Advertisement

Contact Over Time

  • Riitta Högbacka
Chapter

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.

Keywords

Social Worker Adoptive Parent Adopted Child Adoptive Family Adoptive Mother 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Berlant, L. (1998). Poor Eliza. American Literature, 70(3), 635–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. Seligmann, L. J. (2013). Broken links, enduring ties. American adoption across race, class, and nation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Wolfgram, S. M. (2008). Openness in adoption: What we know so far – A critical review of literature. Social Work, 53(2), 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Riitta Högbacka
    • 1
  1. 1.University of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations