- Share This Post
- Pin It
- 6
-
Sparkle (0)
If you type the word "adopt" into Google, you will see that only half of the first 10 entries apply to children. If you add a dash and the letter "a" to create the ubiquitous "adopt-a-" you will see that only 2 mention actual adoption. You can adopt a platoon, a manatee, an animal at the National Zoo, or a classroom. Though none of these programs actually fulfill the definition of adoption.
American Heritage defines adoption as "to take (a child) into one's family through legal means and raise as one's own." Even if you head several entries down under the term, you never come across a temporary situation. Adoption is, by its very definition, a permanent structure. And while we all know realistically that relationships can be severed, people do not enter into the act of adoption with the intention of separation. At its core is permanence whereas all of these programs are for a limited duration.
Unless the FONZ program at the National Zoo is going to allow me to remove my red panda bear cub from the grounds and raise him in my house, I am not adopting. I am giving a donation, exchanging money for tickets to see Zoo Lights, in a mutually beneficial relationship for both the receiver and the giver. But exchanging money or making a donation is not adoption. And the thought that a donation of money is equated with adoption is offensive to families built through adoption.
Which doesn't explain why organizations don't use the proper term of sponsorship ("one who assumes responsibility for another person or group") to refer to their programs. Why piggyback on redefining adoption when there are proper terms in the English language to describe the act of philanthropy or responsibility? Does adoption appeal to our sense of neoteny, calling forth images of baby animals rather than sponsor which calls forth images of AA meetings and television advertisements?
Thoughts fall into two camps on this misuse of the word "adoption": on one side are those who believe that words only matter to a point and think that children will be able to differentiate between taking care of a road and forming a family for life. On the other side are those who believe that words do matter and that children are hearing underlying messages with this misuse of the term "adoption." In other words, if a family is adopted only for a few weeks and can be tossed aside once the holiday ends, how does that relate to my adoption?
And I have to fall on the side of words matter because...we all know that words hurt. And circumspection is sort of like vegetarianism. Everyone can eat vegetarian, but vegetarians can't eat a steak. Therefore, serving a vegetarian meal is inclusive and respectful of all parties. When you're in the privacy of your home and not affecting others, sit down to your nice chicken dinner. But when you're operating at the Welcome Table (and I see the entire outside world as a possible Welcome Table), you may have to suck it up and chew some carrots.
Other parents have spoken out about their take on "adopt-a-" programs and it seems especially timely to broach this right now when so many families buy gifts and give meals to another family all under the name of adoption.
Plain Jane Mom had the first post I ever read on this topic called "Adoption is not for Dirty Highways" explaining how the adopt-a-road signs make her feel. She points out the hypocrisy in people talking about adoption as a wonderful act while at the same equating the action with the cleaning up of roads by using the same term. "Yes dear, adoption is great. You should feel great about yourself and the way we built our family. Oh yeah, and people also adopt fucked up stretches of road and wildebeasts. Yeah, adoption is special. You know it."
Weebles Wobblog made a similar point this week along with pictures calling for precision with words. She wrote: "Shouldn't we say what we mean, write what we mean? Adoption is forever. It's permanent. If we're talking about taking care of a family's needs for a month or even a year, or of picking up litter on a street for a year or two, why can't we more appropriately use the word, 'sponsor'?"
