Shane Bouel – Missing Mom

Art by Aaron Aldrich

Shane Bouel wrote a piece for Medium with different artwork – you can go to the LINK>Forbidden Love to read the whole thing and see his art. I know the point he is making is true. It not only applies to the original genetic parents and the obstacles adoptive parents might place in the way of adoptees making contact but in my own family’s experience, can also apply to an adoptee who falls in love and wants to marry someone who the adoptive mother disapproves of.

Shane writes that he asked Chat GPT to name the love that others who love you won’t allow you to have. Forbidden love is a term used to describe the love that is craved by your heart but disallowed by those who claim to love you. It encompasses the affection that is deemed unacceptable or disapproved of by society, family, or even by the very people who are supposed to support you. It could be hindered by various factors such as age, social status, religion, or cultural dissimilarities, making it a complex and nuanced experience. The unrelenting yearning to pursue this love can be excruciatingly painful and often difficult to overcome, as the heart’s desire stubbornly persists. When faced with this conundrum, it is imperative to weigh the possible benefits of pursuing the love against the potential repercussions that could befall.

I agree with him when he (or was it ChatGPT ?) writes – “No parent, adoptive or otherwise, has the right to dictate who their child loves. Love is a personal emotion that should not be regulated by external forces.” He goes on to note – “If an adoptee finds themselves smitten with someone, it is critical for their adoptive parents to display open-mindedness and support. Should the adoptee be an adult, they have the autonomy to make their own choices regarding their relationships.” In the case of the relative I am aware of, they did just that. It was sad to see the wedding marred by the dissension.

If adoptive parents are disregarding their adoptee’s feelings and experiences in favour of their own beliefs and desires, this could potentially be a sign of narcissistic behavior. (Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind that making a diagnosis of narcissism necessitates a professional evaluation by a qualified mental health expert.) Regardless of whether the behavior is labelled as narcissistic or not, dictating and dominating who someone can love is not a healthy or appropriate way to conduct a relationship and can have detrimental effects on the adoptee’s emotional well-being. It is imperative for adoptive parents to not only listen to but also respect their adoptee’s feelings and experiences and support them in making their own decisions regarding relationships.

From an esoteric perspective based on karma, the idea of in the “best interest” of the child, it is generally accepted concept that adoption aims to offer a safe and stable home environment to a child who may not have access to one otherwise. I will admit that in the case of my relative, it is likely true that my sister could not offer him a “safe” home environment but we’ll never know, will we ? It was her decision from the beginning to surrender her child for adoption. I was closely involved with her during the months of her pregnancy. Now, that I also know the rest of the story, I understand why she made that decision (it was a combination of both of our parents having been adopted as babies as well as the inconvenient truth – for her – of who his father actually was).

Shane notes – “If the adoptee’s life path towards finding true love and transcendence doesn’t align with the adoptive parent’s expectations, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the adoption was unsuccessful or of little value.” I would have to agree in the case of my relative’s adoption. It is still sad that it all broke down at the time of his wedding. I agree with Shane on this point – adoptees deserve to be supported and nurtured in their pursuit of true love and fulfilment,

He says that adoptees may be lied to or misled about their biological family. This was certainly the case for my relative. I will give his adoptive mother credit for this much – she went above and beyond – to discover for him who his actual father was. I will always be grateful to that woman for that much.

He ends with this disclaimer about using ChatGPT for this piece – “The psychosocial damage caused by AI responses from a socially systemic viewpoint can be quite significant. When we interact with AI systems, we expect them to behave in a way that is human-like, or at least, rational and objective. However, AI systems are not human and do not have the same level of emotional intelligence or cultural context that humans possess.” Furthermore, “When AI systems are designed using biased or incomplete data, just like society, there is likely to be continued perpetuating biases and inequalities in their responses. This can further marginalize and discriminate against already vulnerable groups, including adoptees.” He adds – “I believe that an AI system that is trained by adoptees could provide valuable insights and support for adoptees and their families and society.”

He indicates – “I am seeking funding or support for the development and implementation of this system, including research, programming, and outreach efforts. I believe that this project has the potential to make a meaningful impact on the lives of adoptees and their families. If this sounds like you, or you can help please get in touch.”

I was attracted to a Medium article today with the title LINK>Understanding Adoption – Epistemological Implications by Shane Bouel today. The image hits a deep place. It was created by Thoughtless Delineation – AI ART. Just today, I posted “There are 2 good things in life – Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Action.” I am borrowing from and adding my own insights and understandings to the article linked above.

However in reading the linked article I find reason for deeper contemplation – “All social behavior is guided by values. Thus the study of social behavior can never be value-free if value freedom is interpreted in the sense of the absence of values because the values of the society under investigation form a part of the social facts to be studied by sociology.”

He goes on to say – “Knowledge and power are linked. In order to reveal the nature of the knowledge/power nexus and its relationship to the process of adoption we must not only ask what we know about adoption but more importantly, ask how we come to know what we know about adoption.” He is actually talking about adoption in Australia but I expect what he has to say applies here in the United States as well.

Adoption is a social construct. The understanding of adoption by those considered experts – social workers, mental health professionals and policymakers – places them in a powerful position as the creators and arbiters of knowledge related to adoption. Their understanding of adoption has a particular influence on the way it is presented and represented both theoretically and as practice. Therefore, some understandings are a result of distortions of the knowledge process. These distortions are products of validating certain kinds of knowledge by promoting certain narratives and silencing others.

Statements about the real nature of adoption become everyday knowledge for most people, especially those with no direct experience of the practice. The habit of understanding social phenomena like adoption with our personally unquestioned beliefs (because they are scientifically legitimate) instead of first attempting to understand the nature and origin of those beliefs is especially evident when we take a holistic view of the experience of being adopted as expressed by many adoptees.

Some would have us believe that the primary motivating force behind much excluding, value-free social research has been conspiratorial, that it has been little more than a premeditated and conscious desire by the powerful to control the less powerful. However worse is the acceptance, legitimization and application of objectified, positivistic notions about the real nature of adoption. These deny us access to the multi-level experiences of those (adoptees and birth parents) who have been subjected to it. Moreover, blind faith in the power of positivistic social science has further resulted in the institutionalized devaluing and belittling of those suffering its effects. Those individuals who have been, in some way, consumed by the process and who have spoken out loudly about their experiences have been viewed as little more than emotionally charged, angry and therefore irrational persons out of touch with reality.

Not only has the individual affected been blamed for the socially created, contradictory, unintended and unwanted effects of the adoption process but they have also been systematically alienated, ridiculed and stigmatized. Adoption has been portrayed and presented as given, unalterable and self-evident and as a consequence, it confronts the individual as a historically and scientifically justified, objective and benign process and therefore, it is undeniable fact. The biography of those consumed by the process is apprehended merely as a reactive, subjective personal episode, separate and distanced from the institution of adoption. Many affected persons experience adoption objectively as coercion and in many cases worse, as an oppressive force.

He has much more to say. It is time well spent to read his worthwhile essay.