|
Birthmother
Research Project
J. Kelly M.A. Chapter
II. Literature Review
"All of our loss experiences hark back to Original Loss,
the loss of that ultimate mother-child connection. For before
we begin to encounter the inevitable separations of everyday
life, we live in a state of oneness with our mother. This
ideal state, this state of boundarylessness, this I-am-you-are-me-is-she-is-we,
this 'harmonious interpenetrating mix-up," this floating
"I'm in the milk and the milk's in me,' this chillproof
insulation from aloneness and intimations of mortality:
This is a condition known to lovers, saints, psychotics,
druggies and infants. It is called bliss." (Viorst, 1998,
p. 34)
THE MOTHER-CHILD BOND
Against the backdrop of our complex, fast-changing, technological
society, evolutionary theory provides a counterpoint of simplicity.
Primal -- bound by natural laws -- with changes occurring
ever so slowly over millennia, the evolutionary process remains
in sharp contrast to our environmental process.
As described by Bowlby,
". . . [I]t is usually fairly safe to assume that the habitat
occupied by a species today is either the same as or close
to its environment of evolutionary adaptedness. For man
this is not so. . . . [We can ] be fairly sure that none
of the environments in which civilised, or even half-civilised,
man lives today conforms to the environment in which man's
environmentally stable behavioural systems were evolved
and to which they are intrinsically adapted." (Bowlby, 1982,
pp. 58-59)
Our evolutionary system holds within it countless life cycles
of procreation - the maternal body - collective heartbeats
maintaining the life of the species. We are only beginning
to grasp the intrauterine and neonatal physiological and behavioral
systems that have evolved to ensure the survival of the infant,
i.e., mother-child bonding. In order to understand the impact
of relinquishment, it is necessary to explore both the intrauterine
and extrauterine dynamics of the mother-child relationship.
According to Verny and Kelly, there exists ". . . a human
intrauterine bonding system at least as complex, graded and
subtle as the bonding that occurs after birth. Indeed, they
are part of the same vital continuum: What happens after birth
is an elaboration of, and depends on, what happened prior
to it" (1981, p. 75).
Most of the research on mother-child bonding has focused
on attachment theory. Differentiating between the formation
of attachments and bonding, Verrier (1993) describes attachment
as "a kind of emotional dependence"; while bonding "implies
a profound connection which is experienced at all levels of
human awareness" (p. 19). Bowlby (1982) defines attachment
behaviour ". . . as seeking and maintaining proximity to another
individual" (p. 194). Bowlby examined attachment behavior
in terms of its "evolutionary adaptedness" (p. 58). Hence,
maintaining proximity to the mother protected infants from
predation in primeval environments. Attachment behavior, such
as an infant's clinging to its mother, can be seen in many
non-human primates as early as at birth. However, a human
infant is not strong enough at birth to cling and requires
support by its mother (Bowlby, 1982). Bowlby proposed that
attachment behavior begins at approximately six months of
age; consequently, in human beings, attachment theory is by
definition limited to the older infant. Bowlby's conception
of attachment theory is predicated on the existence of biologically-based
behavioral systems that mediate attachment and proximity to
the primary caretaker, e.g., the distress signal emitted by
a baby's cry (Crain, 1992). According to Bowlby, these primitive
neonatal systems predispose the infant to develop attachment
behaviors later.
Mahler (1994) describes a state of undifferentiation in the
first few extrauterine weeks of life during which the infant
is unable to differentiate between inner and outer reality.
Mahler proposes that this phase is followed by a state of
symbiosis between mother and infant, during the second through
fifth month, and a separation-individuation phase beyond the
fifth month. Mahler asserts that "the biological birth of
the human infant and the psychological birth of the individual
are not coincident in time. The former is a dramatic and readily
observable, well-circumscribed event; the latter, a slowly
unfolding intrapsychic process" (Mahler, 1994, p. 120). Mahler's
separation-individuation phase appears to coincide with Bowlby's
timetable for the manifestation of attachment behavior.
Bowlby (1982) writes that attachment behavior is one-half
of a "shared dyadic programme" (e.g., attachment behavior/mother-retrieval
behavior) and that the mother child relationship is comprised
of multiple "shared dyadic programmes" (p. 377). Bowlby points
out that "the study of caregiving as a behavioural system
. . . is an enterprise calling for attention" (p. 377-378).
While much theory-building and research has been formulated
around the developmental stages of attachment behaviors and
the impact of maternal separation on the child, the vast majority
of it is oriented toward the developmental impact on the child.
Very little attention has been placed on the "mother-child
bonding" behavioral systems of the mother and the impact of
separation on the mother. Where research has been conducted
(such as, Ainsworth's maternal attunement), the emphasis is
nearly always on it's impact on the child. Winnicott (1995)
has attempted to differentiate between the mother's identification
with the infant and the infant's identification with the mother.
Winnicott has identified a "primary maternal preoccupation"
which occurs during the pregnancy and enables the mother to
"identify" with the infant (1995, p. 15). After birth, Winnicott
proposes that a "weaning" process occurs enabling the mother
to recover "her self-interest. . . at the rate at which her
infant can allow her to do so" (1995, p. 15). According to
Winnicott, there exists "a mother-infant partnership in which
the mother by one kind of identification meets the infant's
original state of undifferentiation" (1995, p. 15). During
this stage, the infant's self is described by Winnicott as
only "potential" and is actually merged with the mother's
self. Winnicott describes two types of maternal disorder affecting
primary maternal preoccupation: (1) in the first case, the
mother's own self-interests are compulsive and unable to be
shifted to the infant, and (2) in the second case, the mother
becomes pathologically preoccupied with the infant and unable
to recover her own self-interest. Although Winnicott does
not address the situation of relinquishment and loss of the
infant, it seems plausible that the birthmother who relinquishes
might also suffer from a "primary maternal preoccupation"
disorder affecting the recovery of her self-interest. In this
case, the process of recovering her own self-interest is no
longer guided by the ongoing interaction with her infant.
Rather, the infant has been abruptly separated from the mother
while the mother's ego is "attuned" to supporting the needs
of the infant. As posited by Judith Viorst,
"Yet the yearning to restore the bliss of mother-child
oneness - that ultimate connection - is never relinquished.
All of us live, at some unconscious level, as if we had
been rendered incomplete. Though the rupture of primary
unity is a necessary loss, it remains 'an incurable wound
which afflicts the destiny of the whole human race.'" (1998,
p. 42)
Referring to Winnicott's theory of individual development,
Verrier states that ". . . at the beginning of life there
is no such thing as a baby. There is instead a mother/baby
- an emotional, psychological, spiritual unit, whose knowing
comes from intuition. The baby and the mother, although separated
physiologically, are still psychologically one" (1993, p.
17). If we do indeed yearn to restore the primary unity of
"mother-child oneness," does the expectant mother temporarily
do so via "primary maternal preoccupation?" And to carry this
thought one step further, what might be the effects of severing
the connection outside of the rhythm of nature's progression?
Stiffler (1992) reports that "evidence of an archetypal
longing of mothers and children for each other is exhibited
in all mammals and is pathetically demonstrated on those occasions
when behavioral scientists attempt to separate them" (p. 94).
According to Verny and Kelly (1981) , the optimum timeframe
for intrauterine bonding is in the last trimester of pregnancy
during which time the fetus is capable of sending sophisticated
messages to the mother. Verny and Kelly identify the first
hours and days following birth as optimum for extrauterine
bonding. Verny and Kelly propose that a highly involved sympathetic
communication system exists between mother and child - one
which supports the theory of extrasensory communication. Ehrenwald
(1977, cited in Stiffler, 1992) postulates that communication
between the mother and child during the symbiotic phase may
be intrapsychic and telepathic - "that there is no psychological
gap between them, due to a continued fusion of the neonatal
with the maternal ego" (p. 105). While the telepathic link
is believed to diminish over time, it has been observed to
spontaneously appear in later years -- particularly in time
of crisis or when other communication channels are unavailable
(Stiffler, 1992).
Most of the literature concerning mother-child bonding has
focused on extrauterine bonding - with little emphasis on
intrauterine bonding. The discovery of a "bodywide communication
system," which communicates across cellular barriers, informs
our understanding of mother-child communication in utero.
Recent research in the area of psychoneuroimmunology lends
support to the ease with which both sympathetic and physiological
communication is facilitated between mother and fetus. Quoting
from her original journal article, Candace Pert writes:
"Neuropeptides and their receptors thus join the brain, glands,
and immune system in a network of communication between brain
and body, probably representing the biochemical substrate
of emotion" (1997, p. 179). Additionally, psychoneuroimmunology
explains how memories may be stored "in a psychosomatic
network extending into the body, particularly in the ubiquitous
receptors between nerves and bundles of cell bodies called
ganglia, which are distributed not just in and near the spinal
cord, but all the way out along pathways to internal organs
and the very surface of our skin" (Pert, 1997, p. 143). Are
the memories and emotions of the mother-infant union indelibly-imprinted,
somatically upon the cells of both mother and child? Are state-dependent
memories and behaviors reflective of the mother-child symbiotic
relationship encoded in our neural networks?
This section has explored various mother-child bonding theories
- emanating from the disciplines of ethology, biology and
psychology. The meaning of the mother-child relationship lies
in its social construction. Pertinent to this study is the
social construction of motherhood, adoption and relinquishment.
THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF MOTHERHOOD,
ADOPTION, AND RELINQUISHMENT
"What makes a mother? Is it the child birth? Is it the
bearing and nourishing and sustaining him for the first
nine months of his life? Is it the raising of him, spending
his growing years with him? When do women become mothers?
Does some thing [sic] magical happen during or after
childbirth?
Is this the forging, the test by fire, or do mothers become
themselves under the gentle pedagogy of the tiny teachers
who make them feel too much too soon? Are we the mothers
when we begin to care, to wonder, when we realise we are
moved by a child we can't even see? When does motherhood
begin, when does it end - or does it have beginning and
end? Is it time bound?" (Connolly, 1987, as quoted in Arthur
& Jacobs, 1999, p. 21)
Several definitions are presented here in order to lay the
groundwork for this topic, namely: postmodernism, deconstructionism,
and social constructionism. Postmodernism has been described
as:
"A philosophical movement across a variety of disciplines
that has sought to dismantle many of the assumptions that
underlie the established truths of the modern era. It is
marked by acceptance of plurality and the challenging of
norms. In particular, postmodernism tends to reject the
view that science and technology necessarily provide hope
for human progress." (Monk, Winslade, Crocket & Epston,
1997, p. 304)
Imbedded in postmodernism is the ideology of deconstructionism.
Referring to this worldview, Woodhouse (1996, p. 22) writes:
"The assumption is that an objective evaluation
of competing points of view is impossible since all points
of view are to some extent biased by race, gender, and culture.
All that's left to do is to describe different perspectives,
including those formerly considered inconsequential, and
attempt to balance past biases--which might entail leaving
Plato and Shakespeare out of the curriculum altogether."
Similarly, social constructionism is defined as:
"The movement in the social sciences that stresses the
role played by language in the production of meaning. A
central tenet is that people produce through discourse the
social conditions by which their thoughts, feelings, and
actions are determined. In this way, meaning is made in
social contexts rather than given." (Monk et al., 1997,
p. 305)
Freedman and Combs (1996, p. 22) present the following ideas
as fundamental to the "postmodern view of reality": "1. Realities
are socially constructed. 2. Realities are constituted through
language. 3. Realities are organized and maintained through
narrative. 4. There are no essential truths." Within this
context, the reality of motherhood, adoption, and relinquishment
is socially defined, manipulated by language, reproduced by
stories, and subject to transmutation and redefinition. By
challenging the assumptions of reality, normality, and prevailing
beliefs, infinite alternative realities become possible.
Motherhood
In my attempt to deconstruct the meaning of motherhood,
I challenge myself and the reader to unearth the cultural,
social, economic, and political assumptions by which motherhood
is constructed. In ancient cultures, the Great Goddess was
worshiped and revered as the embodiment of the life cycle
continuum: birth, death, and regeneration (Kahn, 1995). In
her book Motherhood: The Second Oldest Profession,
Erma Bombeck writes: "'Mother' has always been a generic term
synonymous with love, devotion, and sacrifice. . . . Immediately
following birth, every new mother drags from her bed and awkwardly
pulls herself up on the pedestal provided for her" (1983,
pp. 2-3).
Chodorow (1978) provides an informative description of the
historical changes affecting motherhood that have taken place
in the preceding two centuries.
Two centuries ago, marriage, especially for women, was
essentially synonymous with child-rearing. . . . Parenting
lasted from the inception of a marriage to the death of
the marriage partners. . . . In this earlier period, the
household was the major productive unit of society. Husband
and wife, with their own and/or other children, were a cooperative
producing unit. . . . Women carried out productive and reproductive
responsibilities, as they have in most societies and throughout
history. . . .
[Over the last two centuries,] production outside the home
became identified with work as such; the home was no longer
viewed as a workplace. Home and workplace, once the same,
are now separate.
This change in the organization of production went along
with and produced a complex of far-reaching changes in the
family and in women's lives. . . . Women's family role became
centered on child care and taking care of men. This role
involved more than physical labor. It was relational and
personal and, in the case of both children and men, maternal.
. . ." (pp. 4-5).
Perhaps the social construction of motherhood is most clearly
visible when examined under the lens of patriarchy. Chodorow
(1978) ascribes women's mothering to be "a central and defining
feature of the social organization of gender and is implicated
in the construction and reproduction of male dominance itself"
(p. 9). Traditionally, economic systems have depended upon
the continued reproduction of "labor power" within the family
by women's reproduction and mothering (Chodorow, 1978). Historically,
both prior to and during the years of this study, income inequalities
based on gender fostered a sexual division of labor -- with
mothers serving as primary caretakers and fathers, primary
wage-earners (Chodorow, 1978). Chodorow asserts that the "social
organization of gender. . . is socially constructed, subject
to historical change and development, and organized in such
a way that it is systematically reproduced" (1978, p. 8).
In The American Heritage College Dictionary (3rd
Ed.), the term mother is defined as "a woman who conceives,
gives birth to, or raises and nurtures a child" (1993,
p. 890). However, in Western society, the satisfaction of
all four conditions are often implicitly assumed. As Chodorow
(1978) points out, a man can "mother" a child, but a woman
can not "father" a child. Chodorow asserts that "being a mother,
then, is not only bearing a child - it is being a person who
socializes and nurtures. It is being a primary parent or caretaker"
(p. 11). Hence, in the "lived" definition, an otherwise childless
woman who miscarries, aborts, delivers a stillborn, relinquishes,
or adopts may not be viewed as a mother in its fullest sense.
Adoptive mothers Betsy Smith, Janet Surrey, and Mary Watkins
report having been asked the following questions by strangers:
"Are you her 'mother'?" "Is she yours?" "Does she call you
'Mom'?" "She can't be your baby. Where does she come from?"
(1998, p. 194) For members of the adoption triad, the term
"real" mother is emotionally loaded. Smith, Surrey, and Watkins
(1998) claim that adoptive mothers may fear that without the
opportunity for mother-infant bonding at birth, their relationship
may be less "real." They argue that, in spite of the evidence
supporting the prenatal development of an infant's familiarity
with its biological mother and the potential effects of severing
that relationship, adoptive mothers are able to develop attachment
relationships with the child. Smith et al. (1998) assert that
". . . in a culture that values blood relations over others,
the parents considered 'real' are the birth parents, despite
any acts they have committed that are antithetical to 'parenting'"
(p. 206). In this context, Smith et al. have used the term
"to parent" in the sense of "To act as a parent to; raise
and nurture" as specified in The American Heritage College
Dictionary (3rd Ed.) (1993, p. 992). An alternate
use of the term "to parent" is "To cause to come into existence;
originate." Once more, we are presented with the dilemma of
defining terms in the exceptional case of adoption and relinquishment.
Smith et al. have demonstrated their bias and "lived experience"
by choosing the term "parenting" to represent "raising and
nurturing," They advocate for the "continued development and
reinforcement of nonblaming, nonjudgmental language to describe
members of the adoption triangle. . . for example, birth mother,
biological mother; instead of 'real' mother, 'natural' mother,
or 'abandoning' mother. . ." (p. 212). Others, however, argue
that there is no judgment intended in the term "natural" mother
and that biologically the woman who gave birth to the child
is in fact his/her natural mother. Birthmothers often claim
that they relinquished their "parenting" rights to raise and
nurture the child, but they did not relinquish their "motherhood."
Relinquishment instruments often used terminology such as
the "relinquishment of parental rights." This is evidenced
in the language expressed in Washington D.C.'s relinquishment
document (circa 1956-1960):
"Relinquishment of Parental Rights - Mother
I, (insert BM name here), legal mother of (insert Bname
of adoptee), born at (insert city/state of birth) on (insert
DOB) hereby surrender and relinquish all parental rights
in the said child and do permanently relinquish and transfer
the same to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia,
and their designated agents, under provisions of Section
6 of the Act of April 22, 1944, (58 Stat. 194) as amended
by Section 5 (b) of the Act of June 8, 1954 (68 Stat. 248),
with full power and authority to the said Commissioners
or their designated agents to consent to the adoption of
the said child." (cited in goob@innova.net, 1997)
Terms such as birthmother, first mother, other mother, biological
mother, and natural mother have been coined in order to describe
a woman who conceived and gave birth to a child but did not
raise and nurture the child. Motherhood is also in some cases
endowed with attributes of ownership - my son, my
daughter. This too can be magnified in the atypical case of
relinquishment and adoption and may create an underlying competition
between birthmothers and adoptive mothers. As emphasized by
one birthmother,
"What we have to realize, all of us, is that children are
not possessions. They don't belong to any of us. Children
are their own beings, adopted or not. At best, we can guide
them. The birthparents have guided them into the world,
the adoptive ones guide them through childhood. But we do
not own them. We are not in competition for deeds or titles.
We are united in love." (Jones, 1993, p. 283).
Smith et al. (1998) refer to the "multiplicity of mothering"
as those situations where more than one mother parents a child,
as seen in lesbian families or extended families. In other
cultures, language exists to describe such relationships,
e.g., African American "blood mothers" and "other mothers"
and Latino "madres de sangre (blood mothers) and madres
de crianza (childrearing mothers)". Having multiple siblings,
we are able to refer to all as brothers and sisters. We have
no need to differentiate other than by name, or sometimes
birth order, when necessary. However, in the case of relinquishment
and adoption, there appears to be a need to distinguish between
the two mothering roles, as evidenced by distinctions found
in language. Discussing the "confusion about status" in the
post-reunion relationship, Gediman and Brown (1991) assert:
"The problem of what to call whom also reflects the anomaly
of the post-reunion relationship, which is often described
as both a yes and no at the same time. 'I'm his mother but
not his mother,' one says. 'My daughter who's not my daughter,'
another puts it. 'I won't be her Mom but she is forever
my daughter,' according to someone else. Strictly speaking,
such sentences don't make any sense, but somehow because
of the circumstances, they do." (p. 154)
Additional insights into motherhood may be found in identifying
some of the psychological and social reasons for wanting children.
Hoffman and Hoffman found the following reasons why people
wanted children:
"Becoming a parent marks the official passage into adulthood.
A child is seen as an extension of the self, and having
a child is a way to give birth to the unborn self.
A child is seen as an heir apparent, someone to carry on
the family line and traditions, and to insure social status.
A child can realize the parents' dreams, and also can have
a childhood full of the opportunities and love that the
parents feel they have been deprived of during their own
childhoods. Women especially may look upon having a child
as a way of showing up their own mothers in the job of mothering:
'I'm sure not going to raise my children the way my mother
raised me.'
Having children is the morally and socially correct thing
to do, and pressure from friends, family and the larger
culture cause parents to feel they must procreate to be
accepted.
Becoming parents may provide people with the illusion of
having control over their own lives. They may feel powerful
in comparison to the helpless child who is so dependent
upon them. Or they may believe that the child will save
their faltering marital relationship.
Economic utility: Children can help out with the family
business, and also can be counted on to take care of the
parents in old age.
Having a child is seen as a way for the parents to celebrate
their love, and raising children is seen as one of life's
major challenges. Child rearing is yet another area in which
success-oriented parents can excel and prove their worth."
(Sanford & Donovan, 1984, pp. 32-33)
Each of these reasons may become threads in the fabric of
motherhood and add additional layers of meaning. Our understanding
of motherhood is further enlightened by exploring what it
means to be childless. Sanford and Donovan (1984) describe
the social stigma that may accompany childlessness. Childless
women may be characterized as "deficient, aberrant and even
pathetic" and pitiable (p. 148). They may be seen as "immature,
selfish, unable to give to others" (p. 149). Women who desire
to become pregnant and are infertile may suffer greater social
stigma (Sanford & Donovan, 1984). Sanford and Donovan
further state that "a woman who does not have children must
prove herself exceptional in achievement in order to compensate
for her failure to be a 'real' woman" (p. 149).
Cultural, social, economic, and political changes within
the last fifty years have dramatically influenced the role
of mothering. Surrogate parenting, whereby a surrogate mother
can be artificially inseminated for the purpose of carrying
and relinquishing the child to a childless couple, further
challenges our cognitive schemata that shapes, makes sense
of, and gives meaning to "motherhood." Multiple mothering
and single parenting likewise challenge our staid assumptions.
The recent rise in reunions of birthmothers and adoptees (and
its media coverage) has implicitly made apparent the disparities
in the meaning of motherhood as it applies to adoptive mothers
and birthmothers. The next section addresses the historical
underpinnings of adoption as a social institution.
Adoption
"The tensions inherent in keeping secrets affect all aspects
of the adoptive process. Everyone involved in adoption must
confront at one time or another questions about secrecy
and disclosure. Should a child's birth certificate indicate
that he or she has been adopted? How many details about
a child's birth should social workers disclose to the adoptive
parents? When and how should adoptive parents tell their
children they were adopted? Should adoptive parents impart
to their child all the information that social workers have
given to them? When adult adoptees return to an adoption
agency, should social workers give them all the facts in
the file, including the names of their biological parents?
When birth mothers return, should they learn how to contact
the children they relinquished? Disclosure is also fraught
with anxiety. Adoptive parents worry that they will lose
their children when the children seek and find their biological
family. Some adult adoptees worry that they will hurt their
adopted parents if they make deeper inquiries into their
past or want to meet biological family members. Unwed mothers
who have married and started new families worry that the
child they relinquished for adoption, now grown, will appear
unexpectedly on their doorstep. Others worry the opposite:
they will never again see the child they gave up for adoption.
"It was not always this way." (Carp, 1998, pp. 2-3)
Adoption is a social organization. As such, it is shaped
by society, culture, religion, politics, economics, etc. An
examination of its history portrays a multidimensional portrait
of its social construction. Although adoption most likely
pre-dates recorded history, it is the adoption practices of
the last few hundred years that are most pertinent to this
study. Adoption practices have taken many forms over the centuries
and across cultures. Carp (1998) contrasts how adoption is
currently practiced in the South Pacific, Africa, Asia, and
in Western societies:
"Whereas in Western societies modern adoption is infrequent,
private, formal, and involves a complete transfer of parental
rights, on some South Pacific islands adoption is common,
public, casual, and characterized by partial transfer
of the adopted child to the new family and dual parental
rights and obligations. In contrast to Western societies,
where parental ties are always broken, in Africa and Asia,
adoption is a method of enriching and strengthening ties
between two family groups. Similarly, in the South Pacific,
it is common for adopted children to maintain a relationship
with their biological parents." (p. 4)
In Western societies, adoption has undergone a number of
cyclic transformations. According to Carp (1998), by the seventeenth
century, adoption was perceived as "unchristian" and "unnatural"
and had practically disappeared in most European countries
due to several salient factors. Prevalent factors included:
(1) the Church's disapproval of the use of adoption as a mechanism
for inheritance, (2) the denouncement of adoption by religious
leaders and reformers who held that sex and procreation should
only be practiced within the confines of marriage and intended
to discourage the practice of biological fathers bringing
their illegitimate sons into the family through adoption,
(3) fears of inadvertent incestuous unions, (4) the public
stigma of infertility, and (5) a belief that adoption was
contrary to the "natural order" (Carp, 1998).
Prior to the mid-nineteenth century, adoption was unregulated
by law. In fact, adoption was not even recognized by English
Common Law. Carp (1998) attributes this to the primacy of
kinship and the protection of inheritance property rights
for blood relatives, the prevailing moral repulsiveness toward
illegitimacy, and the existence of "quasi-adoptive" practices
of apprenticeship and voluntary placements. Departing from
the European adoption practices and attitudes, colonial Americans
"showed little preference for the primacy of biological kinship,
practiced adoption on a limited scale, and frequently placed
children in what we would call foster care" (Carp, 1998, p.
5). Indenture and apprenticeship were widely practiced - in
both voluntary and compulsory forms. These practices provided
mechanisms to reduce vagrancy and to assist the poor. Carp
(1998) notes that "church and town authorities involuntarily
'bound out' orphans, bastards, abandoned children, and impoverished,
neglected, or abused children to families to labor and be
educated" (p. 5). Contrary to indentured servitude (where
the child performed labor in exchange for support until attaining
adulthood), informal adoptions offered "some hope or expectation
that children placed in informal adoptive settings would receive
care, support, and perhaps education from their new home"
(TxCARE, 1994, p. 1). Informal adoptions occurred without
legal proceedings. Informal adoptions often served economic
purposes by supplying an inexpensive source of child labor.
Another practice, known as testamentary adoption, enabled
children placed with families to be provided for in their
wills.
Carp notes that:
"Under the impact of large-scale immigration, urbanization,
and the advent of the factory system and wage labor, the
compact, stable, agricultural communities of colonial American
were giving way to crowded, sprawling, coastal cities. One
of the effects of these wrenching economic and social transformations
was that both urban and rural poverty became major problems"
(1998, p. 7).
This led to the development of almshouses and private orphanages
to provide relief for the poor. Failure of these institutions
to provide adequate care of the children prompted a shift
away from institutional solutions to an emphasis on "the ability
of a family environment to shape and reform dependent children"
(Carp, 1998, p. 8). Carp writes:
"By 1900, breaking up families had become practically taboo,
at least in theory, and family preservation had become a
fundamental principle among all child-savers. . . . While
they continued to extol the family as superior to the institution,
the 'family' they now meant was the child's natural parents,
the family of origin" (1998, p. 16).
Poverty was no longer viewed as a sufficient reason to break
up a family. State laws were enacted to facilitate keeping
the child with the mother, e.g. pensions for widowed mothers.
The prevailing attitude concerning adoption is evidenced in
this 1927 report by the Children's Bureau concerning ten child-placement
agencies: "[They] were unanimous in their opinion that no
child, whether of legitimate or illegitimate birth, should
be placed for adoption if there were decent, self-respecting
parents or other family connections who might later, if not
at the moment, provide a home for him" (Carp, 1998, p. 17).
For some time, in the early part of the twentieth century,
eugenics played a part in discouraging the adoptability of
illegitimate children. A connection between inherited feeblemindedness
and unwed mothers was being espoused. Adoptions during the
first quarter of the century were reportedly low due to cultural,
medical, and social stigma associated with adoption (Carp,
1998).
State legislation of adoption began to appear in the mid-nineteenth
century. Massachusetts passed the first adoption statute in
1851 wherein "adoption pursuant to the Massachusetts statute
required judicial approval, consent of the child's parent
or guardian, and a finding that the prospective adoptive family
was of sufficient ability to raise the child" (TxCARE, 1994,
p. 2). According to Carp, the Massachusetts Adoption Act "codified
earlier state court decisions that had transformed the law
of custody to reflect Americans' new conceptions of childhood
and parenthood, which emphasized the needs of children and
the contractual and egalitarian nature of spouses' rights
of guardianship" (1998, p. 11). However, the implementation
of the newly enacted statutes were not strictly enforced.
The statutes did not address issues of confidentiality; practically
speaking, these were open adoptions. Due to changing "attitudes,
mores, and myths of the times," the practice of sealing adoption
records began in the 1930's (TxCARE, 1994).
The inclusion of confidentiality clauses in state legislation
was originally intended to prevent the public from viewing
adoption records for the protection of the adoption triad.
In New York, the legislation, known as the "Nosey Neighbor
Law," was designed "to shield the details of an adoption from
the public. The NNL did NOT seal the records from any of the
parties concerned - birth and adoptive parents OR the adoptee"
(Sparky@netaxs.com, 1997). However, during the 1930s, some
states had changed the wording to exclude the natural parents
from accessing court adoption records. In 1939, a U. S. Children's
Bureau spokesperson reported that: "We have about concluded
that the only persons who should have access to adoption records
without specific approval of the court are the adoptive parents,
the child when he becomes of age, and representatives of the
State Department responsible for investigation of the adoption"
(Carp, 1998, p. 42). By the end of 1941, confidentiality safeguards
to secure all or part of adoption court records from public
inspection had been enacted in 24 states (Carp, 1998). It
was not long before confidentiality safeguards were expanded
to restrict all members of the adoption triad from access
to adoption court records. Additionally, adoption agencies
extended confidentiality to agency records.
The following reasons were influential in the move toward
full confidentiality:
"The birth parents were protected from the stigma
of pregnancy without the benefit of marriage.
The adoptee was protected from the stigma of illegitimacy
and the concerns of 'bad blood' which was loosely connected
to what we know about genetics today, but carried with it
overtones of the 'sins of the father.' Secrecy would also
prevent the confusion of having two different sets of parents
and the conflict that might arise should contact occur.
The adoptive parents, often an infertile couple, were protected
from the stigma of raising an 'illegitimate' child. They
were protected from dealing with their infertility and from
facing the differences between being a parent through adoption
vs. being a parent by birth. Closed records also precluded
the possibility of birth relatives seeking out the child,
an event associated with potential kidnapping." (TxCARE,
1994, p. 3)
Additional reasons noted are:
- protection from intrusion into the privacy of all parties;
- protection from blackmail;
- protecting the adoptee from disturbing acts surrounding
their birth - incest, rape, etc.
- enhancing the adoptee's feeling of permanency;
- enhancing the family's stability and preserving the nuclear
family;
- encouraging the use of adoption instead of abortion, black
market placement, child abuse, or neglect." (TxCARE, 1994,
p. 4)
Adoption practices and ideology underwent significant changes
following World War II. According to Carp (1998),
"The baby boom was both the cause and the effect of a profound
change in the national political culture that tied the security
of the nation and personal happiness to an ideology of domesticity
and the nuclear family. Parenthood during the Cold War became
a patriotic necessity. The media romanticized babies, glorified
motherhood, and identified fatherhood with masculinity and
good citizenship. The consequences of this celebratory pronatalist
mood, as the historian Elaine Tyler May has written, 'marginalized
the childless in unprecedented ways.'
Uncomfortable with being childless and the subject of public
opprobrium, many of these childless couples sought adoption
in record numbers as one solution to their shame of infertility.
Contributing to the unprecedented numbers of childless couples
applying for children to adopt were new medical treatments
- semen examination, tests for tubal patency, and endrometrial
[sic] biopsies-permitting physicians to diagnose
physical sterility more easily and accurately early in marriage."
(pp. 28-29)
It is estimated that in the mid-1950s one million childless
couples were attempting to adopt an available 75,000 children
(Carp, 1998). In this context, "white, pregnant, unmarried
women and their babies became market commodities" (Solinger,
1992, p. 154). Prior to World War II, motherhood was considered
immutable. As Solinger notes, " . . . for most unwed mothers,
black and white, through the 1930s, illegitimacy was a shame
that carried with it shamed motherhood" (1992, p. 152). Since
the child was believed to be both the offspring of a mentally
deficient, morally weak mother and a "child of sin," the adoptability
of the child was largely diminished. Likewise, the mother
was viewed as deserving of punishment for her sinful actions
and not capable of rehabilitation, nor was her marriageability
or community standing likely to be restored (Solinger, 1992).
As a result, initiatives were taken to prevent the abandonment
of these infants. For example, regulations were instituted
either by the state or by maternity homes requiring mothers
in maternity homes to breast-feed for at least three months
in order to establish mother-infant bonding (Solinger, 1992).
In contrast, in the post-war era, the ideology of illegitimacy
underwent major change. Psychological explanations replaced
the biological interpretations of unwed mothers - transforming
her into a "maladjusted female" rather than "genetically tainted"
(Solinger, 1992). Motherhood was no longer considered immutable.
Within this context, the infant was perceived as adoptable;
and the mother was capable of rehabilitation and future marriage.
Solinger points out:
"In postwar America, social conditions of motherhood along
with notions about the psychological status of the unwed
mother became more important in defining white motherhood
than biology. Specifically, for the first time, it took
more than a baby to make a white girl or woman into a mother.
Without marriage first, a white female was not considered
to have achieved motherhood." (1992, p. 153)
However, this was achievable only through relinquishment.
Through relinquishment and adoption, the mistake was undone
(Solinger, 1992). In the 1960 Child Welfare League's Standards
for Services to Unmarried Parents, it was stated that:
"In our society, parenthood without marriage is a deviation
from the accepted cultural pattern of bearing and raising
children. It represents a specific form of social dysfunctioning
which is a problem in itself and which in turn creates social
and emotional problems for parent and child. . . . It is
generally accepted in our society that children should be
reared in families created through marriage. The legal family
is the approved social institution to ensure sound rearing
and development of children." (Solinger, 1992, p. 166)
Solinger (1992) asserts that unmarried mothers were "defined
by the state out of their motherhood" de facto as unsuitable
for parenting (p. 166). Adoption was clearly mandated as the
recommended action.
The social construction of adoption has over the ages been
built upon the terrain of gender, race and class prejudices
and inequalities. According to Solinger (1992), unmarried
black and white women of childbearing age were disempowered
by the prevailing public policies and practices. Solinger
(1992) notes that:
"Among single women, unwed mothers were most vulnerable
to this strain of public opinion partly because they had
violated multiple rules concerning femininity and sexuality,
marriage and maternity, and were thus a powerful testament
to the wages of uncontained female sexuality, dangerous
as a threat to the integrity of the family" (p. 22).
In some states, women who bore more than one illegitimate
child faced imprisonment or sterilization (Solinger, 1992).
Those who kept their illegitimate children faced community
ostracism. One unwed mother describes her experience as follows:
"I am an unwed mother who kept her child. And I fear no
hell after death, for I've had mine here on earth. Let no
man or girl deceive herself-hell hath no punishment like
the treatment people give a 'fallen woman.' The heartache,
tortured thoughts, recriminations, fear, loneliness could
not be put on paper. Neither can the scorn, insult and actual
hate of self-righteous and ignorant people." (as quoted
in Solinger, 1992, p. 33)
In the 1950s and 1960s, the prevailing belief held by the
professionals was that the unmarried woman's decision to keep
her illegitimate child was in itself evidence of immaturity
and unsuitability for motherhood (Solinger, 1992). Although
the unwed mother and her child were socially stigmatized,
the father generally escaped social punishment. Culpability
was placed upon the woman who "got herself pregnant." As Solinger
(1992) comments: "The traditional expression 'he ruined her,'
archaic by midcentury, had been meaningfully replaced by 'she
got herself in trouble'" (p. 35). Society exacted its price
for gender insubordination and uncontrolled female sexuality.
An analysis of the racial determinants of adoption is complex.
The institution of adoption during this era was indeed race-specific.
Solinger writes:
"Race, in the end, was the most accurate predictor of an
unwed mother's parents' response to her pregnancy; of society's
reaction to her plight; of where and how she would spend
the months of her pregnancy; and most important, the most
accurate predictor of what she would do with the 'fatherless'
child she bore, and of how being mother to such a child
would affect the rest of her life." (1992, p. 18)
While pregnancy among black single women was defined "as
the product of uncontrolled, sexual indulgence" to be constrained
by "punitive, legal sanctions," white single mothers were
deemed to be "socially productive breeders whose babies, unfortunately
conceived out of wedlock, could offer infertile couples their
only chance to construct proper families" (Solinger, 1992,
p. 24). The institution of adoption primarily served white
females. In 1960, it is estimated that 70% of white babies
born to single women were adopted; compared to only 5% of
black babies born outside of marriage (Solinger, 1992). Maternity
homes often refused to accept black residents. Although the
civil rights movement made inroads into desegregation and
the provision of services to black communities, adoption agencies
often refused to accept black babies for placement (Solinger,
1992). Cultural and community support for black unwed mothers
and their children was significantly stronger than in the
white community. However, Solinger (1992) notes that black
unwed mothers did not escape stigmatization within the black
community. The relationship of class to adoption is racially
driven. Although adoption is not class-based per se,
the level of services provided is. For unmarried white women,
race was the overriding factor (i.e., the availability of
a white baby). For unmarried black women, however, socio-economic
class was often racially influenced and an implicit factor
in adoption (Solinger, 1992).
The 1960s and 1970s ushered in an era of liberation movements,
among them, the women's liberation movement, the civil rights
movement, the sexual revolution, and the adoption rights movement.
Solinger (1992) and Carp (1998) both refer to 1965 and onward
as turning points in the stigmatization of unmarried pregnant
women and their offspring. The 1960s attributed white unwed
pregnancy to "social-structural breakdown, a phenomenon that
could be traced to the disintegration of values previously
guiding the family, youth, and the media," rather than to
individual genetic or psychological pathology (Solinger, 1992,
p. 218). Gediman and Brown (1991) write that ". . . during
the 1950s and 1960s, there was no greater disgrace than to
become pregnant before marriage. The very term 'unwed mother'
hissed with social disapproval and the label stuck fast until
the permissive 1970s, when the less accusatory 'single mother'
worked its way into our vocabulary" (p. 9).
Prior to the 1970s, as many as 80 percent of infants born
to unwed mothers were placed for adoption. However, only 12
percent were placed for adoption in the 1970s, and only 4
percent by 1981 (Carp, 1998). The emergence and greater acceptability
of single parenting, coupled with the legalization of abortion
in 1973, has greatly reduced the availability of adoptable
children. Current statistics are not available; however, the
trend toward unwed mothers keeping their infants has continued.
In fact, today, many women are electing to become single parents
through planned pregnancy. Since the 1960s, the institution
of adoption has witnessed: (1) the advancement of open adoption
whereby varying degrees of information are exchanged between
the adoption triad members; (2) the growth of the adoption
reform movement and lobbying for open records; and (3) the
creation of voluntary adoption registries for search and reunion
(Carp, 1998). As adoption continues to evolve, as laws change,
as boundaries become more fluid, the social organization of
adoption is injected with new meaning.
Relinquishment and the Marginalization
of Birthmothers
"For language is a social medium that gives an account
of the human world over time while constructing and reconstructing
it in the process of these accounts" (Kahn, 1995, p. 58).
The social construction of relinquishment is tightly coupled
with the previous sections on motherhood and adoption. However,
in the literature, relinquishment and adoption are often treated
as one. In fact, adoption is generally the research domain
- with relinquishment being one attribute of adoption. Therefore,
the effects of relinquishment on the adoptee has received
research attention; while consideration of the effects on
the birthmother has been much neglected. In the closed adoption
system, the birthmother is excluded from all aspects of the
adoption. Relinquishment holds an interesting relationship
to adoption - for it is in the act of relinquishing that adoption
becomes possible. The child is relinquished for adoption.
It is what links the birthmother to the adoption triad inasmuch
as birthmothers are not actual parties to the adoption. As
a "shadow" mother, the birthmother is affected by the social
construct of motherhood, as well as adoption. Therefore, many
of the issues concerning relinquishment have already been
introduced in the previous sections. This section will focus
on the marginalization of women who relinquish and is drawn
from published birthmother interviews, birthmother research,
and/or narratives written by birthmothers.
Kirby and McKenna (1989) describe "the margins" as follows:
"The margin is the context in which those who suffer injustice,
inequality and exploitation live their lives. People find
themselves on the margins not only in terms of the inequality
in the distribution of material resources, but also knowledge
production is organized so that the views of a small group
of people are presented as objective, as 'The Truth.' The
majority of people are excluded from participating as either
producers or subjects of knowledge.
One of the characteristics of living in the margins is the
frequent necessity to perform a kind of doublethink/doublespeak
in order to translate our experience into acceptable and understandable
terms for the status quo." (p. 33)
Kirby and McKenna's description of "the margins" is deconstructed
below as it applies to birthmothers and relinquishment:
1. The margin is the context in which those who suffer injustice,
inequality and exploitation live their lives. An unwed, pregnant
woman in the 1960s was subjected to injustice, inequality,
and exploitation levied upon them by the dominant culture.
"Women are the group most victimized by sexist oppression.
As with other forms of group oppression, sexism is perpetuated
by institutional and social structures; by the individuals
who dominate, exploit, or oppress; and by the victims themselves
who are socialized to behave in ways that make them act
in complicity with the status quo" (Hooks, 1984, p. 43).
Within society, social status and power are often defined
by such factors as gender, age, and economics. Young women
without wealth or education are disempowered within our society.
Societal rules govern how one's role is defined and entered
into. Jones (1993) writes that since the survival of society
depends on women becoming mothers, rules are defined to assist
women in this process, i.e., mating and reproduction. For
instance, Jones identifies adulthood, marriage, and independent
financial resources as prerequisites for motherhood. Lacking
these requirements places a pregnant woman "outside the norms
and, therefore, outside the margins of 'acceptable' society"
(Jones, 1993, p. 13). Jones asserts that in order to reenter
'normal' society, a young, single woman's only option was
often to conceal her unplanned pregnancies and relinquish
her children. Of 79 birthmothers interviewed, Jones reports
that "most of the birthmothers interviewed relinquished not
because they wanted to, but because their pregnancies broke
the rules, opposed social standards, and threatened to leave
them forever isolated from respectable society" (1993, p.
13).
Another birthmother writes:
"I was willing to do anything in order to keep my
child and live by my own standards. . . I was not ashamed
of myself or of being pregnant. But I needed to think about
the child. I had to give him his best opportunity, and that
meant protecting him from the judgmental hordes. But I've
never gotten over it, never forgiven society for forcing
me to make that choice. I've alienated myself. I've become
forever an outsider. . . ." (Jones, 1993, p. 36).
Shawyer (1979, as quoted in Logan, 1996) writes,
"Adoption is a violent act, a political act of aggression
towards a woman who has supposedly offended the sexual mores
by committing the unforgivable act of not suppressing her
sexuality, and therefore not keeping it for trading purposes
through traditional marriage. . . the crime is a grave one,
for she threatens the very fabric of our society. The penalty
is severe. She is stripped of her child by a variety of
subtle and not so subtle manoeuvres and then brutally abandoned.
. . ." (p. 609).
2. People find themselves on the margins not only in terms
of the inequality in the distribution of material resources,
but also knowledge production is organized so that the views
of a small group of people are presented as objective, as
'The Truth.'
In previous decades, birthmothers were advised that relinquishment
was the best course of action for the baby. However, in a
recent survey of 264 birthmothers, "the results strongly suggest[ed]
that a number of the respondents believed the act of relinquishing
their child was not the right thing to do, not in their best
interest and not in the best interest of their child" (De
Simone, 1996, p. 65).
According to Lauderdale and Boyle (1994), birthmothers in
their study felt 'like pariahs,' and were prevented from feeling
"like normal mothers after the birth because all believed
society expected them to behave 'as if nothing ever happened'"
(p. 216).
3. The majority of people are excluded from participating
as either producers or subjects of knowledge. According to
one birthmother,
"Everyone automatically assumed that babies born out of
marriage in the 60s and the early seventies should be adopted;
Our parents assumed it, the medical profession and the adoption
workers not only assumed it but strongly advocated it. It
was as if we did not exist. Many of us were offered no support,
no counselling, no information." (Wells, 1990, as quoted
in Arthur & Jacobs, 1999, p. 21)
Lauderdale and Boyle (1994) report that birthmothers in closed
adoptions "described their fear and lack of information about
their rights as patients and mothers. Fearfulness and being
unknowing increased their sense of isolation and feelings
of powerlessness" (p. 215).
Logan (1996) describes the marginalization of birthmothers,
as follows:
"Historically, birth parents have been the most neglected
party in the adoption triangle; both in the literature and
in practice they have been afforded little attention compared
with adopted people and adoptive parents. Furthermore, the
proposed changes in legislation offer them little hope for
the future. The proposals in the White Paper (Department
of Health, 1993) indicating greater emphasis on openness
and contact have been welcomed and would suggest a recognition
of the importance of birth parents. However, the failure
to follow the recommendations of the Adoption Law Review
and allow an independent worker to be appointed to assist
birth parents again suggests the marginalization of their
needs" (p. 610).
4. One of the characteristics of living in the margins is
the frequent necessity to perform a kind of doublethink/doublespeak
in order to translate our experience into acceptable and understandable
terms for the status quo.
"What 'decision?'" one birthmother demands. "There was
no decision. The word decision doesn't apply to relinquishing
a child. In fact, the word reflects the prejudice of society
toward birthmothers. We are supposed to be unfeeling, inhuman
trash, who decide to give up our children because
life would be more fun, less expensive, and easier without
them. That's hogwash. No mother in the world, human or animal,
would decide to give up her baby. It isn't normal
or natural. It wouldn't happen if mothers had the power
to decide. It only happens when they don't." (Jones, 1993,
pp. 11-12)
Jones (1993) reports that use of the term decision
may be misleading with regard to relinquishment because of
the implication that there was active participation in the
decision-making process or that other options were available
for consideration. The birthmother may not have played a role
in the decision-making process and may not have had an alternative
option to choose. Lauderdale and Boyle (1994) found that birthmothers
whose children were adopted through closed adoption "recalled
having little control or input into the adoption" (p. 214)
and "reported that the decision to give up their babies was
made by family members, particularly the women's mothers,
who often enlisted the support of clergymen" (p. 215). While
Lauderdale and Boyle repeatedly discuss the "powerlessness"
over decision-making experienced by these birthmothers, they
twice referred to this group as "the women who chose closed
adoption" (pp. 214-215). Usage of the term "chose" appears
unrepresentative of the findings and exemplifies the difficulties
in translating experience for the status quo in light of the
following: (1) the birthmothers reported a lack of input into
the decision-making process, and (2) the availability of open
adoptions is fairly recent and was probably not even an option
for all interviewees.
As asserted by bell hooks (1984), women "are socialized to
behave in ways that make them act in complicity with the status
quo" (p. 43). During the years 1965-1972, a common reason
why women relinquished was to provide the politically and
culturally-sanctioned nuclear family for their child. However,
it was only shortly thereafter that the divorce rate in America
began to soar and never-married mothers could easily merge
with divorced mothers - and be categorized as "single parents"
(Solinger, 1992).
Language, once again, can be seen as a primary producer of
meaning. In the margins, birthmothers have been using "doublethink/doublespeak"
in their social intercourse with non-birthmothers. On the
Internet support groups, the language utilized by birthmothers
in communicating with each other differs from that used by
society-at-large. In the language of birthmothers, they did
not relinquish or surrender their children to adoption - they
lost their children to adoption. As long as their experiences
are misrepresented by language, their marginalization continues.
The preceding sections have attempted to merge theory, research,
literature, and birthmother stories in order to deconstruct
motherhood, adoption and relinquishment. This study explores
the trauma of relinquishment utilizing a biopsychosocial model.
What follows is a brief review of trauma literature and theory
as it relates to relinquishment.
TRAUMA
Trauma Theory
"Unlike other forms of psychological disorders, the core
issue in trauma is reality: 'It is indeed the truth of the
traumatic experience that forms the center of its psychopathology;
it is not a pathology of falsehood or displacement of meaning,
but of history itself" (Caruth, 1995, p. 5). However, the
critical element that makes an event traumatic is the subjective
assessment by victims of how threatened and helpless they
feel. So, although the reality of extraordinary events is
at the core of PTSD, the meaning that victims attach to
these events is as fundamental as the trauma itself. People's
interpretations of the meaning of the trauma continue to
evolve well after the trauma itself has ceased" (van der
Kolk & McFarlane, 1996, p. 6).
Of the many varying definitions of trauma, for the purpose
of this paper, I have selected the following from The American
Heritage College Dictionary (3rd Ed.): "1.
Medic. A serious injury or shock to the body, as from
violence or an accident. 2. Psychiat. An emotional
wound or shock that creates substantial lasting damage to
the psychological development of a person" (1993, p. 1439).
Trauma may be in the form of natural and technological disasters,
war, or individual trauma (Aldwin, 1994). Emotional trauma
occurs when "the psychological pain of a traumatic event involves
damage or threat of damage to an individual's psychic integrity
or sense of self" (Carlson, 1997, p. 29). Various stress-related
disorders may result from the trauma experience, e.g. PTSD,
depression, phobia, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder,
anxiety disorders, somatization disorder, attachment disorders,
conduct disorder, dissociative reactions, eating disturbances,
and substance abuse (Pynoos, Steinberg & Goenjian, 1996).
Trauma effects may also be evidenced as: "multiple personalities,
paranoia, anger, and sleep problems; tendencies towards suicidality,
irritability, mood swings, and odd rituals; difficulty trusting
people and difficult relationships; and general despair, aimlessness,
and hopelessness" (Root, 1992, p. 229).
Mind-body research has opened up many new vistas in the
study of trauma - among which are psychoneuroimmunology (PNI)
and the concept of cellular memory. Relative to trauma research,
PNI and cellular memory help to explain the somatization of
trauma. Pert (1997) writes that
"memories are stored not only in the brain, but in a psychosomatic
network extending into the body, particularly in the ubiquitous
receptors between nerves and bundles of cell bodies called
ganglia, which are distributed not just in and near the
spinal cord, but all the way out along pathways to internal
organs and the very surface of our skin" (p. 143).
Conger asserts that traumatic events are recorded in "contracted
musculature and energetically withdrawn tissue" (1994, p.
xvi). Eckberg (1998) describes traumatic events as being "laid
down as perceptual, somatosensory experience, or as implicit
memory" (p. 23). Through somatic therapy, the traumatic experience
can be reorganized neurophysiologically, emotionally, and
cognitively.
Aldwin (1994) writes: "Stress refers to that quality of experience,
produced through a person-environment transaction, that, through
either overarousal or underarousal, results in psychological
or physiological distress" (p. 22). Root (1992) expresses
the qualitative difference between stress and trauma:
"Negative stressors leave an individual feeling 'put out,'
inconvenienced, and distressed. These experiences are eventually
relieved with the resolution of the stressor. In contrast,
traumas represent destruction of basic organizing principles
by which we come to know self, others, and the environment;
traumas wound deeply in a way that challenges the meaning
of life. Healing from the wounds of such an experience requires
a restitution of order and meaning in one's life" (p. 229).
The role that culture plays in the provision and/or withholding
of support from an individual is described by deVries:
"Culture may in many ways be viewed as a protective and
supportive system of values, lifestyles, and knowledge,
the disruption of which will have a deleterious effect on
its members. . . . [Cultures] are powerfully resilient to
the stresses of the environment and resistant to change.
Culture thereby buffers its members from the potentially
profound impact of stressful experiences. . . by means of
furnishing social support, providing identities in terms
of norms and values, and supplying a shared vision of the
future. . . . Provided that the individual does not interfere
with the group's capacity to reproduce or remain viable
in its niche, cultural social roles, shared values, and
historical continuity will act as key stress managers. If
the individual does not fit, social extrusion and stigmatization
may result as a cultural defense reaction to the unwanted
information or behavior" (1996, pp. 400-401).
Root (1992) posits that "the interpersonal and political
context in which a trauma is experienced further determines
how blame is attributed, the support one receives, and how
the survivor is able to reconstruct his or her life following
trauma" (p. 244). According to Root, the revolutions of the
1960s and 1970s may be viewed as a "generational posttraumatic
stress response" emanating from the "experience of profound
betrayal by authority figures (the 'establishment') of a generation
of young people crossing the threshold of adulthood" (p. 231).
Root (1992) provides a construction of trauma theory from
a feminist perspective, emphasizing its sociopolitical, phenomenological,
and psychosocial components. Root argues that the development
of trauma theory has been largely based on the experiences
of white males and does not represent those of women and minorities.
Likewise, Root asserts that the APA's classification and diagnostic
criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder describes a single
syndrome representative of specific male experiences. Recently,
however, the study of trauma has expanded to include a more
diverse group of trauma experiences and syndromes, such as:
the battered woman syndrome, the rape-trauma syndrome, the
postsexual abuse syndrome, and the battered child syndrome
(Root, 1992). Root suggests that what is labeled as a single
trauma may actually reflect a constellation of multiple traumas.
Root reframes and redefines trauma. Rather than categorizing
trauma according to natural and technological disasters, war,
or individual trauma, Root classifies trauma as direct, indirect
or insidious. In this scheme, direct trauma includes "certain
forms of maliciously perpetrated violence, war experiences,
industrial accidents, and natural disasters" (1992, p. 239).
In contrast, indirect trauma is experienced vicariously (such
as the witnessing of direct trauma), and insidious trauma
is associated with the devaluation of an individual resulting
from an intrinsic identity characteristic that differs from
that which the dominant culture values (e.g., color, sexual
orientation). By opening up the definition of trauma, Root
argues that traumas that would have remained unrecognized
are made visible.
The feminist perspective attempts to "depathologize normal
behavior" (Root, 1992, p. 248). In this light, Root identifies
the following processes as trauma survival patterns, rather
than pathological behaviors: self-referencing behavior, egocentrism,
perseveration, anger, withdrawal and shutting down, and splitting.
Root proposes that we construct our world in terms of "dimensions
of security" (physical, emotional-psychological, and spiritual)
and that the destruction of a single dimension constitutes
a trauma. The dimensions are categorized as follows: Physical
(stimulus deprivation, pain, injury, permanent injury, starvation),
Psychological (confrontation with mortality, loss of significant
others(s), perceived malicious intent, isolation, helplessness/loss
of control, witness/participant to death or destruction, crushing
of spirit, dislocation), and Interpersonal (betrayal, abuse
of power, violation of personal space, rejection, invisibility,
loss of significant other(s)) (Root, 1992). The effects of
trauma are profound. Root writes that:
"Trauma permanently changes a person. In contrast to a
stressful experience, which challenges an individual's capacity
to cope, trauma destroys multiple dimensions of security
and exceeds the limits of human capacity to process and
integrate horrible experiences into a coherent perception
of self and self-in-relationship to others and the world.
The disorganization created by this upheaval motivates the
individual to attempt to find meaning in the experience
so that she or he can reorganize the experience and integrate
it into her or his perceptions of self, and self in relationship
to others and the world. The greater the number of dimensions
of security that are shattered, the bigger the task of reorganization"
(1992, p. 260).
Relinquishment Trauma
"The age at which trauma occurs, the social context, and
the support and resources available will all influence the
outcome" (deVries, 1996, p. 409).
That relinquishing a child is a traumatic experience is
alluded to over and over again throughout the literature (Barton,
1996; Carlini, 1992; Jones, 1993; Lauderdale & Boyle,
1994; Lifton, 1994; Verrier, 1997). Unresolved grief, guilt,
and shame are signatory of many birthmothers (Gediman &
Brown, 1991; Lauderdale & Boyle, 1994; Logan, 1996; Stiffler
cited in Davidson, 1994). There has been surprisingly little
research conducted in the area of birthmother trauma. However,
the number of books written by birthmothers about relinquishment
continues to grow. Logan (1996) questions whether the omission
of literature on birthmothers may be "due to a misconception
that the 'voluntary' nature of relinquishment, considered
by some to occur before a mother has bonded to her child,
means that adverse consequences for the birth mother are unlikely"
-- or are birthmothers perceived as having "sinned" and deserving
punishment? (p. 610)
Unresolved grief has been cited as a major component of
the relinquishment experience. De Simone (1996) conducted
a survey of 264 birthmothers whose mean age was 45 years old.
In this study, the following social and psychological factors
were identified as contributing to unresolved grief among
birthmothers:
"a) absence of social recognition regarding the loss;
b) perceived absence of social support from family and
friends;
c) lack of opportunity to express feelings about the relinquishment;
d) uncertainty over the loss due to the continued existence
of the child;
e) feelings of guilt and shame regarding the decision to
relinquish;
f) perception of coercion by family, friends, or professionals
to relinquish the child; and involvement in search behavior"
(De Simone, 1996, p. 66).
A significant positive correlation was also identified between
the birthmothers' involvement in search behavior and unresolved
grief. De Simone suggests that "search behavior by the birth
mother, unless it ends in reunion, often does not result in
the realization of the finality of the loss due to the continued
existence of her child. Instead she may be driven to continue
to search until information or reunion brings some degree
of closure to her grief experience" (1996, p. 72). The study
also indicated that in some cases reunion was conducive to
the resolution of grief; while in others, reunion may have
triggered unexperienced grief feelings and initially intensified
the grief process. Some of the limitations of this study included
potential recall bias due to the elapsed time since the relinquishment,
the inability to obtain a random sample among the overall
population of birthmothers, and the possible impact of repression
and denial.
Lauderdale and Boyle (1994) interviewed 12 women who had
relinquished their infants within the previous 4 months to
24 years. Their analysis indicated that the type of adoption
(open vs. closed) was a critical factor in how relinquishment
was experienced. For the seven women who were involved in
closed adoptions, the following themes emerged: (1) nonattachment
to the pregnancy, (2) powerlessness in decision making, (3)
passive participation in the adoption, and (4) anger and nonacceptance
of the loss. For both groups, feelings of shame, detachment
from the fetus, loss, identification of relinquishment as
a moral decision, marginalization, and shadow grief were described.
Weinreb and Konstam (1996) found the occurrence of depression
to be significantly greater among birthmothers than in the
general population of women. In their study, 49.9% reported
depression (compared to 10% among all women). In a study by
Logan (1996), intermittent depression, guilt, anger, sadness,
and grief were characteristic of all participants. 89% of
the participants described their depression as significant.
This study, commissioned by the Mental Health Foundation,
examined the experiences of a sample of birthparents seeking
post-adoption assistance. Lack of support, suppression of
feelings, significant life events, the impact of searching,
and the impact of contact were identified as contributing
factors impeding the resolution of guilt, loss, and unresolved
grief. It was also found that a greater percentage of the
birthmothers suffering from depression were referred to specialist
psychiatric services by their GPs than is found in the general
population. This prompted questions concerning whether there
is a higher incidence of mental illness among birthmothers
or whether birthmothers are being "inappropriately pathologized
and constructed as mentally ill, victims of a patriarchal
society which pathologizes women who fail to conform to society's
expectations?" (Logan, 1996, p. 622)
According to Weinreb and Konstam, "the dearth of existing
literature suggests that the act of surrendering a baby for
adoption has profound psychological effects on the birthmother,
including longstanding feelings of loss, grief and psychological
pain" (1996, p. 60). In a survey by Wells (1993, cited in
Arthur & Jacobs, 1999) of 300 birthmothers, it was suggested
that relinquishment constitutes a trauma - the duration of
which may be lifelong. In this study of posttraumatic stress
in birthmothers, nearly 50% reported that relinquishment affected
their physical health, and nearly 100% reported a mental health
impact - the effects of which rippled down to their interpersonal
relationships and parenting. Wells reported that the following
psychological and behavioral pathologies associated with PTSD
are found among birthmothers: splitting themselves from the
trauma, avoidance, drug and alcohol abuse, precocious sexual
activity, psychogenic amnesia, pain and "intense psychological
distress" emanating from anniversaries or events associated
with the trauma, psychic numbing, difficulties forgiving parents
for their perceived role in the relinquishment and impaired
family relationships, and recurrent dreams and nightmares
(cited in Arthur & Jacobs, 1999).
Enduring effects of relinquishment on the birthmother reported
by Condon (1986, cited in Arthur & Jacobs, 1999) include:
chronic grief reactions, guilt, anger, sadness and depression.
In one study, birthmothers rated "feelings of sadness or depression
at the time of the relinquishment" as intense and "the most
intense ever experienced" (Condon, 1986, cited in Arthur &
Jacobs, 1999). As other studies have shown, alcohol and drugs
are often used by birthmothers as coping strategies. In Condon's
study, over half of the birthmothers reported using alcohol
and drugs to help cope with the relinquishment. This study
also found that for the majority of the participants, there
was no reduction of sadness, anger or guilt since the relinquishment;
and, in many, these feelings actually intensified over time.
Van Kepple, Midford and Cicchini (1987, cited in Arthur
& Jacobs, 1999) compare the loss of a child by death to
the loss of a child through relinquishment and contend that
both are significantly traumatic. However, in the former case,
there are established outlets for grief reactions; and in
the latter, the birthmother "suffers in silence" (p. 17).
Several birthmother syndromes have been postulated by counselors
and researchers. Jones (1993) has identified the following
traits: unresolved grief, symptoms of PTSD, diminished self-esteem,
dual identities, arrested emotional development, self-punishment,
unexplained secondary infertility, and living at extremes.
Carlini (1992) has defined a set of "core issues of relinquishment"
which include: low self-esteem, grieving the loss of the child,
forgiving oneself and others, being out of touch with one's
feelings, difficulty giving and receiving love, codependency,
self-hatred, and dysfunctional sexual problems.
Gediman (1991) asserts that a number of myths have been
constructed concerning adoption. One such myth is that: "The
distress birthmothers feel at relinquishment will go away.
They will be able to go on with their lives as though nothing
ever happened. They will forget about the child. They will
not feel guilty" (p. 33). For many birthmothers, this is not
so. During the years under study, counseling of birthmothers
was virtually nonexistent. Nave (1989, cited in Arthur &
Jacobs, 1999) reports that "part of the rage [birthmothers]
feel is no one warned them of the severity of the depression
that follows relinquishment" (p. 23). For the years under
study, culture did not buffer birthmothers from the effects
of relinquishment. Rather, it would appear that the social,
political, and cultural forces collaborated in the traumatization
of birthmothers
This study, focusing on the long-term impact of relinquishment
on birthmothers, questions how the trauma of relinquishment
manifests itself in birthmothers and seeks to add additional
birthmother voices to the body of literature and to further
define the existence of a birthmother syndrome.
Copyright © 1999-2005 Judy
Kelly, M.A., C.P.A.C.,
All Rights Reserved. Reprinted with permission of the author
Next:
Chapter
Three: Methodology
Note: The words "birthmother" or "birthparent"
are derogatory terms utilized by adoption "counselors"
and "facilitators" in order to diminish a mother
into playing a solely reproductive role in her child's life.
The terms "birthmother" and "birthparents"
are used on this site as a consession to search-engine requirements
for a North American audience. The terms "mother",
"single mother", "natural mother," and
"exiled mother" are acknowledged to be accurate,
respectful, and nonderogatory terms. See " by Diane Turski for more
information.
|
J. Kelly Birthmother Research Project:
Dedication
Acknowledgements
Chapter I: Introduction
Chapter II: Literature Review
Chapter III: Methodology
Chapter IV: Results
Chapter V: Discussion
Postscript
Appendices
References
Summarized Survey Results
Is your unmarried daughter pregnant?
Consider options to help to keep your grandchild:
"Unplanned"
Pregnancy Help
Lost a baby to adoption? Learn
about the social policies designed to get more babies for
adoption and get to know some other moms like yourself:
OriginsUSA: American
Adoption and "Unwed" Mothers History
|
We chose a geneological theme for this website
because in infant adoption geneological connections
to family are broken
and family trees demolished.
|
|
|
