The Social Construction of Adoption: Clinical and Community Perspectives

Abstract

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF ADOPTION CLINICAL AND COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVES* Charlene E. Miall** This article is a preliminary exploration of community attitudes toward adoption. Although clinicians view adoptive families as second best to biologically related families, a random sample of 150 Canadian respondents did not differentiate between the functioning of adoptive and biologically related families or children. The respondents focused on experiences of family life, not reproductive processes, and stressed the importance of commitment in families. Family research and practice that emphasize quality of family experience, not biological relatedness, is advocated. In the United States and Canada, the traditional family coexists with alternate family forms such as the adoptive family, where kinship is based on a legal and not a biological relationship. Adoption as a parenting option separates the biological from the social, nurturing part of parenting, thereby challenging notions of parenting as a process of childbearing and childrearing (Kirk, 1964). Researchers are currently examining the psychological, legal, and ethical issues surrounding adoption (Bartholet, 1993) and exploring the experiences of adoptive parents, birth parents, adoptees, and social workers (Brodzinsky & Schechter, 1990; Daly, 1988; Daly & Sobol, 1993; Geissinger, 1984; Hoffman-Riem, 1986; Lifton, 1979; March, 1995a, 1995b; Miall, 1986, 1987, 1989a; Sachdev, 1989; Sobol & Cardiff, 1983; Sobol & Daly, 1992; Walby & Symons, 1990; Westhues & Cohen, 1994). One area of research that has not received adequate attention, however, is the community within which adoptive families are formed and function. Bagley and Gabor (1995) have identified the community as an important stakeholder in the adoption process and have recommended community research to inform, in particular, policy development on adoption. Little empirical research on community views about the nature of the adoptive family, however, has been done. Depending on how community members define their attributes or experiences, individuals and families involved with adoption may experience social support or social sanctions in routine interaction. Social support may serve as a buffering mechanism between stress and health for these individuals (Coburn & Eakin, 1993; Sherbourne 8r Hays, 1990). A lack of social support may exacerbate problems associated with this alternate family form. Significantly, family practitioners and social workers providing counseling and guidance to potential adoptive parents and families may be hampered in their service delivery by this lack of empirical information on the community. In order to address these concerns, this research uses the social constructionist theoretical orientation to explore community views on adoption in general, adoptive parents, and adopted children. THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF ADOPTION Social constructionists argue that social problems arise or are constructed through social explanations (claims) about how these problems should be understood (Best, 1989; Spector & Kitsuse, 1977; Woolgar & Pawluch, 1985). For any given social phenomenon, various opinion leaders (claimsmakers) offer explanations that reflect the social structure of society and its cultural values and beliefs (Gusfield, 1985). For example, excessive consumption of alcohol has been explained or constructed over time as a sign of moral failure, then as a disease state characterized by a lack of control over drinking behavior. Claimsmakers can be experts in theory, law, ethics, and medicine; clinicians and social workers; politicians and special interest groups; individuals personally involved with the social phenomenon in question; or the community at large. These claimsmakers may compete for the right to explain a phenomenon in a certain way and seek to influence policymaking and clinical practice in a given direction. …