A Dilemma of Adoptive Parenthood: Incongruous Role Obligations H. David Kirk; Henry S. Mass Marriage and Family Living, Volume 21, Issue 4 (Nov., 1959), 316-328. Stable URL: bttp//links jstor.org/sici2sict=0885-1059% 281959 11%2921%3A4%3C316%3A ADOAPIG3E2,0,CO%3B2-1 ‘Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at hup://uk,jstor.org/abouvterms.himl, JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you ‘may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the sereen or printed page of such transmission. Marriage and Family Living is published by National Council on Family Relations. Please contact the publisher for further permissions regarding the use of this work, Publisher contact information may be obtained at hitp://uk,jstor.org/journals/NCFR. him Marriage and Family Living ©1959 National Council on Family Relations ISTOR and the ISTOR logo are trademarks of ISTOR, and are Registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office For more information on JSTOR contact jstor@mimas.ac.uk (©2003 JSTOR hups//uk jstororg/ Wed Aug 20 10:30:54 2003A Dilemma of Adoptive Parenthood: Incongruous Role Obligations* H. DAVID KIRK McGill University "Tus paper is to serve a two-fold purpose. Its primary objective isto show the existence of in- congruous role obligations in the situation of adoptive ‘elations, and to indicate the likely consequences of current modes of dealing wi the dilemma which the incongruity produces. Secondatily, in terms of methodology, this pa pet is meant to help demonstrate the applicable ity of structural-functional analyses to the strate- ies of welfare practice. Reference to the adoptive situation is here restricted to a single type of it. Throughout the discussion which is to follow, the reader should brat in mind these characteristics of our special 1. The adoptive parents are non-fecund, that is, they have never had a child boen to them, 2. The child adopted by them is biolog- cally unrelated to either spouse. 3. The child has entered the adoptive fam- ily unit in infancy of babyhood, Before the proper task of this paper is begun, it is pertinent to discuss the cultural meaning of auloptive parental non-fecundity. Conception, pregoancy, and bitth involve more thaa biologi. cal and social facts: they represent import cultural goals which, at least in the context of marriage, are furthered by powerful positive sanctions, We have research evidence to suggest that the biological foundations of normal par centhood are widely considered a necessary con- dition for optimal parental role performance Rend enn of piper sed cate te Reach Se ‘is, Unesty af Orton, Bare, Oem, Aru 58 Ti Dk, Commas Seat fe Relates fo Cod Apion Unpoisad Pub. ths hse, Nes Col iaeiy Ura 33 ee 1d). tlhe pt Stes wt eave dination ote er speed 4 Pe {corsa flowai ofthe Nant Tote tes Hehe Unie Saree Pls Meath seve) 316 MARRIAGE AND Moreover, there is reason to believe that public sentiments of this order tend to enter the self- perceptions of non-fecund adoptive parents themselves, Acceptance of values which are in appropriate to the adoptive situation may occur the more readily because adoptive parental roles as alternatives to those of biological parenthood ace at present neither adequately defined nor fully sanctioned. In the absence of insttutional- ized learning patterns concerning adoptive fam- ily roles, biological parenthood provides the most readily avsilable frame of reference for the self perceptions and role definitions of adop- ters. For the purpose of the forthcoming anal- ysis it is important to Keep in mind, however, that the cultural role supports* which accrue ‘ipso facto to biological parents do not enter the picture for the adoptive parents as a result of their autistic perceivings. Therefore, with out clear definition of the adoptive situation, without adequate sanctions, and without the concomitant role supports, it should not be im- possible to conceive of non-fecund parenthood as involving a deprivation of elementary cul- tural goods. OF course fecundity values are Icarned well in advance of the occurrence of these depriva- tional experiences. When one considers that sentiments related to fecundity tend to enter the Vales Related to Adopton—Aa Aspe of he Adapted hil’s Heitere" Adder to the Nato! Can Terincevon Adopiee, Child Wellare Lest, 193, Mineo faphed, Montes Gill Uiverty Sete! of Social Work bp “iste suppor” mean all tho itech, Intcepeuoally, aod caleivly derived raeatonr wich fd inthe conte! of sale expecasons The "00d cm Since," he teptaton of "eed pscet™ among melhor, nd the “Noten fhe Yea" avard ae tper of Parental fepotbn, snd award ech dew the acses stenting te formative peas involved sad sport is radi for Fete se inthe equ deco FAMILY LIVING November, 1959standards by which adoptive parents estimate the meaning of their situation, it becomes rea- sonable to suppose that theit estimation fre- quently implies devaluation. On the level of interpersonal behavior, the conditions of dep vation and self-devaluation are subsumed under the concept of role handicap. ‘Whether or not the preceding ideas concern- ing the meaning of non-fecund parenthood ap- pear plausible as presented, the reader is asked to accept them as presupposed for the purposes of thi IE that is done, it will be possible to move on to the exposition and analysis of the incongruity involved in adoptive parental role obligations Ourume oF Procepure ‘The presentation will be in the following order and will involve the exposition and analy- sis of: 1, Certain. normative requirements. (role obligations) which the contemporary nuclear family system entails for the parent couples, and which adoptive par- ents share with biologial parents. 2, The direction in which adoptive parents tend to modify the expected response to these requirements as a result of their initial cole handicap. 3. A special requirement for adoptive par ents which derives from the profession- alization of adoption services, and the peculiar incongruity which this special requirement introduces into the adop- tive parental role system, 4, Current modes of parental behavior which are here identified as mechanisms of adjustment to the conflicting req ‘ments of the adoptive situation, 5. The implied meaning of these would-be adaptive patterns for their users. 6. The relationship between current adap- tive mechanisms and the child-placing policies of social agencies. 7. Finally there will be an assessment of in other cote, tht pheomincn Das een visions sot under the concn of iets with De ai November, 1959 MARRIAGE AND FAMILY LIVING the utility of current modes of adapta- tion in terms of the likely consequences which theie employment has for the parent-child system when the parents seek to satisfy both of the incongruous role requirements. ‘Use oF Reskarch! MATERIAL At several points in this paper, the points of view of adoptive parents will be given. These statements derive from material supplied in response to a mail questionnaire in which more than 1,500 adoptive couples furnished informa- tion concerning their attitudes and experiences.® ‘Tum RrQuREMENTS OF INTEGRATION AND SUBSEQUENT PROGRESSIVE, DIFFERENTIA- TION OF THE CumLD All family patterns involve some emphasis fon, and at least partial realization of, the inte- {ration of new members with the existing unit. In the companionate type family, as we know it, this pressing toward integration tends to be counterbalanced by an emphasis on individua- tion. Integration is thus expected to lead to an evolving autonomy through increasing oppor tunities forthe acquisition of independence. But if the contemporary middle class family gives at least lipservice to this balance in child rearing between integeational-partcipational value and those of individualism and autodomy, I suspect that the “good family” and the “adequate par: ent,” in the sense of public reputation, can af- ford to exr more readily on the side of over- emphasizing integration than dilferentation, Certainly the clinician sees more of the results SD. Aik, “Raonale for a Stay of Atta and [ypeines of Adopie Peete" mimensaphes, Moats MaGill Uniesty Shoat of Social Wonk, 1933, Cyne, ef aby lity Into Alona Sytomai Conte ‘uae of Mal Quctionsane, Cones, Monte Mecill niversyLivay, 1998 (MSW. group ter oe doce in conaectin with the Adoption Ranh Price). ‘Adiowledemeat bey made” othe following” fr financial sod lber aid rendered this tedys MeGill Univer: Sys The Bary BA Casidy Meera! Ped, Unineniy of ‘Trent: The Chile's Senie Cente, Monte Che's {id and Inlnts’ Homer of Tora (enw the Chile's Aid Scie of Metopolian Toronto); The Catoie Chien ‘Ad Society of Toronto The Spence Chapin Asia Sti [New York City Childe Series, Cleveland Tie Sa of Cattrnis Department of Soc! Wetes The Coty of Los 317of persons made “over dependent” than of the reverse, ‘The norms of the nuclear, companionate fam- ily system appear to require ofthe parent figures that they initially do everything to make a new- comer into a member, that is, to integeate him or her. These norms further require thatthe child be in time allowed to move outward, to find companions outside the family circle, to develop alliances with, and allegiances to, other groups 4s well. The norms require progressive differ entiation on a firmly established base of inte- gration. Inthe biological family this progressive mow- ing from integration to increasing autonomy is facilitated by the ascription to the members of a blood-familial. status. Members know that, within wide limits, they are free to do as they please since their place in the family group can- not be readily forfeited. And biological parents know that the child, for all his growing up and cout of the protective familial situation, always belongs by this very asceiption of membership. Apoptive PARENTAL RESPONSE TO THE INTEGRATION DIFFERENTIATION REQUIREMENT. In the absence of such biological bonds and of family line continuity, the emphasis of the non-fecund adoptive couple appears to be on integration rather than on the differentiating forces of autonomy. While the normative role obligations of biological parents also apply to adopters, the later are probably more threatened by the differentiation aspect. Adoptive parents can be expected to respond by greaterthan- ‘ordinary protectiveness of the child and by tey- ing, with all means at their disposal, to make inviolable the integrity of theie familial unit. In principle it would seem that they might achieve this most directly by hiding the fact of the adoption from the child as well as from others, and by simulating as completely as possi- bile the conditions of the natural Family. As long as their secret were to remain undiscovered, the couple could move toward integration with their adopted child as any other family. Most likely they would pay such psychic penalties as tend to 318 MARRIAGE AND FAMILY LIVING be exacted for successful deceit in our culture, but the move toward integration would other- wise be uninhibited. Asi is, however, complete secrecy is probably seldom to be achieved. Not ‘only will those who attempt to practice it live under the cloud ofthe fear of discovery and the subsequent los oftheir desired quasi biological parent status, but they will live in further fear of being sejected by the child if someday he were 10 find himself deceived in his identity. Adopted persons who were told by others, ot who were confronted by the adoptive parents with the fact of adoption at times of crisis such as adolescence or just before marrage, are re ported subsequently to have had serious identity problems. ‘A SPECIAL REQUIREMENT FOR THE ADOPTIVE PARENT-CHILD SYSTEM Considerations of this order have for several decades made mental health specialists empha- size the importance of candidness between adoptive parents and children concerning. the adoption status of the latter. Such practitioners have counseled that the child should be told from the very start, and that “adopted” should be a word of common usage in the adoptive Family? If the advice is followed, the child’s familial membership and reference group focus may be blurred. Ordinarily a child has but a single focus of membership and reference within his family of orientation. For the adopted child, however, there is the clearly visible one of the adoptive situation, with the unseen and or dinarily little known reality of his biological forbears hovering in the background.* tee M, Brake and Breva C. Brkt, Advetaring in Adorn, Chapel Mls Unierty of North Cortina Pret, 1939, 183: Bl D. Eich Alms C.Jesklon, “Telling Aooted Chien" in States of Children, eel by Gladys Meee, New York: King's Cra Pes 945, p12} Looe Riyoond, Adoption andar, New Yoo ister, 93 CChner 4; Kart Lewin, "Bencag Up the Jesh hid.” fo Restvng Sovel Confit, New ont: Hetzer, 1948, 173. eis sometime aid tat cide ase Bone at 8D teint ia her growing peony timate that they sree adopcd. One mist nae. meres, that fot cildeen, ‘ued in ie biog) Tein, i wold. demontabiy fs fant wie the adoted child who ows af hs adap ti and dwell oo ht dual entation, sa Enos ta I lasing atenot of the orer of fast November, 1959It is not surprising then that the requirement of informing the child of his adoptive status is. problematic for adopted child and parents, One particularly perceptive parent put it this way: We have missed {in the mail questionasite] a reference as to how parents are approaching the problem of the natuzal acceptance by the child of his unique position inthe family and society. This may not be of apparent importance at first bet will no doubt be the one single factor which will determine the foture relationship between the child and his or her parents and society ia ener ‘Through the cyes of this parent one can see something of the significance of the special requirement, In complying with it, adoptive parents in effect set the child apart, giving him a “unique position in the family and sacety.” The requirement of an early and ongoing “revela- tion"* (my shorthand term for informing the child about his adoptive identity) thus conflicts with the requirement for basic familial integea- tion, Apparently to compensate themselves for their deprivation of given familial role supports, adoptive parents may be inclined to strive for family integration with particular intensity. Un- der such circumstances, the special requirement to engage in the differentiating act of revelation is bound to confront the adoptive parent with a wellnigh insuperable conflict. This conflict seems unavoidable as long as adoptive parents are subject to the push anl pull of incongruous role obligations. ‘The next step in our analysis will be an iden- tification of cutrent modes of adjusting to the frustration of efforts to satisfy the conflicting requirements of the adoptive situation. ‘The songetion ins been made Wht 1 replace the term “reyenon™ by "lig which Ie the toh in lal work fanctations by sueeting tingly aie ad armed event. While should be ne ln ht the concert Sf revel does aot imply sole event fot securing Spe (asf the ene fa the onus eelstne of ovale citi). T elev that for tue tale pampane evel: in is pecfenble to. "telling beenne the formes mikes folic he emotive weighting which ant of the itaton SP eine bot which the tem "ling does ot apt. 1 sonst that dhe conceptual reeset f tent) esth ‘cation and of socal ‘sie may be diferet November, 1959 MARRIAGE AND Soot MECHANISMS OF ADAPTATION ‘A number of phenomena, mote of less com- monly associated with adoption in our culture, appear related to adoptive parents’ aspirations for family integration and for role support, In Table I, these patterns are presented in the ap- proximate order of their occurrence in the evolu- tion of adoptive family living. The left-hand column lists ten such phenomena which have been identified in direct observation, in the Titerature on adoption, and in the material ob- tained from our mail questionnaire study. The right-hand column lists suggested explanations of the observed phenomena. A brief discussion of the items in this table will help to identify the underlying pattern of theie meaning. 1, Physical resemblance and the knowledge that the adopted child shares the adopters’ cth- nic background seems to be reassuring to many adoptive parents, in part perhaps because they can thereby pass the more readily for just a family. 2. Whatever other satisfactions they may de- tive from adopting an infant as against an older child, edoptive parents are helped by this means also to "pass." 3. Some 90 per cent (1,373) of the mail «questionnaire respondents said that at least once ‘outsiders have asked them some questions like: “Do you know anything about ehis child's back- ground?" OF those to whom this had happened, only 3. per cent report that they felt pleased about the inquiry, and only 7 per cent say they felt amused by it. Many wrote into say that they consider such inquities from other people to be ‘uncalled for and that questions like these show how misinformed people really are on the sub- ject of adoption, Some of the adoptive parents port having replied politely as they could: "W's none of your business.” 4, Adoptive parents who seck to have more than one child seldom can get « child “on shost order.” Since they usually have to wait for several months, of even years, this situation helps them to simulate the spacing between bio- logical family arrival, 5. Such multiple adopters generally follow FAMILY LIVING 319