As the world of international adoption continues to cycle through its ups and downs (Vietnam and Guatemala are threatening to close/are closing their doors due to the possibility of corrupt systems), we have to wonder if the current situation between Russia and Georgia will affect Russian adoptions. If the US gets involved, political repercussions could certainly slow things down. Needless to say, we're hoping for a quick - and peaceful - resolution to the fighting there.
On another note, I've been reading about positive adoption language. Since we immersed ourselves in the world of adoption several months ago, I started to notice that some words seemed more positive than others when discussing adoption. 'Positive' adoption language now feels more like 'normal' adoption language to me, but a few phrases still stand out when I come across them. For example:
- This is our child (not: This is our adopted child)
- He was adopted (not: He is adopted)
While the first one seems like a no-brainer to me, I've recently become aware of how often people (the media, especially) differentiate between biological children and adopted children. I don't believe that any harm is meant when people describe someone as being adopted, but I can see how this seemingly innocent adjective could imply that children who were adopted are inherently different from children who joined their families by birth. Our kids are our kids no matter how they come to us (even though ours has yet to come to us!), right? So, unless the topic comes up directly, I won't be introducing anyone as our adopted child. He'll just be our child. Our son. Or our daughter. They'll really throw us for a loop if it's a girl, but that's a different post!
As for the other phrase that stands out, I hadn't given this one much - or any - thought before. He was adopted, rather than he is adopted. The key point being that the adoption was an event, a one-time occurrence. It's not a 'condition' that someone carries with him the rest of his life. Again, I know that when someone uses is instead of was (gasp!) no harm is meant. But now that it's been pointed out to me, I can hear the difference. Don't worry, I'm not turning into the adoption language police waiting for someone to commit crimes of syntax! I'm just thinking out loud.
0 comments:
Post a Comment