Can someone please tell me more about the darkside of adoption?
Answer: As an adoptee who has moved back to his land of birth, I see international adoption now as the willful leveraging of inequalities and class differences in order to establish a nuclear family and individual fulfillment, in a clash between the dominant cultural outlook and those cultures which are resistant to this outlook.
This brings up the “dark side” of adoption as you put it, which is full of unanswered questions that adopters are loathe to admit, much less address, except to say that their “individual act” is somehow so beneficent that it undoes or balances out injustice in the world.
This can be proved wrong very readily by a series of statements that deserve to be central to any and all debate on adoption:
If it can be argued that there are government policies, inherent to a given cultural outlook, that in fact do much to create the poverty, the wars, and the conditions that have always resulted in so-called orphans, and one chooses to apply Band-aid solutions to these symptoms and not the disease, then one is complicit in those policies.
If it can be argued that it is a non-relative cultural outlook that allows for the imposition of the notion of nuclear family over those cultures that are more community based, and one decides that individual happiness is more important than that of all, and that “family” is more important than “community”, then one is complicit in the destruction of the community that one is adopting from.
If it can be argued that it is a power differential between those of different classes, walks of life, and living conditions; that an inherent inequality is the engine that drives most adoption on all levels and at great profit; that the willful leveraging of this differential economically, politically, and culturally has nothing to do with family creation but everything to do with exploitation and extraction of said profit; that in this can be seen the destruction of cultures that do not echo the dominant and prevailing one in a direct correlation with the historical approach to the “Third World” by the “First”, then one is complicit in this status quo that has wrought nothing but destruction worldwide.
Because if we truly cared about the child, we would not support the economic and political wars that resulted in such children’s situations.
Reference: The Shock Doctrine, by Naomi Klein.
Debate Tactic: Shift the debate away from the personal. Keeping the debate in the realm of “emotion”, of “what we feel”, allows for two things: psychological dismissal, as well as the ridiculous concept that “everyone is entitled to their opinion”. “Entitlement” is the root cause of adoption. We should not mimic it when debating the subject.