In Eleana J. Kim's text Adopted Territory: Transnational Korean Adoptees and the Politics of Belonging, we are given an overview of the history and context of transnational adoptions of Korean children by Western parents, especially American but also European and Australian. The politics of transnational adoption of Korean children resonate with tones of paternalism and heteronormative ideals along with the otherization of "other others." These tones are implicit in the larger context of Western superiority and paternalism and the meaning of belonging within a dominant culture.
To begin with, the surge of Korean adoptees came following the Korean war. At first, it was a way to address the need for a welfare system to accommodate the large number of arguably orphaned Korean children who oftentimes were fathered by American soldiers. Ironically, the portrayal of these Korean adoptees was rarely if ever portrayed as the abandoned children of Americans, although the later Korean adoptees would be portrayed as the abandoned and orphaned children of Korean parents, even if their parents are other family members were still alive. The erasure of their parents - their American fathers, their Korean mothers - came as a way to paternalize the nature of their adoption by benevolent American parents. The ideal parents of Korean further perpetuated hegemonic ideals - ideal parents being white, American, Christian, and heterosexual. The role of America as being the adoptive nation for Korean children is akin to the role America shows to Muslim women as illustrated by Lila Abu-Lughod in "Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?" As paternal parent country, America posits itself as the ideal parent to so-called oppressed women and so-called orphaned and abandoned children.
The raising of Korean adoptees by American parents is perceived culturally and hegemonically as the ideal situation, even more ideal than a world that would enable Korean birth mothers and/or fathers to raise their own biological children, as they would wish. In spite of Korea being a technologically advanced country, it is not the West. Not being the West, it is by default seen as primitive, "third world", and/or perpetually developing, but not developed. Illustrative of this positioning of America as the ideal parent of the world and therefore, Korean children is the story Kim shares of Chong Ja, a Korean girl child who was desired for adoption by an the American family, the Manley's. In spite of Chong Ja continually expressing her wish to stay with her foster family in Korea, Mrs. Manley transformed from altruistic missionary parent to agitated "wronged" potential parent. An act as equally hegemonic as her strong assertion that she would be the ideal parent of Chong Ja, being Christian and American (read white, as well) was the persuasion the Chong Jar apparently needed in order to realize her fortunate opportunity. In her initial desire to stay with her Korean foster family, Chong Ja did not ascribe the narrative of American life being the most ideal life or an American family being what a fortunate child would have. Her lack of ascribing to this narrative led to the people around her, in support of the Manley's, feeling she needed to be persuaded to adopt the right view.
To place this narrative into the present, American celebrity parents who adopt black and brown from around the world are portrayed as doing the utmost altruistic gesture. Not to portray adoption in general and transnational adoption in particular in negative light, but when the birth parents -- people of color and located in a non Western nation -- are default portrayed as the least ideal parents, hegemony becomes apparent. Madonna caused controversy in not one but two adoption of African children. When accusations arose that the natal parents never intended to be separated from their children through adoption, a particularly hegemonic response came when Americans commented on how selfish these birth parents were being in not realizing the fortunate opportunity their parents would have.
The adoptees themselves are situated in a particular situation. As adult adoptee Clement commented, to be seen as a war child even after living in the country for decades is ironic, but not when analyzed through the paternalistic nature of Western occupation and transnational adoption. I lift up Western occupation as Kim's text resonates with Mary A. Renda's Taking Haiti. Parenting of the world is an American right, when desired, though not always an obligation. The major difference between these two texts being that Americans occupied Haiti as the ideal paternalistic gesture, whereas Korean children are seen as being in the ideal situation when they occupy the United States. The particularity of the Korean adoptees has led to many common interest organizations to share the particularities of the situation, known as adoptee kinship. What this kinship has the ability to do is to find the truth that lies somewhere in between two contrasted narratives: that transnational adoption is the best thing for Korean children and that transnational adoption is the worst thing for Korean children. The truth lies somewhere is between because it must be acknowledged that although individual narratives differ widely, not all adoptive parents being personally hegemonic dictators, it cannot be ignored the paternalistic implications of transnational adoption.
No comments:
Post a Comment