As Monday’s post said, adoption is seen predominantly as a study of kinship in anthropology. As I pointed out then, it is a lot more – it explores the social, cultural, religious, superstitious spheres of any group in question, rigid or fluid, past or present.
To understand those aspects, it’s best to divide adoption types into several groups.
- Utilitarian adoption
A good example of that is medieval adoption of heirs in royal and other (predominantly noble) families; in absence of a linea sinistra child (so an out of wedlock child), adopting an heir seems to have been a common enough practice. It also offered a lot of political benefits. Ancient Romans knew a similar style of adoption as well; apart from the what we consider classical adoption, so adoption of orphans, adoption of a utilitarian type can also be observed (footnote 1).
In this case, we are talking about extension of kinship for the utilitarian reasons, but also personal reasons.
It further divides into three subgroups, looking something like this :
extension of kinship
-> alliance (similar to political reasons, but not wholly, because personal reasons like friendship may be present
-> political reasons
-> friendship (something similar happened in the start of 20th century to General Pitt-Rivers, who was the father of trench digging in modern archaeology and an ex military man, who was adopted by his sponsor as his official heir in his adult age, under the condition that he had to change his name, which he did)
- Empathic adoption
This is what we consider classical adoption. It’s about recognition of someone’s need for home and kinship in broader sense than the social, cultural or religious perspective; it is the adoption type that transcends species. It causes extension or invention of kinship, and is technically finding/adopting/bonding, usually with children or animals, but with adults as well
- SCR adoption
This is the adoption caused by beliefs of a society, culture, religion or group. Adoption in this case is a hierarchical necessity and it subdivides into these groups:
> Activist adoption – > is the adoption for the sake of adoption, so for the hierarchical act of goodness; often, it is limited to non-humans
> Adoption for SCR status and benefits -> in many cultures, the gender of children, lack of children or indeed show of personal might dictate adoption of someone else’s children, regardless of how the child or parents feel. This can work cross species (eg. Cormier’s article on the Guaja, footnote 2).
> Adoption due to religious belief (reincarnation, ancestor worship, etc) -> this adoption type again bases on beliefs and social gain; it does not involve full consent of the parents and children.
- SCR utilitarian
In cases where an heir is necessary but cannot be physically obtained due to SCR restrictions (such as with the Geisha during some parts of history, cf. footnote 3), an heir is adopted in. If we revisit the geisha as an example, due to restrictions on their sexual activity during specific eras, they adopted girls to become geisha to keep the line going.
- Kinship/tribal extension
This is still a form of adoption, even though it is usually done to adults. We’re talking about an outsider becoming a part of a group, so kinship/tribal/social/cultural group by extension or, if you want, inclusion. In a way, secret societies, fraternities and sororities etc. All work in a similar way, as does actual inclusion of a person outside a cultural group into it. In literature, a brilliant example is Pratchett’s Discworld’s Captain Carrot, who was adopted by dwarves. While fully human (and ironically really tall), Carrot speaks dwarfish, knows the habits and has undergone all the cultural training and rituals. As he points out, that makes him a dwarf. Daenerys’ gradual acceptance into the Dothraki tribal structure, too, makes a step in that direction; Aragorn, on the other hand, is not raised as an Elf, but as a human fostered by Elves (footnote 4), which skirts around him effectively becoming Elven by adoption, despite his mixed biological heritage.
In real world, this is often seen when a researcher is “adopted” into a group, as well as when a person becomes so at home in a specific culture that they basically become a part of it. This is yet another reason why it is senseless to speak of cultural appropriation, as it completely excludes the possibility of kinship or tribal extension.
Adoption has its positive sides and its dark sides. It can often be forced on the parent(s) and, as case studies teach us, on the children, who become a messenger system or buffer zone between houses (footnote 5). I probably do not need to stress out that, in the West and otherwise, adoption often falls foul of stretching what is acceptable under human rights, be it due to a complex system of society and kinship somewhere in Polynesia or the incomplete check-ups on one hand and discrimination on the other by adoption agencies in the West. Child trafficking for adoption is another thing to consider, as is both the forcing of young mothers to carry to term and give the baby away, both unacceptable actions that need to be addressed strongly in the future, as they trespass on many personal freedoms, including the right to consent, the right to decide what to do with one’s body and the right to keep or not keep a child without the interference of others’ pressures and opinions.
Partly due to that and partly due to the social feelings of expected connection via bloodline, the adopted children often seek out blood kin almost obsessively, as do biological parents; while there is certainly a necessity to do so from medical reasons on occasion (which may no longer be needed soon, given the advances in the science), this search is mostly based on emotional need which may lead to dreadful results for everyone involved. (footnote 6)
Adoption and fostering are often mixed up, but are not the same. While adoption is a full extension of kinship, fostering is incomplete or partial, and is generally not a full time decision, but only temporary.
Interesting enough, we should mention something I call forced fostering here – a form of “adoption” of a sexual partner (spouse, partner, boyfriend/girlfriend) into one’s family. When parents do this, they are technically showing two things :
- That they consider any non-familial members as intruders, and therefore cannot tolerate them and their presence, unless they “become” family by addressing them as biological/adopted parents
- A tendency towards incest due to this hidden impermeability. Logically, if one wishes to have grandchildren, but cannot accept a stranger, treats the adult child as a child i.e. under their control and wishes to assimilate their partner, then the sole possibility of partnering and sexual intercourse remains within the family itself – with the siblings, or with the father or mother themselves. This is highly prevalent in much of the more rigid leaning Western culture, and yet, it is ignored as the parents being “accepting” and “protective”… especially in cases of brothers and fathers “protecting” a sister/daughter – in a way strikingly similar to that of jealous sexual partners. Mothers usually do this to their sons; in case of daughters, the behaviour is more that of rivalry, with intervention of the matriarch’s masculine tools – father and brother(s), bringing us right to the debate about the Abusive Matriarch figure (footnote 7).
Another two things to mention is the hierarchy of adoption in the SCR cases in rigid or rigid leaning societies and the act of unadoption. By exclusion of members of society who are of sound mind, can support a child at present (because no one should ever kid themselves in thinking that a job will last them a lifetime), and who pass on appearing non-violent and non-abusive, and who have no damning habits such as alcoholism or drug addiction (this is where the system sadly most often fails), the society itself shows unacceptance for those members, despite the often pressing need of adoption by the number of children in need of home; this can also happen cross-species, where the overzealous become too choosy. Whether this is an exclusion of single women (by law allowed to have a baby biologically, but not adopt one, forcing intercourse on them regardless of their feelings or even the fact that they may, for one reason or another, be unattached), single men (who may also have the same problem), people of different backgrounds and religions, atheists, polyamorists or LGBT couples, the victims are always the children, partly because of the lack of suitable homes forcing them to remain in the adoption system and therefore often very vulnerable and partly because there is often too much assumption about “goodness” and “appropriateness” of people who seem to fit the bill as parents (or pet parents), and who turn out to be violent, abusive, manipulative and destructive to the child (or pet) in question in the long term. Contrary to popular belief, the check-up process is there for everyone, but it most often fails because the abusers know very well how to look good for the record, whereas others may not do so due to prejudiced ideas of what looks good.
Unadoption, so to speak, is not exactly the same as disinheriting. While disinheriting could certainly be spliced into the category (making Ivanhoe the unadopted knight during the tournament of Ashby XD), unadoption can happen any time, and is usually due to superstition. I use the term because it is the exact opposite of extending kinship, it is its retraction. To illustrate it, let me offer you the example of an ancient Slovene habit of desetnik/desetnica (so tenth child, m/f). In case of ten subsequent children of the same gender, the tenth was forced to leave home in an act of almost human sacrifice. While this notion still lives in folk memory, I was unable to get any information on how widely it used to be practised and how long it remained in vogue, or what had started it.
But it definitely illustrates the retraction of kinship in a very no-nonsense way.
I hope this gives you a good glimpse into adoption as a social, cultural and even religious practice. As usual, many terms I use are my own, developed due to work and research necessities.
Footnotes:
1. Barnard, A. & Spencer, J. “Adoption and fostering”. In A. Barnard & J. Spencer (eds) (2002 (1996)) Encyclopedia of social and cultural anthropology, pp. 8-9.
2. Cormier, L. A. Monkey as food, monkey as child: Guaja symbolic cannibalism
3. Dalby, L. (1983) Geisha. University of California Press.
4. Tolkien, J. R. R. (1954-1955) The Lord of the Rings.
5. Carsten, J. (1991) “Children In Between: Fostering and the Process of Kinship on Pulau Langkawi, Malaysia”. Man, New Series, 26 (3), pp. 425-443
6. Carsten, J. (2000) “‘Knowing where You’ve Come From’: Ruptures and Continuities of Time and Kinship in Narratives of Adoption Reunions”. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 6 (4), pp. 687-703
7. My Own Research
Additional Bibliography:
a. Demian, M. “Transactions in rights, transactions in children: A view of adoption from Papua New Guinea”. In F. Bowie (ed.) (2004) Cross-Cultural Approaches to Adoption. Routledge: London and New York. pp. 97-110
b. Dunning, R. W. (1962) “A Note on Adoption Among the Southampton Island Eskimo”. Man, 259, pp. 163-167
c. Fravel, D., McRoy, R. & Grotevant, H. (2000) “Birthmother Perceptions of the Psychologically Present Adopted Child: Adoption Openness and Boundery Ambiguity”. Family Relations, 49 (4), pp. 425-433.
d. Goody, J. (1969) “Adoption in Cross-Cultural Perspective”. Comparative Studies in Society ad History, 11 (1), pp. 55-78.
e. Keesing, R. M. (1970) “Kwaio Fosterage”. American Anthropologist, New Series, 72 (5), pp. 991-1019.
f. Lambert, B. (1964) “Fosterage in the Northern Gilbert Islands”. Ethnology, 3 (3), pp. 232-258.
g. McKinnon, S. (1995) “Nourishing Kinship Theory: A Commentary on Weistmantel’s “Making Kin””. American Ethnologist, 22 (4), pp. 704-706
h. Parkes, P. (2001) “Alternative Social Structures and Foster Relations in the Hindu Kush: Milk Kinship Allegiance in Former Mountain Kingdoms of Northern Pakistan”. Society for Comparative Study of Society and History, pp. 4-36
i. Parkes, P. (2003) “Fostering Fealty: A Comparative Analysis of Tributary Allegiances of Adoptive Kinship”. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 45 (4), pp. 741-782.
j. Payne-Price, A. C. (1981) “Etic Variations on Fosterage and Adoption”. Anthropological Quarterly, 54 (3), pp. 134-145.
k. Peluso, D. M. & Boster, J. S. “Partible Parentage and Social Networks among the Ese Eja” In S. Beckerman & P. Valentine (eds) (2002) Cultures of Multiple Fathers: The Theory and Practice of Partible Paternity in Lowland South America. University Press of Florida. pp. 137-159
l. Strathern, M. (1991) “Partners and Consumers: Making Relations Visible”. New Literary History, 22 (3), Undermining Subjects, pp 581-601
m. Terrell, J. & Modell, J. (1994) “Anthropology and Adoption”. American Anthropologist, New Series, 96 (1), pp. 155-161
n. Vilaca, A. (2002) “Making Kin out of others in Amazonia”. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, New Series, 8, pp. 347-365.
o. Weismantel, M. (1995) “Making Kin: Kinship Theory and Zumbagua Adoptions”. American Ethnologist, 22 (4), pp. 685-704
p. Weismantel, M. (1995) “Response to McKinnon”. American Ethnologist, 22 (4), pp. 706-709