Ethnic Identity Formation 1
Crystal Elizabeth Rizzo
Ethnic Identity Formation in Transracial Adoptees
University of Colorado at Colorado Springs
Spring 2008
Ethnic Identity Formation 2
Abstract
In this paper, I define and present a brief history of race and transracial adoption in the
United States. I show how systems of privilege and oppression create social pathologies such as
alcoholism, physical and sexual abuse, and poverty that lead to the abduction of children of color
from their biological homes and placed in other homes. Through examination of the current
literature regarding transracial adoption, ethnic, and adoptive identity, I draw conclusions in
regards to the ethnic identity formation process in transracial adoptees which suggests more
attention needs to be given to the social construction of identities for adoptees. I conclude with a
personal narrative and a call for education and activism around issues of privilege and oppression
in hope that children of color will remain within families of color.
Ethnic Identity Formation 3
Introduction
After reading a number of works about racial and adoptive identity, it is evident that the
current study of adoption and racial formation from a psychological viewpoint needs to be
expanded to include a broader sociological perspective. In part, we form our sense of identity
from language and definitions that are socially constructed; thus, it is important for sociologist to
integrate current work that addresses the psychological impacts of stigmatization placed on
individuals due to race, ethnicity, and from being adopted. In his book, Stigma: Notes on the
Management of Spoiled Identity, Erving Goffman, writes “[s]ociety establishes the means of
categorizing persons and the complement of attributes felt to be extraordinary and natural for
members of each of these categories” (Goffman 1963: 2). If society creates the method of
categorization, then a sociological basis is necessary in order to gain the fullest understanding of
racial and adoptive identity formation. As researchers have pointed out, “[t]he development of
your ethnic identity is a complex, continuous, process related to many factors” and in a society
where race relations are less than perfect, it is no surprise that there is constant discourse
surrounding racial and ethnic identity formation (Guanipa-Ho and Guanipa 1998: 1). While
many researchers have completed generalized studies of identity formation, the research is
limited in regards to ethnic identity in the case of transracially adopted individuals and
consequently should be expanded. In addition to the problem of limited research, a number of
sociologists have attempted to identify and apply a suitable monolithic theoretical model to study
ethnic identity formation in adoptees, but have arguably fallen short of an appropriate model.
The identity of an individual as an adoptee and that as a member of a racial or ethnic group other
than that of their adopted parents must initially be studied separately and later combined, which I
believe inevitably calls for the creation of a completely new theoretical model. Research has
Ethnic Identity Formation 4
found “The dilemma for [ethnic minorities] was, and still is, how to construct a positive identity
for themselves in the light of the ‘racial’ identity imposed on them by the dominant society”
(Smedley 1998: 695). If this is true, how can racial and ethnic minorities adopted by white
parents form a positive identity? While studies have shown that with support it is possible to
form a positive identity, more importantly one must ask why the larger social pathologies forcing
the removal of children from their homes are still not fully addressed. Although, many of those
social pathologies will not be addressed in this paper, these are the questions I feel should be
addressed and analyzed in a new transracial adoption model.
In this paper, I will define and present a brief history of race and transracial adoption in
the United States. I will also examine how systems of privilege and oppression create social
pathologies such as alcoholism, physical and sexual abuse, and poverty that lead to children of
color being abducted from their biological homes and placed in other homes. I will conclude
with a personal narrative and a call for education and activism around issues of privilege and
oppression in communities of color.
Definitions
In order to have a clear foundation, it is important to define the main terms that will be
used in this analysis. Race will be understood as “[a] social construct that artificially divides
people into distinct groups based on characteristics such as: physical appearance; ancestral
heritage; cultural affiliation and history; ethnic classification; and social, economic, and political
needs of society” (White Privilege Dictionary). Ethnicity is “[a] social construct that divides
people into smaller social groups based on characteristics such as: shared sense of group
membership; values; behavioral patterns; language; political and economic interests; history; and
Ethnic Identity Formation 5
ancestral geographical base” (White Privilege Dictionary). Racial and Ethnic Identity will be
understood as “[a]n individual’s awareness and experience of being a member of a racial and
ethnic group; the racial and ethnic categories that an individual chooses to describe him- or
herself based on such factors as biological heritage, physical appearance, cultural affiliation,
early socialization, and personal experience” (White Privilege Dictionary). Adoptive identity
development is “how the individual constructs meaning about his/her adoption” (Spencer and
Markstrom-Adams 1990: 290). Stigma(tization) refers to, “…an attribute that is deeply
discrediting,” for example, a visible physical disability (Goffman 1963: 3). Finally, privilege
exists “…when one group has something of value that is denied to others simply because of the
groups they belong to, rather than because of anything they’ve done or failed to do” (Johnson
2001: 23). These definitions and concepts will be included and should be kept in mind to fully
understand this paper.
Race in the United States
The social construction of race is subjective and over time the meaning has shifted. In
her book, Race in North America: Origin and Evolution of a Worldview, Audrey Smedley points
out how “…few topics in Western intellectual and social history [] have been subjected to as
much investigation, speculation, analysis, and theoretical scrutiny as the phenomenon of race,”
for this reason, when addressing racial and ethnic identity formation in adoptees, it is important
to give a brief history of race and race relations in the United States (Smedley 2007: 1).
According to Smedley, “[i]n the eighteenth century [the] mode of structuring inequality
in human societies evolved in the American colonies…” (Smedley 1998: 694). She goes on to
explain, “race was a form of social identification and stratification that was seemingly grounded
in the physical differences of populations interacting…but whose real meaning rested in social
Ethnic Identity Formation 6
and political realities” (Smedley 1998: 694). Throughout the history of the United States, we see
how the social and political construction of race has been used to privilege some groups and
oppress others. For example, the United States government has continuously broken treaties
with Indigenous groups in order to gain economic and political power. In Racial Conditions:
Politics, Theory, Comparisons, Howard Winant writes, “Enslavement, conquest, and exclusion,
then were the chief means through which U.S. society was racialized beginning with its colonial
origins. Racialization varied over time, across regions, and in respect to particular groups. But it
was always present, always crucial to the construction of what Saxton calls “the white republic”
(Winant 1994: 43). As the meaning and politics of race are continuously changing, it is essential
to examine race relations in the United States to deconstruct the systems of privilege and
oppression that have led to social injustices and inequalities leading to children of color being
removed from their homes.
Race is socially constructed; consequently, it outlines the expected interaction and
behavior between individuals. Individuals are expected to conform to the normative behavior of
the dominant society, in this case, that of white America. “There is some evidence that suggests
prior to slavery; individuals of color, specifically blacks had a uniform or widespread social
antipathy on account of their color” (Smedley 2007: 104). Unfortunately, “[b]y the turn of the
nineteenth century, the vision that Americans shared about human group variations had taken on
full racial coloration” and “…authors of such theories thought of races as homogenous
biophysical entities” (Smedley 2007: 196). In his book The Archaeology of Race and
Racialization in Historic America, Charles E. Orser Jr. writes, “[t]he European preoccupation
with race dawned in its modern form in the post-Columbian era, and as European travelers
transported their views on race across the Atlantic, a frequently acrimonious debate began in
Ethnic Identity Formation 7
American intellectual circles” (Orser Jr. 2007: 3). Because of the created social categorization,
presently in the United States there exists a social construction of difference and reality. Allan
G. Johnson argues “socially constructed reality is so powerful [] that we rarely if ever experience
it as that” and “…the name quickly takes on a life of its own as we forget the social process that
created it and start treating it as ‘real’ in and of itself” (Johnson 2001: 22-23). It is important to
have an understanding of the social and political ramifications of race when addressing
transracial adoption. It is also crucial to recognize how the United States constructs social
categories and understand how race, class, gender, ableism, sexual orientation, and privilege
intersect with adoption.
Adoption in the United States
“Adoption is a social and legal construction that has been shaped over time by social
trends and problems, cultural values and conflicts, historical events and forces as well as public
policy and legislation” (qtd. in Zamostny et al. 2003: 653). In her book, Adoption in a ColorBlind Society, Pamela Anne Quiroz, argues that early adoption practices were shaped by “the
child welfare reform movement and the eugenics movement” and that later changes in the
practices of adoption were influenced by the civil rights and women’s liberation movement
(Quiroz 2007: 31,36). She goes on to write that as a result of the civil rights and women’s
liberation movement, “…professionals and policy makers began to rethink their practices
regarding children of color. To comprehend the relationship between the ideological construct of
racism, the ways in which it shaped adoption practices for ethnic children, and how this construct
was ultimately challenged, the cultural conditions that gave rise to this challenge much be
reconstructed” (Quiroz 2007: 36). “Although the roots of U.S. adoption were established legally
and socially by the late 1800s, the cultural and political changes of the latter part of the 20th
Ethnic Identity Formation 8
century were most crucial in defining the current practice of adoption” (Zamostny et al. 2003:
653).
There are several different types of adoption in practice today including domestic,
international, public, special need, and transracial adoption. Although transracial adoption can
include international adoption, for purposes of this paper, attention will be given specifically to
issues concerning domestic transracial adoption. Transracial adoption is the “…joining of
racially different parents and children together in adoptive families” (Silverman 1993: 104).
Below is a table taken from the work of Zamostny, et al., intended to demonstrate the social
changes of adoption in the United States.
Table 1: Historical and Legal Developments in the Practice of Adoption
2003:654-655)
Date
1700s
1800s
Historical/Sociocultural
Context
Colonizing of America
Industrial Revolution
Massive immigration to
United States
Western frontier expansion
Social problem reform
Fears about “bad seed” traits
1851
Early
1900s
WWI, WWII
Influenza outbreak
Advent of formula feeding
“Nurture” grows important
1917
1955
1960s1970s
1972
Civil Rights Movement
Women’s Movement
Contraception, abortion
Consumer Rights Movement
(Zamostny, et. al
Trends in Adoption Practices
Informal customs of child transfer (e.g) indenture borrowed from
England
Informal solutions are inadequate for growing numbers of urban
dependent children.
Dependent children sent West via “orphan trains” to be cared for by
farm families.
Foundling homes established in urban areas to care for dependent
children.
Older child adoptions are the norm; infant adoptions are rare.
Formal practice of adoptions begins with Massachusetts statute
ensuring care and heir rights for adopted children
Decreased birth rates lead to interest in adoption.
International adoption begins with adoption of war orphans.
Unregulated, unscrupulous baby brokers proliferate.
Agencies develop strict, questionable criteria for screening out adoptive
parents.
Shift to secrecy and anonymity with Minnesota statute sealing
adoptions records.
National Conference of Adoption (Child Welfare League) reorients
practice of adoption toward “best interest of the child”.
Discrepancy between numbers of White babies released for adoption
and those adopting.
White, infertile couples turn to transracial, international, and special
needs adoptions.
Adoptees and birthmothers challenge secrecy laws via searches, open
adoption
National Association of Black Social Workers labels transracial
Ethnic Identity Formation 9
[1978]
1980
1980spresent
1997
Diverse families increase
Increased infertility
placements as cultural genocide.
[Passing of the Indian Child Welfare Act]
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act legislates quick return of
foster children to biological families when possible or permanent
placement through adoption, which increases the number of children
available for adoption.
Increase in single persons seeking to adopt including lesbian/gay
individuals.
Increase in private, independent adoptions.
Openness in adoption grows.
Special needs and international adoptions continue to increase.
Adoption and Safe Families Act mandates shorter timelines for
adoptive placements.
Table 1. gives a visual timeline for the historical adoption practices since colonization in
the United States, in addition to the social acceptance of transracial adoption. It is important to
note that “[a]doption has points of controversy that are not surprising, given the interplay
between race, social issues, cultural values and adoption practices” (Zamostny, et al. 2003: 656).
Much of the controversy and outcry against transracial adoption has come from communities of
color, specifically the Native and African American communities.
As Schulman and Behrman observe, “From the outset, transracial adoption has generated
great concern about potential negative effects on the children, primarily those relating to identity
confusion, prejudice, and bigotry” (Schulman and Behrman 1993:11). In the 1950s and 1960s
there was an increase in transracial adoption (Forde-Mazrui 1994: 925), therefore calling on,
“…adoption policymakers [] to reevaluate earlier adoption standards which discouraged this
practice” (Silverman 1993: 105). In addition to many other social factors, this increase was due
in part to “the number of children in the placement system and an insufficient number of
minority homes in which to place minority children” (Forde-Mazrui 1993: 925). In her work,
Quiroz brings to light the organizing by communities of color to challenge the dominant
ideology of family and attempt to solidify a positive ethnic identity and discontinue the cultural
genocide. In 1972, the National Association of Black Social Workers labeled transracial
Ethnic Identity Formation 10
placement as cultural genocide. They believe that placing children of color in white homes
“…threat[ens] the minority communities as a whole as they [struggle] for equal opportunity in all
aspects of American life and the elimination of racism” (Schulman and Behrman 1993: 11).
Similarly, in response to high numbers of Native American children being placed in non-native
homes, indigenous groups throughout the United States also argued that placing Native
American children in non-native homes is a continuous form of cultural genocide and should not
be allowed, thus leading to Congress passing the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) in 1978.
The Indian Child Welfare Act is a federal law that works with families and tribal entities to keep
Native American children with Native American families and communities. In passing the
ICWA, congress held that it is “…the policy of this Nation to protect the best interest of Indian
children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families…” (25 U.S.C
§1902). Unfortunately, as Andrea Smith points out the, “ICWA is not consistently enforced
since many case workers are unaware of its provisions” (Smith 2005: 42). Although,
communities of color have organized against the removal of children of color from their
communities, there are still many groups that feel race should not be a determining factor in
adoption laws and have argued that such laws prohibiting whites from adopting children of color
is a form of reverse racism. On the opposing side, proponents of transracial adoption present
three points: “(1) current policies of race matching conflict with the basic law of the land
concerning racial discrimination; (2) these laws cause serious harm to children by delaying their
placement for months or even years; (3) virtually every empirical study which has been done
thus far indicates that the majority of transracially placed children do very well in overall
adjustment, self-esteem, and sense of identity” (Schulman and Behrman 1993:11-12).
Ethnic Identity Formation 11
Unfortunately, many of the supporters of race neutral adoption laws fail to acknowledge how
children are “…categorized, labeled, described, and priced along racial lines” (Quiroz 2007: 50).
Drawing upon the previous explanation of race in the United States, many of the systematic
problems regarding transracial adoption are due to privilege and the systems of oppression that
have been created in American society. “When it comes to race, the discourse of private
adoption represents superficial rather than substantive change as racial categorizations in
adoption remain disturbingly real and relatively unchanged from the past” (Quiroz 2007: 50).
Identity Formation
While drawing together the arguments against transracial adoption based on race, it is
also important to note that, “[t]he internalization of the social construction of parenthood in
terms of procreation may help to explain one aspect of the shift in the cognitive understanding of
adoption…” (Leon 2002: 653). In essence, the evolving definition of mother and father in the
United States has impacted the stigmatization placed on both the adoptee and adopter. For
example, “[a]dopted children may perceive stigma as originating from outsiders, or may harbor
negative images of the self” (Grotevant et al. 2000: 379). Therefore, shifting definitions impact
how and to what degree stigmatization occurs for individuals, this is especially important in
understanding how children of color adopted into white families internalize oppression and
develop a consciousness around issues of race and ethnicity. Grotevant et al. claim that
“[i]dentities only exist in societies, which define and organize them” (Grotevant et al. 2000:
379). This holds true for the previously stated view regarding the “social construction” of
identities. Society constructs the framework of our identity by placing the expectation of
conformation to the “subjective norm.” In the case of race and adoption, society has both
defined race and adoption from a Western ideological framework, therefore marginalizing some
Ethnic Identity Formation 12
groups. Non-white racial and adoptive identities are marginalized both through overt racism and
through the cultural definition of an ideal family as being, “a traditional nuclear family
consisting of a married couple with biological children who live together in a loving household”
(Ehearst and Power 1995: 198). If an individual falls outside of the norm, s/he is seen differently
and the development of her/his identity can be affected.
Three important stages of identity development are “self-definition, coherence of
personality, and sense of continuity over time” (Grotevant et al. 2000: 381). As Spencer points
out, “While identity development is a complex task for all youths, it is particularly complicated
for children and adolescents belonging to ethnic and racial minority groups in the United States”
(Spencer and Markstrom-Adams 1990: 290). Adoptive identity development involves “an
intrapsychic component, a component involving relationships within the family, and a
component involving the world beyond the family” (Grotevant et al. 2000: 381). The world
beyond the family is where I believe that the transracial adoption process becomes complicated.
How we construct, maintain, and change our identities throughout our lifespan is extremely
complex. Grotevant points out, “Identity connects personality, subjective awareness,
relationships, and external context” (Grotevant et al. 2000: 381). Due to our racial structural
hierarchy, individuals belonging to racial and ethnic minority groups experience the world
differently than those belonging to the dominant society.
Conclusion
In order to fully understand and study identity formation in transracial adoptees, one must
tie together the concepts of race, privilege, oppression, and stigmatization that exist in the United
States. To do this, one must be cautious about over-generalizing ethnic minorities. For example,
the Native American experience is different from other ethnic groups and there is no such thing
Ethnic Identity Formation 13
as “one” or “the” Native American experience. Maurianne Adams writes, “[v]ariablity can be
found in historical context, cultural content, social and occupational roles, multidimensional and
interacting social identities or agent and target social statuses, and individual dimensions of
personality and beliefs” (Wijeyesinghe and Jackson III 2001: 213). In other words, due to the
multiple variations between different groups, one cannot study each in the same way; therefore,
each analysis needs to be tailored to examine each specific group.
As a multiracial woman who is transracially adopted and has privilege in many areas of
my life, I feel it is extremely important to educate myself on the various systems that I participate
in that privilege some and oppress others. It is important for me to recognize and use my
privilege to create social change and solidarity between communities of color and the white
community. Through studying the history of adoption we see the importance of social
movements, community organizing and activism in ending a form of cultural genocide. Because
the racial and ethnic identity of an individual is based on terminology created by the dominant
society, I argue that the systems of privilege within the United States must continuously be
named and addressed when studying transracial adoption.
Ethnic Identity Formation 14
References
Beale Spencer, M., & Markstrom-Adams, C. (1990). Identity process among racial and ethnic
minority children in America. Child Developement, 61(2), 290-310. Retrieved February
5, 2008, from JSTOR database.
Brooks, J. F. (1998). Confounding the color line: Indian-black relations in historical and
anthropological perspectives. American Indian Quarterly, 22(1), 125-133. Retrieved
April 14, 2008, from JSTOR database.
Chew, K. S. Y., Eggebeen, D. J., & Uhlenberg, P. R. (1989). American children in multiractial
households. Socioloigcal Perspectives, 32(1), 65-85. Retrieved February 13, 2008, from
JSTOR database.
Chiawei O'Hearn, C. (Ed.). (1998). Half and half: Writers on growing up biracial and bicultural.
New York: Pantheon Books.
Forde-Mazrui, K. (1994). Black identity and child placement: The best interests of black and
biracial children. Michigan Law Review, 92(4), 925-967. Retrieved February 13, 2008,
from JSTOR database.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled social identity. New York:
Simon & Schuster, Inc.
Grotevant, H. D., Dunbar, N., Kohler, J. K., & Lash Esau, A. M. (2000). Adoptive identity: How
contexts withing and beyond the family shape developmental pathways. Family
Relations, 49(4), 379-387. Retrieved April 14, 2008, from JSTOR database.
Ethnic Identity Formation 15
Guanipa-Ho, C. & Guanipa, J. A. (1999). Ethnic identity of adolescence (On-line). Available:
http://edweb.sdsu.edu/people/CGuanipa/ethnic.htm
Johnson, A. G. (2001). Privilege, power, and difference. Mountain View: Mayfield Publishing
Company.
Krause Ehearst, B., & Bauman Power, M. (1995). Adoption: Understanding the past, present,
and future through stories. The Sociological Quarterly, 36(1), 197-216. Retrieved
February 5, 2008, from JSTOR database.
Leon, I. G. (2002). Adoption losses: Naturally occurring or socially constructed? Child
Developement, 73(2), 652-663. Retrieved March 2, 2008, from JSTOR database.
Omi, M., & Winant, H. (2005). Racial formations in the United States. In S. J. Ferguson (Ed.),
Mapping the social landscape: Readings in sociology (4th, pp. 380-390). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Orser, C. E., Jr. (2007). The archaeology of race and racialization in historic America.
Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
Quiroz, Pamela Anne. (2007). Adoption in a color-blind society.
Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Schulman, I., & Behrman, R. E. (1993). Adoption: Overview and major recommendations. The
Future of Children, 3(1), 4-16. Retrieved February 5, 2008, from JSTOR database.
Silverman, A. R. (1993). Outcomes of transracial adoption. The Future of Children, 3(1), 104118. Retrieved February 13, 2008, from JSTOR database.
Ethnic Identity Formation 16
Smedley, A. (1998). "Race" and the construction of human identity. American Anthropologist,
100(3), 690-702. Retrieved February 5, 2008, from JSTOR database.
Smedley, A. (2007). Race in North America: Origin and evolution of a worldview (3rd).
Boulder: Westview Press.
Smith, Andrea. (2005). Conquest: sexual violence and American Indian genocide.
Cambridge: South End Press.
Smith, A. G., Stewart, A. J., & Winter, D. G. (2004). Close encounters with the midwest:
Forming identity in a bicultural context. Political Psychology, 25(4), 611-641. Retrieved
April 14, 2008, from JSTOR database.
Wijeyesinghe, C. L., & Jackson, B. W., III (Eds.). (2001). New perspectives on racial identity
development: A theoretical approach and practical anthology. New York: Ney York
University Press.
Winant, Howard. (1994). Racial conditions: politics, theory, comparisons.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Zamostny, K. P., O'Brien, K. M., Baden, A. L., & O'Leary Wiley, M. (2003). The practice of
adoption: History, trends, and social context. The Counseling Psychologist, 31(6), 651678. Retrieved April 12, 2008, from JSTOR database.