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

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 3

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,

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 4 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;

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 5

& 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

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 6 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.

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 7

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

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 8 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

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 9 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.

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 10

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.

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 11

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

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 12 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

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 13 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

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 14 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.

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 15

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

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 16 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.

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 17

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

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 18 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

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 19 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

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 20 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.

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 21

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.

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 22

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.

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 23

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.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2083381

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

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 24

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.

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 25

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.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/349494

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

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 26

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.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4541679