I would like to write this post as a feedback
to Michael's ethics research paper idea.
I think Michael has a very good starting idea
but he needs to be careful where he takes it. As we mentioned in class, he
really needs to be careful with the language he uses to explain his side of it.
After listening to his presentation in class, his argument seemed to come down
to the main point that all adoptees are oppressed by their adoptive parents
whether or not their adoptive parents intend to do so. The main question I have
then is how can we be sure that it is the adoptive parents that are the
oppressors? If adoptive parents don't really have control over the oppression
of their child, could that mean that there is a third factor that is actually
causing the oppression? Or is there a better option that would cause less
oppression than the actual act of adoption?
In my opinion, every child experiences some
form of oppression at some point in their life, regardless of whether they were
adopted or not. We have all been powerless to some extent until we reach a
certain age. Now, that is not to say that adoptees don't experience a different
form of powerlessness, because I know they do, but is that really to be blamed
on the adoptive parents, or is it more the responsibility of the birth parents
or adoption agency? I know that Eldridge gives the impression that it is the
adoptive parents who are to blame for this lack of voice, but I think it is
important to address that there are some things that adoptive parents can do to
lessen this oppression. Adoption inevitably oppresses the child right from the
beginning by instating that first form of loss and it is the job of the
adoptive parents to learn how to reverse some of that oppression and introduce
a warm and loving environment. I do think that some adoptive parents fail to do
this and that certainly can cause more harm than good, but most adoptive
parents try to figure out how they can help to the best of their abilities.
That said, I think Michael has a good intention with this paper, but
he just needs to be careful with the wording he uses for the accusations he
makes against the adoptive parents.
Graded Reply
ReplyDeleteI wrote about the same thing for my blog post. I too was a bit surprised by Michael’s point about all adoptees are oppressed. I agree with his point that adoptees are oppressed. However, I agree with your questioning his statement that adoptive parents are the oppressors. I think the situation in which the adoptee is in is the oppressor – no the adoptive parents. The fact that adoptees are abandoned or taken from their birth parents puts them in the conundrum of being powerless. It is because of this situation that they do not have control over their lives, such as whether or not they are placed for adoption, where they are placed in foster care or when/where they are adopted. I agree with you that every child experiences some form of oppression at some point in their life, regardless of whether or not they were adopted. Oppression encompasses all children simply because they are young, vulnerable and unable to make decisions.
I also agree with you that Michael has a great starting point. He raises a good point about adoption being innately oppressive. However, I do not view adoptive parents as oppressors.
Nice critical evaluation of the presentation. You raised some really good points.