Adoption & Culture Vol. 7, Issue 1 (2019) Copyright © 2019 by The Ohio State University Conceptualizing an Adoption Pedagogy: Expanding Beyond “Teaching Adoption” JAERAN KIM, KIT MYERS, KIMBERLY MCKEE, AND ELIZABETH RALEIGH THIS SPECIAL issue on pedagogy and adoption began as a panel at the 2016 Alliance for the Study of Adoption and Culture Conference. In the session titled, “Adoption Pedagogy: An Interdisciplinary Discussion of Challenges, Implications, and Practices,” the presenters, representing faculty from various disciplines and at various stages in their careers, discussed what teaching adoption means for them and their students. The discussion centered on several topics that included challenging dominant narratives of adoption as rescue, best practices in teaching, integrating adoption content in courses not designed as adoption-specific, positionality and relationship to the adoption constellation, and student adoptees in the classroom. The essays included in this issue expand that conversation, addressing the epistemological possibilities and challenges when bringing together adoption and pedagogy across a broad range of academic disciplines, including American Studies , rhetoric, literature, counseling, and general undergraduate liberal arts, as well as considering adoption camps as a pedagogical space. In the past, when adoption was taught—if at all—most of the curriculum emphasized only the positive aspects, such as permanency for children, without contextualizing the loss that predates the new formation. Considering that nineteen out of twenty adults have a positive view of adoption, it is imagined as a 2 ADOPTION & CULTURE 7.1 win-win-win situation for birth parents, adoptees, and adoptive parents (“Adoption ”). However, as many who have lived and/or studied adoption know, adoption is much more complex and is, at its foundation, an extremely unequal industry . Race, class, gender, and disability status (among other factors) shape how children are transferred between first families and adoptive ones. Social institutions and cultural practices legitimize and commodify these practices. That four of the six authors in this issue are adoptees is not lost on us. Only within the past three decades has a slow shift occurred in how adoption is understood , as adoptees claim their expertise and the validity of their lived experiences. Yet, this evolution is slow to embrace the collective and individual experiences and knowledge of birth parents. As Chandra Mohanty reminds us, “who we are, how we act, what we think, and what stories we tell” are important; subjectivity and voice help us “understand our specific locations in the educational process and in the institutions through which we are constituted” (148). Included in the conversation is the recognition that positionality for adult adoptees—particularly transracial and transnational adoptees—may highlight particular tensions in the classroom related to adoption content as well as racial and ethnic identities. Transracial and transnational adoptee faculty may experience pushback simply because of their racial and ethnic status, as other faculty of color do. The pushback experienced by transracial/transnational adoptee faculty is particularly relevant given the special issue editors’ positionalities as internationally adopted persons from Asia who participate in critical adoption studies. Students who are adoptees may find their identities represented in the classroom for the first time, either as a result of the adoption course content or instructors ’ self-disclosure as adoptees. Alternatively, if part of pedagogy is to help students relate to the class material, how do we teach adoption to an audience whose members, for the most part, have at best tangential experience with adoption or whose knowledge comes only from media exposure? These essays help us consider the ways we might use pedagogy to counter the institutional (and human) tendencies that impair our ability to understand, re-imagine, and differently practice adoption. Michel Foucault reminds us that academia is a disciplinary (controlling) institution: “The disciplines characterize, classify , specialize; they distribute along a scale, around a norm, hierarchize individuals in relation to one another and, if necessary, disqualify and invalidate” (223). In “Teaching About Adoption as an Anti-Hegemonic and Anti-Racist Effort,” Patricia Sawin reflects on the task at hand, surmising “most of the students come to the course with a relatively positive opinion of adoption, seeing it as something honorable and ethical for an adult to undertake.” With these preconceptions, inviting students to question this logic can be challenging, and...
Read full abstract