Trying to formulate my thoughts
A very nice adoptive mom sent me an op-ed critiquing Primal Wound theory from Pact and I’ve been thinking on this part and wanted to hear your thoughts.
In the case of the parent-child, mother-child relationship, to ignore its’ darker, less ideal aspects condemns every mother to instant self-alienation the first time she feels anything but perfect love for her child coupled with the desire to mirror and hold.… What better way to psychologically coerce women into “staying home” than to make them feel guilty about “abandoning” their children.
… In this context it might also be relevant to note that the logic of Ms. Verrier’s theory inescapably condemns birth parents. If the worst thing that can happen to a person in his or her life is to be placed for adoption, and if this decision is made by a man and woman who regardless of societal pressure and oppression, could have done otherwise, then every birth parent who placed a child is personally responsible for this terrible trauma, although society is also culpable. To load birth parents with this kind of guilt is absurd; it is also ironic for an adoptive mother to be making this kind of charge under the guise of defending adopted people and birth parents. What it amounts to is an adoptive mother saying to her adopted child, “Isn’t it terrible what your birth mother did to you?” This is nothing more than a sophisticated version of “Gee, how could anyone give away a child that beautiful?”
He’s got some good criticism of Verrier’s theory although this bit I’ve quoted isn’t as convincing (to me) as other parts. I do think though that it’s a valid criticism of the way Primal Wound theory is used against mothers and wanted to talk more about that.
I was thinking about this because I’ve got some women in my life who are without their children (by choice or by circumstance and not because of adoption) and I was thinking about our culture’s deeply rooted madonna-whore complex and how we silence the voices of women who are not raising the children they bear. Any woman who chooses not to parent is, in the immortal yet fictional words of Jenny Fields, “a sexual suspect.” Never is this more apparent then we talk about the saintly/selfish birth mother who is selfless enough to “give her baby a better life” yet selfish enough “to just give away her own child.”
But I think he’s on to something (the author above) when he argues this slippery-Bowlby-slope that puts all women in the firing line that powers most of our industries, the adoption one among them. (In other words, we women who want to say, “Yeah, but I’m not a birth mom” might want to rethink our disinterest.)
I want to write more but Madison wants me to stop writing about mothering and actually get to it so I’ll leave this unfinished.
I can state as a first mom, yes, I believe I am at fault for my daughters primal wound and yes, others have told me so.
I should have known better, should have known adoption can be very damaging to a child (no matter how wonderful the adoptives are), should have been smarter, should not have given into threats of being sued by a babybrokers. Bad girl who got pregnant, more bad dumb girl who succumbed to adoption pressure. My fault.
If my daughter is messed up, has issues, its not her adoptive families problem or the way she was raised, its her genetics and the fact that I gave her up, right? (Um, no, but I have also been told that). It is a nice cushy excuse for adoptive parents to avoid taking responsbility for their own possible poor parenting for sure.
I still beleive that is my fault. I was supposed to know better, right? I was supposed to value the mother-child bond (even though all around me told me there was no value).
Arent women blamed for everything that goes wrong with children? Fessler argues very well in her book (and its true in my case) that the majority of women who were forced to surrender their children were forced by their OWN MOTHERS. For having a daughter get pregnant out of wedlock is a “proof” that the mother failed. (Um, no, but that is what society believes and dictates. Your kids are screwed up? Its your fault as the mom - not the dad, not the grandparents or the extended family system - YOU. Interestingly, adoptive parents can choose to refuse that “blame” and instead blame the primal wound, genetic or the slut or nut natural mom)
How can one value the mother child-bond when their own mothers doesnt value the mother-grandchild bond?
And oh yeah, if your house is messy, thats your fault too. Men aren’t supposed to clean the house. (Whatever).
Wow. Suz’s comment above really illustrates the point of how society damns women if they do, no matter WHAT they do. I think one of the main flaws with primal wound is the terminology–words are power, and these are powerful accusatory words to all parties involved. “Special needs?” “Unique situation?” “Early Grieving” “Separation Grief”?? I’m not sure what the answer is except perhaps to change our view of adoption so that no special terminology is needed—if we see adoption BOTH as a good thing AND as a loss for all parties–there is multiple levels of grieving that takes place and we need a way to deal with that without further demeaning the choices of women and pitting us against each other. I think the points this article, and Suz raise are really valid and I can’t wait to see what other critiques you have.
“Never is this more apparent then we talk about the saintly/selfish birth mother who is selfless enough to “give her baby a better life†yet selfish enough “to just give away her own child.†”
i’ve had a post brewing like this in my head for awhile. this type of hypocrisy from ‘the world at large’ is one of the most painful realizations i had early on after placement. sainted or demonized or worse, both.
thank you, Dawn…
I think mothers, first, adpotive, all mothers are pretty much damned if we do, damned if we don’t. Isn’t someone always faulting mothers for something?
While I believe that my daughter’s seperation from her first mom most likely scarred her in some way, so I do in a fashion believe in aspects of Primal Wound, I don’t believe it has to be the end of her emotional and mental good health. I believe you can recover from it, just like we can recover from other losses.
one of the many reasons i enjoy reading your blog is your willingness to discuss opposing viewpoints. thank you.
wow - thinking and processing, thinking and processing. I do know that I have long felt that a-parents sometimes ascribe everything to adoption — and sometimes I just want to say “no, she’s having a tantrum because you wouldn’t give her the candy, not because she misses her birth mom!”
DS-L
Hi Dawn,
We have briefly passed in cyber world
Am fairly new to your blog.
Feel compelled to weigh in on this.
So a critique of a critique,
felt it was a bit ermm ham-handedly self-important.
The “command of the language” oafish.
But that’s not what really matters, the ideas matter.
First off in the field of adoption, Verrier’s Primal Wound was revolutionary.
As it specifically addressed the loss in infant adoption, on the part of the infant, which was enthusiastically ignored or pathologized at the time the book was written.
It is diffenetly a pioneering work, with all tribulations inherent–
Comparing adoption to a working mother, is like comparing the sniffles to death, it is too far of a leap to make.
Stubbing your toe, is very different than getting run over by a car.
As far as his point, “If the worst thing that can happen to a person in his or her life is to be placed for ”
The underlying tone of that statement to me reads, doubt.
I don’t think being adopted is the worst thing that can happen in a person’s life, when we are talking worst I start thinking the Holocaust, Rawanda, not adoption.
That being said, being placed for adoption was the worst thing that has happened to me in my life. Hands down. Nothing, nothing else comes even remotely close.
The self-pity aspect , frustrates me, the adopted person, who spends more of their life than any other I can think of, engaged in the act of pleasing adoptive families and birth families, too angry to be articulate on this topic.
I don’t believe Verrier said all adoptees act like x,y, and z.
I remember it as the loss may manifest in these many ways. Like the Birthday blues. I do not know any adoptee who likes their birthday, I tend to get sick on mine, you hear this story over and over and over. You have to wonder WHY?
Sorry, I am so long winded, but these things make me angry becasue what I feel like I am really reading, isn’t so much a condemnation of a theory, but a message, that wants to minimize what adoptees experience in order to comfort the other members of the ‘triad’
Nancy Verrier’s work on the Primal Wound was intended to help in understanding adoptees. She is a good and kind friend to birth parents. I have met her several times and know her to be a sensitive and caring person. She is aware how birth mothers have been treated over the years and has great empathy for us.
She does not believe that the Primal Wound means an adoptee is doomed. That is not what she believes; she is very anti-victim oriented. Her second book discusses ways to heal and it is chocked full of great information.
Many people seem to misunderstand her intent in writing the Primal Wound. Other just flat out cannot accept the idea that adoption causes wounds to people - it does. The sooner we face the damage adoption often causes, the better able we can improve adoption and decrease its impact by the bad practices we now have.