Adopted Territories, Chapter 5 of Feminism Without Borders and the introduction to Uprootings/Regroundings: Questions of Home and Migration all relayed important ideas about home, migration, immigration, community, belonging, family, race, and identity in both concrete and shape-shifting ways. While on one hand the readings solidified certain ideas and misunderstandings I had previously assumed, particularly about adoption and language behind migration discussion, it also raised even more questions on the subjects.
I was quite interested in the ideas surrounding adoption in Korea or any part of the non-western world. It always shocks me how there are some in the western world that believe that there are harmless beliefs and stereotypes that are not politically correct, but aren't necessarily dangerous. However, simple ideas that were circulated in the West about the "third-world" orphan, orphanages, culture, and familial relations all have shown themselves to have had dire consequences. One could, of course, cite the many instances that Kim identifies those that support transnational adoptions (some even working in transnational adoption agencies) and say that it would not constitute as a "dire consequence". However, could it not be argued that the existence of large numbers of orphaned children, children claimed by the government/agencies to be orphaned, abandonment by western military fathers, and economic restraints on Korean families could all be understood under the umbrella of "dire" situations? I find it interesting that some adoptees support the system (which I have no issue with necessarily), yet do not question or challenge the foundational ideas and circumstances that give way to the existence of transnational adoptions.
Another framework that raised many more questions for me was the idea of tourism. In Adopted Territory, Kim describes the ways in which adoptees, and sometimes their families and spouses, travel to Korea and attend conferences, but also site-see and participate and cultural activities that may be foreign to them. In addition, it mentioned the "culture camps" that many non-Asian adoptive parents put their adopted Asian children in to expose them to the culture at a young age. In what ways has the binary of tourist:native and insider:outsider been reconfigured in this instance? Can one embody the "tourist" in a country they were born in yet have little to no recollection of?
In many ways, it is obvious that Korea sees them as tourists and not "natives" in the ways they make money off the transnational adoption ordeal as opposed to looking putting the money towards domestic adoption endeavors. Kim states "Air travel to Korea became economically affordable for more adoptees at the same time that the South Korean government and adoption agencies began to promote touristic travel to the birth country as a necessary part of the adoptee lifecycle" (p. 105).
This brought to mind similar endeavors in West Africa, particularly Ghana, where travel agencies and the governments of certain countries encourage Africans in the Americas to go on motherland tours and view slave dungeons and ports our ancestors were shipped from. It became grossly problematic at one point when one of the tourist organizations opened up a dance club in one of the slave dungeons. It is quite insensitive and often showcases the lack of understanding "motherland" communities have with those that have left the land - voluntarily or non-voluntarily. Moreover, it highlights the disconnect between the "motherland" communities and identities with that of the adoptee or migrant communities. Although Kim did not mention any dissatisfaction with the touristy element to their "motherland tours", i'm sure some have or will in the future have issues in Korea's efforts to make an intimate and emotional event into one of site-seeing and partying tourism.
The adoption situation Kim details also interestingly illustrated Ahmed et al's question about migration and movement. "...we suggest that the question of who can travel be supplemented by the question of who can stay at home? the privileges are negotiated precisely in relationship to the inhabiting of spaces and to the 'passports' that are required not only to move between places, but also to stay 'at home' in them. (p. 7)" For some of the adoptees, "staying home" would have been a much more favorable option, yet the adoption agencies, Westerners, and many others framed the adoption, the migration, as something much more beneficial. Ahmed et al also make reference to a chapter in the book that speaks about queer migration, which further reiterates the privileges inherent within the newly proposed question "who can stay at home?". Who can stay at home? Often, those who fit within the social, political, religious, and racial structures and ideas about the dominant culture. Queers often cannot "stay at home", and their homes become elsewhere. In the case of the first wave of adoptees, "who can stay at home?" are the non-biracial children not abandoned by their American military fathers. But I suppose the question should change depending on the context of the posed question. Relating back to last week's reading of What's Love Got to Do With It?, perhaps the question of "who can travel" would be more fitting as opposed to "who can stay at home"?
No comments:
Post a Comment