To what extent should all adoptee experiences/stories be viewed through the adoption lens?
This initially started as a response to Lori A's question, but it sort of mushroomed, so I decided to ask it separately-- but obviously it's still related. Basically, rather than me just spouting off speculation, I wanted to see what others thought.
To what extent can people who were not adopted understand the experiences of an adopted person that aren't the direct fact of being adopted? Are there any points of commonality where we can relate just as people, or should experiences always be viewed through the adoption lens?
To give a specific example, Lori mentioned a woman who struggled all her life with her weight because she wanted to be perfect so her adoptive mother wouldn't want to give her back. My gut reaction is to empathize, because I also spent years of my life struggling with an eating disorder I managed to work myself into-- also trying to please my mother. But the thing is, I'm not adopted. And while I know my experience isn't identical (for example, my mother couldn't give me back to anywhere,) I found myself wondering if it was presumptuous to relate to it on any level? Is something like this solely an adoption issue, which even a non-adoptee with what appears to be a similar experience couldn't possibly understand?
On the other hand, are any two people's experiences ever identical, even without adoption thrown in the mix? Isn't there always some kind of circumstance the other person can't really get without being there? Is relating to the extent we can the best we can ever do, really?
I struggle with this, because I don't want to treat adopted people like they're aliens. But I also don't want to make anyone feel marginalized or dismissed if they feel my own experiences can't relate to theirs. I feel like there has to be some kind of balance.
So... what balance do YOU feel is appropriate? How much can non-adoptees relate to adoptees with apparently similar experiences?
2009-03-23T12:24:57Z
For the record, saying "it isn't an adoption issue" isn't being with me, because I think it actually is.
What I'm wondering is more... even so, can others relate at any level?
Even though adoption IS a factor, are there other factors involved too, or should the adoption lens be the only lens?
2009-03-23T12:45:46Z
In the interest of full disclosure, the reason I'm fretting so much about this is that in the real world, one of my best friends is an adoptee. And I'm trying to gauge how many of our conversations have involved me being an idiot, and whether I may be causing him to resent me. So if this question seems pointed, it is, but not toward any of you.
2009-03-23T14:06:16Z
For people still saying they agree with me... I'm not sure I gave you anything to agree with besides "I'm still trying to work this out in my mind."
If you're still trying to work this out in your mind, too, then you agree.
If you've actually formed an opinion-- feel free to express it, but it's not going to bolster some point that you think I'm trying to prove, because I really don't have a point yet. ;-)
MamaKate2009-03-23T18:36:57Z
Favorite Answer
Dear MK,
I understand what you are saying and I basically agree. I don't think "lens" is the right word though. I would use the word "gel". (Gels are the colored pieces of plastic or glass that are used to change the color of stage lights.) Or maybe the word "scar". (No two scars are the exactly the same either - even when caused by the same kind of weapon/injury.)
I think we all agree that no two people are exactly alike or live the same experiences, however, people who experience the same kind of thing often have similar reactions to one another. More often than not the experience and reactions "color" the person. Not everyone has the same reaction or "color" because different people can have different reactions to similar experiences as well, but they too, are "colored" by the experience. When the experience is a deep or traumatic one, it can often "color" the person profoundly and any subsequent choices/events/reactions/etc. the person may experience. People's entire points of view can be VASTLY different depending on who they are and the experiences they have had - and people can do a 180 after a new experience.
In "scar" terms, a scar permanently alters a something. It is never the same again. A person can be scarred for life or a scar can fade over time. Some scars are deep and some are shallow. Some are jagged and smooth. Some people like their scars and consider them "character" and others hate them and are never comfortable with them. Some people don't notice their scars and are uneffected by them, other people are bothered by their scars and are very effected by them. Any way you slice it (excuse the pun), the scar has a permanent effect on the person.
For example: A young woman experiences a sexual assault. Prior to the event she was a "normal" woman and related to men on a "normal" level. After the assault, she has a hard time trusting men and becomes obsessive about cleanliness. Before someone attempts to understand/treat her trust issues or OCD, it is IMPERATIVE that they understand that she is an assault victim. Even if someone can "successfully treat" her, she will ALWAYS have experienced the assault, it will ALAWYS be a part of her because it will have changed, "colored" or "scarred" her life. She may NEVER look at certain things the same way again and she will have a slightly different angle on other things. The assault will always be a "gel" or "scar" her life.
"Gels" and "scars" both have their own direct effects on things but they can also amplify other issues. They can make someone more concerned about something than they were previously.
Adoption is a "gel"/"scar" because it profoundly effects the person experiencing it. While it may not be the direct cause of another issue, it can easily "color" or effect the way a person reacts to or handles the subsequent issue. It can effect their POV/though process/subconscious reactions/ etc. It should be considered rather than dismissed as a contributing factor to a person's issues until shown to be a non-factor. There are many issues that can be chalked up to "self-esteem" problems (like Lori's weight loss girl) that originate, stem from or are amplified by a deeper cause/other experience. Simply dismissing adoption as a possible amplifier for other issues an adoptee may have seems rather irresponsible to me.
IMO, it is important to recognize the "lenses"/"gels"/"scars"/ EXPERIENCES of a person if one truly wishes to UNDERSTAND and EMPATHIZE with them. Certainly one would never tell an amputee that their need to wear sunglasses to make them feel less conspicuous was "not related" to being an amputee. It is not necessarily the "direct cause" of the need, but it is a "symptom"/"indirect cause"/"effected by" the feelings of being an amputee. Life just isn't that neat that we can compartmentalize people's issues. People are complex beings that are the sum of their parts - to dismiss one part, even if it seems not to effect the whole is to miss the bigger picture.
I did not mean to associate anorexia to adoption as being an adoption issue. It was her particular way of being able to control what she could.
I had a friend tell a young lady that if she started to get fat this person was going to take over her diet. I saw that as a potential problem for the young lady and spoke with the person who said it.
Words can be very damaging to anyone. I was simply trying to point that out. Like the people who heard that their mothers loved them so much they gave them away. Some of these kids actually thought that if you love your child you must give them away.
I know that eating disorders are not directly associated but CAN be in a child's mine who can not control anything else, a way to keep their status with their parents. Does that make sense?
And there are other things that children misinterpret because of their age and the fact that they are adopted. Things that non adopted children wouldn't think twice about.
I'm not sure I am relaying this as accurately as I could, or as accurately as others might be able to do. There isn't one set thing, but rather the idea that certain things can spark different meanings in adoptee's because of their adoption status.
This is why I originally asked about some of the industry language being used. If you know that others thought this or misinterpreted that as a child wouldn't you want to know for the sake of your own child? I find some of their language to be harmful. Not that it was intended to be, but all in all is in fact harmful.
All life experiences are unique to the individual and are colored with their personal palette of self-perception. I'm not sure anyone other than a truly good analyst can separate the real from the perceived.
I believe I developed some chutzpah because I was constantly teased about my height (Jolly Green Giant stuff) and my weird first name. In the crystal ball of life did my height effect my behavior or do I just think it did? I don't think it matters.
I feel we need to accept the lens that people see through if we have any chance of understanding their viewpoint.
I really need to go back and answer Lori's question. I have been in and out of recovery for my anorexia for almost 11 years now. In that time I have had to literally pick apart every single traumatic experience in my life to get to the bottom of why I refuse nourishment to the degree that I do. I have narrowed it down to three key experiences, I will list them in chronological order.
I was always told the chosen baby story. It started with "we got a call" and ended with "we were told to pick the prettiest baby so we picked you". Over and over in my early childhood I was told how cute I was because I was so tiny, that my parents chose me because I was the smallest and prettiest baby there and that everyone wished I could stay small forever.
Second was the birth of my cousin when I was 5. After my cousin was born I was in anguish. I remember her christening like it was yesterday, all the aunts and my grandmother patting me on the head and telling me that I wasn't the smallest girl anymore, I had to be a big girl now. I also remember catching my gma saying how happy she was to FINALLY have a REAL grandchild. My immature reasoning nailed it down quickly, stay tiny and everyone will still love you. Be perfect because you aren't real.
The third is what brought the anorexia out. When my mother was diagnosed with whatever the hell killed her (to this day I have no clue what it really was but they told me asthma, I believe lung cancer) I was ten years old. She pretty much lived in hospitals and extended care facilities until she died when I was 14. I was forced into the role of caregiver and mother. In my warped little mind being small and cute equalled being good enough to be loved as well as the fact that my age made me "old enough" to take on the responsibility. If I could only stay little I could go back to my normal life. I was so overwhelmed by my new responsibilities that I stopped eating. It was never a conscious choice, it just happened.
Losing a parent can happen to any child, being told to be a big girl after the birth of a new baby can as well. The common factor in all of it was the childhood story of being chosen based on my looks. I often wonder how I would have turned out if I was never told that one little lie that social workers believed would show adoptees how special they are. There is no history of eating disorders in my family, there is no history of self harm in my family and there is no history of Body Dysmorphic Disorder (the second of my two official ED related disorders). There is no genetic factor, only environmental. So while others may have the same diagnosis as I do the reason for the disorders will always be different. I go to Anorexics and Bulimics Anonymous meetings when I can and have discovered that out of a group of 17 regular attendees 6 of us are adopted or spent time in the foster care system early in life. All women are at risk for eating disorders but part of the development is trauma and I experienced trauma from the second I was born and ripped from my mothers arms.
So in the end I understand that while anyone can be at risk for unusual coping methods or disorders there always needs to be a trigger. For many that trigger is adoption.
I think certainly people can empathise but I do think being adopted can only be fully understood by those who are adopted. I cannot imagine what it is like to deal with half of the issues adopted people have but I do try to understand as best I am capable of.
A couple of years ago I caught up with someone I knew as a child and found out he was adopted (which I hadn't ever realised before, he was just my friend) and over the course of our chat, he relayed to me that most of his circle of friends were adopted (only 1 out of 20 wasn't) and they had all experienced similar things which the non-adopted friend just couldn't relate to.
I believe the 'adoption' lens is at times the only way to look at certain issues BUT adoptees are people too and do have experiences that non-adopted people have and so in those things, non-adopted people can relate. And I am sure many issues adopted people have come as a result of being alive like they are for non-adopted people. (Not sure if any of this makes sense).
So yes, on some levels non-adoptees and adoptees can relate, on others we can't. Its like that for many people all over the world.... mothers who have lost a child to adoption, people who come from different cultures, people with illnesses or ailments, different sexual orientation etc. And in all these things, no one can ever fully understand another as we are ALL unique human beings and our experiences affect us all uniquely.