Castaneda states that "Much of this research suggests that the mobility and migrancy destabilizes identities and communities precisely insofar as they detach identity from a place, enable the creation of new 'nomadic' identities, or lead to the 'creolization' of 'global culture'" (2). This sense of destabilized identity can be attributed to Korean adoptees. This destabilization can only be rectified when the adoptee comes out as being different--as being an adoptee. Otherwise, adult adoptees become members of the "silent majority," which is a politically loaded term used to define the nation of individuals in the United States who did not indulge in the countercultural revolution during midcentury. But does this "silent majority" have power and agency because they are silent? In any case, knowing that there is a silent majority of adult adoptees makes the institution of adoption itself highly politicized. What is the motivation behind adoption, especially during the first wave of Korean adoptions to the United States after the Korean War? Some would interpret it as a "neoimperialistic perpetuation of gender, race, and class--based inequalities on a global scale" (3). Indeed, it's the rejuvenation of the White Man's Burden to save these poor, helpless Korean children, many of who were initially fathered by American soldiers. It is interesting how Americans seem to seek the preservation of any ties to themselves such as these mixed-blood Korean children. The American blood, it seems, must live on. Indeed, "The adoption of mixed-blood Korean American children thus became another alternative for so-called childless couples, especially those motivated by Christian values" (45). These values are another characteristic used to dissociate Americans from communists during the Cold War era. However, these children also provided ammunition for communists to use against Americans: "For the United States, the 'GI babies' or 'UN babies' presented a possible weapon that the communists could seize upon in the ideological battle to discredit the United States and its cold war expansionism" (48). But any fear of being seen as imperialists did little to deter Americans from adopting mixed-blood babies. Kim overall describes adoptees both mixed-blood and purely Korean as holographs, "turned one way, they appear to be among the most privileged of cosmopolitan, turned the other, they are the ultimate subalterns and 'orphaned' and 'abandoned' children" (8). This reminded me of the Antiguans Kincaid discusses. On the one hand they are seen by tourists to be the beneficiaries to an easy, relaxed, and enjoyable lifestyle an on the other hand, they are victims of corrupt political regimes and poverty.
As stated earlier, migration leads to detachment of place and the ability to create new "nomadic" identities. Yet, many adult adoptees find themselves wanting to reattach themselves to the places they left. Some go so far as the change their names: "By legally reverting back to their Korean name at an older age, and/or using it in their email addresses and computer IDs, adult KADs are suing the Internet as a vehicle to return their lost heritage" (89). Therefore, avenues such as the Internet create a figurative place for these adoptees to reattach themselves to the place they left behind, but is this true for all migrants? For instance, do Filipino mothers who migrant to the global north detach themselves from the place they left behind and create a new identity? I do not believe that she every really detaches herself, the detachment is only physical not emotional. The same seems to hold true for adult adoptees; although they may be physically detached they are still emotionally attached to their heritage mostly because it is foreign to them and they seek to reclaim it.
Another way to reattach to a sense of cultural and homey space is by going to conferences, one of the most notable being the Gathering. Indeed, "Under IKAA, the Gathering conferences have become opportunities for adoptees to objectify themselves and to provisionally suspend time and space and locate a sense of home in their own liminality" (140-41). In this sense, adoptees can be seen as creating yet another family for themselves wherein they transform "from childlike orphans into adult adoptees who are not only independent and autonomous but also gain strength in numbers" (141).
No comments:
Post a Comment