The adoption language is changing and evolving, and since the 1970s has been a controversial issue closely linked to adoption reform efforts. Controversy arises over the use of terms which, while designed to be more interesting or less offensive to some people affected by adoption, may simultaneously cause offense or contempt to others. This controversy illustrates the problem of adoption, as well as the fact that bringing together new words and phrases to describe ancient social practices will not necessarily alter the feelings and experiences of those affected. Two of the contrasting sets of terms are usually referred to as positive adoption language (PAL) (sometimes called honor language (RAL) ), and the adoption of an honest language (HAL).
Video Language of adoption
Positive adoption language
In the 1970s, as search and adoption support organizations flourished, there were challenges to the commonly used language of the day. The term "natural mother" has been commonly used before. The term "natural mother" was first used in 1956 by Nobel Prize-winning authors and adoptive mother of Pearl S. Buck. Like Sorosky, Pannor and Baran published books, such as Sorosky, Pannor and Baran, and a support group formed like the Cub (Brotherhood United Fraternity Brotherhood), great changes from natural parents to being born parents. Along with changes in time and social attitudes comes additional language checks used in adoption.
Social workers and other professionals in the field of adoption begin to change the terms of use to reflect what is being expressed by the parties involved. In 1979, Marietta Spencer wrote "The Terminology of Adoption" for the American Child Welfare League (CWLA), which became the basis for his later work "Constructive Adoption Terminology". This is influenced by the "positive adoption language" of Pat Johnston (PAL) and the "respectful adoption language" (RAL). The terms contained in "positive adoption language" include the term "natural mother" (to replace the terms "natural mother" and "natural mother"), "put" (instead of the term "surrender").
Language, at its best, respects the self-reference choice of the people involved, uses inclusive terms and phrases, and is sensitive to the feelings of the main parties. Language evolves with social attitudes and experiences. The example below is one of the earliest and should be noted that this list, too, has evolved and changed over the years.
Reasons for using it : Some terms such as biological parents, biological mother, biological father were chosen by those who worked on adoption reforms as a term to replace 'natural' and it took nearly a decade before agencies, social workers, courts and laws embrace changes in self-referrals. Some adoptive parents support this change because they feel using "natural" shows that they are "unnatural". In some cultures, adoptive families face an anti-adoption bias. This can be proven in English speaking culture when there is a prominent use of the negative or inaccurate language that describes adoption. So, to combat it, many adoptive families choose the use of positive adoption language.
Reason against its use : Some people adopted believe "positive adoption language" creates cognitive dissonance, denying certain reality to recipients, & amp; treating the status of being adopted as if it were something embarrassing to impose adoption should not be part of their identity. Some born parents see "positive adoption language" as a term that reveals the painful facts they face as they enter an infinite post-adoption period in their lives. They feel that PAL has become a way to bring adoption in the light of the most possible, to get more babies to adopt; namely, sales and marketing tools. Some people feel the social work system has negatively compromised the intention of referencing the birth family and other terms, so either the initial intention needs to be respected, or the terminology has to change again.
Sample terms used in positive adoption language
Maps Language of adoption
Honest adoption language â € <â € <
"The language of fair adoption" refers to a set of terms that reflect the viewpoint that: (1) family (social, emotional, psychological or physical) relationships that existed before the adoption of the law continued, and that (2) mothers who "voluntarily surrendered" to adopt (as opposed to voluntary termination through a court-approved child welfare process) rarely see it as a freely-made option, but illustrate scenarios of powerlessness, lack of resources, and overall lack of choice. It also reflects the point of view that the term "natural mother" is insulting in implying that the woman has stopped being a mother after the physical act of giving birth. HAL supporters equate this with mothers treated as "breeders" or "incubators". The terms included in HAL include original terms used before PAL, including "natural mother", "Mother" and "surrendered for adoption", "child alone" rather than "child born" etc. Canadian Organizations have been pioneers in promoting an honest adoption language
The reason for its use : In most cultures, adoption of a child does not change the identity of his mother and father: they continue to be called that way. Those who adopt a child are subsequently termed "guardians," "adopts," or "adopted" parents. Some people choose to use "honest adoption language" (HAL) because it reflects the original terminology. Some of those directly affected by the separation of adoption believe these terms more accurately reflect an important but hidden and/or ignored reality of adoption. They feel this language also reflects ongoing connections and does not exclude further contact.
Reason against its use : The term "honest" implies that all other languages ​​used in adoption are dishonest. It disrespects the historical aspect of the early adoption reform movement that asked and worked for years to change the terminology from nature to birth. Some adoptive parents feel unappreciated by language like 'natural parent' because it can indicate that they are unnatural.
Sample terms used in fair adoption language â € <â € <
Language of inclusive adoption
There are supporters of various lists, developed over the past few decades, and there are those who consider them lacking, created to support the agenda, or advance the division. All terminology may be used to patronize or reduce, uplift or embrace. In addressing the problem of linguistic naming, Edna Andrews says that using "inclusive" and "neutral" language is based on the concept that "language represents thought, and can even control the mind."
Inclusive language advocates defend it as an indecent usage of language whose purpose is multi-fold:
- The rights, opportunities, and freedoms of certain people are limited because they are reduced to stereotypes.
- Stereotypes are mostly implicit, unconscious, and facilitated by the availability of degrading labels and terms.
- Rendering labels and terms socially unacceptable, people should consciously think about how they describe someone who is not like himself.
- When labeling is a conscious activity, the individual benefits of the individual described are clear, not the stereotypes.
A common problem is that the terms chosen by the identity group, as acceptable descriptors about themselves, can be used in a negative way by the critics. This compromises the integrity of the language and alters what is meant to be positive to negative or vice versa, thus often devaluing acceptance, meaning, and usage.
In the growing debate over which terms are acceptable in any era, there can be strife within the group itself. To be inclusive requires that no group considers others what they should call themselves. Words and phrases should reflect mutual respect and respect for individual choices.
The language of inclusive adoption is much more than the aesthetics of the identity image that a person embraces or rejects; it can focus on fundamental issues and ideals of social justice. A truly inclusive language affirms the humanity of everyone involved, and shows respect for difference. Words have the power to communicate hospitality or hostility, to exploit and exclude, and affirm and release. The respect for inclusive language that every individual has the right to determine for himself what terms reflect themselves comfortably and best reflects their personal identity.
See also
References
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments