Abstract
The chapter focuses on the influence of time, changing priorities and unequal positions in an analysis of ongoing contacts between adopters and first mothers, and further investigates whether such arrangements facilitate the inclusion of first mothers and, if so, how. Utilising the concept of empathic identification, Högbacka examines its applicability in contexts of unequal power. Case studies of open adoptions are analysed from the perspectives of adopters and first mothers.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Berlant, L. (1998). Poor Eliza. American Literature, 70(3), 635–668.
DasGupta, S., & DasGupta, S. (2010). Motherhood Jeopardized: Reproductive technologies in Indian communities. In W. Chavkin & J. Maher (Eds.), The globalization of motherhood. London/New York: Routledge.
Gray, B. (2011). Empathy, emotion and feminist solidarities. In R. Willemijn & K. Steenbergh (Eds.), Sexed sentiments: Interdisciplinary perspectives on gender and emotion (Critical studies series, Vol. 34). Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
Gupta, J. A. (2006). Towards transnational feminisms: Some reflections and concerns in relation to the globalization of reproductive technologies. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 13(1), 23–38.
Jolly, M. (2010). Divided mothers: Changing global inequalities of ‘Nature’ and ‘Nurture’. In W. Chavkin & J. Maher (Eds.), The globalization of motherhood. London/New York: Routledge.
Khanna, R. (2001). Ethical ambiguities and specters of colonialism: Futures of transnational feminism. In E. Bronfen and M. Kavka (Eds.), Feminist consequences: Theory for the new century. New York: Columbia University Press.
Latvala, J. (2009). Stranger or family member? Reproducing postcolonial power relations. In S. Keskinen, S. Tuori, S. Irni, & D. Mulinari (Eds.), Complying with colonialism: Gender, race and ethnicity in the Nordic region. Farnham/Burlington: Ashgate.
Mendenhall, T. J., Berge, J. M., Wrobel, G. M., Grotevant, H. D., & McRoy, R. G. (2004). Adolescents’ satisfaction with contact in adoption. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 21(2), 175–190.
Pande, A. (2009). “It may be her eggs but it’s my blood”: Surrogates and everyday forms of Kinship in India. Qualitative Sociology, 32(4), 379–397.
Sayer, A. (2011). Why things matter to people. Social science, values and ethical life. Cambridge/New York/Melbourne/Madrid/Cape Town/Singapore/São Paulo: Cambridge University Press.
Scherman, R., & Hawke, W. (2010). Openness and intercountry adoption in New Zealand. Paper presented at the 3rd international conference on adoption research, Leiden University, The Netherlands, 11–15 July.
Seligmann, L. J. (2013). Broken links, enduring ties. American adoption across race, class, and nation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Wolfgram, S. M. (2008). Openness in adoption: What we know so far – A critical review of literature. Social Work, 53(2), 133–142.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Högbacka, R. (2016). Contact Over Time. In: Global Families, Inequality and Transnational Adoption. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-52476-8_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-52476-8_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-52474-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-52476-8
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)