Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:36:27.403Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introductory Essay

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

Susan M. Sterett
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

      Suppose you want to write
      Of a woman braiding
      Another woman's hair-
      Straight down, or with beads and shells
      In three-strand plaits or corn-rowsYou
      had better know the thickness
      The length the pattern
      Why she decides to braid her hair
      How it is done to her
      What country it happens in
      What else happens in that country
      You have to know these things
    -Adrienne Rich, "North American Time"

Although Adrienne Rich tells us we “have to know these things,” we are often willingly blind to the rich stories of those with whom we are most intimate. You may braid someone's hair without knowing very much about her. You may even write about it, though the writing would rapidly become very dull. In this issue of Law & Society Review, the authors examine how legal regimes facilitate knowing (and ignoring) stories when making families. For people seeking to adopt a child in western national states, the law has sometimes made it easy not to know about who bore a child, why she is available for adoption, and why a family might have raised her one way rather than another—braiding her hair in cornrows or in plaits. Also, in intercountry adoption, children often arrive with no history available, a condition legal adoption allows and often facilitates. We need not know “what else happens in that country.” Recent scholarship notes the historical and cultural specificity of the practice of ignoring. Adoptees, mothers who have placed their children for adoption, and adoptive parents have all claimed a right to know their own or their child's history, sometimes for different reasons. Scholars have followed, explaining that creating an “as if” family, in which all of this knowledge is foreclosed, does not fit with the experience of families. Articles in this issue address three interlocking themes that question the practice of not knowing: the commodification of children and family in a market economy, contests over the framework of choice in the making of a family, and the identity of children.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 36 , Issue 2: Special Issue on Nonbiological Parenting , 2002 , pp. 209 - 226
Copyright
Copyright © 2002 Law and Society Association.

Footnotes

I am grateful to Nita Lineberry and Joseph Sanders for their work on this special issue. Jane Collins pointed out the relevance of Adrienne Rich's “North American Time.” Elizabeth Chambliss, Jane Collins, Marianne Constable, and Helene Orr provided helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article.

References

References

Anderson, Benedict (1994) “Exodus,” 20 Critical Inquiry 314–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bower, Lisa (1994) “Queer Acts and the Politics of ‘Direct Address’: Rethinking Law, Culture, and Community.” 28 Law & Society Rev. 1009–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canan, Penelope, & Reichman, Nancy (2001) Ozone Connections: Expert Networks in Global Environmental Governance. New York: Greenleaf Publishing.Google Scholar
Carp, E. Wayne (1998) Family Matters: Secrecy and Disclosure in the History of Adoption. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Carp, E. Wayne (forthcoming [a]) Bastard Nation and the Politics of Adoption Reform.Google Scholar
Carp, E. Wayne (forthcoming [b]) Adoption in America: Historical Perspective. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chesler, Phyllis (1990) Sacred Bond: Motherhood Under Siege. London: Virago.Google Scholar
Clark, Danae (1998) “Mediadoption: Children, Commodification, and the Spectacle of Disruption.” 39 American Studies (2):65–86.Google Scholar
Cmiel, Kenneth (1995) A Home of Another Kind: One Chicago Orphanage and the Tangle of Child Welfare. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Conant, Lisa J (2002) Justice Contained: Law and Politics in the European Union. Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Sara (2002) “Where do Babies Come From?” New York Times Magazine (Sunday, 16 June 2002).Google Scholar
Coutin, Susan (2000) Legalizing Moves. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Crenson, Matthew (1998) Building the Invisible Orphanage: A Prehistory of the American Welfare System. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeBoer, Robby (1994) Losing Jessica. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Dezalay, Yves & Garth, Bryant G., eds. (2002) Global Prescriptions: The Production, Exportation, and Importation of a New Legal Orthodoxy. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epp, Charles (1998) The Rights Revolution: Lawyers, Activists and Supreme Courts in Comparative Perspective. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewick, Patricia, & Silbey, Susan (1998) The Common Place of Law: Stories From Everyday Life. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fagan, Kristina (2001) “Adoption as National Fantasy in Barbara Kingsolver's Pigs in Heaven and Margaret Laurence's The Diviners,” in Novy, M., ed., Imagining Adoption: Essays on Literature and Culture. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Fogg-Davis, Hawley (2002) The Ethics of Transracial Adoption. Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, Sarah, & McKinnon, Susan (2001) “Relative Values: Reconfiguring Kinship Studies,” in Franklin, S. & McKinnon, S., eds., Relative Values: Reconfiguring Kinship Studies. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Gailey, Christine Ward (1998) “Making Kinship in the Wake of History: Gendered Violence and Older Child Adoption.” 5 Identities 249–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gailey, Christine Ward (2000) “Race, Class and Gender in Intercountry Adoption in the USA,” in Selman, P., ed., Intercountry Adoption: Development, Trends, and Perspectives. London: British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering.Google Scholar
Howell, Signe (2001) “Self-Conscious Kinship: Some Contested Values in Norwegian Transnational Adoption,” in Franklin, S. & McKinnon, S., eds., Relative Values: Reconfiguring Kinship Studies. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Macaulay, Jacqueline, & Macaulay, Stewart (1978) “Adoption of Black Children: A Case Study of Expert Discretion.” 1 Research in Law and Sociology 265–318.Google Scholar
Modell, Judith (1994) Kinship with Strangers. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.Google Scholar
Patton, Sandra (2000) BirthMarks: Transracial Adoption in Contemporary America. New York: New York Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Pertman, Adam (2000) Adoption Nation: How the Adoption Revolution Is Transforming America. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Reichl, Ruth (2001) Comfort Me With Apples: More Adventures at the Table. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Rich, Adrienne (1984) “North American Time.” The Fact of a Doorframe. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
Roberts, Dorothy (1999) “Welfare's Ban on Poor Motherhood,” in Mink, G., ed., Whose Welfare?. Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Dorothy (2001) Shattered Bonds: The Color of Child Welfare. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Saclier, Chantai (2000) “In the Best Interests of the Child?” in Selman, P., ed., Intercountry Adoption: Development, Trends, and Perspectives. London: British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering.Google Scholar
Sanger, Carol (1996) “Separating from Children.” 96 Columbia Law Rev. 375–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, Dan (2000) The Kid. New York: Plume Books.Google Scholar
Selman, Peter (2000) “The Demographic History of Intercountry Adoption,” in Selman, P., ed., Intercountry Adoption: Developments, Trends, and Perspectives. London: British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering.Google Scholar
Solinger, Rickie (1992) Wake Up Little Susie: Single Pregnancy and Race Before Roe v. Wade. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Solinger, Rickie (1999) “Dependency and Choice,” in Mink, G., ed., Whose Welfare?. Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Solinger, Rickie (2001) Beggars and Choosers: How the Politics of Choice Shapes Adoption, Abortion and Welfare in the United States. New York: Hill & Wang.Google Scholar
Sterett, Susan (1997) Creating Constitutionalism? Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, Jacqueline (1999) Reproducing the State. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stolley, K.S. (1993) “Statistics on Adoption in the United States.” 3 The Future of Children: Adoption 26–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strong, Pauline Turner (2001) “To Forget Their Tongue, Their Name, and Their Whole Relations: Captivity, Extra-Tribal Adoption, and the Indian Child Welfare Act,” in Franklin, S. & McKinnon, S., eds., Relative Values: Reconfiguring Kinship Studies. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Telfer, Jonathan (2000) “Pursuing Partnerships: Experiences of Intercountry Adoption in an Australian Setting,” in Selman, P., ed., Intercountry Adoption: Developments, Trends, and Perspectives. London: British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering.Google Scholar
Terrell, John, & Modell, Judith (1994) “Anthropology and Adoption.” 96 American Anthropologis 155–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cases Cited

Doe 1 v. Oregon 164 Ore.App. 543 (1999).Google Scholar
Frette v. France #36515/97. Feb. 26, 2002. http://www.echr.coe.int.Google Scholar
Ex p. H.H. 2002 Ala. LEXIS 44 (Feb. 15, 2002).Google Scholar

Conventions

Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (29 May 1993) (available at http://travel.state.gov/hagueinfo2002.html)..Google Scholar
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) (http://www.unicef.org/crc/crc.htm)..Google Scholar