Lifton gathered feedback from both the adopted and the non-adopted to write this book. She wrote that she wanted people to read the book and gather a glimpse at what being adopted is like. Each chapter addresses issues in common that adoptees seem to face. To me, it seemed as though each topic went over how adoptees are both like and unlike other people. There are times where we are alike and the adoption myths and secrecy make us different. There are times when we are not alike and it is denied. The secrecy in adoption is a big theme in this book, frequently focusing on the lack of information that adoptees have about their origins that the non-adopted may take for granted.
I have been noticing the common theme of Freud's "Family Romance Theory" a lot in the books I have been reading. It made me think back to my first psychology class when I first learned of it and what my reaction was. Lifton dedicates a whole chapter to this theory and how the adopted vs. non-adopted perceive it.
The Family Romance Theory is said to be a way that adolescents work out their own personality by working out ambivalent feelings about their parents. It is done in the form of an adoption fantasy. "They're too mean to be my mom and dad, I must be adopted and my real parents are somewhere out there. They're cool parents who are laid back like I am and would never ground me" (my own example, not a quote from the book). The adolescent places "good" and "bad" into their parents and into their pretend parents and comes to a place where they can integrate their feelings into their actual parents.
My own musings, following Lifton's theme of including how the non-adopted may view adoptees are as follows. Since it seems like so many are confident to speak on behalf of adoptees, "I know someone who is adopted and..." perhaps they gather such confidence: if Freud's theory rang true for them growing up. They really may have *thought about* what it would be like to be adopted. It's still not the same of knowing what it's really like. Mind you, I'm referring specifically to those whose friend's cousin's mom is adopted and "seems fine with it," who use that perception to tell an adoptee they are wrong about what they're trying to express. I'm not referring to those who actually do try to understand the issues.
As Lifton points out:
"Even though the family romance reveals the universal curiosity and fundamental quest for origins as everyone shares, it is not a romance for the Adoptee.......But unlike the non-adopted who can eventually resolve their family romance by unifying the good and bad parents into the one set they have, there is no way for the Adoptee to resolve the polarization short of knowing about the birth parents as real people" p. 29I remember hearing of this theory, framed as it pertained to the non-adopted, in my Psych 101 class when I was 18. I decided that the Family Romance Theory didn't apply to me because I never thought about pretend parents. It did not occur to me at the time that perhaps if I did think as the Family Romance Theory described, it would have been different for me than how it was framed in class, which presumed everyone in the class was non-adopted/biologically-raised. This "romance" for others was reality for me; I am adopted and do have two sets of parents.
So, did I polarize "good" and "bad" into my adoptive and original parents growing up? What I recall most is that I would feel frustrated when thinking about my original family because I had very little information about them. While I certainly would wonder about them, it seemed exhausting to make up a story about them that, which up until realizing there were reunion resources out there, I thought I would never have the opportunity to know if it was true or not. When I was little, I thought everyone who was adopted had the same adoption story and liked watching a video series about a character who was adopted too. At one point, I thought I had the same story he did. When I grew older, I developed a very simplified explanation of my origins and adoption based on what I felt I did know and conclusions I could draw from that information. I followed the stereotypes that the rest of the world seemed to have; that everything about being adopted must be wonderful because I must have been "saved" by it from something "bad." As Lifton suggested, when I reunited I was able to see my original family as they are as real people. For me, there is no "good" family or "bad" family. I went from one really nice family to another.
Does anyone reading this entry who wants to share, adopted or not, identify with the Family Romance Theory?
Photo credit: jscreationzs
Would a book written about what being a mother is like sell? Would it be relevant? Interesting.
ReplyDeleteLori, a significant portion of Lost & Found includes mother's perspectives as well.
ReplyDeleteI think people would be interested in books about mothers. "The Girls Who Went Away" seems to be very popular. I have it but haven't read it yet.
Interesting post and interesting perspective on the Family Romance Theory -- when my daughter (now 6 1/2) is angry with me will say "I don't think my birth mom should have made an adoption plan because this is not a good family for me." I see this as the adopted child's way of saying "I want new parents," which all kids do at one time or another when they're upset -- the only difference is that my children actually have other parents out there, so the idea of other, perhaps "better," parents isn't a fantasy to them.
ReplyDeleteThere are several good books by first mothers. FMF Lorraine's book Birthmark and Carol Schaefer's The Other Mother are both excellent and were well received. I often prefer to read books from the first mother perspective as it helps me to understand the thinking of the times and the pressures that were on unwed mothers.
ReplyDeleteThe Girls Who Went Away is also superb.
Oeps, heeeeeeeey, I choose my nick before this book! I'm suing! ^^
ReplyDelete