symbolic interactionism: advancing adoption theory ... 1 - symbolic interactionism...symbolic...

Running head: SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 1

Symbolic Interactionism: Advancing Adoption Theory, Research, and Practice

Bethany Willis Hepp, Ph.D. ([email protected])

Katie Hrapczynski, Ph.D. ([email protected])

Towson University

Cheryl Fortner-Wood, Ph.D. ([email protected])

Winthrop University

mailto:[email protected]



SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 2

Abstract

This paper focuses on Symbolic Interactionism (SI) and its application to adoption-related family

issues. First, we argue that a dearth of explicit application of SI in research has resulted in gaps

in the interpretation of adoptive family dynamics sufficient to abate the impact of its use in

practice. Theoretical concepts of self and generalized other are underutilized and can be

particularly relevant to adoption work. A narrative case example describing adoptive parents’

perspectives is used to illustrate the impact of self as response to generalized other in the pre-

and post-adoption phases of the transition to parenthood. Second, we advocate for extension of

salience, a term often used in conjunction with identity and role development, to generalized

other in an effort to better understand and reflect adoptive parent perspectives of and experiences

with adoption. Finally, implications of explicit application of these theoretical constructs for

research and for practice are discussed.


Symbolic Interactionism: Advancing Adoption Theory, Research, and Practice

In the United States, adoption has a long and varied history as a method of family

formation. Adoption is generally defined as the legal establishment of an adult as parent to a

minor child who is not otherwise related to that adult by blood or marriage. Contemporary

adoption policies have ebbed and flowed from expectations of connection with birth families, to

secrecy and sealing of birth records, and back to openness. Over time, contemporary adoption

practice has expanded dramatically, and now includes the adoption of children from both within

the United States (US) and from more than 100 countries around the globe (US Department of

State, n.d.). According to the 2010 Census (Kreider & Lofquist, 2014), of the nearly 65 million

children under age 18 living in the United States, approximately 7% were adopted.

Formation of a family via adoption often challenges expectations of family members

being biologically related, of the same race, and from the same nation of origin. Therefore, it is

not surprising that the experiences of adoptive family members may be complex and diverse,

which resonates in the accounts from adoptive parents. It is of value then to have a theoretical

framework through which we can better articulate and understand their experiences.

The purpose of this paper is to identify utility in application of Symbolic Interactionism

in research and human service work with families formed through adoption. Symbolic

Interactionism (SI) is a theoretical perspective that, simply put, addresses the manner in which

society is created and maintained through repeated, meaningful human interactions. It provides a

micro-level framework for thinking about how exchanges made within and among various social

groups are governed by communication of knowledge, attitudes, values, and norms that are

constructed and reconstructed over time. SI affords family scientists the opportunity to ask

questions related to the hows and whys of family life, including the process by which humans,


individually and via group membership, interpret, explain, and evaluate lived experiences.

Therefore, SI can be an effective tool in examining the complexity of adoptive family life.

A dearth of explicit application of SI has resulted in gaps in the interpretation of adoptive

family dynamics sufficient to abate the impact of its use in practice. We assert that specific

application of SI concepts of self , generalized other, and salience can help researchers better

interpret data collected with parents, improving service provision and optimizing outcomes for

families formed through adoption. Although SI can be applied to several aspects of adoptive

family life, we have chosen to focus on the adoptive parents’ transition to parenthood to

articulate its use.

Symbolic Interactionism Theory

The early writings of Darwin (1880), Cooley (1902), and pragmatists like James (1907)

and Dewey (1925) greatly influenced Mead (1934, 1956), whose work is often regarded as the

commencement of SI. According to LaRossa and Reitzes (1993), SI presents unique

contributions to family studies, particularly in its identification of families as social groups, and

its assertion that individuals develop concepts of self through interactions with others. SI’s long

and rich history of application is due, in large part, to its broad applicability across time and

context. While expansion of SI across disciplines and topics of study has served to broaden its

empirical base, it has resulted in theoretical fragmentation (Fine, 1993). Over time, various

schools of thought have arisen as scholars interpret and reinterpret early theoretical and

methodological applications of SI. White, Klein, and Martin (2015) note that in its contemporary

use, symbolic interactionism serves as an umbrella concept that houses a myriad of adjacent

theories, like identity theory (see Stryker & Burke, 2000) and enhancement theory (see Marks,

1977); theoretical frameworks, like the structural approach (see Nye, 1976; Stryker, 1964, 1980;


& Turner, 1990), the interactional approach (see Turner, 1970), and the microinteractional

approach (see Goffman, 1959); and methodological practices (Blumer, 1969; Kuhn, 1964;

Turner, 1991).

This paper draws heavily on the original pragmatic framework for thinking that drove

early Symbolic Interactionism. Our theoretical return to Mead’s early work is an attempt to shed

the diffuse nature of contemporary applications, and to intentionally focus on theoretical

concepts that we contend can be useful if applied in their original form. Our theoretical focus lies

chiefly in Mead’s (1934, 1956) conceptions of self and others, which are arguably his major

contribution to symbolic interactionism. Mead (1934, 1956), and Cooley (1902) before him,

conceptualized self as inextricably bound to others, particularly those with whom one has face-

to-face, intimate regular contact, as is the case with family.

Mead (1934) maintained that self develops via constant, recursive negotiation between

the I and Me. I is the active, present component of self that responds in the moment to situations

experienced in one’s environment; it interprets gestures and symbols from interactions with

others and integrates them with components of Me. Me is the socialized, developed aspect of self

that reflects other people’s responses to one’s behaviors, once internalized in the self; in that

way, Me is the object of self-reflection. Multiple Mes may exist within a single individual; the

Me that is drawn upon in a given situation depends upon the I that is active in that particular

moment.

Mead (1934, 1956) described another key aspect of the development of self: the

generalized other. The generalized other is described as the ability to understand and interpret

social cues, such that one can anticipate how others might react to specific gestures or

interactions. Taking on the perspective of the generalized other affords people the opportunity to


anticipate how actions may be interpreted by significant individuals in their immediate

environments and by society at large

Mead (1934, 1956) asserted that one’s notion of self is further grounded in gestures and

consciousness, or the mind. Gestures are acts that communicate something meaningful to another

person; they can be can be verbal (like language) and non-verbal (like symbols), as long as they

induce responses from others (Mead, 1934, 1956; Blumer, 1969). Consciousness develops from

shared meaning of gestures communicated with others; in order for two or more people to

interact effectively, the gestures and symbols used among them must have shared meaning,

producing a common response (Mead, 1934, 1956). Mead (1934, 1956) believed that self-

consciousness develops when one is able to anticipate how other people will respond to his or

her gestures; in that way, development of self requires interactions with others in one’s

environment.

Stryker (1968; 1980; 2002) has extended early work with SI, writing extensively on the

process by which shared meaning of social norms and expectations guide role-specific behaviors

in different contexts. Stryker (1968; 1980; 2002) asserts that the roles that are most salient for an

individual are those that are most likely to define one’s identity. According to Brackett (1982)

and Bernard (1974), as cited by LaRossa and LaRossa (1993), social norms associated with the

role of parent, for example, include expectations related to “what people should know about

parenting; how skillful they should be in their performance as parents; how motivated or excited

they should be about being parents; and the extent, direction, and duration of emotional work

that people should give to parenting” (p. 147). Moreover, one will be more inclined to expend

greater resources on activities that support their most salient characteristics of self.


Application of Symbolic Interactionism in Adoption Research

Adoptive family life serves as a distinctive context for application of SI. Its uniqueness

stems from the formation of a family consisting of members often with non-biological ties and,

at times, different racial backgrounds and/or nations of birth. These characteristics challenge the

dominate narrative of family in the United States as primarily based on blood relations, and

subsequent similarity in physical features and cultural heritage. While rarely explicit, scholarly

application of concepts central to Symbolic Interactionism, namely in the areas of shared

meaning and identity, can be found in the adoption literature.

For example, empirical exploration of adoptive families includes consideration of how

families develop shared meaning via adoption-related communication both within (Brodzinsky,

2011) and outside their family systems (Baxter, Norwood, Ashbury, & Scharp, 2014; Suter &

Ballard, 2009). Shared meaning of adoption-related communication can have important

implications for individual and group identity development. The exchange of information among

family members and with people external to the family serves to affirm family identity in the

face of ambiguity about family ties and questions associated with the viability of this family

form (Suter, 2008).

In a similar but distinct vein, another literature focuses on shared meaning of stigma

associated with adoption among adoptive families and non-adoptive others. Parents’ conceptions

of how others view adoption may impact their meaning-making about their family, and therefore

their actions as parents. Adoptive parents interact with people in the community and, via these

experiences, form an interpretation of others’ views of their family (Suter, Reyes, & Ballard,

2011). Adoptive parents have a history of being pathologized from a deficit perspective; research

indicate that parents who adopt are aware of the perception of adoption as beneath that of a


biological normative (Goldberg, Kinkler, & Hines, 2011; Miall, 1987; Suter et al., 2011). They

receive messages that their family violates traditional expectations of family, such as biological

ties solidifying family relationships and racial similarity of family members (Suter et al., 2011).

Parents adopting internationally are often further confronted with nationalist beliefs by people

questioning their decision to adopt a non-U.S. born child as opposed to domestically (Suter et al.,

2011). Social messages insinuate, and at times clearly state, that adoptive parents are not real

parents and that adopted children are second rate (Miall, 1987). Although parents are aware of

adoption stigma, they do not necessarily internalize it (Goldberg et al., 2011). However, their

awareness or anticipation of stigma may influence their behavior; decisions to conceal or reveal

adoption to others (Miall, 1987), whether and how to respond to questions and comments about

their family or adoptee (Suter & Ballard, 2009), and, in the case of transracial adoption, the

preparation of their racial minority child for racism (Barn, 2013) are examples.

Substantial literature on adoptee identity formation focuses on both normative identity

development and transracial adoptee ethnic identity development (Grotevant, 1997; Hoopes,

1990; Lee, 2003). Forming a coherent sense of self may be more challenging for adoptees given

they are doing so in the context of biological and physical difference from their adoptive family,

varying degrees of contact and connection with their birth family, and interactions with a biased

society (Frash & Brooks, 2003; Grotevant, Dunbar, Kohler, & Lash Esau, 2000). Two articles

explicitly use SI to understand adoptee identity formation (Hollingsworth, 1999; Patel, 2007).

Hollingsworth (1999) uses this Symbolic Interactionism to underscore her argument against the

adoption of African American children by parents of a different race, while Patel (2007)

discusses how adoptee racial identity is socially constructed via interactions within the adoptive

family, with the birth family, and with community members. Thus, identity development is a


complex and ongoing synthesis of meaningful interactions with others and self-definition.

Adoptees, in effect, are negotiating the I and the Me in the context of the generalized other to

form their identities.

Current applications of SI concepts in the adoption literature focus on shared meaning

related to family communication about adoption and stigma associated with adoption practice, as

well as adoptee identity formation. It constitutes a solid foundation for how SI can be used to

explore and understand particular aspects of adoptive family life. Mead’s early work with self

and generalized other, however, are not adequately addressed in the adoption literature;

moreover, a dearth of explicit application to parent’s perspectives of their own transition to

parenthood in the context of adoption constitutes a major gap in the research. Many parents

undergo a transformative developmental process as they realize their expectations for biological

parenthood will be unfulfilled, reconcile infertility (when that is present), and choose to pursue

adoption (Daly, 1988). Parents are critical components of healthy family functioning. Greater

recognition of the parents’ process of self-conception, in the context of significant relationships

with others, may be particularly important for researchers and practitioners as parents have the

ability to guide adoptive family life in critical ways.

Symbolic Interactionism offers a useful framework for understanding adoptive family

dynamics as influenced by parents’ perceptions of self and others. Intentional explicit application

of Mead’s theoretical development of self in the context of the generalized other will deepen

understanding and interpretation of lived experiences in adoptive homes. Holdsworth and

Morgan (2007) identify the generalized other as a crucial component of Mead’s early work, and

contend that its limited use in social and behavioral science literature is not reflective of its

ability to better inform scholarly perspectives.


To illustrate the utility of this perspective in developing deeper understanding of adoptive

family issues, we present and subsequently analyze a case scenario developed from our work

with parents who have adopted. The narrative example that follows illustrates experiences that

are common for adoptive parents who are transitioning to parenthood. Names and other

identifying family information have been changed to protect the identity of the people whose

stories have informed the description.

Case Vignette

Daniel, a 40-year-old public school teacher, and Ana, a 38-year-old bank manager, have

been married for ten years. One of the things that attracted each to the other was a strong desire

to parent, and they often talked about their shared vision of a large family with lots of children.

They live in a single-family home in a suburban area outside a large city. Happily, they have

many family members that live within an hour drive of the couple; Daniel’s parents live right in

the same neighborhood, his brothers and their families live in the city, and Ana’s parents live

about an hour to the north.

Each of Daniel’s three older brothers have children already, and Daniel enjoys his role as

uncle to five nieces and nephews. Ana, an only child, is excited about growing a family larger

than the one she had herself growing up; she looks forward to seeing everyone at least once a

month at large family dinners hosted by Daniel’s parents. While she loves her own parents very

much, she does not feel as emotionally close to them has she does Daniel’s parents, who they see

more often and with whom they spend more quality time.

Unfortunately, Daniel and Ana have struggled with fertility issues. In recent years, they

have experienced the highs of pregnancy and the lows of miscarriage several times; doctors

indicate that their fertility issues are not uncommon, but are also not likely to change over time.


Now, the couple has decided that the next logical step to grow their family is to adopt. They

connect with a local adoption agency and begin compiling their dossier with the help of a

caseworker. As part of the process, they begin to share with the important people in their lives

that they are preparing to adopt a child.

Daniel’s socially liberal parents are supportive of the couple’s decision to adopt, and

communicate joy and excitement about the choice that they have made; they contend that “love

is all you need” to have a happy family. Ana’s more conservative parents are less supportive;

they express fear and uncertainty about what adoption could mean for their own status as

grandparents, and the legitimacy of Daniel and Ana’s claim to the child if there were to be

biological parents involved in their family life after adoption. Daniel’s older brothers, already

fathers themselves, understand Daniel’s strong desire to parent and express support for the

decision. Ana’s best friend and closest confidant, Susan, encourages the couple to think about all

of the potential issues that could come from adopting and to weigh the pros and cons carefully.

Once Susan is sure that Ana has carefully considered the range of possible outcomes, she will

support whichever decision the couple ultimately makes.

Case Analysis

Above is a description of an experience transitioning to adoptive parenthood from the

perspective of Daniel and Ana. In the following case analysis, we use the central components of

self, comprised of Me and I, generalized other, and salience to further illuminate the dynamics at

play. Daniel and Ana will be briefly presently separately, followed by an analysis of using the

couple jointly as the unit of further analysis.

Both Daniel and Ana have their own separate conceptions of self, based on their

individual and joint interactions with significant others in their social environments. They each


have their own Mes, representing other people’s responses to statements made and actions taken.

How they individually respond to any given situation, their Is, reflect their individual Mes that

have developed over time. While one could analyze the case example at the individual level,

detailing the development of reflections made and actions taken separately between Daniel and

Ana, within the couple, we have decided to analyze the case using the couple as the unit of

analysis. This is possible because, as illustrated in the case, Daniel and Ana have shared meaning

of adoption as the logical next step toward parenthood, given their medical issues with fertility

and history of miscarriages. They have common Mes that have been called upon by the active I

components of self, and the act that is the focus of analysis is adoption. Moving forward with the

analysis, Daniel and Ana are described as a singular unit – the couple. As a single unit, it is

possible to consider the self-conception of the couple, as well as the couple’s Me and I.

Daniel and Ana anticipated achieving fatherhood and motherhood biologically, but had

difficulty. The Me, or the representative of the larger social community within the self, reflects

the importation of social attitudes about parenthood. They live in the United States, a pronatalist

cultural environment that encourages childbearing. They also have experiences with nieces and

nephews that reinforce their desire to parent as positive and fulfilling. The Me of the couple,

which reflects how the couple things it is perceived in the eyes of others, feels incomplete

without a child to call their own. Their I, which reflects the action-oriented component of the

couple’s self, is the response to that sense of being incomplete; thus, the couple has decided to

begin the process of adoption.

As part of that process, the couple has begun sharing their decision with others: Daniel’s

parents, Ana’s parents, Daniel’s brothers, and Ana’s best friend. These four groups constitute the

significant others in their social circle. Daniel and Ana received very strong and divergent


messages about their decision to adopt from the significant others that they interacted with

during their adoption journey. Daniel’s parents respond positively, as do Daniel’s brothers.

Ana’s parents respond negatively; her best friend responds with supportive ambivalence. But

how does the couple go about prioritizing the perspectives of multiple significant others who

send different messages?

Holdsworth and Morgan (2007) reviewed historical interpretations of generalized other

and assert that fluidity in interpretations of the term may be an asset for application. One could

feasibly interpret generalized other as a singular monolithic entity. Alternatively, the term could

be used to describe a plurality of anticipated reactions to choices made and actions taken. Given

the possibility of multiple generalized others impacting the development of self, it is possible to

extend awareness to the idea that people may rank or rate each generalized other distinctively

from the rest, prioritizing some over others. Thus, salience, a concept often discussed in

conjunction with roles, becomes relevant.

In his important work with Symbolic Interactionism and identity development, Stryker

(1968; 1980; 2002) asserts that the roles that are most salient for an individual are those that are

most likely to define one’s identity. We contend that the concept of salience can similarly be

useful in understanding how multiple and varied perspectives of generalized others are weighted

and prioritized. Where the roles that are most salient for individuals are the ones that are most

likely to define their identities, the generalized others that are most salient for individuals may be

the ones that are most likely to define their situations.

The process by which individuals make salient the perspective of one generalized other

over another has not yet been empirically explored in this context. There may be pragmatic

factors that influence the couple’s ability to make salient some perspectives over others. In this


case example, Daniel’s parents have a history of being more active and involved in the couple’s

life. The couple regularly visits Daniel’s parents, and together they have more quality positive

interactions than with Ana’s parents; as such, the encouragement from Daniel’s parents may be

prioritized over the concern from Ana’s. Additionally, Daniel’s parents are geographically closer

to the couple. The couple may presume that the emotional and physical proximity of Daniel’s

parents will increase the likelihood for greater frequency of contact with that extension of their

family after adoption. As such, they may feel more comfortable allowing the perspective of

Daniel’s parents to take precedence. The positive reactions from Daniel’s brothers further affirm

their decision. The couple is able to minimize the negative perspective of Ana’s parents because,

in the grand scheme of things, their perspective is not as important. Thus, the couple can make

salient the perspective of one group of significant others, Daniel’s parents, as well as a second

group, Daniel’s brothers, despite the different message being received by third group of

significant others, Ana’s parents.

Additionally, making salient multiple perspectives may be naturally influenced by

confirmation bias, that is, one’s tendency to interpret messages in ways that affirm pre-existing

cognitive schemas. Daniel and Ana can make salient the more positive, joyful response from

Daniel’s parents over the more negative reaction of Ana’s parents because they most closely

match with their own. The perspective of that significant other aligns with the couple’s

previously held belief that parenthood is good, and adoption as a path to parenthood is a viable

option. Susan’s ambivalent response to the couple’s decision may be understood as support by

the couple. Theoretically, this could be another example where confirmation bias, via selective

interpretation, allows the couple to reduce dissonance by interpreting Susan’s concern that the

couple carefully consider the pros and cons of adoption as affirmation of the decision.


As the couple makes salient some perspectives over others, the prevailing sense of the

collective generalized other pre-adoption is positive. The Me of the couple, which reflects their

understanding of how the generalized other interprets their actions (i.e. adopting a child),

understands that some have a positive perspective and some have a negative perspective. Their I,

the active, present component of their self-conception, evaluates those messages and makes

salient some over others. The response of the couple, then, is to fold the positive perspectives of

others into their framework for thinking and action pre-adoption. As a result, Daniel and Ana

feel prepared and comfortable with their adoption process, foresee few barriers to success, and

maintain a more optimistic outlook throughout.

In our work with parents who adopt, we have interacted with many couples like Daniel

and Ana, whose perspective in the pre-adoption phases of their transition to parenthood

influences their ability to take action post-adoption. Problems arise for couples like Daniel and

Ana when their lived experience post-adoption is more challenging than expected, and does not

align with their generally positive, stress-free perceptions pre-adoption. Theoretically, parents’

positive sense of self pre-adoption reflect a more positive perspective of the generalized other

that has made salient more affirming, optimistic feedback about their decision to adopt from

significant others in their social environments. The couple’s self includes a Me that feels

confident in the decision to adopt and an I that does not think proactively about potential issues,

because the generalized other has not prepared them adequately for the possibility of their

existence.

It may be that perceived homogeneity of multiple generalized others pre-adoption has an

impact on parents’ cognitive and behavioral schemas post-adoption. That is, when parents

encounter more positive responses from various groups of significant others, and those positive


responses affirm their decision to adopt. Conversely, when parents experience more

heterogeneity of responses from multiple generalized others pre-adoption, they are theoretically

better equipped to handle potential stressors of family life post-adoption. Building on Daniel and

Ana’s case example, had the couple made salient the more concerned and fearful perspective of

Ana’s conservative parents in addition to the more joyful and encouraging perspective of

Daniel’s parents, the couple may have been able to conceptualize the range of possible

consequences, both positive and negative, arising from their choice.

It may be that parents who encounter more heterogeneous responses from various

generalized others in the pre-adoption phase of their transition to parenthood, and who are

additionally able to make salient the various perspectives (particularly those that counter their

own previously held beliefs) are the ones that can more flexibly adapt post-adoption. They are

the couples who have more diverse Mes that reflect a range of more and less optimistic feedback

from multiple generalized others. They are the couples that have Is that take action accordingly;

they are more likely to have had conversations, sought out resources, set-up adoption-specific

health and mental health services, and other family supports proactively. Their holistic sense of

the generalized other pre-adoption, based on a continuum of responses from multiple significant

others from positive to negative, aligns with their lived experience post-adoption, and they are

better prepared. Positive, unchallenged holistic perspectives of generalized other do not allow

parents to anticipate issues; when their lived-experiences post-adoption do not align with the

rosier picture they had in mind pre-adoption, parents are at greater risk for experiencing a

difficult transition to adoptive family life.


Implications for Research

There are clear implications for researchers studying adoptive families given SI’s utility

in helping to understand adoptive family life. The focus of this paper has been on describing how

adoptive parents develop their sense of self from interactions with multiple generalized others,

which we argue have varying weight on their self-conception based on their relative salience to

the parent. Qualitative methodology, which aims to understand the lived experiences of people,

including their conception of themselves and their surroundings, readily lends itself to examining

these phenomena. In addition, quantitative research may be used to test the theoretical assertions

put forth in this paper.

Regardless of the methodology, several areas worthy of study emanate from this

application of SI. Broadly, given the significant part parents play in shaping family life,

researchers should incorporate an exploration of adoptive parents’ self-concept as they make the

decision to adopt, prepare for adoption, and become adoptive parents. The self is shaped by

interactions with multiple others, including but not limited to family members, friends,

neighbors, service providers, and community members. Therefore, assessment of parental

perceptions of the differential messages received from these multiple sources is imperative to

understanding their experience as adoptive parents. Research can examine how adoptive parents

make decisions about which entities take precedence over others in influencing their perceptions

of themselves and the actions they take as adoptive parents. Empirical investigation can also

assess how closely parents’ expectations prior to the adoption align with their experiences after

the adoption, and how this impacts adoption outcomes. When using the concepts of self,

generalized other, and salience of generalized others to guide their inquiry, researchers can ask

and answer nuanced questions about adoptive family life. For example, how do multiple entities


reinforce, undermine, or alter adoptive parents’ conception of self, and therefore their actions,

over time? Why do some adoptive families have a smoother transition with family formation or

more effectively utilize post-adoption resources than others? These questions more adequately

reflect the complexity of adoptive parents’ experiences and may help us understand differences

among adoptive families.

Implications for Practice

The practice of supporting families before, during, and after adoption can also be

improved by using SI. Practitioners can help adoptive parents understand how their sense of self,

expected and observed feedback from generalized others, and relative salience of these

conceptions inform and impact their parenting decisions, experiences, and behaviors pre- and

post-adoption.

As potential parents consider and prepare for adoption, intake coordinators and case

managers can facilitate pre-adoptive parents’ awareness of how their concepts of self and

multiple others can/may influence their pre-adoption determinations (e.g., parenting efficacy,

readiness to adopt, child characteristics, and resource acquisition). Similarly, helping potential

parents articulate their expectations for interactions (about adoption) with family members,

friends, co-workers, neighbors, service providers, and community members will help parents

identify salient messages, factors that may impact the relative salience of those messages (e.g.

expertise, frequency of contact, length of relationship), and how the incorporation of these

messages influences conceptions of self and others. Once identified, individual parents can

determine if and/or develop a plan of action for how they want to use, bolster, neutralize, or

negate those salient messages. Additionally, experienced adoption practitioners will be able to

help augment the messages identified by pre-adoptive parents with examples of post-adoption


lived experiences from other families, thereby reducing the potential negative impact of a

misalignment the parents’ pre- and post-adoption expectations (as mentioned in the case analysis

above).

Practitioners informed by SI can also be valuable supports for adoptive families

negotiating post-placement and post-adoption transitions. Family therapists, counselors, and

caseworkers can facilitate post-adoption discussions to help parents articulate their sense of self

and multiple generalized others and identify the ways that interactions have and will impact their

post-adoption considerations (e.g., parenting efficacy, racial socialization, and transparency

about adoptive family status). This is particularly important for parents whose post-adoption

experiences did not align with their pre-adoption expectations. Encouraging parents in adoptive

families to articulate their expectations for and experiences of interactions about their family

with others (e.g., relatives, friends, employers, neighbors, and teachers) will help them identify

salient messages, factors that impact relative salience, and how the incorporation of these

messages influences their conceptions of self and others. Parents can then determine their next

steps.

Conclusion

There are several advantages to using Symbolic Interactionism with adoptive families in

research and practice settings. As illustrated by this case example, explicit application of self and

generalized other to interpretations of adoptive parents experiences transitioning to parenthood

allows adoption professionals to better understand the impact of parents’ social environments on

their own decision-making. Adoptive families are embedded in social environments that

influence their conceptions of self, family functioning, and well-being over time. Recognition of

the existence of multiple generalized others, some of which may be in opposition to others, is


critical. Further, exploration of how parents make salient the perspectives of some generalized

others over other significant relationships could be the key to better understanding adoptive

parents’ transitions to parenthood, and is an important next step for adoption-related work, as the

generalized others that are most salient for individuals may be the ones that are most likely to

define their situations.

Symbolic Interactionism has been an important tool for the exploration of family

dynamics over the last century, but it is not without limitations. As is true with any theory or

theoretical framework, exclusive use of Symbolic Interactionism to structure research protocols

and clinical assessments could limit the full scope of potential exploration. While there have

been some attempts to address macro-level dynamics (Fine, 1993), for example, this theory

largely focuses on micro-level interactions. Focusing on micro-level interactions alone may

artificially restrict researchers and adoption professionals in their ability to identify the full range

of factors influencing the transition to adoptive parenthood, and individual and family

functioning after adoption.

White et al. (2015) also note that there may be conceptual problems with descriptions of

self as a product of the reflexive activity of the mind. They contend that while humans may take

action (I) and are able to see themselves as actors responding to feedback from others’ (Me), the

two together do not necessarily imply the existence of self. They have identified at least one

symbolic interactionist, Turner (1970), who has shifted away from use of the terms self to the

more flexible interpretation of the concept of self-conception (White, Klein, & Martin, 2015). In

this application we found application of the term self less problematic when understood as the

result of the dynamic and constant negotiation of I and Me, and understood self and self-concept

to be interchangeable in this context.


Finally, Symbolic Interactionism’s expansion across time and contexts of study has

resulted in fragmentation and other sub-theories that detract from the development of SI as a

formal and systematically developed theory unto itself (Fine, 1993; LaRossa & Reitzes, 1993).

This paper is theoretically grounded in the original pragmatic framework for thinking that drove

early Symbolic Interactionism, and on Mead’s early work with self and generalized other most

especially. Theoretical return to those concepts, as originally conceived, could help to quell

criticisms of the theory as being too diffuse and vague to have heuristic value.

Our paper presents an attempt to shed the diffuse nature of contemporary applications,

and to intentionally focus on theoretical concepts that we contend can be useful if applied in their

original form. The narrative case example of Daniel and Ana demonstrates that explicit

application of Symbolic Interactionism can help professionals better disentangle the complexities

of the transition to adoptive parenthood by highlighting processes that are not yet fully

understood. Recognition of the role of multiple generalized others, and the process by which

couples value and make salient some generalized others over other generalized others, and the

resulting actions and behaviors that are influenced by conceptions of others could be an

important step in developing a coherent theoretical proposition that informs the transition to

adoptive parenthood. Further empirical exploration in research and application in practice could

help those working with an on behalf of adoptive families describe more detail, predict more

accurately, and optimize outcomes for this prevalent family type.


References

Baden, A.L. (2016). “Do you know your real parents?” and other adoption microagressions.

Adoption Quarterly, 19, 1-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10926755.2015.1026012

Barn, R. (2013). ‘Doing the right thing’: Transracial adoption in the USA. Ethnic and Racial

Studies, 36(8), 1273-1291. doi: 10.1080/01419870.2013.770543

Barth, R.P., & Miller, J.M. (2001). Building effective post-adoption services: What are the

empirical foundations? Family Relations, 49, 447-455.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/585840

Baxter, L.A., Norwood, K.M., Ashbury, B., & Scharp, K.M. (2014). Narrating adoption:

Resisting adoption as “second best” in online stories of domestic adoption told by

adoptive parents. Journal of Family Communication, 14, 253-269. doi:

10.1080/15267431.2014.908199

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Brodzinsky, D.M. (2011). Children's understanding of adoption: Developmental and clinical

implications. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 42(2), 200-207.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022415

Brooks, D., Allen, J., & Barth, R.P. (2002). Adoption services use, helpfulness, and need: A

comparison of public and private agency and independent adoptive families. Children

and Youth Services Review, 24, 79-104. doi: 10.1016/S0190-7409(02)00174-3

Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York, NY: Scribner’s

Daly, K. (1988). Reshaped parenthood identity: The transition to adoptive parenthood. Journal of

Contemporary Ethnography, 17(1), 40-66. doi: 10.1177/0891241688171002

Darwin, C. (1880). The power of movement in plants. London, UK: John Murray.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10926755.2015.1026012


http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022415


Dewey, J. (1925). Experience and nature. LaSalle, IL: Open Court Publishing

Dhami, M.K., Mandel, D.R., & Sothmann, K. (2007). An evaluation of post-adoption services.

Children and Youth Services Review, 29(2), 162-179. doi:

10.1016/j.childyouth.2006.06.003

Fine, G.A. (1993). The sad demise, mysterious disappearance, and glorious triumph of Symbolic

Interactionism. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 61-87.


Friedlander, M.L., Larney, L.C., Skau, M., Hotaling, M., Cutting, M.L., & Schwam, M. (2000).

Bicultural identification: Experiences of internationally adopted children and their

parents. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 187–198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-

0167.47.2.187

Goffman, E. (1959). Presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Grotevant, H.D. (1997). Coming to terms with adoption: The construction of identity for

adolescence into adulthood. Adoption Quarterly, 1 (1), 3-27.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J145v01n01_02

Grotevant, H.D., Dunbar, N., Kohler, J.K., & Lash Esau, A.M. (2000). Adoptive identity: How

contexts within and beyond the family shape developmental pathways. Family Relations,

49, 379-387. http://www.jstor.org/stable/585833

Carreira da Silva, F. (2007). G.H. Mead: A critical introduction. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Holdsworth, C. & Morgan, D. (2007). Revisiting the generalized other: An exploration.

Sociology, 41(3), p. 401-417. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42857004


http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.47.2.187

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.47.2.187

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J145v01n01_02




Hollingsworth, L.D. (1999). Symbolic interactionism, African American families, and the

transracial adoption controversy. Social Work, 44(5), 443-453.

https://www.naswpress.org/publications/journals/sw.html

Hoopes, J.L. (1990). Adoption and identity formation. In D.M. Brodzinsky & M.D. Schechter

(Eds.), The psychology of adoption (pp. 144-166). New York, NY: Oxford University

Press.

James, W. (1907). Essays in pragmatism. New York, NY: Hafner.

Kreider, R.M., & Lofquist, D.A. (2014). Adopted children and stepchildren: 2010 (Report No.

P20-572). Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p20-572.pdf

Kuhn, M. (1964). Major trends in symbolic interaction theory in the past twenty-five years.

Sociological Quarterly, 5, 61-84. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4105182

LaRossa, R., & Reitzes, D. C. (1993). Symbolic interactionism and family studies. In P.G. Boss,

W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W.R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of

family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 135-163). New York, NY:

Plenum Press.

Lee, R.M. (2003). The transracial adoption paradox: History, research, and counseling

implications of cultural socialization. The Counseling Psychologist, 31, 711-744.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011000003258087

Marks, S. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain: Some notes on human energy, time,a nd

commitment. American Sociological Review, 42, 921-936.

https://www.naswpress.org/publications/journals/sw.html

https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p20-572.pdf


http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011000003258087


McDonald, T., Propp, J., & Murphy, K. (2001). The postadoption experience: Child, parent, and

family adjustment to adoption. Child Welfare, 80 (1), 71-94. http://www.cwla.org/child-

welfare-journal/

Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Mead, G.H. (1956). On social psychology: Selected papers (Anslem Strauss, Ed.). Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press.

Nye, F.I. (1976). Role structure and analysis of the family. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Patel, T. (2007). Theorising the racial identify development of transracial adoptees: A symbolic

interactionist perspective. Adoption & Fostering, 31(2), 32-43.

http://journals.sagepub.com/home/aaf

Stryker, S. (1968). Identity salience and role performance: The relevance of symbolic interaction

theory for family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 30, 558-564.


Stryker, S., (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Menlo Park, CA:

Benjamin Cummings.

Stryker, S. (2002). Traditional symbolic interactionism, role theory, and structural symbolic

interactionism. In J.H. Turner (Ed.), Handbook of sociological theory (pp. 211-231). New

York, NY: Plenum Publishers.

Stryker, S., & Burke, P. (2000). The past, present, and future of identity theory. Social

Psychology Quarterly, 57, 284-297. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2695840

http://www.cwla.org/child-welfare-journal/

http://www.cwla.org/child-welfare-journal/

http://journals.sagepub.com/home/aaf




Suter, E.A. (2008). Discursive negotiation of family identity: A study of U.S. families with

adopted children from China. Journal of Family Communication, 8, 126-147. doi:

10.1080/15267430701857406

Suter, E.A., Reyes, K.L., & Ballard, R.L. (2011). Adoptive parents’ framing of laypersons’

conceptions of family. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 12, 43-50. doi:

10.1080/17459435.2011.601524

Turner, J. (1990). The structure of sociological theory (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Turner, R.H. (1970). Family interaction. New York, NY: Wiley.

United States Department of State. (2017). Statistics. Retrieved from

https://travel.state.gov/content/adoptionsabroad/en/about-us/statistics.html

White, J.M., Klein, D.M., & Martin, T.F. (2015). Family theories: An introduction (4th ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Wind, L.H., Brooks, D., & Barth, R.P. (2007). Influence of risk history and adoption preparation

on post-adoption services use in U.S. adoptions. Family Relations, 56, 378-389.



symbolic interactionism: advancing adoption theory ... 1 - symbolic interactionism...symbolic...

Documents