(This feature appeared in the Summer 1999 issue of the Bastard Quarterly.)

In the 1960’s, there was a slogan "The Personal Is Political." The impetus behind this was a reaction to the prevailing insular trends of the 1950’s which separated the life of the individual and family from that of society, politics, or business. This led to an ethical and emotional split between the nuclear family persona, which was expected to be caring and honest, and the face shown to the world: the "organization man" who would say and do anything to rise to the top. The young radicals, idealists, and feminists of the 60’s, tired of the obvious hypocrisy of this system, rebelled, and insisted that all our actions and attitudes on a personal level also have resonance in the political and social spheres, and vice versa. Marxist and socialist theory contributed as well- remember Mao’s disastrous "Cultural Revolution"?

When taken with wisdom and moderation, this philosophy led to much good work being done to promote peace, equality, and humanitarian aims, and towards a more holistic, idealistic, spiritual view of life. In excess, it also led to much silliness, like the current preoccupation with "Political Correctness" in speech and writing. Likewise it led to various kinds of utopian communities doomed to failure by their utter ignorance of human nature and the realities of life, and their attempts to twist passion and feeling into a mold congruent with their ideology. In general, those who continue to most ardently embrace the "personal is political" philosophy are notably deficient in humor and common sense.

In the adoption reform movement, begun in the late 60’s and early 70’s, the personal and political became mixed in an especially unfortunate way that has held back both political progress, and real psychological insight and comfort to many touched by adoption. From the beginning, a lot of junk psychology and self-help rhetoric became hopelessly tangled with the real issues of adoption reform, which set back both legislative reform and psychological growth in unforeseen ways.

The personal aspects of adoption reform: search, reunion, post-reunion etc., are all relationship issues, and matters of personal choice. They concern the impact of adoption upon individual lives, and vary greatly. Some adoptees, and some birthparents, decide to search, or at least to leave the door open should the other party want to reunite. The first step on this path may be to join passive registries, to return to the agency for information, or to attend meetings of a support group. For some, this is as far as they wish to go. Others search actively, even obsessively, some for years, and some find just by looking in a phone book. There are as many ways to search as human ingenuity can devise, and they do not depend on access to original birth certificates. In fact those who are reunited with every family member they can locate still cannot get that document legally despite knowing all that is contained therein and much more! Although records have been legally sealed for many years in most states, that has not prevented countless adoptees and birthfamilies from searching and reuniting, with every possible outcome, good and bad. The continued sealing of records will not prevent reunions in the future. Search and reunion are not civil rights issues, worthy as many of us feel they are as a path we have chosen to follow.

Bastard Nation has made it clear that adoptee rights is a civil rights issue , and should be argued as such in the legislatures and courts. It is not an issue of search, reunion, or psychological need, and in that sense, the "personal" weepy birthmothers and wounded adoptees, and their stories, songs and poems have no place in the legal arena. But for over 20 years, no hearing on adoptee rights legislation was complete without heart-rending tales of woe from all sides, and a shared belief that reunion was a cure-all for everything from depression to insanity to obesity to athlete’s foot. The opposition, on the other hand, took the stand that open records and reunions would lead to the downfall of Western civilization. A lot of hot air and angst spewed forth, but little was illuminated or accomplished.

It is now clear that the civil rights strategy is the successful route to changing laws and getting the public and legislators to listen. What has not been made clear enough is the benefits that accrue to the "other side" of adoption reform: those more interested in healing, support and search than in legislative work. Separating the personal from the political can be just as beneficial to this group as to the legislative wing, if they stop to look at what is involved.

There need not be resentment or competition between the healers and the reformers, but often there is. People should be free to pick where they put most of their energies, without either side demeaning the other. All should support legislative reform, because it is the right and moral and decent thing to do. There is still plenty of room for the psychological and spiritual aspects of adoption, if civil rights activism and psychological healing are each clearly defined and each knows its limits and territory. Much of what has gone on politically in the past has not only been ineffective in getting any legislative change, it has stifled much true expression and exploration in the personal and psychological realm.

Since the beginning of the movement, there has been a "politically correct" way to speak and think about search and reunions that has denied the reality of many . If all reunions, even the worst, were supposed to lead to some form of emotional liberation, and if proving this were believed vital to convincing legislators and promoting the Cause, to say otherwise was heresy, and quickly silenced. One orthodoxy: "search is bad and disloyal and nobody should search" was replaced by another: "everybody is wounded, everybody should search, and it cures all." Neither takes into account the vast diversity of adoption experience, and both are irrelevant to the civil rights issue. Original birth certificates should be available to adoptees even if nobody chooses to search, because it is their right to have that option, whether it is exercised by few, many, or none, and whether the emotional result is healing or disappointing.

What is intellectually suspect in much of the research around adoption reform, and in some of the advice given in support groups, is the existence of an agenda that must see search and reunion as universally positive in some way, and which must extend the problems that adoption causes some, to include all. This leads to unproven but widely accepted hypotheses that every adoptee suffers from the "Primal Wound", or that every birthmother is afflicted by Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. It gives a ready made excuse for all ills to those seeking that, and it soon drives most whose reunions are painful, disappointing, or non-existent, or those for whom adoption has not been a problem, out of the movement, where they are only an embarrassment unless they can spout the party line despite their perceived reality.

What if open records did not depend on the success of any reunion? Did the civil rights act giving African Americans equal opportunity depend on them all succeeding ? Did giving women the vote guarantee that they would always vote wisely? If we in adoption reform can truly separate the legal challenge from the psychological issues, we will realize that unjust laws must be changed simply because they are unjust and insult human dignity. If we would do this, how many more of us could be truly seen, and truly helped to heal?

The entangling of self-help and psychological issues with legislative and civil rights concerns in adoption has been a disaster and a mistake. What has been lost is a whole dimension: that of justice, personal responsibility, and ethics. By pathologizing and psychologizing all aspects of adoption reform, we have lost sight of what is really at stake.

While many individuals benefit from adoption therapy, alone or in groups, adoption reform efforts should not depend on emotional need or the outcome of reunions. Those who do seek support should be able to say that their own search was a mistake for them, or a disappointment, or even a disaster, without the future of adoption reform being jeopardized. To say that one’s own reunion is a horror, even to say that you wish it had never happened, should not be taken to imply that the state has any place in "protecting" adults from such disappointment, or that records should remain sealed from adoptees because some are hurt. There are many bad marriages and we are free to complain about them without fear that the state will step in and either outlaw marriage or divorce because of the personal pain both bring to many. Why should adoption be different under the law?

Adoption reform is not about self-esteem, or feeling good, although working for reform enhances those areas for most people. It is about doing good, fighting the good fight, doing what is ethical and right and taking responsibility for one’s actions, and expecting others to do likewise.

Birthmothers especially have trouble with the concept of responsibility, which for us is often so tied to guilt. We need to separate the two in order to see that we are all responsible for our own actions, even when others and society played a large part in influencing which road we have taken. Guilt is indeed corrosive, but sometimes it is deserved, and often it can be expiated somewhat by admitting responsibility, and making amends as much as is possible. Involvement in activism is a wonderful way to make amends. Keeping our emotional problems in the personal and support realm, and seeking help for them there, and expecting others to do likewise, will go a long way towards clearing up the mess we are in. Excusing the bad deeds of ourselves or others, because of "birthmother issues" or "low self-esteem" helps nobody, and keeps us all in moral infancy.

Every one of us is an individual, with an individual history and personality as well as our shared connection to adoption. Some adoptees, whom Bastard Nation has made welcome for the first time into adoption reform, feel that adoption has been fine for them, do not wish to search, but do wish their civil rights restored. They deserve to be respected, not patronized about being "in denial." Other adoptees have been deeply wounded, abused, mistreated, and are very angry. Their true feelings too deserve to be heard and respected, not swept under the rug for political reasons. The same goes for birthparents, of all kinds, in open and closed adoptions good and bad, and for goodhearted adoptive parents as long as they support adoptee civil rights and ethical adoption practice. We need less of a party line about individual cases, and more listening and compassion and real insight based on something other than just what is politically correct, or what is comfortable to hear for those steeped in psychology and the need for healing.

Someone in my position, or in much worse situations than mine, should be able to go to a meeting and say that their reunion sucks, that it did not transform their life, that they are disappointed and envious and hurt and not have several people jump on them to dredge something "positive" out of the experience, because the prevailing wisdom is "all reunions are good," or at least transforming and healing. If it did not seem to matter so much politically to say this, I think we could begin to have more individualized counseling and real support in support groups, and more interest in quality research that starts with an open mind, not with an axe to grind.

The political is public. It is about human rights and dignity, in the broad sense. It is strategy, influence, fundraising, deal-making and demonstrating. It is rhetoric and reason used to further our cause. It is legalistic, impersonal and vital. It is wise use of the media, of debate and of the strategies used successfully by other civil rights causes, adapted to our issues and capabilities as a movement. It is about ethics, justice, morality: right and wrong. All can contribute, a little or a lot, money or time or talent, or all of these, no matter what their personal circumstances or reunion stories are.

The personal is personal. It is the realm of the soul, of dreams, of experience, environment, and personality reacting in a unique way to create who we each are. Although there are broad threads of similarity in many of our adoption stories, and it is comforting to know this - to know we are not alone - that is far from the whole picture. It is only the beginning. There are universal archetypes, and there are individual interactions with archetypal themes. Freed from political constraints, adoption psychology can finally begin to acknowledge this, and to go deeper into what is unique and real for each of us, no matter what we find, and how we feel about it.

July 1999

Mary Anne Cohen is a birthmother who surrendered in 1968, active in adoption reform since 1975, Co-Founder and newsletter editor of Origins, past American Adoption Congress (AAC) Board member and Education Chair, member of CUB (Concerned United Birthparents) since its inception, Lifetime Member of Bastard Nation (BN). Mary Anne is also a poet and artist, mother of three sons whom she raised, married, BA in art and psychology, and keeper of many cats.

(This feature appeared in the Summer 1999 issue of the Bastard Quarterly.)

Copyright 1999 Mary Anne Cohen
All Rights Reserved