This article was downloaded by: [Miss Jennifer E. Potter]On: 10 September 2014, At: 13:52Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Adoption QuarterlyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wado20

Adopting Commodities: A BurkeanCluster Analysis of Adoption RhetoricJennifer E. Potter aa Towson University , Towson , Maryland , USAPublished online: 10 May 2013.

To cite this article: Jennifer E. Potter (2013) Adopting Commodities: A Burkean Cluster Analysis ofAdoption Rhetoric, Adoption Quarterly, 16:2, 108-127, DOI: 10.1080/10926755.2013.787573

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10926755.2013.787573

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Adoption Quarterly, 16:108–127, 2013Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1092-6755 print / 1544-452X onlineDOI: 10.1080/10926755.2013.787573

Adopting Commodities: A Burkean ClusterAnalysis of Adoption Rhetoric

JENNIFER E. POTTERTowson University, Towson, Maryland, USA

Despite legal recognition of adoptive families as legitimate families,research suggests that adoptive families face societal stigma becauseof their adoptive status. Although the research clearly identifies thisstigma, the interesting question involves why this stigma persists. Re-searchers acknowledge that language surrounding adoption is neg-ative but do not pursue what that language is or where it appears.This article seeks to determine how the public discusses adoption. Ianalyzed 3 newspapers and 11 magazines published over 10 yearsusing cluster analysis to uncover the clusters that infuse adoptionmeaning; this article addresses the cluster of the commodificationof adoption.

KEYWORDS adoptees, commodification, stigma, cluster analysis,Kenneth Burke

The public discussion about whether nature or nurture is generative of aparent-child relationship reached a fevered pitch during 1993, when a seriesof legal battles over Baby Jessica ensued. The seeds of this controversy weresown when, on February 10, 1991, only 40 hours after giving birth, CaraClausen, the biological mother of Baby Jessica, along with the man listedas the father on the birth certificate, signed a release of custody in Iowa.On February 25, 1991, Jan and Roberta DeBoer, residents of Ann Arbor,Michigan, filed a petition to adopt Baby Jessica (Faupel, 1994). In March,Dan Schmidt (the baby’s actual biological father) filed a custody lawsuitfor Baby Jessica and on December 27, 1991, an Iowa court dismissed theadoption petition filed by the DeBoers because Dan Schmidt was seekingcustody of his biological daughter. In April, Cara Clausen and Dan Schmidt

Received 20 January 2012; revised 2 August 2012; accepted 3 September 2012.Address correspondence to Jennifer E. Potter, Mass Communication and Communication

Studies, Towson University, 8000 York Road, Towson, MD 21252. E-mail: jpotter@towson.edu

108

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mis

s Je

nnif

er E

. Pot

ter]

at 1

3:52

10

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Adopting Commodities 109

married, and the judge in the proceeding ordered the DeBoers to transferBaby Jessica to Dan and Cara Schmidt, but the DeBoers appealed the rulingand got a stay of the transfer.

On December 3, 1992, the Iowa Court ordered the DeBoers to surren-der Baby Jessica, but instead of doing so, they filed a petition in Michiganunder the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (Faupel, 1994). The circuitcourt awarded custody of Baby Jessica to the DeBoers after holding “best-interests” hearings in January and February 1993. The Schmidts appealed thecircuit court decision and in April, the Michigan Supreme Court ultimatelyconcurred with the Iowa Supreme Court and granted custody of Baby Jessicato her biological parents. On August 2, 1993, Jan and Roberta DeBoer, theonly family 30-month-old Jessica DeBoer had ever acknowledged as family,transferred her to her biological parents. The media captured the events andthe nightly news and daily newspapers showed pictures of Jessica screamingas she was driven away from the only home she had ever known. Severalmonths later, Dan and Cara Schmidt renamed Baby Jessica, now callingher Anna Jacqueline Schmidt (Moss, 1993). The Baby Jessica case propelledadoption into the national consciousness, although very few people wereinterested in the specific legal merits of the case. For example, the DeBoershad never legally adopted Jessica since Dan Schmidt’s petition for custodyoccurred before a court finalized the adoption. Despite this fact, the publicviewed the case of the Schmidts versus the DeBoers as a significant adoptioncase. The public discussion about adoption continued after the Baby Jessicacase, both because of other legal battles between adoptive and biologicalparents and because of the thoroughly entrenched debate over the role thatbiology plays in determining kinship.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Familial relationships are among the most personal and private relation-ships; however, the circumstances by which adoptive families come intobeing necessitate intrusive public involvement. This involvement includesa managerial role taken on by social workers, physicians, and legal repre-sentatives who are essentially responsible for establishing adoptive families(Sobel, Delaney, & Earn, 1994). Specifically, the intrusive nature of thesebureaucrats acting in their officious capacities create a set of circumstancesfor adoptive families that foster feelings of societal stigma endemic to adop-tion (Lansford, Ceballo, Abbey, & Stewart, 2001; March, 1995; Pertman, 2000;Wegar, 2000). Kressierer and Bryant (1996) explain that adoptive families feelstigmatized because the societal expectation is that men and women preferto raise biological children in “natural” families. Additionally, adoptees ad-mit to experiencing legal, social, and institutional discrimination because oftheir adoptive status and report receiving unequal treatment in health care

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mis

s Je

nnif

er E

. Pot

ter]

at 1

3:52

10

Sept

embe

r 20

14

110 J. E. Potter

settings because they do not have biological information related to theirhealth. Overall, Miall (1987) found three major themes involving reports ofstigmatization from adoptive families: first, the general public believes in theimportance of a biological tie and thus considers adoptive families secondbest; second, the public views adopted children as second-rate because oftheir unknown genetic history; and third, the general public does not con-sider adoptive parents “real” parents because they do not share a biologicalconnection to their children. Additionally, adoptive families acknowledgethat their adoptive family status often causes friends and strangers alike toask appalling and invasive questions about adoption experiences. Althoughthe research clearly shows instances where members of adoptive familiesfeel stigmatized due to their adoptive status, no research has evidenced theactual existence of this reported stigma. To interrogate this apparent tensionbetween feelings of stigmatization and verifiable circumstances of stigmatiza-tion, this article attempts to implicate public discourse as a tangible locationwherein adoption rhetoric contains language that negatively connotes theadoptive family. In order to explore this question, I examine one narrativethe media uses to describe adoption to the public. This examination beginsby outlining the historical framework of adoption and demonstrating howthat framework has changed in contemporary adoption. Next, I explain themethodology of cluster analysis used to examine adoption rhetoric and detailthe cluster of the commodification of adoption before drawing conclusionsabout the research.

EVOLUTION AND HISTORY OF ADOPTION

Although adoption is quite possibly as old as civilization itself, the originsof adoption in the United States followed the English tradition in whichbloodlines and the filial ties that they represent defined family. As Americansbegan to struggle with the growing problems of homelessness and childabandonment during the colonial era, adoption became a viable alternative,although it did not include loving parents taking in helpless children. Rather,Brodzinsky, Smith, and Brodzinsky (1998) explain that “a number of socialpractices, including indenture, placing children in homes for domestic ser-vice, apprenticeships, and the emergence of almshouses were used for thecare of dependent children who could not live with their biological families”(p. 3). In other words, child adoption began as an exchange of “property”and was a way for citizens to gain profit and status in the new land.

The commodification of children persisted from colonial times into theearly 20th century. During a 1917 investigation of commercial “baby farms,”Herman (2002) reports the slogan of one Chicago baby broker: “It’s cheaperand easier to buy a baby for $100.00 than to have one of your own” (p. 339).Herman explains that while baby farms were a common occurrence at the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mis

s Je

nnif

er E

. Pot

ter]

at 1

3:52

10

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Adopting Commodities 111

turn of the 19th century, by the end of the 1800s, most states had passedadoption laws, following the 1851 Massachusetts statue that defined adoptionas a matter of child welfare. By 1929, all states had developed adoption lawsand by the 1930s, all states legally sealed adoption records. As states legalizedadoption, the practice served a new and practical purpose. The daily routinesof many rural Americans in the 1930s, at least in the agrarian sectors, weredefined by long days of manual labor, a condition that necessitated largefamilies. Although the various courts and legislatures considered adoptiona matter of child welfare, many average people saw an opportunity to useadoption as a solution for increasing the number of workers in a given family.Most “buyers” wanted boys because they tended to be stronger; in fact, boyswere three times more likely to get placed than girls and the average age ofadoption was 10 years old (Zelizer, 1985).

Even with progressive laws, the governing logic of commodificationremained. Berebitsky (2000) examined advertisements for adoption, finding:

[T]he Saturday Evening Post published “The Baby Market” in 1930, anarticle that used stock market metaphors to discuss the growing popular-ity of adoption. According to the author, it was a “big bull market,” with“baby securities” promising “investors” plenty of “dividends.” (p. 4)

Additionally, Zelizer (1985) clarifies this situation by stating that in 1975officials estimated that families still bought and sold as many as 5,000 infantsin the United States every year, despite strict state and federal regulationsagainst the sale of children. The increased regulation of U.S. child labor lawsand adoption laws began to reshape Americans’ view of children as com-modities. Agencies began to investigate potential parents more and to chargefees in order to pay for staff dedicated to helping find homes for children.Additionally, the advancement of science helped potential parents feel moresecure about adopting. Agencies and scientists alike worked to assure par-ents that adopted children would match the family’s class and intelligenceby conducting mental examinations of children in agencies (Herman, 2002).Following World War II, the demand for healthy and acceptable infantsgrew rapidly and by the mid-1950s, parents’ demand for children began toexceed the number of adoptable children (Brodzinsky et al., 1998). As lawsgoverning child labor and adoption began to increase, the business of babyselling drastically declined, leading contemporary adoption to function muchdifferently.

Although historically the data on adoptees in the United States hasbeen difficult to track, the U.S. Census Bureau (2001) reports that adoptivefamilies make up 2% of American families. Although the issue of adoptioncontinues to be a complex and potentially incendiary affair, since the 1970s,adoption has become slightly more socially acceptable and thus is subjectto greater legal scrutiny. These changes have allowed for the institution of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mis

s Je

nnif

er E

. Pot

ter]

at 1

3:52

10

Sept

embe

r 20

14

112 J. E. Potter

adoption to begin to tolerate limited acceptance of other forms of adop-tive families beyond the typical heterosexual married couple with adoptedchildren, including stepparent adoptions, single-parent adoptions, gay andlesbian couple adoptions, and special needs adoptions. Transracial and in-ternational adoptions have also been somewhat legitimized, and as Galvin(2003) notes, such families are in response to rising infertility, legal abortion,and the increase of single mothers keeping their children.

Contemporary adoption no longer exists as a way to get extra help onthe farm; rather, many laws have refined the process and as such have cometo define adoption more narrowly. In the legal sense, adoptive families havethe same rights and responsibilities as biological families; in a rhetoricalsense, however, the public considers and communicates about adoptivefamilies differently than it does biological families. Specifically, Bartholet(1997) explains, “the language surrounding adoption regularly conveys theadditional message that adoptive parenting relationships are less powerful,less meaningful, less loving than blood relationships” (p. 244). Scholars notethat adoptive families feel as though a stigma exists toward them and theirfamilial structure (March, 1995; Pertman, 2000; Wegar, 2000), but no researchhas uncovered what maintains or sustains this perceived stigma. Despite themany celebrations of adoption (such as Dave Thomas and Angelina Jolie),there are cultural norms regarding the family that discipline the public tounderstand adoption with a negative connotation.

Bartholet (1997) acknowledges that the language surrounding adoptionis negative, but she does not explore the nature of that language or how itcomes to that nature or the significance of its temporal or spatial occurrence.It is precisely this language that is the subject of this article. There is no ques-tion that adoptive families differ from biological families; however, there is asignificant question about whether people view adoptive families as second-best families. The way in which individuals determine their answer to thisquestion is influenced by the way public discourse portrays adoption. There-fore, this article examines public discourse through national media outletsand argues that one common strategy deployed by the rhetoric in ques-tion is its propensity to commodify adoptees. A discussion of the rhetoricsurrounding adoption also is important because as Condit (1990) explains“rhetoric materializes ideas through the distribution of compelling vocabu-laries to large numbers of potent audience members or institutions” (p. 9).When talking about adoption, the public has a fairly concrete understand-ing of the dictionary and direct meaning of adoption—adoption is the legalcreation of a family between a parent(s) and a child(ren). However, despiteour understanding of the legal definition, the associative, cultural, and emo-tional meanings differ significantly. This is because there is not one way inwhich everyone thinks about adoption; rather, the meanings associated withadoption vary from person to person and situation to situation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mis

s Je

nnif

er E

. Pot

ter]

at 1

3:52

10

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Adopting Commodities 113

METHOD

Text Selection

In an attempt to uncover the dominant emotional and nuanced meaningsof adoption by examining the terms associated with adoption in the publicdiscourse, I analyzed the content of articles on adoption that appeared intwo databases over a 10-year period following the Baby Jessica case. Thistime frame is important because I contend the Baby Jessica case was theimpetus for the media to cover adoption issues to a much greater degreefor several years; after 10 years (from 2003 through 2010, to be specific),media coverage of adoption had substantially declined, so much so that itsarticles were not useful in this analysis. Because an analysis of all publicdiscussions about adoption in two separate databases would number in thehigh thousands, I selected a diverse group of newspapers and magazinesfrom which to analyze. First, I searched three newspapers in LexisNexis withthe key terms adopt∗ w/10 (within 10 words of) family (both in full text)restricted by the dates of January 1, 1993, to December 31, 2003. The threepapers were The New York Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, and TheAtlanta Journal-Constitution. These papers represent large-market newspa-pers in different areas of the country, thus representing regional viewpoints.Although newspaper readership has been declining, both newspapers andtelevision stations have continued to report similar stories, thus making thenews comparable between television and newspapers. Additionally, news-papers have more room to run more stories and therefore are more likelyto write more stories related to adoption than the national network newsstations.

The New York Times search produced 257 documents, The AtlantaJournal-Constitution produced 303 documents, and The San FranciscoChronicle produced 106 documents. I read all documents and I removedthose articles that used “adoption” in a different context (i.e., the adoptionof a policy and adopt-a-family or adopt-a-pet programs) from direct analysis.I analyzed the remaining documents, which included 77 New York Times arti-cles, 70 Atlanta Journal-Constitution articles, and 31 San Francisco Chroniclearticles.

In addition to the LexisNexis search, I also searched 12 popular mag-azines (Atlantic/Atlantic Monthly, Ebony, Harper’s Magazine, The Nation,National Review, The New Republic, People Weekly, Progressive, PsychologyToday, Saturday Evening Post, and Time) using InfoTrac. The key terms ofadopt∗ AND family (in entire article content) restricted by the dates of Jan-uary 1, 1993, to December 31, 2003, were used to generate magazine articles.Magazine articles are an important supplement to the major newspapers be-cause magazines have a specific audience that they target and thus are morelikely to write articles from a certain point of view that will engage their tar-geted audience. Because InfoTrac only allows users to search 10 magazines

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mis

s Je

nnif

er E

. Pot

ter]

at 1

3:52

10

Sept

embe

r 20

14

114 J. E. Potter

at a time, I split my searches into two separate searches. First, I searchedNation, National Review, and New Republic. Within these three magazines, Isearched adopt∗ AND family (in title, citation, abstract) from January 1, 1993,to December 31, 2003. This produced nine documents. My second searchin InfoTrac included a search of Atlantic, Atlantic Monthly, Ebony, Harper’sMagazine, People Weekly, Progressive, Psychology Today, Saturday EveningPost, and Time. I searched adopt∗ AND family (in title, citation, abstract) fromJanuary 1, 1993, to December 31, 2003. This produced 60 documents. All 69articles (from the two InfoTrac searches combined) were full-text articleson InfoTrac. I read the documents and eliminated those articles that used“adoption” in a different context (i.e., the adoption of a policy and adopt-a-family or pet programs) from analysis. I analyzed the remaining documents,which included 58 articles. I reread and categorized all remaining articlesfrom both LexisNexis and InfoTrac into preliminary clusters then groupedthese preliminary clusters together in order to create nine overarching clus-ters prevalent in adoption rhetoric. These clusters did, however, change asI began my analysis and I ultimately transformed the clusters into five finalclusters.

The use of newspapers and magazines from various locales and withdifferent readerships was an intentional decision to reduce researcher bias.Michael Quinn Patton (1999) labels this technique as the triangulation ofsources and maintains that it is an effective strategy to strengthen qualitativeresearch. In addition to triangulating my sources, I also examined negativecases found in the literature, which produced four other clusters worthy ofanalysis; these other clusters certainly produce alternative narratives withinadoption rhetoric, but I contend that although public discourse provides anuanced articulation of adoption and produces varying themes about adop-tion, focusing this article solely on one of those approaches is warrantedin order to understand the way in which adoption rhetoric has situatedadoptees as commodities.

Cluster Analysis

My analysis was informed by Kenneth Burke’s (1969) explication of clusteranalysis, which he identifies as a qualitative method designed to analyzerhetorical discourse. While Burke’s explanation of cluster analysis sharessome similar qualities to post-structuralist feminist discourse analysis, it istypically not viewed as a form of traditional discourse analysis; rather, it isused primarily by scholars engaging in rhetorical analysis. Palczewski, Ice,and Fritch (2012) describe Kenneth Burke as, “one of the most significanttheorists of the twentieth century, [who] described himself as a ‘word-man’and his theories about language continue to influence scholars in commu-nication studies, English, philosophy, theatre, and sociology” (p. 65). Burkecreated the method of cluster analysis as a means to help critics explain the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mis

s Je

nnif

er E

. Pot

ter]

at 1

3:52

10

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Adopting Commodities 115

meaning of a term by uncovering the meanings of the terms surrounding it.Specifically, he says:

To tell what a thing is, you place it in terms of something else. This ideaof locating . . . is implicit in our very word for definition itself: to define,or determine a thing, is to mark its boundaries, hence to use terms thatpossess . . . contextual reference. (p. 24)

This discussion of how we define terms is the basis for Burke’s notionof clusters. He argues that because we understand a term based on otherterms, it is possible to chart the terms to determine meaning to a particularrhetor or a public by looking for “what goes with what” (Burke, 1973, p. 20).Because I wanted to determine the meaning of adoption in public discourse,it was necessary to look in places where adoption occurs in the publicdiscourse and find out what words surround adoption. Burke writes that ifone wishes to understand meaning, he or she should focus on semantic andpoetic meanings in language. He refers to semantic meaning as the “idealdefinition” and poetic meaning is derived from one’s emotional response toa particular response (p. 142). Burke summarizes the important distinctionbetween semantic and poetic meanings:

[Semantic meaning] would try to cut away, to abstract, all emotionalfactors that complicate the objective clarity of meaning. [Poetic meaning]would try to derive its vision from the maximum heaping up of all theseemotional factors, playing them against one another, inviting them toreinforce and contradict one another, and seeking to make this activeparticipation itself a major ingredient in the vision. (p. 148)

Once I determined what words envelop adoption, I could begin tounderstand what adoption means both poetically and semantically. This isespecially important with the study of adoption because if the earlier re-search cited about adoption stigma is true, the public (poetic) meaning ofadoption is very different from the legal and definitional (semantic) meaningof adoption.

The utility of Burke’s distinction between semantic and poetic meaningcomes to fruition in adoption rhetoric. Semantically, adoption means a legalprocess in which an individual or individuals acquire parental rights over aminor. Poetically, adoption means many things, including that adoption isnoble but also that it is distinct from biological families. Because the po-etic meaning of adoption takes on a variety of forms, the perceived stigmareported by adoptive families resides in this unresolved and somewhat con-flicted poetic meaning of adoption. Given the subtle variations of meaningsof terms like adoption, cluster analysis helps focus our attention on the poeticmeaning of a particular term.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mis

s Je

nnif

er E

. Pot

ter]

at 1

3:52

10

Sept

embe

r 20

14

116 J. E. Potter

To perform cluster analysis, I read each article selected for analysis andlooked for the words that clustered around the key term “adoption” anditemized words and phrases into a spreadsheet. I determined which wordsactually clustered around the key term by using the principles of frequencyand intensity; in other words, if the words appeared often in an article orwere especially compelling words or phrases that were used with emphasis,I included them in my list. After compiling the list of terms associated withadoption, I attempted to arrange them into categories of data and createan overarching theme (or representative anecdote, as Burke would call it)to describe the data. After placing words and phrases into larger groupingsbased on themes, I revisited each individual article to ensure that placingthe terms in those particular groups did not interfere with the perceivedintention of the articles. What follows is a detailed description of one of theclusters found in the adoption rhetoric.

COMMODIFICATION OF ADOPTION

Cluster analysis of the adoption texts produced five distinct clusters withinthe discourse: the biologization of adoption, renaming adoption, empha-sizing parents and deemphasizing children, biology versus adoption, andcommodification of adoption. Jennifer Struve’s (2005) thesis project detailsall five clusters identified in the discourse, but this article focuses on thecommodification of adoption cluster. The newspaper and magazine articlesanalyzed oftentimes discussed adoption in economic terms, which inherentlyturns adoptees into products and the adoption process into a marketplace(Lewin, 1998; Mansnerus, 1998). This cluster occurs in three specific ways:adoption is discussed in economic terms, adoption is described as a “selec-tion” process, and the discourse maintains that potential parents can buy andreturn adoptees.

The Adoption Economy

Throughout adoption rhetoric, adoption is framed in terms of economics, andmany reporters use such terms as “supply and demand” (Bixler, 2002; “Blackchildren,” 1993; Harrison, 1995; Holmes, 1995; Mansnerus, 1998; Smolowe,2001), “merchandise” (Corbett, 2002; Goodman, 2000; McDonnell, 2000;Olasky, 1993), “acquisitions” (Cheakalos, 2002; Stewart, 1995), and eventhe “hottest accessory” (Fein, 1998), among others (“Black Children,” 1993;Cheakalos, 2002; Goodman, 2000; Harrison, 1995; Holmes, 1995; Mansnerus,1998; Smolowe, 2001) when describing adoption. In a broader sense, the de-scription of an adoption “marketplace” also includes references to price andcost, which only entrenches adoption as an economic decision.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mis

s Je

nnif

er E

. Pot

ter]

at 1

3:52

10

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Adopting Commodities 117

Mansnerus (1998) uses “supply and demand” as a common theme inher article on “the baby bazaar” with this account: “[t]his is the essence ofdemand—unhappy infertile couples—competing for a smaller and smallersupply of [W]hite American-born infants” (para. 3). The focus on the supplyand demand of babies implies that they are products which a family buysand sells for its own use. Mansnerus frames the discussion of adoption asa “baby bazaar,” at which point the audience can conclude that adoptiveparents are looking for the best “deal” they can get for a child. In fact,The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (or the OED; 1971)defines a bazaar as “an Oriental marketplace or permanent market, usuallyconsisting of ranges of shops or stalls, where all kinds of merchandise areoffered for sale” (p. 179). Clearly, the term bazaar describes a “marketplace”for “merchandise.” The term bazaar also conjures images of a place whereconsumers haggle in order to get the best deal while still allowing the sellerto turn a profit. Therefore, when the discourse describes adoption as a babybazaar, it describes an adoption process as a marketplace and babies asmerchandise. Additionally, the focus on the supply of “[W]hite American-born infants” reminds us that adoptive parents can choose what “kind” ofchild they want to raise (and clearly implies that parents want to raise WhiteAmerican-born infants). In other words, “all kinds of merchandise” fill thebaby bazaar and parents are able to choose which they like best. Ultimately,the conclusion in the article is that parents will choose White American-borninfants as opposed to other “kinds of merchandise.”

George Lakoff (2002) explains that the public tends to couch moralityin economic terms and summarizes how economic metaphors describe ourmorals:

There is a fundamental economic metaphor behind much of morality,the ubiquitous conception of Well-Being As Wealth, which brings quan-titative reasoning into the qualitative realm of morality. . . . Linguistically,the metaphor is made manifest by the use of economic words like owe,debt, and pay in the moral domain. (p. 62)

Lakoff (2002) uses his analysis of metaphors to explain that liberalsand conservatives uses different economic terms to help make their casesregarding moral issues. In a similar way, adoption rhetoric uses economicterms to help explain issues relating to adoption. This relationship betweenadoption and economic terminology is especially interesting because thehistorical roots of adoption link the practice to an economic reality whereinparents adopted children to increase the number of children who couldwork on the farm and in the home. Additionally, when adoption began asa practice, families believed that adoptees could add to a family’s financialsecurity. Despite this history, turning children into products available forpurchase is not a practice most individuals would admit to.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mis

s Je

nnif

er E

. Pot

ter]

at 1

3:52

10

Sept

embe

r 20

14

118 J. E. Potter

The other way in which the discourse transforms adoptees into productsis through metaphors that are not explicitly economic but are neverthelessbureaucratic and managerial in nature, positioning adoptees as objects ofinstrumental rationality and economic calculation. Specifically, the discoursedescribes adoption as a “placement” (“Any loving family,” 1995; Hill, 1997;“Home offers,” 1993; Smolowe, 1994) and as some “thing” to be “claimed”(Badie, 2003; Herndon, 1993; McCarthy, 2000; Roughton, 2001; Seelye, 1997;Shapiro, 1993; Smolowe, 1994). The OED (1971) defines placement as “theaction of placing, or fact of being placed; placing, arranging” (p. 2192).When the rhetoric surrounding adoption devolves into a discourse of place-ment, the lived nature of adoptees is lost and they become objects that areplaced or arranged, not unlike decor is arranged or furniture is appropriatelyplaced to maximize some desired effect for the consumer of the product.The other side of this scenario is obviated by this metaphor in that if we un-derstand potentially adopted children as objects in need of placement thenwe have to understand adoptive parents as consumers of the product-child-adoptee. Additionally, Harris (1995) explains that “[o]ther domestic adoptionsare marked by the fear that the birth parents will return to reclaim a childeven after a legal adoption has taken place” (para. 9). The ability of a birthparent to “reclaim” a child ultimately implies that an adoption means theparent “claims” that child. The OED (1971) defines claim as “to demand asone’s own or one’s due; to seek or ask for on the ground of right; to as-sert and demand recognition of (an alleged right, title, possession, attribute,acquirement, or the like)” (p. 423). This context brings to mind the archaicpractice of claiming a plot of land for the purposes of prospecting or “tam-ing” a wild landscape for the purposes of cultivation. If we apply this logicto adoptees, we see adoptable children as “wild” and “unclaimed” propertiesthat are not a site of productive contribution to society’s functioning due totheir lack of ownership. In everyday language, we use “claim” in dissimilarbut equally revelatory ways. For example, we “claim” our bags at the airportand we “claim” our income on our tax forms. In other words, if a parentis able to “claim” a child, he or she has become the rightful owner of thatchild, thus transforming the child, if only rhetorically, into property.

Adoption Selection

Although adoption couched in economic terms is the overarching clusterthat pervades adoption rhetoric, one of its underlying conceptions is thatadoption is described as a “selection” process or a “process of choosing,”which demonstrates how entrenched the economic calculus is in the prac-tice (Barboza, 2003; Bixler, 2002; Castaneda, 1996; Glen, 1994; Haynes, 1993;Horsburgh, 2003; Lewin, 1998; Melvin, 2000). Mansnerus (1998) describes thefollowing scene: “[i]n the baby bazaar, with children of varying colors, cul-tures and conditions, something resembling a price schedule has emerged”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mis

s Je

nnif

er E

. Pot

ter]

at 1

3:52

10

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Adopting Commodities 119

(para. 18). The OED (1971) defines price as the “value or worth” of some-thing (p. 2295) and a schedule as a “time-table” (p. 2663). When these twowords are connected, a “price schedule” comes to represent a table thatshows the varying worth of a product. The phrase also helps us recognizethat when a “schedule” exists, the lower-quality goods will be available at acheaper price.

Although it is true that adoptive parents are able to select children tosome degree, the hyperbolic description above is obviously inaccurate. In-stead, adoptive parents are able to decide whether or not they are interestedin younger or older children, domestic or international children, and/or chil-dren with or without special needs. However, parents typically do not lookat a book of photos and determine which child they want based on howcute the child is or how much that child might be worth. Regardless, theuse of Mansnerus’ (1998) phrase, “price schedule,” positions adoptees asproducts that can be easily categorized and placed on a continuum of worthwhich necessarily attributes the child-adoptee-product extrinsic value basedon which attributes are understood as valuable to the smooth functioningof society. Apart from the problem of commodification, which the previ-ous statement clearly describes, the continuum of worth or “price schedule,”maps society’s prejudices onto children in order so that their “use value”might be determined thereby recreating those very same stereotypes andprejudices.

The discourse further entrenches the selection process as a componentof adoption when reporters discuss adoptees as children on display to helppotential parents choose whom they should adopt. Harrison (1995) describesa vivid scene where children are on display:

The Kellys were among 86 families and more than 120 people who at-tended Permanence on Parade Saturday afternoon at Greenforest BaptistChurch in Decatur. . . . The fashion show, sponsored by the state De-partment of Human Resources’ Division of Family and Children Services,was designed to match adoptable children, most of whom are African-American, with families. . . . After the first gala on May 21 in Macon,26 families applied to adopt 45 of the featured children. (paras. 5–7)

Not only does this scene depict children as “parade” participants, butit also describes a fashion show, implying that prospective adoptees paradearound in their best dress to convince prospective parents to take them. Thepassage also explains, “after the first gala . . . families applied to adopt 45 ofthe featured children” (para. 7). The use of the term gala is an interestingchoice, since a gala is defined by the OED (1971) as “gala dress, festal attire;festivity, gaiety, rejoicing, a festive occasion; a festival characterized by thedisplay of finery and show” (p. 1105). In other words, the gala is a formof public entertainment, therefore transforming adoptees at the gala into

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mis

s Je

nnif

er E

. Pot

ter]

at 1

3:52

10

Sept

embe

r 20

14

120 J. E. Potter

entertainment for the guests attending the gala. Parades and fashion shows,as well as camps, books, festivals, television shows, and trial visits are alldepicted in similar ways, in which children are put on display for prospectiveparents to look at and decide whether or not they should adopt them (Bell,2001; Cardwell, 2000; Carter, 2001; Carter & Cauley, 2001; Chamberlain, 1996;Doniger, 2002; Donsky, 2000; Harrison, 1995; Haynes, 1993; Jacobs, 2003;Lameiras, 1996; Yi, 2000).

Such accounts are problematic for a number of reasons. First, the por-trayal talks about matching adoptable children with families, which assumesthat parents and children need to “match” either physically or in some otherway not described, which implies a need for adoptive families to “pass” asbiological families. This is a particularly fascinating narrative when one con-siders transracial and international adoption, wherein it becomes difficult forfamilies to pass as biological ones. Throughout the discourse, the empha-sis on selection as it pertains to White, American-born babies is especiallysalient and reinforces to the public a sense that non-White, non–American-born babies are “second-best” in the selection process, thus making it moreacceptable to treat them as products. Additionally, the rhetorical constructionof adoption selection reinforces centuries-old beliefs in biological purity andnational fascination on heritage. Historically, individuals who are invested inracial or national purity have focused on lineage and blood ties and adoptivefamilies necessarily disrupt family lineages, thus creating a variant form ofmiscegenation. White, American-born infant adoptees, while still rhetoricallyinferior to biological infants, are highly preferred among White, American-born prospective parents precisely because that family construction makesit possible for the family to pass as biological without making it known thegeneral public that the family has broken its lineage.

Second, the selection process as it is rhetorically defined in adoptionrhetoric tends to reinforce cultural beliefs across racial, ethnic, class, gender,and ability lines. If one were to extend the logic of adoption selection, it be-comes apparent that not only are White, American-born babies selected moreoften and preferred by potential parents, but other children are rank-orderedby parents based on their own cultural positive and negative characteristics.For example, when potential parents are trying to select a child to adopt,they must determine whether they should choose a baby that looks likethem, comes from the same cultural background as them, shares the samesocioeconomic class as them, and/or has the same (dis)abilities as them. Ifparents decide to select a baby that does not “match” them in one of theserespects, they must then determine the next best alternative. It is this choos-ing process that seems to reinforce cultural stereotypes; parents may choosea Chinese baby girl because “Asians are smart” or may choose a Russianbaby boy because he appears White, despite his distinct culture.

Third, the mere notion of a parade or festival presents the image thatpotential adoptees must sell themselves to prospective parents by dressing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mis

s Je

nnif

er E

. Pot

ter]

at 1

3:52

10

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Adopting Commodities 121

up, acting in certain ways, and presenting themselves as acceptable. Eventsthat feature adoptees on display potentially seek to discipline children intofollowing the script that describes the good child; it asks students to monitortheir behavior, their conversations, and their outward appearance and tohighlight their strengths while hiding their flaws. In other words, rhetoricaldepictions of these events reminds the public that only the best childrencan and will be chosen by parents looking for ideal candidates that can fillan open position in one’s family. Such a portrayal is disturbing, since thesechildren are simply looking for families who wish to love them. While it isa stretch to equate this type of display with a slave auction it is disquietinghow the form does not deviate far enough from that of a slave auction forthe comparison to seem completely misplaced.

Returns Allowed

Similar to the previous description where parents go to aisle 17 of their localstore to buy a product, adoption rhetoric also portrays adoption as a processthat allows adoptive parents to “return” products if they are not satisfiedwith their purchase (Bell, 2001; Castaneda, 1996; Doniger, 2002; Emerson,2000; Goodman, 2000; Hewitt, 2001; Horsburgh, 2003; Jay, 1996; Louie, 1995;McCarthy, 2000; Smith, 1994; Smolowe, 2001; Tauber et al., 2002; Williams,1995). These articles make clear that the process of returning children is anentirely possible prospect for adoptive families. Horsburgh (2003) explainsthis practice:

Colin was adopted for the first time in 2001 but lasted only a few monthswith an Illinois family before ending up at the Jacksons, who have triedto help him feel more secure in his surroundings. The Jacksons blameno one for disrupted adoption. They know their own limitations: Theypassed up the chance to take in a seriously handicapped Serbian girl andopted not to keep a boy who refused to wear clothes. “I couldn’t do it,”says Mary-Jo. “I felt it was unfair to the others.” (para. 11)

Horsburgh uses the phrase “disrupted adoption” to describe a situationin which parents essentially “gave back” their newly adopted child. The term“disrupted adoption” implies that the family’s otherwise smooth functioningwas somehow arrested by the presence of the adoptee or in some wayhas been an annoyance to the adoptive family and is a very different phrasethan terms used to describe a struggling biological family, which are typicallylabeled as broken families or dysfunctional families. Such terms place theblame on the entire family or on parents. However, the term “disruptedadoption” does not place the blame on anyone within the family; instead,it blames the adoption process as a whole, and in the passage above, theadopted child. Such a focus helps adoptive parents eliminate their own guiltfor essentially rejecting a child.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mis

s Je

nnif

er E

. Pot

ter]

at 1

3:52

10

Sept

embe

r 20

14

122 J. E. Potter

Horsburgh’s (2003) portrayal makes it seem as though disrupted adop-tions are realistic practices for potential adoptive families. Therefore, mem-bers of the adoptive triad should understand that a legal adoption does notnecessarily mean a “new” family; instead, if that family cannot succeed, theadopted child will be “returned” to the foster care system. In addition toHorsburgh’s employment of the phrase disrupted adoption, other examplespermeate the discourse. Smolowe (2001) discussed the recent phenomenonamong celebrities to adopt children. Smolowe interviewed Elizabeth Van-derwerf, executive director of Abrazo Adoption Associates in San Antonio,and wrote, “[s]he recalls . . . another actress who scooped up several chil-dren, then returned those she was not satisfied with” (para. 15). The phrase“returned those she was not satisfied with,” leaves little doubt that suchaccounts turn adoptees into products that are not necessarily a permanentfixture of one’s family.

CONCLUSIONS

While the commodification of adoption is not the only cluster found in theoriginal analysis, it is the most instructive in helping to highlight the way inwhich language constructs our reality and provides some evidence for theorigins of the adoption stigma felt by adoptive families. While the history ofan adoption system that viewed children as farmhands provides a connec-tion to discussing adoptees as products, despite the fundamental changes inadoption policy, the importance of contemporary adoption narratives thatcommodify adoptees cannot be overstated. Previously in this article, I citedresearch from Bartholet (1997) arguing that language surrounding adoptionascribes it a negative connotation; however, that research did not pursuewhat that language is or where it appears. This article’s description of thecommodification of adoptees in adoption rhetoric, however, begins to pro-vide examples of the stigma identified by Bartholet. Although this article doesnot establish a direct link between public discourse and adoption stigma, itis clear that rhetoric provides opportunities for negative poetic meaningsto resonate with the public because of commodity-based descriptions ofadoption.

Although the history of adoption can easily be traced to important eco-nomic factors, it seems difficult to argue that equating adoptees to products ishelpful in trying to solidify adoption as a legitimate family form. The processof catapulting adoption to the legitimate family form status is a difficult one,partly because of the language used by public discourse I have outlined inthis article and partly because of the culture from which the language stems.As I found instances of language that described adoptees as products; I alsofound instances of a culture that treated prospective adoptees as products.When children are paraded around at galas, put on display at summer camps,and dressed up for television news segments advertising children, adoptionorganizations are essentially engaging in the commodification of potential

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mis

s Je

nnif

er E

. Pot

ter]

at 1

3:52

10

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Adopting Commodities 123

adoptees. It is impossible to determine whether adoption rhetoric has com-modified adoptees to such a degree that the public has accepted adoptees ascommodities and has in turn treated them as products or whether the pub-lic’s treatment of adoptees as products has necessitated a vocabulary thatdescribes adoptees in economic frames. Regardless of the order in whichdiscourse and publics commodify adoptees, the creation and maintenanceof this rhetorical and real relationship between prospective adoptees andcommodities is disturbing.

Rhetorical scholars posit the axiom that the language we use structuresour reality. This framework insists that we interrogate the language we useto describe adoption and, when appropriate, rework that language so thatwe might expand the definition of family to include alternatives to the bi-ological, nuclear, two-parent, heterosexual family that currently dominatesour conception of what family means. This article shows us that, in the statusquo, popular media outlets through which public discourse is operational-ized couch adoptees in a semantic field that constructs them quite literally asproducts. Language choices are of paramount concern in that description ofadoptees as commodities can be directly tied to public opinion on the matterand thus the language choices we make shape policies and practices. Afterall, Penelope (1990) reminds us: “Language is power, in ways more literalthan most people think. When we speak, we exercise the power of languageto transform reality” (p. 213). In that spirit, if the meaning of adoption is evergoing to change, it will change because of us.

REFERENCES

Any loving family will do. (1995, April 15). The Atlanta Journal and Constitution,6B. Retrieved from http://www.ajc.com/

Badie, R. (2003, November 12). Abandoned baby placed with couple. The AtlantaJournal and Constitution, 1JJ. Retrieved from http://www.ajc.com/

Barboza, D. (2003, March 31). A Chinese hotel, full of proud American parents. TheNew York Times, A4. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/

Bartholet, E. (1997). Adoption and stigma. In A. S. Skolnick & J. H. Skolnick (Eds.),Family in transition (9th ed., pp. 242–255). New York: Addison-Wesley Educa-tional Publishers.

Bell, E. (2001, August 1). Family planning; Trial run for overseas orphanshoping to be adopted. The San Francisco Chronicle, A13. Retrieved fromhttp://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/

Berebitsky, J. (2000). Like our very own: Adoption and the changing culture ofmotherhood, 1851–1950. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

Bixler, M. (2002, February 16). Atlanta couple’s foreign adoption lands the fam-ily in legal limbo. The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, 1A. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ajc.com/

Black children, White parents. (1993, November 27). The New York Times, 1–18.Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mis

s Je

nnif

er E

. Pot

ter]

at 1

3:52

10

Sept

embe

r 20

14

124 J. E. Potter

Brodzinsky, D. M., Smith, D. W., & Brodzinsky, A. B. (1998). Children’s adjust-ment to adoption: Developmental and clinical issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Burke, K. (1969). A grammar of motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Burke, K. (1973). The philosophy of literary form (3rd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University

of California Press.Cardwell, D. (2000, December 17). For maimed war victims, a tenuous respite in

Staten Island. The New York Times, 1–55. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/

Carter, R. (2001, June 7). City digest. The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, 3JD.Retrieved from http://www.ajc.com/

Carter, R., & Cauley, H. M. (2001, June 7). Southside notes. The Atlanta Journal andConstitution, 2JK. Retrieved from http://www.ajc.com/

Castaneda, L. (1996, September 30). The costs of adoption: It can be expensive,but there is lots of support. The San Francisco Chronicle, E1. Retrieved fromhttp://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/

Chamberlain, F. (1996, March 24). When children simply need families. The NewYork Times, 13CN-17. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/

Cheakalos, C. (2002, November 4). Happier by the dozen: Diane and Steve Sprigggave their seven kids a gift of love: Five Russian brothers. People Weekly, 58(19),95+. Retrieved from http://www.people.com/people/

Condit, C. (1990). Decoding abortion rhetoric: Communicating social change. Ur-bana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Corbett, S. (2002, June 16). Where do babies come from? The New York Times, 6–42.Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/

Doniger, N. (2002, July 21). A summer of hope for Russian orphans. The New YorkTimes, 14CN-6. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/

Donsky, P. (2000, October 30). A boy’s life rebuilt; After hyena attack, or-phan starts anew. The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, 1B. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ajc.com/

Emerson, B. (2000, November 26). Fostering hope: Some stories end happily, anda family is formed. The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, 1M. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ajc.com/

Faupel, M. L. (1994). The “Baby Jessica case” and the claimed conflict betweenchildren’s and parents’ rights. The Wayne Law Review, 40, 285–331. Retrievedfrom http://lawreview.wayne.edu/

Fein, E. B. (1998, October 25). Secrecy and stigma no longer clouding adoptions.The New York Times, 1. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/

Galvin, K. (2003). International and transracial adoption: A communication researchagenda. The Journal of Family Communication, 3, 237–253.

Glen, T. (1994, December 1). Cruel trick being played on women [Letter to theeditor]. The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, A10. Retrieved from http://www.ajc.com/

Goodman, W. (2000, February 10). Television review; an adoption dream turnsnightmarish. The New York Times, E8. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/

Harris, J. (1995, November 16). Love has no borders. The Atlanta Journal andConstitution, 11N. Retrieved from http://www.ajc.com/

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mis

s Je

nnif

er E

. Pot

ter]

at 1

3:52

10

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Adopting Commodities 125

Harrison, C. (1995, October 22). Kids hope for a hand and a home. The AtlantaJournal and Constitution, 3H. Retrieved from http://www.ajc.com/

Haynes, K. A. (1993, August). The adoption option. Ebony, 48(10), 46–48. Retrievedfrom http://www.ebony.com/

Herman, E. (2002). The paradoxical rationalization of modern adoption. Journal ofSocial History, 36, 339–377.

Herndon, L. (1993, March 23). Needed: Black families. The Atlanta Journal andConstitution, A17. Retrieved from the LexisNexis Academic database.

Hewitt, B. (2001, March 26). Where the heart is: After 21 years, a stolen childcomes home, loyal to the couple who raised him. People Weekly, 55(12), 119+.Retrieved from http://www.people.com/people/

Hill, S. (1997, November 5). Prospective parents get facts about adoption. The AtlantaJournal and Constitution, 10A. Retrieved from http://www.ajc.com/

Holmes, S. A. (1995, April 13). Bitter racial dispute rages over adoption. The NewYork Times, A16. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/

Home offers hope to a throwaway. (1993, November 21). The Atlanta Journal andConstitution, F8. Retrieved from http://www.ajc.com/

Horsburgh, S. (2003, September 22). 22 and counting: Michael and Mary-JoJackson had seven kids. Then they started adopting. People Weekly, 60(12),166. Retrieved from http://www.people.com/people/

Jacobs, K. (2003, November 3). The neediest cases: Family with a big heart gets atimely hand. The New York Times, B6. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/

Jay, S. (1996, June 23). When children adopted abroad come with too many troubles.The New York Times, 1–1. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/

Kressierer, D. K., & Bryant, C. D. (1996). Adoption as deviance: Socially constructedparent-child kinship as a stigmatized and legally burdened relationship. DeviantBehavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 17, 391–415.

Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think (2nd ed.).Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lameiras, M. M. (1996, November 17). Adoption promoted, celebrated. The AtlantaJournal and Constitution, 02G. Retrieved from http://www.ajc.com/

Lansford, J. E., Ceballo, R., Abbey, A., & Stewart, A. J. (2001). Does family struc-ture matter? A comparison of adoptive, two-parent biological, single-mother,stepfather, and stepmother households. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63,840–857.

Lewin, T. (1998, October 27). New families redraw racial boundaries. The New YorkTimes, A1. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/

Louie, E. (1995, April 27). Now chosen, Chinese girls take to U.S. The New YorkTimes, C1. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/

Mansnerus, L. (1998, October 26). Market puts price tags on the priceless. The NewYork Times, A1. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/

March, K. (1995). Perception of adoption as social stigma: Motivation for search andreunion. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 653–660.

McCarthy, R. (2000, February 29). Clarke couple to care for abandoned baby. TheAtlanta Journal and Constitution, 3D. Retrieved from http://www.ajc.com/

McDonnell, P. J. (2000, November 1). Tangle of immigration laws leave Amer-ican families in limbo: Catch-22 situation traps U.S. teen as illegal immi-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mis

s Je

nnif

er E

. Pot

ter]

at 1

3:52

10

Sept

embe

r 20

14

126 J. E. Potter

grant. The San Francisco Chronicle, A4. Retrieved from http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/

Mechling, E. W., & Mechling, J. (1983). Sweet talk: The moral rhetoric against sugar.Central States Speech Journal, 34, 19–32.

Melvin, D. (2000, December 24). New home for the holidays. The Atlanta Journaland Constitution, 1A. Retrieved from http://www.ajc.com/

Miall, C. E. (1987). The stigma of adoptive parents status: Perceptions of communityattitudes toward adoption and the experience of informal social sanctioning.Family Relations, 36, 34–39.

Moss, D. (1993, August 3). A painful parting in Michigan: Jessica handed over to herbirth parents. USA Today, 3A. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/

Olasky, M. (1993, June 7). The war on adoption. National Review, 45, 38–43. Re-trieved from http://www.nationalreview.com/

Palczewski, C. H., Ice, R., & Fritch, J. (2012). Rhetoric in civic life. State College, PA:Strata.

Patton, M. Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitativeanalysis. HSR: Health Services Research, 34(5), 1189–1208. Retrieved fromhttp://www.hsr.org/

Penelope, J. (1990). Speaking freely: Unlearning the lies of the fathers’ tongues.New York: Pergamon Press.

Pertman, A. (2000). Adoption nation: How the adoption revolution is transformingAmerica. New York: Basic Books.

Roughton, B., Jr. (2001, January 17). Twins caught in trans-Atlantic adoption feud.The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, 12A. Retrieved from http://www.ajc.com/

Seelye, K. Q. (1997, November 2). Couple accused of beating daughters tell ofadoption ordeal. The New York Times, 1–37. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/

Shapiro, A. L. (1993, September 27). Children in court—the new crusade; the trialsof Gregory K. The Nation, 257, 301–304. Retrieved from http://www.thenation.com/#

Smith, D. (1994, May 8). Picking up the legos and the pieces. The New York Times,2–1. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/

Smolowe, J. (1994, August 22). Babies for export. Time, 144(8), 64–65. Retrievedfrom http://www.time.com/time/magazine

Smolowe, J. (2001, March 5). The baby chase: With thousands of ordinary peoplewaiting to adopt, do stars have an edge? People Weekly, 55(9), 60+. Retrievedfrom http://www.people.com/people/

Sobel, M. P., Delaney, S., & Earn, B. M. (1994). Adoptees’ portrayal of the develop-ment of family structure. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 23, 385–401.

Stewart, B. (1995, January 8). Tough choices: In vitro vs. adoption. The New YorkTimes, 13–1. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/

Struve, J. E. (2005). “Second-class families”: The media portrayal of adoption inAmerica. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls,Iowa.

Tauber, M., Dagostino, M., Weinstein, F., Felder, R., Green, M., Rozsa, L., et al(2002, March 18). Oh by the way—Rosie O’Donnell never hid her lovelife from friends and family. People Weekly, 57(10), 80+. Retrieved fromhttp://www.people.com/people/

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mis

s Je

nnif

er E

. Pot

ter]

at 1

3:52

10

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Adopting Commodities 127

The compact edition of the Oxford English dictionary. (1971). Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2001). Living arrangements of children (Current PopulationReports). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Wegar, K. (2000). Adoption, family ideology, and social stigma: Bias in communityattitudes, adoption research, and practice. Family Relations, 49, 363–370.

Williams, L. (1995, March 23). Parent & child; beyond “Losing Isaiah”: Truth in shadesof gray. The New York Times, C1. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/

Yi, M. (2000, November 30). Alameda County’s adoption day cuts through red tape;36 children have homes as process is streamlined. The San Francisco Chronicle,A28. Retrieved from http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/

Zelizer, V. A. (1985). Pricing the priceless child: The changing social value of children.New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mis

s Je

nnif

er E

. Pot

ter]

at 1

3:52

10

Sept

embe

r 20

14