Quiroz 2007: 50).

Drawing upon the previous explanation of race in the United States, many of the systematic problems regarding transracial adoption are due to privilege and the systems of oppression that have been created in American society. “When it comes to race, the discourse of private adoption represents superficial rather than substantive change as racial categorizations in adoption remain disturbingly real and relatively unchanged from the past” (Quiroz 2007: 50).

Identity Formation

While drawing together the arguments against transracial adoption based on race, it is also important to note that, “[t]he internalization of the social construction of parenthood in terms of procreation may help to explain one aspect of the shift in the cognitive understanding of adoption…” (Leon 2002: 653). In essence, the evolving definition of mother and father in the United States has impacted the stigmatization placed on both the adoptee and adopter. For example, “[a]dopted children may perceive stigma as originating from outsiders, or may harbor negative images of the self” (Grotevant et al. 2000: 379). Therefore, shifting definitions impact how and to what degree stigmatization occurs for individuals, this is especially important in understanding how children of color adopted into white families internalize oppression and develop a consciousness around issues of race and ethnicity. Grotevant et al. claim that “[i]dentities only exist in societies, which define and organize them” (Grotevant et al. 2000: 379). This holds true for the previously stated view regarding the “social construction” of identities. Society constructs the framework of our identity by placing the expectation of conformation to the “subjective norm.” In the case of race and adoption, society has both defined race and adoption from a Western ideological framework, therefore marginalizing some groups. Non-white racial and adoptive identities are marginalized both through overt racism and through the cultural definition of an ideal family as being, “a traditional nuclear family consisting of a married couple with biological children who live together in a loving household” (Ehearst and Power 1995: 198). If an individual falls outside of the norm, s/he is seen differently and the development of her/his identity can be affected.