Symbolic Interactionism
While reading the September 1999 issue of Social Work: Journal of the National Association of Social Workers, I came across an article entitled "Symbolic Interactionism, African American Families and the Transracial Adoption Controversy". It was written by Leslie Doty Hollingsworth PhD, the assistant professor in the school of social work at the University of Michigan. The article claims that by using symbolic interactionism, it can be seen that African Americans are a unique and distinct cultural group and therefore adoption of African American children by families of a different race should only be allowed as an absolute last resort. I object strongly to this proposition and plan to use symbolic interactionism to show just the opposite. In the fall of 1972, the National Association of Black Social Workers passed a resolution about trasracial adoption. It was written, "Black children should be placed only with Black families whether in foster care or adoption". In my opinion it is ridiculous to
These children have already left the ideal and cannot be with their birth parents. If someone is willing to take a child into their home, their skin color should be the last thing that people are worried about. So what should be done with interracial babies, only let an interracial couple adopt them? And how are children supposed to "receive a total sense of themselves and develop a sound projection of their future when they are being bounced from home to home? I feel that it would be easier to adjust to being a black child adopted by a white family than being a black child without a family at all. No one is stopping this child from looking into their heritage, and no one says necessarily that a black family would support the culture. Would the people of the NABSW rather an African American child give up a chance at a good life just because the people who want to give it to them have different ancestors? The next line of the resolution reads " Black children belong physically, psychologically and culturally in black families in order that they receive the total sense of themselves and develop a sound projection of their future". It goes on to say "Black children in white homes are cut off from the healthy development of themselves as black people. The resolution also states, " Human beings are part of their environments and develop their sense of values, attitudes and self concepts within their own family structure". And a family is a family, regardless of the members skin color. Also, more importantly is developing as a person, not a black person or a white person. . Although it may be a rough adjustment and hard for a child to understand, with the proper love and guidance that child could become very well adjusted. In conclusion, if the tables were turned and a white family refused to adopt a black child it would be considered racism, so why is this different? In today's society there are so many different types of family there is hardly a norm anymore. In reaction to this, interracial relationships and families are on the rise and cultures are starting to learn and accept one another more. A child should be placed in a home in which they will be provided for, regardless of skin color. " (Simon & Alstein 135) In argument to this, children who do not have a home are cut off from healthy development of themselves at all.
Common topics in this essay:
African American,
Simon Alstein,
Social Workers,
University Michigan,
Hollingsworth PhD,
African Americans,
,
black child,
Adoption Controversy,
african american,
symbolic interactionism,
skin color,
black children,
National Association,
healthy development themselves,
child adoption,
birth parents,
white family,
healthy development,
black families,
skin color people,
sound projection future,
cut healthy development,
regardless skin color,
|
Acceptance Essays
