In a recent FB post someone asked about October Baby. There were a few follow-up comments about "adoption language" and how the film had some that was "inappropriate". Rather than writing a book for a comment, I decided to write a post instead.
The delicacies of "Proper Adoption Language" now amuse me, because despite my care and "sensitivity" - my adopted kids care little for them. And, somehow I think proper respect requires me to see them as the experts.
In their effort to communicate clearly, the most typical and natural language is what they use. (Usually labeled "negative" or "inappropriate" by those who set themselves up as experts.) My children never hesitate a moment before saying that they were an "orphan", or designating their birth mom as their "real" mom - the two biggest no-nos.
For a while, I tried to nudge them toward "appropriate" language, but I now believe that in doing so I was being insensitive. My children have made it clear that they do consider their biological mothers their "real" mothers.... Most of my children remember their mothers. None of them have one positive memory to relate....but, that doesn't mean they should have to deny reality. They would all say that I am "nicer", "better", "more loving" and the mom they are supposed to be with - but to be fair, we all would say that our mother is the person who gave birth to us. Am I supposed to deny my adopted children their reality? I do that by insisting that the mother they remember wasn't actually "real". And if I call one of their moms their "birth mom", they give me a bit of a confused glance....it occurred to me, they don't remember their birth - so what's that about? They remember being their mother's child. They remember calling her mother. They remember other people referring to her that way - and now I am supposed to tell them that was all wrong? She was just a "bio-mom"; I'm their "real" mom. Talk about insensitive!
A couple of years ago I boldly stepped forth and attempted to start an "Orphan Ministry" in our church. This is not a typical feature in Catholic Churches....though the Church does a lot around the world and locally caring for orphans, the ministry does not usually trickle down in a hands-on way, at least overtly, to the parish level. I wanted to change that. To my amazement, of the seven people who came to our first meeting, three of them were there to blast me out of the water for using the word "Orphan". (All were professional social workers, by the way.) Let me tell you, in their righteous indignation, they completely took over the meeting. Despite their expertise, though, none could give me another word to describe a child without parents. Instead they were trying to push the ministry to care for foster children.....who are "not all orphans" as they pointed out. No amount of my trying to say that it was actual children without parents I was hoping for the organization to help, made any difference. The first six months was spent "finding a new name" since (obviously) "Orphan Ministry" wouldn't work, scriptural or not. We finally settled on "Loving Homes for Children" which, while nice and "sweet" - means nothing to people. We've not gotten one new member under that name, whereas even now occasionally someone will call to say that they remember one time seeing something in the bulletin about our parish having an "Orphan Ministry" - were they dreaming? What is language for, if not to communicate? By using the politically correct wording, we can sometimes completely fail to do that.
I notice from an on-line list that we are supposed to say "Court Termination" rather than "taken away". Oh, how gently put - but when my daughter remembers vividly having the authorities come and physically TAKE HER AWAY - isn't it a bit insensitive to sugar coat what happened? Children don't care about court.....but being taken away - they understand and remember that. Every detail is seared on her memory....and I am supposed to refer to a court order?
How it tore my heart when Ilya said "My mom didn't want me." Oh! Ilya - you can't say that! You should say, "placed for adoption" (according to the inappropriate/appropriate translation list).....only, of course, he wasn't. He was first unwanted. Not being stupid, he could tell, and he's told me. Then he was given up (another no-no) to his grandmother (but he considered it a blessed event), then he was taken away from her, and now he says "I'm adopted." Am I supposed to say, "No, Ilya. You can't say that; say you 'were adopted'." I suppose we are supposed to imply by that last nicety that he is now my "real" child. But, that is too sweet, too simple, with none of the truth in it. My children feel they belong in our family, but they are not confused about how it came about, and the difference between them and the kids we gave birth to. I hope (and believe) that they would say we love them just as much (it is so true), but they realize that they are adopted...and in saying so they attest to the truth and complexity of their lives. I refuse to tell them that is inappropriate.
Who are we supposed to be protecting with this "sensitive language"? I wonder if it isn't ourselves.....perhaps we don't want to have to consider the pain in adoption..... By sweetening the language, we sometimes remove the truth, and I just don't think that is doing anyone any favors.
The delicacies of "Proper Adoption Language" now amuse me, because despite my care and "sensitivity" - my adopted kids care little for them. And, somehow I think proper respect requires me to see them as the experts.
In their effort to communicate clearly, the most typical and natural language is what they use. (Usually labeled "negative" or "inappropriate" by those who set themselves up as experts.) My children never hesitate a moment before saying that they were an "orphan", or designating their birth mom as their "real" mom - the two biggest no-nos.
For a while, I tried to nudge them toward "appropriate" language, but I now believe that in doing so I was being insensitive. My children have made it clear that they do consider their biological mothers their "real" mothers.... Most of my children remember their mothers. None of them have one positive memory to relate....but, that doesn't mean they should have to deny reality. They would all say that I am "nicer", "better", "more loving" and the mom they are supposed to be with - but to be fair, we all would say that our mother is the person who gave birth to us. Am I supposed to deny my adopted children their reality? I do that by insisting that the mother they remember wasn't actually "real". And if I call one of their moms their "birth mom", they give me a bit of a confused glance....it occurred to me, they don't remember their birth - so what's that about? They remember being their mother's child. They remember calling her mother. They remember other people referring to her that way - and now I am supposed to tell them that was all wrong? She was just a "bio-mom"; I'm their "real" mom. Talk about insensitive!
A couple of years ago I boldly stepped forth and attempted to start an "Orphan Ministry" in our church. This is not a typical feature in Catholic Churches....though the Church does a lot around the world and locally caring for orphans, the ministry does not usually trickle down in a hands-on way, at least overtly, to the parish level. I wanted to change that. To my amazement, of the seven people who came to our first meeting, three of them were there to blast me out of the water for using the word "Orphan". (All were professional social workers, by the way.) Let me tell you, in their righteous indignation, they completely took over the meeting. Despite their expertise, though, none could give me another word to describe a child without parents. Instead they were trying to push the ministry to care for foster children.....who are "not all orphans" as they pointed out. No amount of my trying to say that it was actual children without parents I was hoping for the organization to help, made any difference. The first six months was spent "finding a new name" since (obviously) "Orphan Ministry" wouldn't work, scriptural or not. We finally settled on "Loving Homes for Children" which, while nice and "sweet" - means nothing to people. We've not gotten one new member under that name, whereas even now occasionally someone will call to say that they remember one time seeing something in the bulletin about our parish having an "Orphan Ministry" - were they dreaming? What is language for, if not to communicate? By using the politically correct wording, we can sometimes completely fail to do that.
I notice from an on-line list that we are supposed to say "Court Termination" rather than "taken away". Oh, how gently put - but when my daughter remembers vividly having the authorities come and physically TAKE HER AWAY - isn't it a bit insensitive to sugar coat what happened? Children don't care about court.....but being taken away - they understand and remember that. Every detail is seared on her memory....and I am supposed to refer to a court order?
How it tore my heart when Ilya said "My mom didn't want me." Oh! Ilya - you can't say that! You should say, "placed for adoption" (according to the inappropriate/appropriate translation list).....only, of course, he wasn't. He was first unwanted. Not being stupid, he could tell, and he's told me. Then he was given up (another no-no) to his grandmother (but he considered it a blessed event), then he was taken away from her, and now he says "I'm adopted." Am I supposed to say, "No, Ilya. You can't say that; say you 'were adopted'." I suppose we are supposed to imply by that last nicety that he is now my "real" child. But, that is too sweet, too simple, with none of the truth in it. My children feel they belong in our family, but they are not confused about how it came about, and the difference between them and the kids we gave birth to. I hope (and believe) that they would say we love them just as much (it is so true), but they realize that they are adopted...and in saying so they attest to the truth and complexity of their lives. I refuse to tell them that is inappropriate.
Who are we supposed to be protecting with this "sensitive language"? I wonder if it isn't ourselves.....perhaps we don't want to have to consider the pain in adoption..... By sweetening the language, we sometimes remove the truth, and I just don't think that is doing anyone any favors.
0 comments:
Post a Comment