Understanding the Emergence, Diffusion and Continuance of Intercountry Adoption from South Korea to Queensland, Australia

UNDERSTANDING THE EMERGENCE, DIFFUSION AND CONTINUANCE OF INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION FROM SOUTH KOREA TO QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA

Patricia Alexandrina Fronek B.Soc.Wk

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at

The University of Queensland in March 2009 School of Social Work and Human Services

Declaration by Author

This thesis is composed of my original work, and contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference has been made in the text. I have clearly stated the contribution by others to jointly-authored works that I have included in my thesis.

I have clearly stated the contribution of others to my thesis as a whole, including statistical assistance, survey design, data analysis, significant technical procedures, professional editorial advice, and any other original research work used or reported in my thesis. The content of my thesis is the result of work I have carried out since the commencement of my research higher degree candidature and does not include a substantial part of work that has been submitted to qualify for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution. I have clearly stated which parts of my thesis, if any, have been submitted to qualify for another award.

I acknowledge that an electronic copy of my thesis must be lodged with the University Library and, subject to the General Award Rules of The University of Queensland, immediately made available for research and study in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968.

I acknowledge that copyright of all material contained in my thesis resides with the copyright holder(s) of that material.

Statement of Contributions to Jointly Authored Works Contained in the Thesis No jointly authored works.

Statement of Contributions by Others to the Thesis as a Whole No contributions by others.

Statement of Parts of the Thesis Submitted to Qualify for the Award of Another Degree None.

Published Works by the Author Incorporated into the Thesis Fronek, P 2006, 'Global perspectives in Korean intercountry adoption', Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work and Development, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 21-31.

Figure 2 published on page 26 of the above journal article, is incorporated as Figure 1 on page 9 of Chapter 1. Figure 1 published on page 22 of the above article, is partially incorporated as Figure 2 on page 24 of Chapter 2.

Additional Published Works by the Author Relevant to the Thesis but not Forming Part of it None.

Acknowledgements

There are many people I would like to acknowledge and thank for their support, guidance and encouragement during my candidature. Firstly, I would like to thank all those people who generously gave of their time, knowledge and experience as participants in this research. Without their participation, this research would not have been possible. I am particularly grateful in light of the sensitivities surrounding the subject matter.

My sincerest appreciation goes to my supervisors, Associate Professor Cheryl Tilse and Associate Professor Karen Healy. I consider myself privileged to have had been under their tutelage and benefited greatly from their experience, knowledge and mentorship. I would like to thank Associate Professor Cheryl Tilse for the support, encouragement and patience always extended to me. I am also grateful to Associate Professor Karen Healy for her support, guidance and insights. I always looked forward to supervision, a testament to their supervisory skills and commitment to their student. I shall miss our sessions together.

I would like to thank Dr Liane Turner who convinced me to undertake PhD studies and Associate Professor Margaret Shapiro who enabled me to do so. There are many people who supported and encouraged me along the way. Special thanks, however, goes to Dr Pat Dorsett for her steadfast support and encouragement when I needed it most.

I would also like to extend my thanks to fellow PhD students, Indigo Williams, Melissa Kendall and Karleigh Kwapil, for invaluable peer support. There are many researchers and scholars who generously shared resources with me and I would like to thank them.

Finally, I would like to thank my family and the friends who have endured me on this journey.

iiiiv

Abstract

The adoption of Korean children has played a significant role in the practice of intercountry adoption in Australia since the 1970s and represents the majority of overseas born children adopted into Australia. Its influence on policy and practice is explored in this thesis through the Queensland experience. From its outset the adoption of children from overseas has been characterised by polarised perspectives and vested interests. Actor Network Theory, the theoretical lens through which this phenomenon is viewed, allows for the exploration of controversies and multiple perspectives that have featured in over thirty years of Korean intercountry adoption practice in Australia. This thesis aims to identify which actor networks were influential in the emergence, diffusion and continuation of Korean intercountry adoption; and to explore the translations, an important concept in Actor Network Theory, and the tactics used by these networks to spread particular discourse to meet network goals.

The methodology is qualitative and approaches Korean intercountry adoption as a case study. The data corpus, collected from 2004 to 2007 comprised text and interviews. Text included Queensland government archival records; submissions provided to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005 and public hearing transcripts; parliamentary documents; media reports; computer-mediated communications such as internet sources and email discussion groups. Interviews were conducted with key stakeholders from interest groups and organisations with administrative roles in intercountry adoption practice in Australia.

Korean intercountry adoption has proved influential in developing expectations concerning how intercountry adoption should be practised in Australia. Three actor networks, proponent, opponent and nonpartisan were identified during the diffusion and continuance periods. Actor Network Theory helped understand how the proponent network became dominant in the Australian context. A number of highly effective tactics have been used to expand and increase the influence of the proponent network through translations. However, a number of threats to continuation such as the growth of the opponent network and the promotion of Korean domestic adoption have emerged. Actors have responded to these threats in a number of ways. Detours have been proposed by proponent actors to help them reach their goals though these may bring unintended consequences. An Actor Network

viv

Theory perspective reveals the important role of the Internet; helps understand how controversies are created and perpetuated; how intercountry adoption has become politicised in Australia; and highlights the risks to child centred and knowledge based practice that politicisation brings.

The significance of this study lies in the insights provided by exploring power interrelationships between actor networks and how these shape particular phenomenon, in this case, Korean intercountry adoption. Intercountry adoption in Australia is poorly understood at a macro level as are the controversies surrounding it. Its practice has been heavily influenced by the interests of the dominant network with scant attention to research in the local context. Actor Network Theory that allows for the inclusion of human and nonhuman actors such as the Internet has proven useful for developing contemporary understandings of such a complex, global phenomenon. These understandings provide opportunities for individuals, groups and governments to address controversy in ways than do not contribute to its perpetuation and to refocus their attentions on the factors that contribute to the relinquishment of children in the first instance. This thesis highlights how politically driven agendas that serve the interests of one network can marginalise voices that bring more complex understandings to the intercountry adoption phenomenon. An Actor Network Theory analysis exposes the lack of investment by governments, organisations and individuals in community programs and services that address the causes of child relinquishment and empower Korean families and communities to seek their own solutions.

Key Words Intercountry adoption, South Korea, Australia, Actor Network Theory.

Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classifications (ANZSRC) 160799 100%.

viv

Table of Contents Declaration by Author...... i Acknowledgements...... iii Abstract ...... iv Table of Contents...... 1 Table of Figures ...... 5 Table of Tables...... 6 Preface...... 7 Chapter One: Introduction ...... 8 Overview of the Thesis ...... 15 Chapter Two: The Emergence of Korean Intercountry Adoption ...... 19 Actors and Conditions of Emergence ...... 19 Local Conditions...... 25 Korea...... 26 Traditional Korean Values...... 26 Birth Mothers ...... 28 Birth Fathers...... 31 Korean Domestic Adoption ...... 31 Korean Welfare...... 33 Australia...... 36 From White Australia to Multiculturalism...... 37 Changed Social Conditions...... 38 Parent Support Groups...... 40 Global Conditions ...... 41 Post War Relationships...... 41 Global Institutions...... 43 Korean Globalisation ...... 44 Adult Adoptees ...... 47 Summary ...... 49 Chapter Three: Actor Network Theory...... 50 The Significance of Actor Network Theory ...... 51 Actor Network Theory...... 55

Actor Networks...... 64 Non Human Actors ...... 65 Translations...... 67 Power ...... 72 Summary ...... 74 Chapter Four: Methodology...... 75 Research Design...... 76 The Data Corpus and Data Collection ...... 77 Interviews...... 81 Textual Data...... 84 Data Analysis...... 87 Rigour...... 91 Ethical Issues...... 94 Computer Mediated Communications ...... 94 Cultural and Political Concerns ...... 96 Other Ethical Issues ...... 97 Strengths and Limitations ...... 98 Chapter Five: Diffusion of Korean Intercountry Adoption into Queensland ...... 100 The Identification of Networks...... 101 The Diffusion Years in Australia...... 108 Proponent Networks ...... 112 Parent Support Groups as Proponent Actors ...... 121 Opponent Networks ...... 126 Nonpartisan Networks...... 130 Conclusion ...... 136 Chapter Six: Network Influence in Diffusion...... 138 Translation Mechanisms ...... 139 The Vietnam War as a Precursor ...... 140 Parent Support Groups as Obligatory Passage Points...... 145 Emotional Connectivity...... 152 Simplification ...... 154 Enemy Creation ...... 156 Importunate Action and Inscriptions...... 158 2

Korean Actors and Diffusion ...... 161 The Role of the Korean Government...... 164 The Enrolment of Korean Adoption Agencies ...... 167 Aid and Donations as Intermediaries ...... 170 Conclusion ...... 172 Chapter Seven: Continuation ...... 174 The Internet as a Non Human Actor ...... 176 The Actions of Korean Actors ...... 183 Korean Domestic Adoption ...... 183 Proponent Responses to Threats...... 187 Detours...... 189 Continuation Strategies...... 193 Enemy Creation, Fear and Continuance ...... 193 The Enrolment of Celebrity and Politicians...... 200 Conclusion ...... 209 Chapter Eight: Discussion and Conclusion...... 212 Translating Emotions ...... 219 Translating Politicians...... 221 Translating Celebrity...... 225 The Mythology of the Korean Birth Mother...... 225 The Influence of Adoptees...... 227 The Future of Korean Intercountry Adoption...... 227 Limitations and Future Investigations...... 229 Conclusions...... 231 List of References ...... 235 Appendix One: Sample of Data Recording Sheet...... 258 Appendix Two: List of Internet Sites Accessed and Analysed...... 260 Appendix Three: Interview Schedule ...... 261 Appendix Four: Nazi Threat to Korean Kids! ...... 265 Appendix Five: Adoption Queue Grows ...... 266 Appendix Six: Dr Kim’s Prayer...... 267 Appendix Seven: MPs Call for Addict’s Children to be Adopted...... 268 Appendix Eight: Presidential Proclamation...... 269 3

Appendix Nine: The Adoption Twist...... 270

Table of Figures

Figure 1 Number of International Adoptions from Korea, 1953-2003 ...... 9 Figure 2 Intercountry Adoption Phenomenon from Korea to Australia...... 24 Figure 3 Adoption Networks...... 102 Figure 4 The Obligatory Passage Point, Parent Support Groups...... 146 Figure 5 Translations and Obligatory Passage Points in Diffusion ...... 169 Figure 6 Proponent Detours...... 191 Figure 7 Politician Enrolment...... 206

Table of Tables

Table 1 Family Background of Adopted Koreans, 1958-2003...... 29 Table 2 Nominated Key Informants Who Participated in In-depth Interviews and Type of Interviews Conducted ...... 82

Preface

The path leading to this research was embarked upon one Sunday afternoon when a friend and colleague convinced me that I could and, in fact, should do a PhD. I had been working in the area of local and intercountry adoptions as an adoption contract worker in Queensland since the early 1990s and appreciated that research would provide a better understanding of the phenomenon with which I worked so closely. During this period, Korean children featured prominently in the work I did and represented most of the children adopted into families I assessed. My decision to undergo a doctoral study on this subject was reinforced when I considered the lack of Australian research in the area of intercountry adoptions.

Adoptive parents count amongst the most caring parents that I have had the privilege to meet in my social work career and they should be proud of the families they form. Likewise, professionals working in the field of adoptions in Australia, in my experience, are consummate and experienced professionals who maintain a strong child focus in circumstances that are often difficult, restrictive and highly politicised. In contrast, I have also worked with members of the adoption triad who have suffered negative consequences of poorly enacted past adoptions. I have been privileged on this journey to meet for the first time adults adopted into Australia from overseas as children and cannot help but be impressed by the work they do and the role models they have become. It is for these reasons that this journey has on many occasions been complex as I learned of controversies of which I had been previously unaware. By applying the theoretical perspective and following the actors involved in Korean intercountry adoption, I was forced down an unexpected and, at times, uncomfortable path. This thesis was not what I had first envisaged.

It is concerning that the future of children has become politicised and that those who care about children and their futures are often at odds and in the midst of controversy. I hope that this research in some way casts light on controversy and assists people to find better ways of working together. As with all relationships, improving them can be challenging.

Chapter One Introduction

In many cultures, the adoption of children is traceable to ancient times (Van Loon 1990). Modern intercountry adoptions are most commonly described as the movement of children from poorer nations to wealthier, western nations (Kane 1993; Lovelock 2000; Selman 2002; Van Loon 1990; Weil 1984). This is not, however, always the case (Selman 2000; Weil 1984). Intercountry adoption in its current form as a modern global phenomenon is unparalleled in terms of volume and its capacity to be embraced by particular western countries such as the United States of America (USA) and Australia when compared to previous and current local adoption practices. It is a phenomenon little understood in regard to how the practice emerges in particular sending countries, becomes acceptable practice in receiving countries, and how particular adoption programs once established cease or continue at some point in time.

Despite being a relatively recent phenomenon, the extent of the practice has not been well documented. A lack of standardised measures and consistent data in sending and receiving countries has made the accurate reporting of the actual numbers of children affected by intercountry adoption since the late 1940s difficult to determine (Kane 1993; Selman 2001, 2006; Van Loon 1990; Weil 1984). Despite the Hague Convention’s emphasis on the importance of accurate data collection and recent work done towards the standardisation of demographic and reporting measures, the quality of information collected remains poor (Selman 2006). Recognising these limitations, it is estimated that from 1948 to 2005, 800,000 to 850,000 children have been adopted overseas from their country of birth (Selman 2006, 2007). If current trends continue, Selman (2007) estimates that over one million children will have been adopted across the globe by 2010. This represents a significant number of children and families whose lives have and will be affected by a phenomenon that is not well understood.

Adoptions from South Korea or the Republic of Korea, (hereafter known as Korea) beginning in the 1950s, represent the largest number of the total number of intercountry adoptions worldwide from one country (Hubinette 2002a). Hubinette (2005) estimates the adoption of Korean children represents almost one third of children adopted internationally, a total of 156,242 children from the early 1950s to

2004. It is calculated that this number would be between 170,000 to 180,000 in 2007 (Selman 2007). The number of adoptions from Korea between 1953 and 2003 is shown in Figure 1 on page 9.

Figure 1 Number of International Adoptions from Korea, 1953-20031

Number of International Adoptions from Korea, 1953-2003. Data source: Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare

10000

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000 Number Number 4000

3000

2000

1000

0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Year

As Figure 1 shows, Korean intercountry adoption experienced a dramatic rise during the 1970s peaking in 1976 at 6,597, experienced a short decline, and peaked again at its highest level in 1985 with 8,837 adoptions. These numbers reduced in the nineties to a level with little variation according to the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Overseas Korean Foundation, 2005 (Kim, D. S. 2007).

The number of children adopted from Korea and the length of its practice that has spanned over fifty years could be considered surprising, given the flow of children for adoption tends to be from poor and developing countries to the West. Korea is no longer considered to be a Third World or developing nation. China, a nation experiencing rapid modernisation and industrialisation reflective of the Korean experience in the 1950s, will soon surpass Korea as a leader of nations in sending the greatest number of children overseas for adoption. At its present rate, China will have exceeded the Korean total by 2010 in a record fifteen years compared to fifty years of Korean adoption (Selman 2007) previously considered rapid and unprecedented.

1 This Figure was previously published in Fronek, P 2006, ‘Global perspectives in Korean intercountry adoption', Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work and Development, vol. 16, no. 1, p 26.

Australia is currently a receiving country of children adopted from overseas. It has also been difficult to determine accurate statistics regarding intercountry adoptions in Australia due to variations between Australian states in the type of data collected and data collection methods used. Detailed and nationally co-ordinated data concerning adopted children’s country of origin has only been collected since 1987-88 with the establishment of the Australian Institute for Health and Welfare (AIHW) as a statutory authority (Kelly 2000). Korean children have represented the majority of children adopted into Australia every year until 2003-4 when China took the lead in choice of country for Australian adoptive parents (AIHW 2004). The total number of all intercountry adoptions to Australia increased significantly in this year attributed to the China program. Korean intercountry adoptions are reported to have fluctuated little since the 1990s. Korean adoptions represented 24% (103) of all intercountry adoptions (421) into Australia in 2005-6 (AIHW 2006). This reduced to 20% (80) of 405 in 2006-7 (AIHW 2008). The total number of all intercountry adoptions into Australia has tripled in the last twenty-five years and is reported to be relatively stable (AIHW 2006, 2008).

Despite its global and local incidence, the phenomenon is poorly understood and little researched in Australia. As noted by Berquist et al (2007), there is a marked absence of evidence based welfare practice in the literature that reflects the history of Korean intercountry adoption from its inception in the 1950s. This is particularly the case in Australian literature. The intercountry adoption literature provides glimpses of understanding from a number of specific perspectives but fails to provide a framework for understanding how intercountry adoption peculiar to Korea emerged; grew to such numbers; became acceptable practice in Korea and receiving countries such as Australia; and has continued despite growing global and local criticism of the practice. The literature also provides little understanding of the phenomenon’s diffusion into Australia, specifically Queensland, and its impact on the practice of child adoption in Australia.

There are three broad categories of literature concerning intercountry adoption generally and Korean intercountry adoption specifically. These are: the body of work concerned with psychological and psychosocial adjustment of parents and children; socio-cultural works concerned with society and culture; and the body of work concerned with political, legal and demographic aspects of intercountry adoption. Though there are mixed reports, the literature concerning the adjustment of Korean adoptees tends to suggest Korean adoptees make positive adjustments in early childhood but can experience issues relating to difference and identity in adolescence and young adulthood (Freundlich 2002; Freundlich & Lieberthal 1999; Huh 2007; Juffer & van IJzendoorn 2007; Kim, D. S. 1978; Kim, W. J. 10

1995; Kim, Shin & Carey 1999; Lindblad, Hjern & Vinnerljung 2003; Triseliotis, Shireman & Hundleby 1997; Vonk 2007). This has been attributed to the younger age of Korean children when adopted when compared to other groups of adoptees, better pre-adoption care related to the Korean foster care system, and placement with parents who are more aware of issues such as cultural identity (Kim, Shin & Carey 1999). Where negative findings related to adjustment are reported, these are often attributed to intrapersonal characteristics of the adopted child (Kim, W. J. 1995; Lindblad, Hjern & Vinnerljung 2003) with little attention paid to external influences such as parental skills, preparation and support, pre-adoption experiences, access to post adoption services, mono or multicultural characteristics of the environment in which they are raised and racism. These studies vary in method, population, sample size and rigour and are most often conducted with populations in Europe and the USA. There are limited Australian studies concerning the adjustment of adoptees. One early study examined the experience of children adopted into Australia from Vietnam (Harvey 1982, 1983). Recent works that examine the cultural identity of adoptees in Australia are emerging and are subject to debate (Gray 2007a, 2007b; Rosenwald, Garton & O’Connor 2008; Walton 2008; Williams 2001, 2003). This body of work is beyond the scope of this study and not included in the literature review. The focus of this thesis is not on the experience of overseas adoption hence the literature on individual and family experiences and adjustment is not reviewed.

The focus of this thesis is on international adoption as a social, political and global phenomenon. The literature review therefore focuses on the socio-cultural, political, legal and demographic literature. These literatures revealed multiple discourses, often opposing, concerning intercountry adoption. These discourses are: intercountry adoption as a market, that is, a phenomenon characterised by supply and demand in a global market; rights, that is, the right to parent, the rights of the child, and the ‘best interests of the child’; and post colonial perspectives. Masson (2001, p. 148-9) identifies three value positions held by those engaged in intercountry adoption. She calls them abolitionists, pragmatists, and promoters. Abolitionists support the cessation of intercountry adoption for reasons such as: the money invested in the adoption of children internationally would better address the needs of children if spent in the sending country; intercountry adoption inhibits the development of local services; the negative effect of child export on the sending country; the neocolonial and ethnocentric attitudes central to the flow of children from poor to rich countries; and the potential for child trafficking. Promoters hold opposing views that identify intercountry adoption as an ideal solution for children who require a loving home and that bureaucracy establishes unnecessary barriers to this solution. Whereas pragmatists, according to Masson (2001), accept the realities that intercountry adoption does 11 and will occur and focus on establishing legislation and other means that ensure appropriate practices and eliminate abuses. King (2009) using a Foucauldian approach to the analysis of domestic and international legal literature pertaining to intercountry adoption in the USA identifies discourses of humanitarian history; rescue narratives; improved life chances narratives; invisible birth parent narratives; the orphan narrative; and the market narrative; that contrary to its intent contributes to the violation of children’s rights. Multiple and often opposing perspectives located in the intercountry adoption literature highlight the complexity of issues surrounding the intercountry adoption phenomenon and the people involved.

Many works are descriptive in nature, lend understandings to particular aspects of intercountry adoption and are often argued from particular positions providing particular perspectives. Though providing important insights, few offer a multilayered understanding that incorporates local and global influences. Intercountry adoption is a complex, multifaceted and multifocal phenomenon. A variety of theoretical perspectives such as social exchange theory, goal displacement, political economy and distributive social justice, have been unable to incorporate these multi-layered perspectives in understanding the intercountry adoption phenomenon (English 1990; Hollingsworth & Ruffin 2002; Huh 1993; Joe 1978; Sarri, Baik & Bombyk 1998). Hollingsworth and Ruffin (2002) compare the domestic and intercountry adoption phenomena through social exchange theory, analysing the benefits and costs for prospective parents. A convincing argument for the popularity of intercountry adoption for financially advantaged prospective parents is proposed. Their argument suggests that financially advantaged adopters seek benefits such as infant preferences, confidential adoptions and shorter waiting times, and have the resources to manage costs related to health matters. Power is examined in Hollingsworth and Ruffin’s (2002) study. Yet the theoretical perspective does not incorporate the performative aspects of power, that is, the connected and purposeful actions of these actors and how their preferences or demands influence the phenomenon.

Joe (1978) proposes that intercountry adoption is a form of family insurance that works well for all parties involved, particularly the children and adoptive parents. Her perspective fails to incorporate complex ethical considerations, local political actions, wider global, political and social influences, and in-depth perspectives of the needs of birth families. Other studies such as English (1990) who examined changing Australian family and social contexts and Huh (1993) who investigated child welfare services in Korea limit the inquiry to the examination of local influences and conditions. Sarri, Baik and Bombyk (1998) provide a comprehensive comparative perspective of Korean/ United States 12 adoption and the factors that enable intercountry adoption from Korea to the USA. They suggest that Korean intercountry adoption is now driven by the needs of a system that has replaced the original intent of the practice. The institution of Korean intercountry adoption, they argue, inhibits local Korean practices such as domestic adoption and the development of other welfare services. Yet there is little attention paid to the role of international politics and diplomatic relationships in the phenomenon.

Two important groups of work have emerged in recent years conducted from the perspectives of adoptees and that of adoptive parents (Berquist et al. 2007; Hubinette 2005, 2007; Kim, Eleana 2007; Vonk et al. 2007). Hubinette (2005) explores Korean intercountry adoption from a post colonial perspective which seeks to understand the relationship between modern, nationalistic Korea and dispersed Korean adoptees and its implications through popular cultural representations. This is an important work that provides comprehensive documentation of the complex, socio-political and often contradictory aspects of Korean intercountry adoption. In 2007, an edited publication featuring a number of works on a range issues concerning Korean adoption was published (Berquist et al. 2007). In one of these works, Choy (2007) explores why Korean adoption has emerged as a leading supplier of children with specific reference to the USA. She explores this and other questions from a historical perspective using archival research. She reveals a complex network of people and organisations influential in the phenomenon’s emergence in the United States. In other words, the emergence of the phenomenon according to Choy (2007) is not simply attributable to the actions of lone champions as is often described in the literature.

Little is understood about the existence and influence of networks engaged in the Korean intercountry adoption phenomenon at a local and global level and its impact on the policy and practice of child adoption in Australia. This thesis proposes that intercountry adoption needs to be understood as a complex global phenomenon and will examine Korean intercountry adoption with particular reference to Queensland as a receiving State. Local and global conditions necessary and peculiar to the phenomenon’s enablement and the actions and interactions of actor networks crucial to the phenomenon’s growth, diffusion into Australia and its continuance will be viewed through the lens of Actor Network Theory, located in the discipline of sociology.

The significance of this study lies in the examination of Korean intercountry adoption through a fresh theoretical framework, Actor Network Theory, which allows for the inclusion of the multitude of complex factors, influential human and non human actors and their performative power relationships 13

(Latour 1987). The significance of this study’s contribution is evident in two ways. Firstly, as outlined in more detail in Chapter Three, this perspective allows for the inclusion of the many complex layers of interactions and the diverse and polarised perspectives expressed concerning intercountry adoption, lacking in other approaches. Secondly, Korean intercountry adoption represents the largest number of children adopted into Australia in the last twenty years (AIHW 2004), yet little is known about how this phenomenon is enacted in Australia or its influence on Australia’s adoption practices. It is intended that this study will meet the gap in knowledge by developing a new understanding of the intercountry adoption phenomenon, the past and current influences on adoption practices and the controversies that surround it, locating current policy and practice in Queensland in a global context.

Much of the research conducted in the area of intercountry adoption internationally is done through the perspective, declared or otherwise, of those with personal investment in the phenomenon as a member of the adoption triad, usually adoptive parents or adult adoptees. The voices of the third member of the triad, birth parents, have rarely been heard in research on intercountry adoption and are only recently emerging. These perspectives are invaluable to the body of knowledge concerning intercountry adoption. It is, however, important to recognise and disclose the influence of the researcher on any research conducted. Chantal Saclier, the International Programme Manager of the ISS (International Social Services) in Geneva, highlights the emotional intensity that surrounds intercountry adoption, promoted or denied ‘in the best interests of the child’, and how this intensity often results in the simplification of complex issues to polarised viewpoints that depend on the experiential perspective from which the issue is viewed.

Often ideology clouds judgment and is given priority over a real consideration of the best interests of the child. Often personal or organisational interests are masked under humanistic speeches. Everyone defends his or her personal convictions or interests, forgetting that at stake are the lives of human beings, and young and particularly vulnerable ones at that (Saclier 2000, p. 54).

It is important therefore to fully appreciate and include in any analysis, any personal or professional experiences or alliances that could lead to distortion or misinterpretations. To ensure trustworthiness and believability, it is therefore paramount that my experience as private social work practitioner who has been assessing prospective Australian adoptive parents since the early 1990s be declared. From this perspective I hold no personal investment in research concerning intercountry adoption. I do, 14 however, bring considerable practice knowledge of the experience of intercountry adoption for families and children at a local level. An acute appreciation of the multiple needs of children, adoptive parents and families, as well as the needs of birth parents and families has emerged from this experience.

Overview of the Thesis

This thesis seeks to use Actor Network Theory to understand how local and global actors and influences enabled the diffusion of Korean intercountry adoption into Australia and shaped the continuance of the practice. It comprises an overview of Actor Network Theory and a methodology for analysing the data corpus that answers the research questions.

Chapter Two sets the study in context by reviewing the literature concerning the social-cultural, political and global aspects of intercountry adoption. Literature concerning adjustment, social and psychological outcomes for adopted children and families were not included in the review as this body of work does not assist the purposes of this study, that is, to understand the emergence, diffusion and continuance of intercountry adoption. This review explores the literature that helps understand the enabling conditions and the emergence on a global scale of the Korean intercountry adoption phenomenon from the early 1950s, with particular reference to local Korean, local Australian and particular global influences. The review also identifies particular actors in the Korean intercountry phenomenon.

Traditional Korean values, the circumstances of birth mothers and fathers, the practice of Korean domestic adoption and the Korean Welfare system provide insights into the conditions peculiar to Korea that made Korean intercountry adoption possible. Literature concerning Korean values and society is examined to gain insight into an eastern and peculiarly Korean viewpoint from a limited western perspective (Chang 1997; Yang 1999; Yang & Rosenblatt 2001; Yi 2002). Without the benefit of this insight, there would be risks of imposing a purely western perspective on the analysis. The positions of birth parents, both mothers and fathers, are identified in the literature (Ahn 1986; Chun 1989; Huh 1993) and discussed. This chapter explores the structure and development of the Korean welfare system that has not enabled other alternatives such as family based programs to be developed.

Little existing literature directly addresses the diffusion of Korean intercountry adoption into Australia, with none providing insight into the Queensland situation. Australian conditions such as multiculturalism, Asian migration and factors influencing the numbers of Australian children available 15 for adoption are identified as setting the scene for the diffusion of Korean intercountry adoption. Australian parent support groups, as political activists, are identified as important enabling influences (Calder 1979; Fopp 1982; Gray 1997).

On a global level, Korea’s post war relationships, global institutions and Korea’s particular form of globalisation, Segyehwa, that promotes the reunification of Koreans across the globe provides an understanding of actors and factors operating at an international level that co-exist with local actors and factors, yet little is understood about their performative relationships and how these conditions intersected to enable intercountry adoption from Korea (Alford 1999; Duk 2002; Kim, S. S. 2000; UNICEF 1998).

Chapter Three provides an overview of the theoretical lens through which Korean intercountry adoption is examined. Actor Network Theory has proved useful in understanding complex phenomenon in other areas of study such as the emergence and diffusion of scientific innovations (Callon 1986b; Latour 1987, 1988). Actor worlds are created, controversies enacted and particular discourses spread. The equal treatment of human and non human actors in an analysis is an important element of Actor Network Theory. Actor Network Theory provides a framework for understanding complex phenomenon with particular reference to the local and global factors identified in the literature review. Actor Network Theory is described in relation to the development of networks and the translation mechanisms and tactics networks use to grow in size and influence. Power, an important concept in Actor Network Theory, highlights the performative nature of power in networks, its tactical action, and the role of power relationships in network building.

Chapter Four outlines the methodology used in this study. The theoretical framework, outlined in Chapter Three, informed the development of the research questions which are concerned with how local and global actors and influences have enabled the diffusion and continuance of the Korean intercountry adoption phenomenon. This thesis uses a case study research design to explore the diffusion and continuance of the phenomenon from the early 1970s until 2007 when data collection ceased. A research plan that links the theory, research questions and methods of analysis is presented. The data corpus comprised: text such as Queensland government archival records, federal Inquiry and parliamentary documents, and media reports; computer-mediated communications such as Internet sources and an email discussion group; and interviews with key stakeholders. Qualitative methods such as thematic analysis and constant comparison were used in conjunction with methods found in Actor 16

Network Theory. Analytic concepts from the theory such as problematisation, interessement, enrolment, and mobilisation helped identify actors and networks engaged in intercountry adoption from Korea to Australia and Queensland, the development of these networks, translation mechanisms used by networks, and their subsequent capacity to meet particular goals relating to intercountry adoption. Chapters Five, Six and Seven present the analysis. The analysis in Chapters Five and Six assist in understanding the processes underpinning the diffusion of Korean intercountry adoption into Australia and Queensland that laid the foundations for current controversies relevant to continuation discourse discussed in Chapter Seven. In Chapter Five, the analysis identifies three networks operating within Australia, proponent, opponent and nonpartisan networks. The activities of these networks and the discourses associated with them are the focus of the analysis.

Chapter Six examines network influences in the diffusion process more closely. In particular, the analysis identified the importance of parent support groups as proponent actors in the diffusion of Korean intercountry adoption and how they become indispensable to other actors in reaching their goals of child adoption. The theoretical approach used in the analysis identified a number of tactics such as emotional connectivity, simplification, enemy creation and importunate action used in translation mechanisms by Australian proponent actors. Korea’s role in the diffusion into Australia is also examined.

Factors contributing to the continuation of Korean intercountry adoption are dealt with in Chapter Seven with particular attention to how the actions and interactions of actor networks support or inhibit its continuance. New Actors such as the Internet, Korean birth mothers and adult adoptees emerge in the continuance debate, some representing new threats to the continuance of intercountry adoption with the opponent network increasing in visibility and influence. The inclusion of non human actors, such as the Internet, it is argued, has enabled networks to achieve global connections not previously possible. These actions blurred boundaries between groups identified in the literature such as parent support groups making previously held distinctions between them less definitive.

Detours were identified in the analysis that would enable proponents to meet their goals of child adoption in new ways when their usual means of doing so was blocked. Finally the analysis discusses the role of Korean domestic adoption historically promoted as a replacement phenomenon for intercountry adoption. Differences between the development of domestic and Korean adoption are highlighted and discussed. 17

The Discussion and Conclusion, Chapter Eight, draws together the findings of the study that answer the research questions. This thesis concludes that Korean intercountry adoption diffused into Australia as a result of the purposeful actions of the proponent network in Korea and Australia through the tactical exercise of power, enabled by particular conditions present in Australia and Korea. The proponent network has increased in influence and durability in Australia in the last thirty years, attracting new and influential actors such as politicians and celebrities to the network. Whereas, the opponent network in Korea has emerged in this decade with increasing influence. These polarised views and their influences on the continuance of the Korean intercountry adoption phenomenon are discussed. This chapter concludes with a discussion of the contributions of the thesis and the value of an analysis informed by Actor Network Theory. It is proposed that the new understandings of the Korean intercountry adoption phenomenon put forward provide opportunities to address policy and practice in new ways rather than build on existing controversies.

Chapter Two The Emergence of Korean Intercountry Adoption

Actors and Conditions of Emergence

Before new understandings concerning the practice of intercountry adoption from Korea to Australia can be reached, existing knowledge concerning intercountry adoption practice must be examined. The review is based on literature that is available in English. This literature is not extensive and much of is it written from western perspectives. For this reason multiple disciplinary sources, that is, demographic, sociological, anthropological, legal and political, that had the potential to inform this thesis were explored. The existing literature that spans disciplines provides glimpses of understandings from particular perspectives such as that of adult adoptees on the impact of intercountry adoption on racial and cultural identity formation (Armstrong & Slaytor 2001; Trenka, Oparah & Shin 2006; Volkman 2005). While the multitude and complexities of influences and viewpoints on the practice of intercountry adoption are highlighted in the literature, what is missing is a framework than incorporates the scope of knowledge and influences.

The examination of the literature raises more questions, particularly in relation to how intercountry adoption grew to such numbers and became acceptable practice in countries like Australia and Korea. The aim of this chapter, therefore, is to explore the literature that provides an overview of the global intercountry adoption phenomenon and Korean intercountry adoption specifically. A number of key people, events and conditions relevant to the emergence of the Korean intercountry adoption phenomenon are identified. Literature concerning local Korean, local Australian and global conditions from the 1950s when Korean intercountry adoption emerged are explored. Exploration of this literature identifies what is currently understood about conditions and events that are relevant to the diffusion of intercountry adoption to Australia and to its continuance.

Intercountry adoption, defined as the movement of children across international borders for the purpose of adoption (Kane 1993), emerged on a large scale after World War II. Children predominantly from Germany, Italy, Greece and Japan were placed with families in Australia, Canada, Europe and the United States (UNICEF 1998; Van Loon 1990). The practice of adoption from these countries did not continue (Sarri, Baik & Bombyk 1998; Van loon 1990). Reasons for the cessation of these programs 19 are not explained in the literature reviewed. The association between children affected by war and international adoption began. The Korean War was fought on the Korean peninsula from 1950 to 1953 (Cumings 1981a, 1981b). The practice of international adoption of Korean children, significant to intercountry adoption practice management due to its scale, also began in the aftermath of war (Sarri, Baik & Bombyk 1998). Though commonly accepted, there is scant evidence in the literature that confirms assumptions that children adopted internationally were orphans and that wide scale intercountry adoption was driven by humanitarian concerns, though this discourse has become widely accepted. Likewise, there are many wars that do not result in the international adoption of the children adversely affected. Joe (1978) cites an example used by Joseph Reid, the Director of the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA), where 50,000 Nigerian children displaced by civil war were assisted to reunite with their families rather than placed for adoption. This suggests that additional factors to the plight of children in need may need to be present in the aftermath of wars that enable the emergence of intercountry adoption.

At first, Korean overseas adoptions were of mixed race children, Hyonholin, (Hubinette 2002a) conceived during the occupation of United States troops and at risk of societal vilification. It is reported that intercountry adoption soon expanded to include children of full Korean parentage (Hubinette 2002a, 2005; Huh 1993; Sarri, Baik & Bombyk 1998; Selman 2000; UNICEF 1998). There are some reports that adoptions of children of full Korean parentage, many abandoned due to poverty, were actually occurring at the onset of the intercountry adoption phenomenon (Miller 1971). Children were arriving in the United States as early as 1953 often under the care of servicemen and the sponsorship of the Seventh Day Adventist Church without the necessary political, legal or welfare structures to safeguard the welfare of these children (Chun 1989; Hubinette 2005; Weil 1984). In 1954, South Korea established the Child placement Service, Yangyeonhwe, under the Ministry of Social Affairs to manage the issue of abandoned and orphaned children (Chun 1989).

The emergence of wide scale intercountry adoption from Korea is often attributed to Harry Holt, an Christian fundamentalist from the USA and ex-veteran of the Korean War, who adopted eight Korean children and began the Holt International Children’s Services in 1956 (Choy 2007; Daum 2000; Kim, J. R. 2006; Sarri, Baik & Bombyk 1998). Nelson (2009) identifies that Holt and his wife had been previously rejected as adoptive candidates by United States adoption agencies but did not state the reasons for this rejection. The adoption agency Holt established did not require social work assessments of prospective parents and more liberal eligibility criteria was applied where prospective 20 parents were simply expected to be Christians, a practice greatly criticised (Choy 2007; Kim, J.R. 2006; Nelson 2009). Holt, certainly a key player and spokesperson who promoted intercountry adoption, did not act alone. Nelson (2009) reports that Holt was inundated by correspondence from people who wanted to adopt Korean children. Choy (2007) identified a network of individuals and institutions that together were influential in the emergence of the phenomenon to the United States, presenting a more complex history than previously examined in the literature. Holt was instrumental in attracting influential actors who would assist him to meet his goals, that is, to rescue children from Korea to be raised in Christian families in the USA. Choy (2007) documents how he enlisted the aid of politicians, the media, and institutions such as World Vision; and attracted assistance from individuals in the churches, armed forces, and celebrities such as Pearl S. Buck, author and adoptive parent, to promote the cause. Ultimately legislative changes were made in the United States which enabled easier and legal adoptions and Holt International Services became a significant actor2 in the Korean intercountry adoption phenomenon (Choy 2007). Choy (2007, p. 27) describes a complex network of connected social service agencies and independent organisations operating in both Korea and the United States. This network of connected actors sought to meet the particular goal of Korean child adoption through purposeful actions. These actions ensured the emergence of a global phenomenon that represented the largest group of children adopted outside their country of birth (Choy 2007; Hubinette 2005; Selman 2006). Kim, D. S. (2007) identified continuous pressure from adoptive and prospective adoptive parents in the United States on Korean and United States governments for Korean international adoption to occur. This suggests that actions of key actors in addition to particular conditions such as war may be necessary to the emergence of intercountry adoption and its diffusion to particular countries.

Australia’s relationship with intercountry adoption as an institutionalised practice did not really begin until the end of the Vietnam War. Adoption of children into Australia was ignited by the global media’s depiction of ‘Operation Babylift’, the rescue of children from Saigon during the fall of the city in 1975 (Altman 1996; Cauchi 1987; Cherot 2009; Harvey 1982, 1983; Spence 1975; Van Loon 1990; Williams 2003; Williams Willing 2007; Zigler 1976)3. Yet there is little in the literature that explains enabling conditions or identifies actors or networks of influence in this process. Spence (1975)

2‘Actor’ is a core concept in Actor Network Theory that will be explained in the Chapter Three. 3 Similarly in 1950, ‘Operation Kiddy Car’ saw 950 orphans flown out of Seoul by American pilots as the city fell (Hubinette 2005, p. 264) 21 attributed a change in the attitude of the Vietnamese government to intercountry adoption in the early 1970s to public pressure in the United States. Cherot (2009) also discussed the dominance of a rescue discourse present in the stories of Operation Babylift volunteers. While adoption from Vietnam to Australia is noted in the literature, there is little that explains how Korean intercountry adoption diffused into Australia, became an acceptable practice, and dominated the number of intercountry adoptions in Australia.

An overview of the literature reveals a number of discourses surrounding intercountry adoption (King 2009). Many authors describe the emergence of intercountry adoption as a humanitarian response to the plight of children (Altman 1996; Bartholet 1993; Masson 2001; Sarri, Baik & Bombyk 1998). The dominant discourse of finding homes for needy children in the literature exists alongside counterdiscourses which question the appropriateness of children taken from their culture of origin, calls for the abolition of intercountry adoption and the development of alternative practices (Hubinette 2005; Huh 2007; Masson 2001; Matthews 1977; Sarri, Baik & Bombyk 1998). These discourses include the identification of children as a commodity subject to market forces, the rights of the child and the rights of prospective adoptive parents (Herrmann & Kasper 1992; Hubinette 2002a; King 2009; Sarri, Baik & Bombyk 1998; Sterett 2002; UNICEF 1998; Yngvesson 2002). Discourse surrounding Korean intercountry adoption tends to describe intercountry adoption from a singular perspective such as a western legalistic view, or an adoptive parent, adoptee or adoption agency. The views of birth mothers, fathers, extended families and Korean society on the adoption phenomenon are not visible and are dominated by other discourse (King 2009). How particular discourses appear to be less visible than others is not clearly understood from the literature.

Within the literature, some critiques of the practice are identified. The Korean government is criticised by those promoting the abolition of intercountry adoption and those promoting the development of domestic adoption (Hubinette 2002b; Sarri, Baik & Bombyk 1998) considered by some to be a more appropriate solution for abandoned children. The continuance of intercountry adoption is credited with the failure of Korean domestic adoption to develop at a pace that could replace it (Byma 1974; Sarri, Baik & Bombyk 1998). This approach suggests that domestic and intercountry adoption practices are interwoven. An alternative view suggests that domestic and intercountry adoption practices in Korea are parallel phenomena. This alternative perspective argues that each has emerged within a unique set of conditions and share some influences. They co-exist but have different stories. From an adopters’ perspective, Triseliotis (2000) identifies that domestic and intercountry adoption is not in competition 22 as different couples or individuals are interested in different children. A clear framework for understanding the interrelationship between the practices of Korean intercountry and Korean domestic adoption as separate but connected phenomena is not presented in the literature. Korean domestic adoption is intrinsically tied to intercountry adoption in discussions and is usually presented as the only alternative to intercountry adoption. Recent literature reports that the actual numbers, rather than percentages, of domestic and intercountry adoptions have both increased (Kim, D. S. 2007; Lee, B. J. 2007). This suggests that that the rise in the numbers of domestic adoptions does not necessarily mean a decrease in the numbers of intercountry adoptions.

The early literature surrounding the phenomenon of intercountry adoption is scant considering the large scale nature of the phenomenon. The literature that is available usually examines intercountry adoption from a specific perspective. These include historico-descriptive, demographic, legal and qualitative practice orientated works (AIHW 1998; Altstein & Simon 1991; Bartholet 1993; Boss 1992; Chun 1989; English 1990; Fopp 1982; Kane 1993; Lovelock 2000; Selman 2000). It has been stated that much of the literature that has contributed to the body of knowledge concerning adoption generally is based on distortions drawn from ‘poor theory, personal bias, exclusionary sampling and inappropriate research methods’ (Delany 1997). Recent publications are painting a more complex picture of Korean intercountry adoption and the influences that promote or hinder its continuance (Brian 2007; Choy 2007; Hubinette 2005; Kim, D. S. 2007; Kim & Trenka 2007; King 2009; Selman 2006).

This thesis proposes that the emergence of Korean intercountry adoption and its diffusion into Australia is a complex process situated amid specific and enabling local and global conditions that provide the climate in which actors act, see Figure 2 Intercountry Adoption Phenomenon from Korea to Australia on page 24.

Figure 2 Intercountry Adoption Phenomenon from Korea to Australia

Global Condition - Emergence, Diffusion, Continuance

Korean Australian Conditions- Conditions - Emergence, Emergence, Diffusion, KOREAN Diffusion, Continuance AUSTRALIAN Continuance INTER COUNTRY ADOPTION

Australian Korean Local Local Adoption Adoption Policy and Policy and Practice Practice

Figure 2 shows performative, connected interrelationships between global, local Korean and Australian conditions, and emergent policies and practices that are identified in the next section. To explain using one example, the literature identifies that local Korean policies and practices regarding intercountry adoption exist, yet there is little explanation as to how these are influenced by local and global conditions or by conditions and practices in Australia. Practices that affect two countries cannot develop or exist in isolation of each other, yet little is known about how these interrelationships work or how each affects the other. A number of conditions that influenced the diffusion of Korean intercountry adoption to Australia and continue to impact on the continuance of the practice are identified in this chapter. How these interrelationships, shown in Figure 2, influence Korean/ Australian adoption are further explored in the analysis in Chapters Five, Six, and Seven.

Particular Korean and Australian local conditions, such as those found in political, cultural and welfare arenas, and particular global conditions such as economics and international politics enable actors. The analysis of the literature surrounding intercountry adoption suggests that particular conditions and actors whose interests align must be present locally and globally for intercountry adoption to emerge as a practice. If all interests are not convergent, intercountry adoption may not occur or may not be long- lived such as in Romania where intercountry adoptions occurred from 1989 to 2005, and post World War II in Greece and Germany (Dickens 2002; Sarri, Baik & Bombyk 1998). In contrast, singular explanations such as market forces of supply and demand that ensures the continuance of intercountry 24 adoption (Hollingsworth & Ruffin 2002), make an assumption that intercountry adoption is a naturally occurring event and does not recognise the purposeful actions of actors and conditions that enable them. The discourse of supply and demand (Herrmann & Kasper 1992; Joe 1978; Reeves 1993; Sokoloff 1993; Sterett 2002; Triseliotis 2000; Triseliotis, Shireman & Hundleby 1997; UNICEF 1998; Yngvesson 2002) also fails to take into account the complexity and multilayered nature of contributing conditions necessary for its continuance and the actions of particular actors. Demand alone does not necessarily result in supply. Actions are needed to mobilise the practice. There is little analysis identified in the literature of diffusion processes which enables intercountry adoption as an acceptable practice between countries, in particular between Australia and Korea. One exception is the recent study by Choy (2007) that examines its diffusion into the United States.

This thesis proposes that there are processes occurring at global and local levels in countries such as Korea and Australia that have created a climate conducive to the actions of actors. Thus the practice of intercountry adoption and its continuance is enabled. These include cultural, economic, and social conditions peculiar to Korea and different cultural, economic and social conditions peculiar to Australia. This study seeks to explore these conditions and the formation and interactions of particular networks which promote or inhibit the practice. Therefore a final body of literature on Actor Network Theory (Callon 1986b; Latour 1987, 1988) is examined in Chapter Three. This body of literature helps understand how the actions of particular networks promote particular discourse, seek to meet their goals, and enact particular controversies. Actor Network Theory provides insights into how particular ideas and practices emerge, are implemented and become acceptable in a given point of time, at local and global levels. In the following sections of this chapter, local and global conditions that influenced how adoption from Korea emerged, diffused into Australia and continued are explored in an overview of the literature.

Local Conditions

A range of local enabling practices, beliefs and conditions such as social structures, sexuality and economics are visible in Korea and Australia. Factors such as Korean values, the circumstances of birth mothers and fathers, the practices of domestic adoption in Australia and Korea, the Korean welfare system, Australian multiculturalism, changed Australian social conditions and parent support groups are identified from the literature review. A comprehensive understanding of the emergence and acceptance of intercountry adoption, and the factors leading to the continuation of the practice requires exploration of these local factors. 25

Korea

The emergence and continuance of intercountry adoption in Korea is underpinned by certain conditions. The conditions identified in the literature are the Korean War, the social and economic impact of rapid industrialisation and urbanisation, and Korean culture (Chang 1997; Kim & Finch 2002; Sarri, Baik & Bombyk 1998; Van Loon 1990; Yi 2002). The impact of industrialisation has led to improved standards of living, rural to urban migration, greater educational and employment opportunities, consumerism, a corrosion of traditional family systems, changes in family formation and the development of a youth culture (Chang 1997; Cho 2005; Kendall 1996; Lee 2005). Policies such as population control have contributed to changing patterns of marriage, birth rates and the role of women (Chun 1989; Kendall 1996; Kwon, Jun & Cho 1997). The rate of change in modern Korea was rapid presenting Korea with unique challenges inclusive of both positive and negative consequences of such rapid economic, societal and cultural transformations.

Traditional Korean Values It is reported that many children born during the Korean War were the result of liaisons between United States servicemen and Korean women (Sarri, Baik & Bombyk 1998). Traditional Korean values set the local conditions that identified children of mixed racial parentage and those born out of traditional family structures as a shameful problem that required a solution. A western perspective also viewed children born outside of marriage as shameful and adoption was supported as a viable solution (Hubinette 2005). Welfare programs and orphanages were established (Alvernaz & Tieszen 1958; Miller (1971). Christian organisations brought new influences to Korean Society during this period. Their success was attributed to the capacity of evangelical missionaries to find commonality between traditional Korean Shamanism and Christianity (Kim, A.E 2000; Kim, J.R 2006; Kim & Henderson 2008). More than half the Korean population is now Christian (Kim, J.R 2006). Values are changing in many areas of Korean society as it has in the West. Yet it is reported that the strength of filial values and family-first responsibilities based on Confucianism remain highly relevant (Yang 2003b). In many ways, Korean values are in conflict (Lee 2003; Yang 1999). Changing social conditions in Korea have led to changed practices that may not necessarily influence all underlying values. Though western practices have emerged in Korea, a western value system has not been universally accepted and traditional values remain influential (Yi 2002).

Though Korea has been historically subjected to a number of religious and philosophical influences, Confucian ideology informs societal practices. Korean values based on Confucian ideology have a 26 traditional emphasis on social stability and hierarchy which structures all life aspects (Kim & Finch 2002). Korean values are apparent in all areas of disciplinary knowledge such as economics, politics, health and welfare and have provided the process and method by which Koreans have dealt with changed conditions (Chang 1997). An understanding of this value system is essential when addressing anything ‘Korean’ even through a limited western gaze. Responsibility towards and respect for others, one’s parents, ancestors, and Korean society as a whole rather than the individual (Canda, Shin & Canda 1993) are crucial to understanding the influence of Korean values on the practice of intercountry adoption. Canda, Shin and Canda (1993) describe Korean society as a complex system of harmonious relationships. Alford (1999, p.31) extends this understanding, describing how the fulfillment of the ‘Korean self’ rests in the maintenance of this harmonious society while isolation from society and its relationships is feared. There are strong moral and political pressures to sacrifice individual interests for unconditional family and societal unity (Alford 1999; Shin & Shaw 2003).

Discussion of ex-nuptial births and adoption in Korea is incomplete without an understanding of shame (chang-pee), described as ‘the underwear of social life, out of sight but always present’ (Yang & Rosenblatt 2001, p. 367). The relevance of collective shame to intercountry adoption in the literature has only attracted passing comment. The nuances of Korean shame, where blame and shame are closely related, are vastly different to western concepts. If an individual is shamed, the family and society are shamed, inviting stigmatisation (Yang & Rosenblatt 2001). The existence of shame and moral responsibility to the whole does not legitimise the existence of a mother and her child outside traditional family structures in Korean society. Just as the individual feels shame so does Korean society.

It is reported in the literature that the first Korean children adopted overseas were orphans of mixed parentage followed by children born to unwed mothers (Sarri, Baik & Bombyk 1998). Raising children, traditionally a family matter, involves a lifetime responsibility to ensure those children become responsible members of society. Traditionally, those women who cannot take this responsibility are not considered ready and cannot decide to become mothers (Baik & Chung 1996; Cho 1997; Oum 2003). Since the fifties, unmarried mothers have been considered immoral, rejected and isolated from society, with fathers bearing no responsibility (Ahn 1986; Chun 1989; Huh 1993; Kim, Eunjeong 2003). The term gyolson-gajok is used to negatively label families who do not adhere to a patriarchal family structure (Chang 1997, p.56). In traditional Korean society unmarried mothers and their children represent a threat to the well being of the collective whole by disrupting the harmony of the traditional 27 norms that hold society together. This harmony must be regained. Adoption practices, historically and within many cultures, have been described as a zero sum equation providing an ideal solution to ex- nuptial births and nuptial infertility (English 1990; Joe 1978). Korean values promote the invisibility of illegitimacy and premarital sex as it disrupts the harmonious nature of Korean society. These conditions, underscored by traditional values, have been reported to be the main contributor to the emergence of intercountry adoption in the 1950s where a solution external to such a culture is required (Kim & Davis 2003).

Intercountry adoption, as a solution to children born outside society’s norms, does not distress the social order. The ready acceptance of beliefs such as the mutual benefit of the zero sum equation that supports the need for the rescue of stigmatized children from a Confucian society by those in the West sustains the notion of intercountry adoption as an acceptable and necessary practice. This discourages more complex analysis. There are few reports of the incidence and management of ex-nuptial births prior to the 1950s. It is assumed that ex-nuptial births were managed within the traditional family structure which has since been dramatically disrupted. Kim and Henderson (2008) highlight that alternative local community solutions and alternate indigenous care arrangements such as adoption and fostering for displaced children were practised in Korea prior to the establishment of western style orphanages and the commencement of intercountry adoption. The influence of Korean culture and the stigmatisation of mothers and children therefore is only part of the complex picture of intercountry adoption. How the practice of intercountry adoption dominated over traditional indigenous practices cannot be explained by values alone nor can an understanding of these conditions simply explain the diffusion of the phenomenon into countries such as Australia.

Birth Mothers There has been speculation in the literature about who relinquishes Korean children and why (Bai 2007; Huh 1993). In the early days of intercountry adoption from Korea, it is reported that mixed race and illegitimate children were abandoned because they would not be accepted in society while mothers are usually represented as unmarried mothers who suffer considerable shame concerning their circumstances (Ahn 1986; Huh 1993; Kim & Davis 2003). A lack of viable options for birth mothers and a legitimization of this view has therefore been assumed and accepted by all engaged in the practice in the last fifty years (Kim, D. S. 2007). The discourse of Korean mothers whose children were adopted overseas as unmarried is one that is recognised in the West, given the dominant role of ex- nuptial births in the history of domestic adoption in western countries such as the USA and Australia 28

(Ellison 2003; Farrar 1997; Herman 2002; Reeves 1993; Sokoloff 1993). An alternate western discourse describes the conceptualisation of the single mother as a form of social control that pathologises unmarried motherhood and minimises parental-child attachments (Ellison 2003; Reeves 1993).

Pregnancies that occurred outside of societal norms did not become an extensive or visible issue in Korea until the Korean War and the rapid social and economic changes that followed. The years of rapid growth following the Korean War saw an explosion of ex-nuptial births. Official Korean statistics, though considered inaccurate and underreported, report 160 ex-nuptial births in 1960 and 5,751 in 1982 (Ahn 1986; Kim & Davis 2003). In 1987, 12,504 children were reported to have been adopted (Huh 1993). Kim D. S. (2007) reports that most children were abandoned as a result of poverty rather than the social stigma attached to single motherhood. Sarri, Baik and Bombyk (1998) highlight the acceptability of child abandonment in order to save the child’s life in circumstances where parents did not have the financial or physical means to care for that child. Many children were abandoned by parents driven by financial need who knew there was food in the orphanages (Huh 1993; Tieszen 1966). Statistics from the Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare, provided by the Overseas Korean Foundation indicate the majority of children adopted overseas from 1958- 2003 were born to unwed mothers and that this is an increasing trend, see Table 1 Family Background of Adopted Koreans, 1958-2003 below.

Table 1 Family Background of Adopted Koreans, 1958-2003

Years Abandoned Family problem Unwed mother TOTAL 1958-60 1,675 630 227 2,532 1961-70 4,013 1,958 1,304 7,275 1971-80 17,260 13,360 17,627 48,247 1981-90 6,769 11,399 47,153 65,321 1991-2000 225 1,444 20,460 22,129 2001 1 1 2,434 2,436 2002 1 - 2,364 2,365 2003 2 2 2,283 2,287 TOTAL 29,946 28,794 93,852 152,592 Source: Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare4

4 This table has been previously published in Hubinette, T 2005, ‘Comforting an Orphan Nation: Representations of International Adoption and Adopted Koreans in Korean Popular Culture’, Stockholm University. 29

These contrasting reports and the information provided in Table 1 led to questions about who is actually categorised as an ‘unwed’ mother (totaling 93,852 children); the criteria under which children are categorised such as abandonment; and motivations for relinquishment of these children. Categories such as abandonment, total 29,946 from 1958-2003, and family problems total 28,794 from 1958-2003, are identified in Table 1 on page 29. This indicates other welfare and social issues are acknowledged by the Korean government. Intercountry adoption therefore has also served as welfare solutions for these issues and is not restricted to single parenthood.

While much of the literature suggests the majority of adoptable children in Korea are born to single, financially disadvantaged young women who feel great shame about their circumstances (Ahn 1986), Kim, D.S. (2007) highlights the confusion between the terms ‘birth mothers’ and ‘unwed mothers’ in intercountry adoption discourse. Not all birth mothers are unwed. Kim and Davis (2003) citing a study by Noh (1995) highlights that the definition of illegitimate under the Korean patriarchal legal system also includes mothers who are separated, divorced or widowed, though an increasing number of teenage pregnancies are being reported. Korean understandings of ‘unwed’ motherhood that are not based on western misconceptions are now starting to find their way into the literature. Despite this, the western definition of ‘unwed mother’ dominates in intercountry adoption discourse. This definition ignores the circumstances of mothers, also categorised as ‘unwed’ in the Korean system, who are separated, divorced or widowed. In contrast, the position of these women is legitimised in western societies. This highlights two points. Firstly, the acceptance of ‘unwed’ mothers placing their children for adoption in discourse that promotes intercountry adoption may be diluted if it is acknowledged that many mothers are not ‘unwed’ by western definitions. Secondly, single parenthood is generally an accepted though not necessarily universally acceptable practice in the west.

It is only recently that Korean mothers have become visible in Korean adoption discourse highlighting questionable adoption practices and the trauma of mothers who lose their children to adoption (Kim, H. 2007). There are reports that Korean birth mothers are increasingly keeping their babies (Huh 1993). How their voices are to be heard amidst the many and how their discourse influences the continuance of intercountry adoption are yet to be explored. Actor Network Theory provides a framework that has the potential to explore these issues.

Birth Fathers Birth fathers remain invisible in Korean intercountry adoption discourse (Sarri, Baik & Bombyk 1998). There are no studies reporting on fathers who relinquish their children because of poverty and very little work regarding fathers of children born outside of traditional family structures. These fathers hold no cultural responsibility for children born outside of marriage and there is no expectation for them to do so. Moral responsibility lies with the woman (Kim, Eunjeong 2003; Kim & Davis 2003). Ahn (1986) reports in her study of unwed mothers that of 1,446 unwed mothers only 66.5% told the fathers of the pregnancy. Of those fathers advised of the pregnancy only 21.3% wanted the baby and 13.2% proposed marriage. Overall, it is reported that most fathers responded ‘negatively’ to the news of pregnancy and remained uninvolved. In 2001, Kim and Davis (2003) reported that the then Korean government for the first time was considering the enforcement of a child support policy in Korea which would in effect enforce paternal responsibilities. They concluded that the issues associated with such a proposal are more complex in Korea due to the strong emphasis on legal family identity, gender inequality and Confucian values. Eunjeong Kim (2003) and Kim and Davis (2003) identified the need to review the family book (hojuk) which registers legitimate children according to the family line and is legal proof of personal identity5. There remains a paucity of studies relating to birth fathers and to date very little is understood about their role in the adoption phenomenon.

Korean Domestic Adoption Adoption has always been practised in Korean society though in very different forms to modern adoption (Chun 1989; Hubinette 2005; Lee 2006; Roesch-Rhomberg 2004). An indigenous Korean adoption system similar to the western concept of adoption was practised prior to fifteenth century (Hubinette 2005). This system was replaced by what is now viewed as the traditional Korean domestic adoption practices (Hubinette 2005). These practices were based on paternal kinship designed to continue family blood lines and did not support adoption outside this system (Chun 1989; Kim & Henderson 2008). Modern Korean domestic adoption began under the Child Welfare Law of 1961 (Huh 1993). In Korea, infertile couples rather than families seek a particular type of child to adopt domestically (Kim & Henderson 2008). There are isolated reports emerging in the media of Korean families adopting children from other countries (Lee 2008). It has been said that when domestic adoption does occur, it is often practised in secret (Bai 2007). Reports exist that women fake

5 Serious steps were to be taken by the Korean government in 2008 to replace the Hoju system with a system that allows a child to be registered under the mother’s name (Shin, H.-i. 2007). 31 pregnancy, move or pretend the child is her husband’s from an extramarital relationship which bears no shame (Chun 1989; Herrmann & Kasper 1992; Joe 1978; Sarri, Baik & Bombyk 1998). The child is raised and registered as the parent’s own (Chun 1989). However, as birth parents can cancel the adoption up to one year later there are significant risks for adoptive parents who choose to adopt in secret (Chun 1989; Huh 1993).

There are problems related to obtaining accurate data concerning intercountry adoption generally and there are mixed reports concerning trends in both Korean intercountry and domestic adoption. Huh (1993) reports 2,885 children were adopted locally in 1985 at a time when intercountry adoption was also reaching its peak. While the numbers of intercountry adoptions have declined considerably since the 1980s, there are mixed reports of the last decade. Some authors report that intercountry adoption figures have stayed relatively stable while others report the actual numbers of both intercountry and domestic adoption have increased since 1996. In 1996, it is reported that 2,080 children were adopted internationally and 1,229 were adopted in Korea while in 2003, 2,287 children were adopted overseas and 1,564 adopted domestically (Kim, D. S. 2007; Lee 2007). In contrast, Kim and Henderson (2008) report that the actual rate of domestic adoption in Korea has remained stable at 41% from 1999 to 2006. It is reported that current Korean policy aims to reducing intercountry adoption by five percent every year while simultaneously promoting domestic adoption (Hubinette 2002b; Lee 2007). Any increase in Korean domestic adoption is usually attributed to specific legal and welfare strategies introduced by the Korean government to promote domestic adoption. This suggests that it is the promotional efforts of particular Korean actors that impact on Korean domestic adoption rather than the practice of intercountry adoption itself. If the numbers of domestic adoptions are increasing as a result it suggests the goals of the government are aligned with those of potential Korean adopters.

The analysis of different histories of Korean intercountry adoption in the literature suggests that though domestic and intercountry adoption are linked in discourse and government policy and share some common influences, domestic and intercountry adoption are not interdependent in practice. The Korean government is often criticised as domestic adoption is not practiced widely in Korea (Sarri, Baik & Bombyk 1998). The practice of intercountry adoption has been seen by many as an inhibitor to the development of domestic adoption (Byma 1974; Sarri, Baik & Bombyk 1998). Bartholet (1993) argues that the continuance of intercountry adoption, in fact, highlights gaps in domestic welfare services in the sending country, rather than masking them.

Modern domestic adoption, in the literature, has been promoted by the Korean government as a replacement phenomenon for intercountry adoption. Kim, D. S. (2007) describes an attempt by the Korean government in 1976 to decrease intercountry adoptions by twenty percent through the introduction of the Extraordinary Law of Adoption 1976. The law was rescinded as a result of pressure from United States adoption agencies allowing intercountry adoption to reach its peak years in the 1980s (Kim, D. S. 2007). Kim, D. S. (2007) does not discuss the contribution of adoption agencies and other international pressures in the 1990s that were identified as present from 1976. It can be inferred that pressure from adoption agencies may have shifted from Korea to the availability of children from other countries such as China. Selman (2006) identifies that some countries may be put under increased pressure to release their children for international adoption if other sources become less accessible. How the shift of adoptive parental focus moves from one source country to another remains unexplained. It could be suggested that it is this focus combined with limiting strategies such as quota systems that has the potential to be more influential than the practice of domestic adoption on the rise and fall of intercountry adoption numbers.

Korean intercountry adoption has been promoted by the actions of networks of individuals and organisations in the United States and Korea while domestic adoption has been promoted by other actors such as the Korean government as an alternative to intercountry adoption in response to negative publicity, criticism and shame (Choy 2007; Hubinette 2005). Domestic and intercountry adoption practices in Korea have emerged within a set of conditions unique to each and particular actors promoting each practice. They co-exist and have different histories. One does not necessarily determine the fate of the other but rather the strength of those promoting the particular practice. In recent years, some Korean international adoption agencies such as Eastern Social Welfare Society (ESWS) are also engaged in the promotion of Korean domestic adoption showing that some actors are now engaged in both phenomena (Kim, D. S. 2007).

Korean Welfare Despite rapid economic growth, it is reported that Korea has made slow progress with welfare development compared to capitalist western societies where welfare supports protect the individuals in society as well as supporting a market economy (Woo 2003). The focus of the Korean government in the 1950s and 60s was on national defence and reviving the economy rather than the social welfare sector, which has received scant attention since then (Kwon 2001; Park 1999; Van Loon 1990). The foundations of the Korean welfare system were laid in the 1970s and 80s with the implementation of a 33 national pension scheme and a national health insurance system, compulsory for larger companies in an attempt to address the social problems created by rapid economic development and the decline of traditional society (Kim, M. 2003; Kwon & Holliday 2006; Shin & Shaw 2003; Woo 2003). Welfare development focused on company rather than individual welfare. The focus of the Korean welfare system is on individual responsibility not meeting community need (Doe 2001). The Korean family is the primary source of support for social issues such as aging, poverty and illness thus affording the family a strong role in the provision of welfare (Chang 1997; Kwon & Holliday 2006). Woo (2003), rejects cultural theories that attempt to explain the type of welfare development in Korea as particular groups such as civil servants fared better than others, believing the type of welfare provided is influenced by the preferences of local politics rather than culture. It is evident that disadvantaged groups in the Korean welfare system include the silent and disempowered mothers, fathers, and children affected by poverty and lack of welfare services which can contribute to the issue of child abandonment. In 1980, child welfare accounted for only 0.06% of the Korean welfare budget (Kim, W. J. 1995). Korea currently spends 0.2% of its GDP (Gross Domestic Product) on child welfare (Kim & Henderson 2008).

Social welfare and financial supports for pregnant women unable to raise their children for social or financial reasons are limited (Ahn 1986; Chun 1989; Huh 1993). There is heavy reliance on the private sector delivery of Korean health and welfare which means services that do exist are usually accompanied by fees, raising questions about access to these services (Jacobs 2000; Kwon & Holliday 2006). Doe (2001) reports that unwed mothers can receive welfare services that include pre and post natal care, vocational counselling and adoption. Many agencies that provide services to mothers in need are private, provide adoption services and are reliant on restricted government funding, overseas sponsorship programs and fees (Byma 1974; Huh 1993). Financial resources and information, often restricted to married women, determine access to abortion and other fertility choices (Ahn 1986; Chun 1989; Huh 1993; Cho 1997; Kwon, Jun & Cho 1997). Fertility control is conceptualised in terms of responsibilities not rights (Cho 1997). In 1992, women with dependent children under six years of age were eligible for a child support allowance which only provided 10,000 won ($14) for each child under six, an amount too small to ease financial distress (Huh 1993).

With minimal support available for independence in the community, many mothers are faced with limited institutional options. In 1996, there were thirty-nine women’s care institutions (Baik & Chung 1996). There were five maternal living facilities for single mothers who could stay for three to five 34 years to prepare for independent living. Twenty-one vocational training centres provided guidance and care for low income, runaway and unwed mothers, and prostitutes (Baik & Chung 1996). In 1993 there were ten maternity homes, often run privately by adoption agencies that arranged for delivery at a local maternity hospital, care, and rehabilitation and counselling (Huh 1993). Links to private obstetric clinics (Kim, W. J. 1995) and dual interests in the provision of support services to mothers and children for intercountry adoption raise questions concerning conflicts of interest. Huh (1993) reports that an increasing number of mothers are deciding to keep their babies. Yet few homes permit mothers to stay for a year. In addition, a member of the family or the father has to agree that she can keep the child as it is considered impossible to raise a child without this support. The maternity group home provides vocational training or employment and limited day care. Women with a number of children receive priority and many mothers with a young child have problems gaining admittance (Huh 1993).

Intercountry adoption has for fifty years been considered a welfare solution for children born outside of traditional family structures. Intercountry adoption paradoxically provides a low cost welfare solution while at the same time is a source of shame for the Korean people (Huh 1993; Lee 2007). There are many criticisms of this practice. Won (1990), for example, criticises the Korean government for promoting intercountry adoption while neglecting other child welfare alternatives. Her study concludes that the intent of intercountry adoption, from the perspective of the Korean government, is political rather than focused on child welfare as evidenced by adoption agency commercialisation, concealment of adoption statistics and the lack of a transparent adoption policy. There is also concern that the absence of alternate welfare policies will mean more children will be institutionalised if intercountry adoption were to cease (Huh 1993). Hubinette (2005, p. 74) reports that since 2001 the Korean government has supported the development of a foster care program based on western practices as an alternative form of care. Details describing the nature of this support are not provided. In contrast to services offered to birth parents, services to Korean adoptive parents are increasing. Korean domestic adoption attracted an income tax break for adoptive parents in 1988, tuition exemption in 1994, and other incentives designed to promote domestic adoption (Baik & Chung 1996). There exists little information as to how a practice, in this case local Korean adoption, historically reported to be one that is practiced in secret, is promoted and funded over services that may assist biological families (a culturally acceptable social structure) affected by poverty stay together.

Very few welfare strategies are directed at keeping families together. Early programs that focused on family and community support rather than adoption were funded by organisations such as Save-the- 35

Children Federation (USA), the Christian Children’s Fund, Korea Church World Service, Catholic Family Social Services and the Korea Lutheran Mission (Miller 1971). One such program that operated for four years in a disadvantaged area of Seoul reported no child was abandoned in that district during the period of its operation (Miller 1971). However, programs of this type did not gain momentum, nor influence the direction of welfare services and often ran out of funding (Miller 1971). In contrast to these programs, western style orphanages also funded by Christian organisations and supported by United States army units, a significant presence in Korea, became the only option for many struggling families (Alvernaz & Tieszen 1958; Nelson 2009). It is from these orphanages that children were adopted overseas. This suggests that particular influences such as the mobilizing actions of servicemen and Christian organisations enabled the development of foreign funded and supported orphanages and the emergence of intercountry adoption over programs aimed at local community support.

Traditional values influenced how rapid change and its consequences were managed in Korea (Yi 2002). While economic progress flourished, welfare and social matters such as poverty and abandonment of children remained the responsibility of the family (Yang 2003a). When the family was unable or unwilling to support mothers and children, western style orphanages often became the only alternative, followed by the emergence and growth of intercountry adoption. The literature provides an understanding of the Korean conditions and the actions of powerful organisations and individuals such as Harry Holt that enabled the emergence of the phenomenon but does not provide an understanding of how the practice diffused into other countries such as Australia and interacted with local Australian conditions and actors. An exploration of these local Australian factors and conditions is essential to understanding the phenomenon.

Australia

Much of the Australian intercountry adoption literature, apart from the few works with an experiential or clinical focus, is demographic, legal and procedural in nature with only a few examining the local conditions of emergence and diffusion, and the complex interplay between local Korean, local Australian and global factors (Bojorge 2002; Boss 1992; English 1990; Fopp 1982; Gray 2007a; Harvey 1982; Williams 2003). In addition, there is a paucity of local research at a practice based level (Boss 1992; English 1990; Fopp 1982). Local conditions identified in the literature necessary to the diffusion and acceptance of intercountry adoption within Australia include conditions such as multiculturalism, changed social conditions, and the formation of parent support groups. 36

From White Australia to Multiculturalism Understanding the enabling conditions for the diffusion of the intercountry adoption phenomenon into Australia and its acceptance as a practice requires an understanding of the wider social and political scene. Australia has progressed since World War II from a relatively homogenous society whose population grew primarily through British and European migration with an official immigration policy of The White Australia Policy to a multicultural and multi-racial society (Batrouney & Stone 1998; Castles 2002).

The White Australia Policy which aimed at creating a homogenous society through European migration had its origins in racism and, in effect, distanced Australia from its immediate Asian neighbours (Jupp 1995). The changing global environment, Australia’s isolated position in the region, and the need to forge new economic and strategic relationships in Asia contributed to the gradual dismantling of the White Australia Policy and adoption of Australian multiculturalism (Reynolds 2005). Pressure to dismantle the policy was felt both within Australia from the Department of Foreign Affairs and internationally from the United Nations and from Asian neighbours (Reynolds 2005; Tavan 2005). The White Australia Policy which negatively affected Australia’s reputation was relaxed in 1966 with the last remnants dismantled in 1973 enabling strengthened relationships with Asia and a significant increase in Asian immigration (Reynolds 2005; Tavan 2005). These reforms paralleled other social changes in Australia such as the position of women in the work force and opportunities for fertility control (Batrouney & Stone 1998; Tavan 2005). The decline of The White Australia Policy paralleled the emergence of Multiculturalism as an ideology and as policy in 1973 (Lopez 2000). Lopez (2000) suggests the dismantling of the White Australia Policy and the adoption of Multiculturalism came about as a result of the actions of academics, social workers and activists between 1966 and 1975, rather than general popularity as opinion polls showed ninety percent of Australians were actually opposed to multiculturalism at the time. Other authors suggest the dismantling of the White Australia Policy is linked more strongly to economic and diplomatic global relations (Jupp 1995).

Multiculturalism in Australia is critiqued as ‘the latest ideology which has shaped Australia’s response to large-scale and diverse immigration which began in the 1940s’, in recognition of the co-existence of cultural and ethnic diversity (Borowski 2000, p. 463). The makeup of Australian society has been changing since post war immigration and the establishment of ethnic communities extending in more recent years to Asia (Batrouney & Stone 1998). In 2000, 60% of Australian society was ethnically

37 mixed with 20% reporting at least four ethnic ancestries (Price 2000). It is unclear how many of these ancestors are anglo-celtic. The meaning and influence of multiculturalism have continued to be areas of debate, but its role and the role of ethnic communities has undoubtedly influenced Australian society and Australia’s subsequent capacity to engage as an actor in intercountry adoption from Korea. Prior to the 1970s adopting a child of a different cultural origin from overseas was the exception (Harvey 1983). English (1990) reports from experience that before 1975 less than fifty couples would have enquired about adopting a child from overseas and when they did it was usually relating to a specific child. Ideological and political change against a backdrop of Australia’s involvement in the Korean and Vietnam Wars and Cold War politics, discussed later in this chapter, created local conditions conducive to the diffusion of intercountry adoption, specifically the adoption of children from Asia. An understanding of enabling conditions such as multiculturalism helps to understand how intercountry adoption may have emerged at this particular historical time frame in Australia yet the literature does not provide an explanation as to how the practice took hold, became acceptable and continued to grow.

Changed Social Conditions Intercountry adoption and domestic adoption data are excluded from demographic studies of changes in fertility rates, social and family formations and are often discussed in isolation of other wider societal movements (English 1990; Whiteford, Bond & Seth-Purdie 2000), yet people form families through adoption. In Australia, there are declining total fertility rates, delays in child bearing and a concentration of child bearing in a shorter time span between marriage and the first child (ABS 2001a, 2001b, 2002; Weston & Parker 2002). Paradoxically, evidence suggests that most women in Australia desire more children than they actually have (De Vaus 2002a, 2002b; McDonald 2000; Weston & Parker 2002). It is estimated that 7% of couples of reproductive age are infertile which increases with age and 2% have children with assisted fertility (ABS 2000, 2001a, 2001b; De Vaus 2002a; Qu, Weston & Kilmartin 2000; Weston & Parker 2002). This suggests that there are some people who may want children, have delayed childbearing, are infertile and seek assistance to form families.

From the 1980s to the present there has been a medical and community focus on technology aimed at achieving pregnancy for infertile couples (ABS 2001b). Couples who may already have delayed child bearing find participation in fertility programs that present hope of conceiving biological children can consume more child bearing years. Failures can create a sense of urgency. The option of achieving pregnancy through medical intervention is presented as an achievable and acceptable means of becoming a biological parent. Successes not failures are promoted (Weston & Parker 2002). A method 38 of ‘insurance’ is practiced where the medical profession promotes adoption as a backup to the failure of fertility interventions (Williams 1992). Couples are often advised by fertility specialists to explore adoption. According to information provided by prospective parents in Queensland, fertility clinics invite parents who have adopted children internationally to speak to couples undergoing fertility treatment. Many of couples have not previously considered adoption as an alternative means of parenting and place a great emphasis on the opinion of the doctor (Daly 1988). Ironically, due to low success rates, fertility specialists emerge as actors in the promotion of adoption (Williams 1992). The development of modern science and medical technology has enabled the promotion of adoption by these human actors.

Domestic adoption has been practiced in Australia throughout its history, yet in recent decades there has been a decline in the availability of Australian children for adoption. The declining rate of domestic adoptions over recent decades has been attributed to economic, social, and legal changes (ABS 2000). Ex-nuptial births in Australia reached its peak in the 1960s closely followed by increased access to birth control, changes in welfare provision for single parents, reduced social stigma and changed socioeconomic conditions enabling societal acceptance of differing family structures (ABS 2000; English 1990). Fewer unmarried mothers now relinquish their children in Australia (Kelly 2000). The number of total domestic adoptions in Australia has fallen since reaching a peak of 10,000 in 1971- 1972 compared to only 60 adoptions in 2005-6 (AIHW 2006; Kelly 2000). Whereas intercountry adoptions have increased from 66 in 1979-80 to 421 in 2005-6, tripling in 25 years (AIHW 2006; Kelly 2000). In 2000, invitro fertilisation accounted for 4,801 babies born in Australia and 7,143 in 2004 (AIHW 2003; 2008).

Low fertility rates and fewer local children available for adoption are linked to intercountry adoption in the literature as influential in the discourse of supply and demand of children born overseas (Bartholet 1993; Joe 1978; Lovelock 2000; Pertman 2000; Sokoloff 1993; Triseliotis 2000). According to information provided by the Queensland Department of Child Safety only nine local children were placed for adoption in Queensland, in the financial year, 2001-2002, and eight the previous year. These numbers have varied little since then. It has therefore been theorised that prospective parents must look overseas to adopt a child. The experience in the USA suggests that the availability of local children for adoption as an explanation of intercountry adoption is simplistic (Lovelock 2000). Hollingsworth and Ruffin (2002) argue that despite the availability of local children for adoption in the United States, prospective parents opt for intercountry adoption. This is attributed to maximum control over the 39 process and maximum gain where intercountry adoption provides a wider choice with regard to issues such as the age of a child; a faster process; and limited potential for contact with the birth family (Hollingsworth & Ruffin 2002).

The discussion in the literature provides insight into how fewer local Australian children become available for adoption, identifies contributing factors to the declining infertility rate, and reveals fertility doctors as actors who promote adoption when assisted conception fails. Yet the fertility literature provides limited insight into how intercountry adoption becomes an acceptable alternative for childless couples in Australia.

Parent Support Groups Australian states and territories have state based legislation regulating domestic and international adoption. There has long been a call for uniform legislation and practices across states (Boss 1992). Legislation in Australia has been primarily drafted or revised as a reactive measure to external conditions such as the initial influx of children via Operation Baby Lift in 1975 or directions from global institutions such as The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (Fopp 1982; Picton & Calder 1982; Woll 2000). Differing legislation and practices between states have made an overarching intercountry adoption policy direction difficult to achieve with each state subjected to lobbying influences (Fopp 1982; Picton & Calder 1982).

The role of parent groups, as lobbying influences, in the emergence, diffusion and continuance of intercountry adoption receives scant attention in Australian literature. Parent groups have been identified as lobbying influences in other receiving countries such as the United States (Lovelock 2000). The emergence of action oriented parent groups in Australia contribute to the diffusion and continuance of intercountry adoption as a phenomenon. These groups, emerging in the 1970s, were politically powerful, influencing political direction in relation to intercountry adoption practice in Australia (Fopp 1982). The first group was formed in 1974 in New South Wales by parents who had successful achieved adoptions of children from overseas and sought to assist other parents to do the same (Calder 1979; Gray 1997). It is reported that parent groups pressured authorities, lobbied the media, and in some cases found ways to adopt children outside the legal and welfare system (Calder 1979). The discourse of the right to parent a child in need of a home, historically promoted by these groups has placed state adoption departments in conflict. While state adoption departments provided a service to children and considered meeting the needs of children as their primary goal, they were 40 subjected to political pressures from parent groups who pursued their own goals (Fopp 1982). Little is understood about how the actions of parent support groups have influenced the diffusion and continuance of intercountry adoption from Korea to Australia and Queensland.

An understanding of local Korean and Australian conditions presents only a partial picture of the conditions that enabled the Korean intercountry adoption phenomenon. The existence of particular local conditions in Korea and Australia is incomplete without examining the global influences identified in the literature.

Global Conditions

Global influences are mentioned in the intercountry adoption literature usually in relation to the supply and demand of children and the migration of children across borders (Bartholet 1993; Lovelock 2000; Masson 2001). Migration is considered a dynamic process that has intensified under the conditions created by globalisation, ‘a proliferation of cross-border flows and transnational networks’ (Castles 2002, p. 1143). The intercountry adoption of children, as a migratory process, has likewise been influenced by globalisation and new technologies (Lovelock 2000; Masson 2001). These technologies, such as the Internet and fast, accessible air travel, influence the speed and volume of the cross-border flow of children and the spread of information about them. Cross-border migration is linked to other globalisation influences and effects, such as international politics, multiculturalism and circulatory migration, and must be analysed in light of these considerations (Castles 2002). Intercountry adoption, therefore, subject to these same influences can only raise questions about the role of globalisation and technologies as actors in the intercountry adoption phenomenon. The literature, however, fails to provide an adequate understanding of globalisation, how these global factors link with local factors in sending and receiving countries and influence Korean intercountry adoption. In order to provide a deeper understanding of the influence of global factors and actors on the intercountry adoption phenomenon, four additional influences are examined: post war relationships, Korean globalisation, global institutions and the diaspora of adult Korean adoptees.

Post War Relationships

Korea was heavily reliant on foreign aid to facilitate recovery from the devastation of the Korean War (Kim, H. 2007). In the 1950s, Korea was the recipient of the largest amount of foreign aid from the United States (Park 1999). It is estimated that economic and military aid from the United States was one tenth of Korea’s gross national product (GNP) until 1970 (Kim, H. 2007; Moon 1997). A 41 significant decrease in direct military aid from the United States occurred in 1958. It was replaced by economic development policies by the early 1960s that highlighted the necessity for economic actions that enabled Korea’s continued growth (Park 1999). In 1959, members of a special advisory group were selected from the University of Oregon, the home state of the influential Harry Holt, to assist the Korean government to design and implement an economic development plan (Park 1999). In 1966, direct economic development aid was increased significantly due to the Vietnam War (Park 1999). Kim, H (2007, p. 135) argues that this economic and dependent relationship created an absolute belief held by Korean people that ‘whoever goes to America, his or her life will be better off’. Fifty years of a relationship characterised by United States involvement in Korean political affairs, an idealised image of the United States, and a ‘fever’ relating to all things American shows this post war relationship has greatly contributed to the continuation of Korean intercountry adoption to the point where the concept of ‘adoption’ is difficult to separate from ‘adoption to America’ (Kim, H. 2007, p. 135). Hubinette (2005, p. 69) identifies from a western viewpoint that ‘adoption’ became inseparable from ‘adoption from Korea’.

Some authors suggest that intercountry adoption was aligned with the foreign policy interests of the United States that formed paternalistic and dependent relationships and that these relationships were aimed at defending against communism in Asia (Hubinette 2005; Kim, H. 2007; Klein 2003a, 2003b). Fending off communism in a Cold War context meant bringing western values and Christianity to Korea, and establishing western forms of welfare such as orphanages that had the capabilities of attracting greater overseas aid (Alvernaz & Tieszen 1958; Klein 2003, p. 45; Tieszen 1966). Canda, Shin and Canda (1993) report that Korea’s welfare solutions were heavily influenced by private Christian Church agencies and government programs based on western models. Ninety percent of the limited child welfare budget was allocated to institutional care (Sarri, Baik & Bombyk 1998). Similar influences can be discerned in other post war settings such as Vietnam (Hubinette 2005; Lovelock 2000).

Australia, as well as Korea, had dependent economic and diplomatic relationships with the United States. By the 1950s, Australia was developing foreign policy independent from Great Britain. Australia signed the ANZUS pact of 1951 which committed Australia, New Zealand and the United States, excluding Britain, to mutual Cold War security, culminating in a commitment to the Vietnam War (Reynolds 2005). The relationship was so strong Australia was referred to as the ‘fifty-first state’ in the late 1960s (Reynolds 2005). In the same period, the trade focus shifted to the United States and 42

Asia contributing to the erosion of the White Australia Policy (Reynolds 2005). Today economic and diplomatic relationships between Korea and the United States remain strong as do the Australian/ United States relationships, however, there has been little research examining the current role of these actors in relation to intercountry adoption. These interrelationships lend greater understandings to the interests of politicians where their political or economic goals align with those that promote intercountry adoption.

Global Institutions

Global institutions emerged as actors of increased influence post World War II with a strong focus on European post war development (Van Loon 1990; Weil 1984). The Innocenti Digest (UNICEF 1998), a UNICEF (United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund) publication provides a concise summary of the development and role of global institutions in the regulation of intercountry adoption described below. International consultations concerning the welfare of children in intercountry adoption first took place in the mid 1950s (UNICEF 1998). The Leysin Principles, the foundation of all subsequent international regulations, were formulated in Leysin, Switzerland, at a seminar held by the European Office of the United Nations in 1960. At a global conference in Milan, Italy, in 1971, serious concerns were raised about the lack of international regulation of intercountry adoption. In 1982, the Brighton Guidelines, providing internationally recognised standards for intercountry adoption, were endorsed by participating NGOs (non-government organisations). This was followed by the endorsement of the United Nations Declaration on Social and Legal Principles relating to the protection and welfare of children in 1986, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1989, and the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect to Intercountry Adoption, Article 21, in 1993.

Korea was admitted to the United Nations in 1991 and since then Koreans have held a number of positions within the United Nations. To date Korea has not ratified the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption which specifies the requirements that must be observed before intercountry adoption can occur and associated governmental responsibilities. Australia did not ratify the Hague Convention Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption until the 26th August 1998. Australia’s ratification of the Convention, however, was not an impediment to the signing of a bilateral agreement with China, a non Hague signatory at the time, and the commencement of an adoption program in 1999. This suggests influential factors more persuasive than those of the United Nations affect 43

Australia’s actions enabling the opening of new countries for adoption. Media reports are now emerging concerning unethical practices in China. One such report describes the case of a child forcibly removed from her parents who were unable to pay the fine prescribed by the One Child Policy (Pronk 2008). It is reported that the parents on saving the necessary amount, found their daughter had been adopted internationally without their consent. A more recent publication, discusses serious concerns of corruption in Chinese international adoption (Meier & Zhang 2008-9). This highlights the concerns of international regulators regarding adoption from countries who are not signatories to the Convention.

Aspects of globalisation are overseen by transnational government agencies and non government organisations, NGOs (Castles 2002). Likewise, organisations such as the United Nations and associated NGOs oversee the practices of intercountry adoption globally. Kim S.S. (2000) identifies a nation’s participation in both international IGOs (intergovernmental organisations) and NGOs as an indicator of its diplomatic globalisation and that this participation influences local politics and practices. It has been proposed that IGOs and NGOs are important in influencing the directions of other international actors with whom they are connected using a number of strategies (Boli & Thomas 1999; Keck & Sikkink 1998). Kim, S. S. (2000) goes on to highlight that United Nations’ initiatives stem from the interests of powerful participating countries rather than the local interests. This raises a question in relation to intercountry adoption as a global practice. Do the interests of powerful participating nations influence other nations that may make their children available for intercountry adoption? Korea is criticised in the literature for not promoting the rights of the child domestically while maintaining a formal commitment to the United Nations (Neary 1999). The emergence of global institutions as actors and champions of the rights of the child, the diffusion mechanisms of international regulation, politics, the interests of influential others in the intercountry adoption phenomenon require deeper understandings.

Korean Globalisation

Intercountry adoption shines a light on Korea’s struggle with post Cold War politics, Korea’s struggle with rapid post war economic growth, and the desired invisibility of social problems such as disadvantaged families and children that have been managed by solutions imposed by the West. Social problems were revealed to an international audience in the 1980s as a result of the ongoing economic and diplomatic rivalry between North and South Korea who competed for status as modern economic powers. Joo (1999) states North Korea seeks every opportunity to surpass the international reputation 44 of South Korea, using public criticism and international shame on a world stage in many policy and social arenas. Korea was publicly criticised by the North in relation to intercountry adoption during the Asian games in 1986, and again during the Seoul Olympic Games in 1988, jeopardising Korea’s status in global diplomatic relations. Consequently, the number of intercountry adoptions was reduced by 25% and 31.3% respectively in each year following with a promise to cease the practice in 1989 (Hubinette 2002a; Sarri, Baik & Bombyk 1998; Selman 2000, 2001). Links to international shame, Korea’s international reputation, diplomatic relations and the role of the media leads to a greater understanding of the complex influences of globalisation on the continuance of intercountry adoption. Hubinette (2005, p. 17) highlights that Korea is the only OECD (Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development) member to engage in intercountry adoption as a sending country.

There are many discourses surrounding globalisation: competition economics, social criticism, state potency, culture and plenary ecology (Therborn 2000). Theoretical discussion of globalisation is often focused on a singular discourse such as competition economics without reference to the others (Therborn 2000). A narrow and usually economic view of globalisation, often promoted in the West, fails to include a more complex eastern understanding of globalisation, particularly from a Korean perspective (Kim, S. S. 2000; Therborn 2000). Alford (1999) describes globalisation as a vehicle of transmission. He discusses a Korean understanding of globalisation as one that enables Korea to engage in such transmissions while mistakenly believing the influx of influences from other cultures can be limited. The Korean discourse of globalisation, Segyehwa, is multidimensional and promoted from the top down by actors who define Korea’s participation as an opportunity to raise its status to an internationally competitive level (Duk 2002; Kim, S. S. 2000). By examining the adoption of Segyehwa (Korean Globalisation Drive) and Korea’s participating membership in the United Nations, the influence of globalisation on Korean intercountry adoption, inclusive of a western gaze can be better understood (Kim, S. S. 2000).

The recent wave of globalisation in Korea began with the Korean War in 1950 which saw traditional Korea dealing with an influx of western influences and a post war focus on reviving the economy (Duk 2002). These efforts intensified in the late 1980s with the hosting of international events such as the Seoul Olympic Games (Duk 2002). Paradoxically at a time when Korea was seeking to establish itself at an internationally competitive level, Korean intercountry adoption reached its peak. The antecedents of globalisation were present from the early 1980s. However, it was not until the early 1990s that Korea embraced globalisation, formally incorporating its concepts into public policy and campaigns. 45

Korean globalisation became a popular word in Korean society, heard in the popular media, in primary schools and rural areas while interactions with foreign countries increased considerably (Park 1998). Segyehwa, announced in Sydney, Australia, in 1994 following an APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) summit and implemented on the 25th of January 1995, rejected a narrow western view adopting a more complex definition of globalisation specific to the needs and goals of Korea’s economic development and emergence as modern state (Kim, S. S. 2000). Segyehwa encompassed official policies leading to democratisation, foreign relations, economic development and other social and cultural issues such as reunification of dispersed Koreans, inclusive of adoptees (Hubinette 2005; Kim, S. S. 2000). In the following excerpt, Hubinette (2002b, p. 149) discusses a letter from President Kim Dae Jung to an adopted Korean woman. Hubinette (2002b) reports that the President demonstrated considerable interest in the Korean adoption issue.

Globalisation does not mean to live together with other countries and nations, but in the first place to reconnect to our own bloodline, amicably and tenderly. That may function as the bridge which will make globalisation possible (Hubinette 2002b, p. 149)6.

From this excerpt, Hubinette (2002b) highlights the Korean view of globalisation, Segyehwa, important to Korea’s relationships with many networks. The Korean view redefined the increasing influences of globalisation to a Korean perspective in which Korea promoted its own type of global influence rather than taking a passive position in a one-way cross border flow of western influences (Kim, S. S. 2000). Segyehwa, informed by Korean values, is described as a “complex, evolving interaction of global challenges and Korean responses” (Ji, Nisbett & Su 2001; Kim, S. S. 2000, p. xvi). As Segyehwa influenced other social policies such as labour and the status of women, recent work suggests Segyehwa has also influenced Korea’s approach to adoption and adopted Koreans abroad (Hubinette 2002b).

The emphasis on economic growth, international competitiveness, and lack of welfare development has left Korean society vulnerable to international financial concerns, which in turn impacts on the flow of children for international adoption. As one example, Kim and Finch (2002) discuss the devastating financial and social impact of the 1997 International Monetary Fund (IMF) crisis on Korean families.

6 Hubinette (2002b, p. 149) quotes President Kim Dae Jung in a letter to Ms Lena-Kin Arctaedius-Svenungsson dated 11the Jan 2001.

Eleana Kim (2003) identifies that an eleven year decline in intercountry adoptions was actually reversed by the impact of the IMF crisis. The number of children placed in state care doubled and restrictions in the number of intercountry adoptions were relaxed as a result. This rise was not as dramatic as that seen in the 1980s, see Figure 1 Number of International Adoptions from Korea, 1953- 2003 on page 9.

Despite the lack of a widely accepted definition of globalisation in the literature, there are aspects of globalisation that are generally accepted. These include technological advances in communication systems, improved transport, media and global institutions. These aspects and human and non human actors create powerful influences in the emergence, diffusion and continuance of the intercountry adoption phenomenon. However, how these non human actors relate to human actors in the global promotion or otherwise of intercountry adoption is not understood. There remain hidden aspects of globalisation which encompass value difference and nuance particularly in relation to the continuation of intercountry adoption and the interrelationship of both visible and invisible influences.

Adult Adoptees

Globalisation processes have historically encompassed mass migrations of people across borders (Therborn 2000) including an estimate of up to180,000 Korean children adopted transnationally since the 1950s (Selman 2007). The significance of scale of the number of Korean intercountry adoptions in the past fifty years has produced the discourse of Korean adoptees as a migratory flow and diaspora in the literature (Hubinette 2002a; Kim, Eleana 2003; Lovelock 2000; Selman 2000, 2001; Weil 1984). Some authors argue that the large numbers of Korean children adopted internationally, originally a homogenous group raised in different cultures, form a heterogeneous, diasporic community in adulthood (Hubinette 2002a, 2005; Kim, Eleana 2003). Hubinette (2002a) places his analysis in the context of recent political strategies (Segyehwa) in Korea which aim at reconnection with displaced Koreans, inclusive of Korean adoptees (ibyangin). In 1995, Segyehwa set the local conditions of reunification for dispersed Koreans. The Segyehwa motto, ‘Globalisation must be underpinned by Koreanisation’ represented political attempts to reconnect with the 4.5 million Koreans residing overseas (chaeoe tongp’o) by the government of President Kim Young Sam (Alford 1999, p. 153; Hubinette 2002a, p. 148; Kim, Eleana 2003; Kim, Y. S. 1995, p. 273). In 1997, the Overseas Korean Foundation (OKF), a division of South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, was established as the central authority responsible for overseas Koreans including overseas adoptees and championed events such as the World Korean Ethnic Festival (Hubinette 2002a; Kim, Eleana 2005). 47

In 1998, President Kim Dae Jung invited twenty-nine adopted Koreans from eight countries to the Blue House delivering an official apology in recognition of the national shame associated with intercountry adoption (Hubinette 2002a; Kim, Eleana 2003; Yngvesson 2002). Official terms such as Uri han minjok (we are one race) and Uri han kajok (we are one family) were used to welcome adoptees to Korea (Hubinette 2003). In 1999, dual citizenship was extended to displaced Koreans (Kim, Eleana 2003). An F-4 visa status allows Korean adoptees to stay in Korea for up to two years with citizenship rights such as the right to work, make financial and property investments and to obtain medical insurance and pensions (Kim, Eleana 2003). Approximately 2,000 adult Korean adoptees are returning to Korea each year as a result (Kim, Eleana 2003). Korea hosts regular international gatherings for returning overseas adopted Koreans. These events aim to reconnect adoptees to their country of birth by negotiating “cultural citizenship” which recognises adoptees’ contribution to Korea’s global economic consolidation, global reputation and aims to promote a sense of cultural belonging (Kim, Eleana 2003).

In addition to these events, Korean adoptees connect with each other over the Internet through organisations such GOAL (Global Overseas Adoptees Link) and Adoptee Solidarity Korea (ASK). These links represent the emergence of a growing group of connected and proactive adult adoptees across the globe (Hubinette 2002a; Pertman 1999; Song 1999). Opinions are voiced on Internet sites such as Bastard Nation, International Adopt Talk, Intercountry Adoptee Support Network, Adoptee Solidarity Korea, Korea Adoptees Worldwide and Also Known As.

Adult Korean adoptees across the globe have emerged as recent actors in the intercountry adoption phenomenon. The discourse of adult Korean adoptees connected globally has not been fully considered in the formulation of local welfare policies and practices in Korea and receiving countries such as Australia. Intercountry adoption originally severed biological, cultural, and legal ties to the country of origin whereas current practice trends in receiving countries encourage “connectedness” to a child’s biological and cultural heritage. Gaps exist in local practices in relation to the consideration of the global community of adult adoptees, their expectations concerning and preparation for participation in Korean politics and reunification strategies. These influences create new implications for nations, welfare agencies and groups involved in Korean intercountry adoption (Kane 1993; Selman 2000, 2001; Weil 1984). Consideration of these actors and influences in an understanding of intercountry adoption is required.

Summary

The literature review identifies a complex array of conditions and actors at local and global levels with the potential to influence the Korean intercountry adoption phenomenon. Insights into how the phenomenon emerged and diffused into the United States through the interrelationship of particular conditions and the actions of particular actors are identified. Significant gaps are highlighted in the literature in relation to how particular conditions and actors relevant to diffusion and continuance in the Australian context interrelate. These gaps include how emerging voices such as birth mothers currently influence the continuance of intercountry adoption; how particular discourses such as child rescue dominate over others; how foreign and local interventions aimed at keeping families together are overridden by intercountry and domestic adoption practices; how intercountry adoption diffused into Australia; how it became acceptable practice between Australia and Korea and has continued; and finally how local and global conditions and actors interrelate to enable the practice of Korean intercountry adoption. Actor Network Theory has the potential to help understand these gaps. The following chapter presents the theoretical perspective, Actor Network Theory, and discusses its usefulness in the exploration of the Korean intercountry adoption phenomenon.

Chapter Three Actor Network Theory

Actor Network Theory provides a guiding theoretical framework for this research. It is argued that Actor Network Theory can address the gaps in knowledge identified in the previous chapter in a way not possible with other theoretical approaches. An analysis guided by this Theory has the potential to provide a fresh perspective on a phenomenon as multifaceted as intercountry adoption. This chapter explains how an Actor Network Theory framework can help understand complex, tenuous and controversial phenomena (Law 1999). The examination of Korean intercountry adoption in this way allows for the inclusion of the multitude of influential, human and non human actors and their power inter-relationships. It is through this theoretical lens that networks engaged in Korean intercountry adoption will be identified and examined, leading to a fresh view and alternate approaches that seek to address the tensions and controversy inherent in the practice of Korean intercountry adoption in Australia and Queensland.

Korean intercountry adoption is not a stagnant entity. It has been practiced for fifty years yet the actors and conditions that shape this phenomenon are constantly changing. For this reason a theoretical framework that can capture the changing nature of influences over time and at particular points in time is required. Actor Network Theory allows for a focus on the actions of actors, human and non human. According to this Theory, it is what actors do, not what they are, that most influence this phenomenon. Actor Network Theory has the potential to provide an understanding of intercountry adoption in action. This perspective does not rely on traditional structures of power or influence to explain how it emerged, diffused into Australia or continues. This core principle has been described as both a strength and weakness of the Theory (Latour 1987; Winner 1993). It is concerned with what is happening between actors, how they construct realities and performative notions of power rather than drawing on established definitions of institutions, states and nations. As explained in this chapter and explored further in the analysis, the networks formed by actors who join together to meet certain goals are often described as rhizomatous (Deleuze & Guattari 1981). These networks tend to strengthen and multiply according to the actions of the actors rather than along compulsory paths such as those prescribed in institutional power such as governments.

Actor Network Theory is an important framework for this thesis as it focuses on the emergence, diffusion and continuance of ideas and practices; has the capacity to include non human as well as human actors which is of particular relevance in a globalised world; and focuses on the actions of actor networks that create and perpetuate ideas and practices. This chapter introduces the tenets and critiques of Actor Network Theory and outlines how it shapes the research methodology and analysis. It begins by discussing its potential as a theoretical framework well positioned to address knowledge gaps concerning Korean intercountry adoption. Alternative theoretical approaches, the central tenets of Actor Network Theory and its applications are then discussed.

The Significance of Actor Network Theory

Actor Network Theory recognises no pre-existing understandings of power or structure in society (Latour 1993) such as the hierarchal power of the Australian government as compared to adoptive parent groups, and relationships between human and non human actors. In a way this theory allows for the dismantling of what is thought to be known and the development of understandings gained through the examination of networks constructed by heterogeneous actors and their actions. The exploration of how actors stay connected, the ideas they spread to do so regardless of an actor’s size or geography, and how they interrelate becomes the focus of study rather than institutionalised beliefs (Latour 1997a). This is particularly useful in the study of phenomenon such as intercountry adoption given its global nature, the plethora of actors involved and the conflicted discourses surrounding it. As actors weave together and strengthen as threads do when they become fabric, so do their influence and capacity to meet their goals. The study of Korean intercountry adoption guided by this framework means prior understandings that have become accepted (black boxes7) and rarely unpacked such as the need for the humanitarian rescue of children and the implicit support of the practice by birth mothers are not necessarily accepted as truths, rather as assumptions on which further understandings are often built. Approaches that build on these assumptions cannot address the gaps in knowledge nor make sense of the many contradictions that appear to be present in the Korean intercountry adoption phenomenon. This is because these assumptions are already accepted as fact by the nature of blackboxing and therefore remain unquestioned. An Actor Network approach means the phenomenon can be explored in a different way, that is, by examining particular human and non human actors and how their actions that are not hampered by distance or traditional notions of power have enabled the phenomenon to

7 Black box is a term commonly used in Actor Network Theory and is explained on page 71. 51 emerge, diffuse to other countries and continue for fifty years despite ongoing concerns about its practice.

Through the lens of Actor Network Theory (Brey 1997), the phenomenon of intercountry adoption can be understood as having no aims or fixed properties. Aims are imposed on it depending on the perspectives and positioning of those engaged in some aspect of it. It is therefore open to interpretation by those with particular interests and facts are constructed by the relevant actor networks rather than by any inherent properties located within the phenomenon. In this way opposing viewpoints and arenas of controversy, each appearing equally valid can be understood. Studies that build on these controversies and argue particular positions continue controversy as underlying assumptions have been accepted. The risk is that the focus remains on the controversy and proving the truth or otherwise of particular positions or discourse, rather than on understanding how the construction of multiple truths created the controversy in the first place. Theoretical positions that can encompass all perspectives in the analysis can lead to new understandings not informed by a particular perspective. To use an example, depending on the perspective of those commenting on the phenomenon of intercountry adoption, it can be perceived as either a phenomenon that serves the interest of children, one that weakens the social and family structures of a particular country, or one that serves the interests of childless couples in the west. These discourses in seeming contradiction, according to Actor Network Theory, do not originate from properties inherent within the phenomenon rather they are constructed by particular networks concerned with the phenomenon. If the focus of any analysis is on proving or disproving the truth that intercountry adoption serves the best interests of children, it is likely that one particular view will dominate over others or an immobilizing stalemate between opposing discourses may result. In these situations, other practices such as child trafficking (Smolin 2004, 2005) can be overlooked. Actor Network Theory allows for analysis that recognises this dynamic; incorporates multiple perspectives; explains rather than demands the construction and domination of some perspectives over others; and allows for the exploration of alternative solutions not embedded within the controversy itself.

Theoretical approaches in existing studies of intercountry adoption such as post colonial, feminist and social science approaches (Ahluwalia 2001; Herrmann & Kasper 1992; Hubinette 2005; Smolin 2004, 2005) contribute much to knowledge particularly in relation to abusive practices, race and identity. These theoretical frameworks assume the dominance of existing structures and traditional notions of power, accepting that institutions, states and nations have inherent power differences. In contrast, Actor Network Theory aims to understand what is happening underneath, in and around these accepted 52 structures to reveal alternative explanations. Networks, sometimes described as rhizomatous structures multiply along no compulsory paths and often emerge in unexpected places despite barriers put in place to stop them (Deleuze & Guattari 1981). Traditional approaches are unable to examine phenomena in this way as they build their analyses on priori institutional or power structures which can mask the real interests of actors. Actor Network Theory is able to explain how a phenomenon happens, rather than implicitly accept its emergence as the natural consequence of a priori power imbalance.

Other theoretical perspectives used to examine intercountry adoptions such as social exchange theory, welfare paradigms, and goal displacement, also focus on society, culture and systems (Hollingsworth & Ruffin 2002; Joe 1978; Sarri, Baik & Bombyk 1998). Although providing useful insights, many of these approaches also accept priori understandings of institutional power. Actor Network Theory begins an analysis with a flattening of what is being studied, that is, that one actor does not begin as more powerful than another and that power and influence is built by each actor’s capacity to join with other actors. Latour (1997a) suggests that other approaches tend to examine a phenomenon from a two or three dimensional approach rather than as a complex array of networks with many points of fusion and dimensions. This flattening, that is, accepting no prior notions of what is being studied such as those relating to actors, proximity and size, provides a framework that recognises non human actors as equal and as necessary as human actors to the emergence and lifespan of Korean intercountry adoption.

The inclusion of non human actors in the theoretical framework is an important point of difference in this approach. The notion of non human actors as equal to human implies action as possible on the part of non human actors. Latour (1999b) explains this notion in relation to guns and people. From an Actor Network Theory perspective, it does not matter in a shooting who is the agent, the gun or the person, rather, they become a new entity, a hybrid, who acts. One cannot act without the other. The question is which goal the new actor formed by human and non human will pursue. The gun in the human/ non human hybrid stabilises the action that helps the goal of shooting to be met. The following excerpt highlights the association between human and non human in an Actor Network sense.

Actor-network theory perceives contemporary society as constituted by heterogeneous collectivities of people, but always together with technology, machines and objects (Doolin & Lowe 2002, p. 72).

Doolin and Lowe (2002) go on to emphasise that it is the interrelationships and the stabilizing affect of non humans in networks that make up our society that are important.

Korean intercountry adoption is a modern phenomenon that emerged, diffused and continued in the context of globalisation. Aspects of globalisation bring the use and spread of technological advancements such as faster and more efficient transportation, media representations and communication transmissions in a variety of forms such as the Internet (Therborn 2000). Technology, as identified in Chapter Two, plays a performative role in the Korean intercountry adoption phenomenon. One example is the global community of adult adoptees connected through the Internet (Hubinette 2002a; Pertman 1999; Song 1999). This global community, in its present form, cannot exist without the relationships between humans and non human actors, specifically adult adoptees and the Internet. The global community cannot exist in the same way in the absence of either actor. Their actions together form the community. This thesis argues that Korean intercountry adoption would not have emerged or progressed in the same way without modern technologies as equal actors. Therefore theoretical perspectives that seek to understand or explain the phenomenon must include them. Actor Network Theory, explained in this chapter, crosses the social and scientific divide through the equal treatment of all actors. Likewise, global and local actors are given the same status. In this way, the use of Actor Network Theory can provide new understandings of the emergence, diffusion and continuance of a complex, multifocal and multilayered phenomenon. It is from these understandings that policy formation and practices can be better informed.

Actor Network Theory emerged around 1980 and has since been applied to a large number and range of studies (Berker 2006). The initial works on Actor Network Theory, also known as Sociology of Translations, present the core tenets of this theoretical approach and were published in the 1980s (Callon 1986a, 1986b; Callon & Latour 1981; Latour 1987, 1988; Law 1987a, 1987b). Actor Network Theory emerged as a means of explaining scientific or technological advancement in relation to the social world. As such, case studies using Actor Network Theory are most commonly explored by focusing on the technological device or scientific innovation. In this study, intercountry adoption, a social phenomenon, is the focus of the study. This places the point of exploration on the social practice not a specific technological device, while exploring the interrelationships of human and non human actors that enable it.

Actor Network Theory developed by Bruno Latour (1987), Michel Callon (1986b) and colleagues is a theory of actor networks, controversy and power that seeks to explain complex phenomenon where actors assemble their own actor worlds through their interrelationships and power struggles with other actors. The result of these dynamics is that a particular discourse or knowledge becomes accepted over others. Kendall and Wickham (1999), explain Actor Network Theory as a problem based approach that reveals specific conditions that enable particular discourse to emerge and become accepted. Latour (1987) explains that to truly understand a phenomenon to be studied, in this case Korean intercountry adoption, it has to be observed in action, that is, how it is practiced by actors in networks. Certain conditions that have influenced the emergence of Korean intercountry adoption globally and its diffusion and continuance as a practice in Queensland require greater understanding than is currently found in the literature.

Actor Network Theory and its core tenets; actor networks, the role of non humans in networks, translation mechanisms (the way actors attract and join with other actors to meet mutual goals) that allow networks to increase stability, durability and influence, and the concept of power are introduced in the following sections of this chapter.

Actor Network Theory

It is essential to establish the basic concepts and tenets of the theory before it can be used to analyse intercountry adoption from Korea to Australia. Actor Network Theory, a post structuralist and social constructivist approach, located in the discipline of sociology, draws from semiotics and furthers Foucauldian and Machiavellian approaches to power and knowledge (Calas & Smircich 1999; Callon, Law & Rip 1986; Law 1999). Latour (1993; 1999a; 2004) locates his epistemological position by rejecting post modern and modern positions. Latour (1999a) proposes that attention paid to controversies regarding whether or not words describe a phenomena and exposing myths diverts from the real purpose, that is, the political nature of the way in which beliefs and ideas become accepted. According to Latour (1999a), modernism is behind us and post modernism fails to take into account the relationship between science and the social. He proposes a third view by redefining object, subject and politics, where humans and non humans are not subject and object but are ‘assembled according to due process’ in environments that are political and controversial (Latour 2004, p. 219).

We may be the first to have freed non-humans from the politics of objectivity and humans from the politics of subjectification (Latour 1999a, p. 22). 55

In other words humans do not perform on non humans or visa versa, rather together, through a process of assemblage, they form a new entity or a network. A network is not separated by an artificial divide of the scientific and social, inanimate and animate, and as a network can mobilise and spread particular discourse in a way a single entity cannot. In this way a real understanding can be formed of the political nature of what is being studied without diversions such as determining the truth or otherwise of particular discourses. To use one example, arguments that examine the truth or otherwise of whether there are millions of children languishing in orphanages waiting to be adopted does not help explain how such discourse came to be accepted and believed despite counter discourse that claim otherwise.

Actor Network Theory explains the means by which actors attempt to impose knowledge or discourse on others and how these are legitimised through translation processes. Within these translation processes, particular actors strive to enrol other actors into networks by convincing them of the factual nature of promoted claims and the usefulness of these claims by those seeking to be enrolled (Callon 1986b; Latour 1987). Fact building in Actor Network Theory is a process. It mobilises particular beliefs from their conception, through a process of translations where the original beliefs are accepted or transformed to become acceptable to each actor, then to the broader community, government, nation or nations where these beliefs are accepted as fact (Callon 1986b; Latour 1987). Latour (1987) explains that actors need other actors to transform a claim into fact and the most effective way to achieve this is to appeal to the explicit interests of those to be enrolled. Translations provide the means to explain how these mobilisations occur. Like Foucault, Actor Network Theory is concerned about how knowledges or discourses are circulated and become dominant over others rather than concerns about the truth or falsity of particular discourses. Latour argues there are multiple ‘truths’ each seeking dominance over others (Latour 2005). Particular phenomenon previously studied using Actor Network Theory such as the innovation of Pasteurisation suggest innovations do not reach wider acceptance by accident rather its practice becomes acceptable as a result of the practices and manipulations occurring within and between actor networks (Latour 1988). Likewise, the theory would suggest current controversies surrounding Korean intercountry adoption have not simply emerged without the efforts of particular actor networks and their spokespersons who promote particular knowledges or discourses.

Actor Network Theory is both a theory and a method, and as is noted in the literature, the theory is difficult to describe without paying considerable attention to its method (Calas & Smircich 1999; Callon 1991; Latour 1993; Law 1992, 1999). Actor Network Theory describes the progressive formation of networks through power struggles namely ‘translations’ that occur between actors. 56

‘Translations are the methods by which an actor enrols others’ (Callon, Law & Rip 1986, p. xvii). Actor Network Theory, named through its method, has also been called the Sociology of Translations in attempts to capture the complexities and meanings of the ontological tensions that this theoretical perspective attempts to address (Callon 1986b; Latour 2005; Mol 1999). The term Actor Network Theory will be used for the purposes of this study.

This theoretical approach does not assume that we know how networks are structured or how they in fact work (Kendall & Wickham 1999). We come to understand networks by following the actors and their inscriptions such as texts. Actor Network Theory has been criticised for not providing a firm definition of ‘actor’ other than recognising that they are entities that do things whereas ‘actor networks’ are defined as ‘an interrelated set of entities that have been successfully translated’ (Callon, Law & Rip 1986, p. xvii). ‘Actors’ in this study are humans and non humans identified in the literature and during the analysis as contributing to the intercountry adoption phenomenon. Networks are constructed by actors themselves and the mechanisms by which they create these networks must be reproduced repeatedly in order to maintain and extend the network’s influence and position. Reality is actually defined and made visible by the actions of actors (Latour 1986; 2005, pp. 141-56). To Latour, like Foucault, the analysis of discourse produced by actors in Actor Network Theory is about these relational activities rather than the analysis of discourses linguistically. For example, this would mean the focus of interest is not on the language in discourse espoused by parent support groups rather on how relationships are formed between them that enable the spread of that discourse. The interest lies in how things are drawn and locked together and how actors actually perform discourse. It is in this way Actor Network Theory differs from other post structuralist approaches that attend to language alone (Latour 1990; Law 1999).

An example from the original works of Actor Network Theory provides insight into its application. In a case study, Callon (1986b) explored the process of acceptance of new scientific methods concerning scallop farming by local fishermen in St Brieuc Bay in France. He examined the relational activities between actors in an effort to explain the emergence, development, and resolution of controversies surrounding the domestication of the scallops. The naturally occurring stock of scallops was diminishing in a number of fishing sites in France including the location of the study, St Brieuc Bay. The introduction of a new Japanese technique that enabled stocks to be replenished by cultivation was proposed by scientific researchers. The scientists tried to impose their understandings of the future preservation of scallops on the fisherman and to make themselves indispensable in this process. The 57 world of French scallops was reported by Callon (1986b) to be precarious and problematic relating to changed conditions and the proposed introduction of new scientific knowledge and practices by the scientists. There were opposing viewpoints, conflict, and debate between scientists and fishermen about the future of fishing for scallops and the management of diminishing stocks. To examine the process of the resolution of controversies surrounding the scallops, Callon (1986b) did not use theoretical perspectives that complied with accepted social norms or forces such as class, organisations or professions to guide his analysis. These social norms or forces are built on traditional notions of power. Callon’s (1986b) approach sought to understand the controversies by studying the relational activities between actors.

By using Actor Network Theory, Callon (1986b) was able to understand these relational activities in a new way. He argued that the application of traditional methods to such complex and polemic situations tends to selectively censor the voices of some actors. This inhibits comprehensive understandings of any controversy and the capacity to find solutions. He demonstrated that translations in Actor Network Theory are useful mechanisms to help understand how the social and natural worlds are shaped into networks. Understanding translations between actors allowed Callon (1986b) to describe complex processes and controversies. He showed how a few actors became the spokespersons of many silent actors (the scallops), in an attempt to resolve controversy. In this case study, the scallops did not stay anchored to the sea floor and the fisherman who refused to follow the scientists harvested all the scallop larvae in one night sabotaging the efforts of the researchers. The study ended with the scientists educating the fisherman to find intermediaries and representatives other than themselves. Ideas and practices underwent transformations in the power struggles of translation where what was attempted to be imposed, in this case, was rejected and transformed. Actor Network Theory revealed how the practices surrounding the scallops became secondary to the power struggles. An understanding of how these power struggles manifest can lead to new ways of managing them.

Commonalities with the phenomenon of intercountry adoption exist with regards to complexities, controversies, uncertainty, and multiple spokespersons who express multiple and divergent views representative of the silent many (children to be adopted and their birth parents). Callon’s (1986b) findings when considered in relation to adoption raise possibilities concerning the silent actors operating within the complex networks of Korean intercountry adoption. Understanding adoption networks, how these networks are constituted, exploring the power interrelationships at work and identifying the actual actors involved in Korean intercountry adoption networks remain unexamined in 58 the literature. Callon’s (1986b) findings suggest the application of Actor Network Theory to the area of Korean intercountry adoption could help explain and understand the controversial phenomenon in a new way. The focus is on understanding how networks have formed and operate to influence the Korean intercountry adoption phenomenon.

Another example highlights how Actor Network Theory might help to explore these issues. Latour (1988) applied the theoretical perspective in a case study approach to examine and explain the innovation of Pasteurisation. Latour’s analysis not only explains the emergence and spread of Pasteurisation but also to how it transformed medical knowledge and practices in France. The use of an Actor Network framework informed the analysis of textual evidence such as scientific publications and other historical documents. The analysis enabled an understanding of actor networks engaged in the process of accepting or resisting Pasteurisation and explained how Pasteurisation spread and became a new discipline of practice. He demonstrated in this work how the enrolment of multiple human and non human actors such as microbes made the spread and acceptance of Pasteurisation possible. According to Actor Network Theory, the enrolment of new actors is essential to the spread of new knowledge or discourse. The Theory posits that actors, engaged in translation processes, enable the emergence, diffusion and continuance of what needs to be spread and become acceptable practice. If successful translations do not occur and new actors are not recruited, increasingly influential and sustaining networks do not form and are at risk of extinction. In this example, Pateurisation was unlikely to have spread as rapidly without the recruitment of new actors. It was the subsequent growth of the network that enabled the spread of discourse that promoted Pasteurisation as an acceptable practice. With less capacity to recruit new actors, Pasteurisation may possibly have taken many more years to become acceptable practice, if at all.

The application of an Actor Network framework to Korean intercountry adoption has the potential to provide a more complete analysis of a complex global phenomenon than would be possible from other theoretical perspectives, particularly in relation to its spread and acceptance as a practice. Korean intercountry adoption, an emergent global phenomenon of the last half century, encompasses specific knowledge found in the literature in the areas of social work, psychology, economics, law, politics and other social sciences (Bojorge 2002; Chun 1989; Gehrmann 2005; Goldberg & Marcovitch 1997; Huh & Reid 2000; Kim, W. J. 1995; Lovelock 2000; Sarri, Baik & Bombyk 1998; Selman 2000; Serbin 1997; Volkman 2005). Each perspective presents only a partial view of the phenomenon. An explanation that can reach beyond the confines of discipline specific knowledge is required to grasp the 59 nuance and complexities of a phenomenon considered uncertain and disputable. Latour (2004) does this when he applies his theoretical perspective to modern controversies concerning ecology, presenting new understandings that are inclusive of the disciplines of science, ethics, law and politics, where discourses are determined by the actions of actor networks and knowledge is not restricted to a particular field. Latour (2005) explains that mapping a network is not about the compartmentalisation of informant information but rather following the links that become visible in the analysis to wherever they may lead whether that is to organisations, politics, psychology or economics. Actors make their own worlds or context. Law (1999) reports that these boundaries are easily crossed in the modern world with the engagement of the media, in itself, a network of non human and human actors.

As Actor Network Theory does not make distinctions found within the confines of disciplinary knowledge nor between human and non human actors, it also does not distinguish between micro and macro actors, such as microbes and the medical profession, local parent support groups and the United Nations. Actor Network Theory explains each as participating actors of equal status engaged in the power interrelationships that occur within interconnected networks that create particular discourses. Power and the ability to spread discourse are not related to an actor’s or network’s size but rather the strength of the relationship of one actor to another. Power is created in aligning viewpoints, and the capacity of global actors to impose translations on local actors and visa versa, rather than adhering to definitions of boundaries and power previously defined by other social theories (Callon 1999; Callon & Latour 1981; Latour 1997b; Law 1984). Law (1984) traces the links between local and global activities evident in the world wide expansion of McDonalds, specifically the Big Mac, by following the interests of particular actors. Law (1984) acknowledges that some actors or networks are indeed proportionally bigger than others but his interest was focused on the process of expansion, the link between local and global, through translation mechanisms. The difference between macro and micro actors such as institutions and individuals are merged and their interests aligned through translation processes and the construction of networks (Callon & Latour 1981). An actor’s size is related to the length of time the actor has been engaged in struggles and its success in recruiting new actors into the network. To approach macro and micro actors differently would miss something in the analysis, in other words, it is important to have no ‘priori distinctions’ between the sizes of actors (Callon & Latour 1981, p. 291). Discursive perspectives of intercountry adoption move in circulatory flows between the global and local and large and small actors. These complexities cannot be easily captured by other theories. This perspective positions Actor Network Theory well to inform the analysis of Korean Intercountry Adoption, a global phenomenon, and its practice in Queensland. 60

Actor Network Theory, as reported by Latour (1999a; 2005) and Law (2003), has itself undergone translations. It has passed between actor networks of researchers, diversifying to meet the needs of particular researcher-actors in particular networks, at times losing sight of its original intent of treating science and the social in equal terms. It continues to be the subject of debate. Actor Network Theory has been applied to many disciplinary areas such as science, technology, medicine, sociology, anthropology, law, management, religion, economics and other social sciences enabling new and innovative understandings of phenomena that lead to alternative approaches and solutions (Abramson 1998; Calas & Smircich 1999; Callon 1987, 1999; Callon & Rabeharisoa 1998; Dent 2003; Latour 2003; Law 1986c; Martel 2004; Strum & Latour 1987). As one example, Dent (2003) conducted a study of networks of managers and health professionals operating under threats that their hospital would close in a political environment of decentralisation. Analysis using an Actor Network framework identified embedded and stuck relationships operating within the hospital system. These new understandings, it is reported, enabled the exploration of altered and more positive professional and management interrelations that were functional to the operation of a new decentralised national health service.

Actor networks at work in Dent’s hospital, Callon’s study of St Brieuc Bay scallops, the spread of Pasteurisation throughout France, ecological controversies and the global invasion of the Big Mac are not the same (Callon 1986b, 1987; Latour 1988, 2004; Law 1984). It has been shown that Actor Network Theory has been usefully applied to a number of disciplinary areas and subjects. In this thesis, the focus of inquiry is not on a technological innovation, rather on the phenomenon of Korean intercountry adoption as a practice, exploring how networks of human and non human actors enabled its emergence and spread into a country, in this case Australia, where Korean intercountry adoption was not previously practiced.

Actor Network Theory is often seen as controversial and provocative (Berker 2006), particularly in relation to the treatment of non human actors and a perceived lack of stability. The Theory itself, as well as the foci of studies, undergoes constant disassembling and reassembling. Many criticisms of Actor Network Theory are the very aspects that are proposed as the strengths of the perspective. Winner (1993) provides a number of criticisms aimed at social constructivist theories such as Actor Network Theory. Social constructivist theories use different approaches but maintain a ‘family resemblance’ and many of Winner’s (1993) criticisms are applicable to Actor Network Theory (Brey 1997). Winner (1993) highlights that although new ways of examining phenomena are possible with 61 social constructivist approaches, benefits of other approaches may be lost, in particular, the lack of attention to individual experience as opposed to collectives and social relations. He suggests that social constructivism ‘conceals as much as it reveals’, that is, ignoring the losers in power struggles and the influence of the politics of individual choice (Winner 1993, p. 369). In this way, Actor Network Theory is accused of catering to powerful networks and ignoring the less powerful. Callon (1986b) asserts in his study of the scallops of St Brieuc Bay that the voices of some actors are in fact not censored as can occur in more traditional methods. In traditional analyses, the scientists would have been considered to hold the balance of power due to their expertise and scientific knowledge. Callon’s (1986b) study was able to show that power was enacted by the fishermen in an unexpected way that bypassed accepted pathways. It does not show the individual variation of opinion, if it did exist, within the fisherman group themselves. An additional study would need to address this issue. The multifocal and multilayered nature of phenomena studied with an Actor Network Theory framework provides an understanding of the multiple network structures where multiple networks are linked to other networks, each of which can be unpacked. As identified in the literature review, the media, an actor engaged in intercountry adoption, is in itself a network which can be unpacked to reveal multiple television, newspapers, and radio broadcasts, which in turn could be unpacked to reveal individual difference and power struggles within each. The limitations of the proposed study of intercountry adoption therefore relate to its capacity to explore networks within networks and explore the full range of individual power struggles that occur within them. It will, therefore, focus primarily on those discourses which dominate in networks concerned with Korean intercountry adoption.

Actor Network Theory would argue that an actor, not enrolled in an influential network is indeed weak and would wield little influence in any phenomenon which is a factor in the power struggles of individual enrolment. The focus of this thesis is on understanding how the phenomenon of Korean intercountry adoption emerged, diffused and continued which encompasses understandings of how certain discourses become accepted over others. This does not mean that these less influential actors or their voices will be unidentifiable in this analysis. As in Callon’s study (1986b), less influential networks are expected to be revealed through the examination of power struggles in which they are the losers and the unpacking of black boxes or accepted truths. By exposing the activities of networks and how weaker voices can be marginalised, the social consequences and the impact on particular groups can be, in fact, highlighted. Actor Network Theory does not assume that powerful networks welcome the unpacking of black boxes. Unpacking accepted truths have the potential to reveal the mechanisms of success and failures on the path to increased influence. Exposure bears the risk of weakening the 62 influence of a practice or idea that for a period of time has been accepted without question or examination.

Actor Network Theory is also criticised for not examining underlying issues of culture or economics for example, that contribute to the power struggles themselves (Winner 1993). Understandings of Korean intercountry adoption cannot be developed without inclusion of these factors. However, the inclusion is in a different way, one that is consistent with the framework. By delegating causation to these factors, priori notions of institutions and power are adhered to and the intent of Actor Network Theory is lost. In this thesis, culture and economics are conditions inherent in the complex interplay of actors and factors found in the Korean intercountry adoption phenomenon. For example, as identified in Chapter Two, western understandings of Korean culture and the vilification of mothers raising children outside accepted family norms have been important in the construction of the discourse promoting the need for child rescue. By focusing on culture as a cause, a narrow view of intercountry adoption will be reached, excluding the exploration of other factors and relationships that paint a more complex picture. The risk would be that the focus of inquiry would be on culture as a singular explanation. Culture alone does not explain how Korean intercountry adoption emerged.

A common criticism of Actor Network Theory is that it fails to take an evaluative position or make moral judgments on the truth or not of particular discourse or events (Winner 1993). It is this very thing that is promoted as a strength of the theoretical framework by Actor Network theorists, that is, treating actors engaged in controversy impartially (Callon 1986b). This allows for an analysis of a phenomenon that is not influenced by preconceived ideas. A phenomenon must first be properly understood before evaluative or judgmental positions can be reached. It is argued in this thesis that Korean intercountry adoption is not yet properly understood. Winner (1993) goes on to say that social constructivism fails to consider that actors can view the same technology, innovation or phenomenon in very different ways. Using Korean intercountry adoption as an example, Actor Network Theory does not assume that Korean and Australian actors, for example, view intercountry adoption in the same way. It does suggest, however, that though they may hold different viewpoints alignment of interests can still occur to reach particular shared goals despite variations in individual motivations. A Korean mother may adopt her child as she has no way of feeding that child, an adoptive parent may be infertile and wish to have a family, the Korean government may see adoption as a practical welfare solution. These examples represent different motivations. Alignment of these interests, however, can achieve the

63 same result under particular conditions. Actor Network Theory provides a means of understanding the process of how they work together despite these differences.

Actor Network Theory is a theoretical framework that is still undergoing transformation and adjustments according to the discipline or subject of study that it seeks to understand (Berker 2006). As highlighted by Shoib, Nandhakumar and Jones (2006) citing Walsham (1997; Walsham & Sahay 1999), its transformations do not necessarily provide researchers with a stable body of knowledge to guide their research. Actor Network Theory has developed along multiple and divergent paths, such as studies of socio technical systems. One example of such a direction developed from the work of Callon et al (1983) uses quantitative, mathematical and deductive approaches of co-word analysis in order to quantify the actions of actors. As this thesis uses Actor Network Theory in a new way in the study of intercountry adoption, the core concepts of Actor Network Theory, considered stable and found in its original works are drawn on (Callon 1986b; Latour 1987, 1988; Oppenheim 2007; Shoib, Nandhakumar & Jones 2006). The key concepts that will drive the analysis are actor networks, non human actors, translations and power.

Actor Networks

An actor network is an association of heterogeneous actors linked together for a period of time (Callon 1987). The beginnings of a network can be described by following actor A who seeks to enrol actor B to further its own cause through increased strength. Actor B is convinced by actor A that to reach its goals it must join with actor A. Actors A and B now utilise altered knowledge or discourse transformed at the point of enrolment to further their combined interests. A network has thus been formed.

The embryonic beginnings of Korean intercountry adoption, found in the literature, present the conditions necessary that enabled the formation of an early adoption network. Holt, an ex-veteran of the USA and Christian fundamentalist believed that children should be rescued from war-torn Korea and cared for by Christian families in the United States. He successfully enrolled influential politicians who adopted the discourse of child rescue and enabled the legal adoption of Korean children into the United States through further enrolments. Hence politicians were able to meet their own interests and ensured promotion of this particular discourse and, in turn, enrolment of new actors such as the media and legislators into the network occurred. As a result Holt was able to establish Holt International Children’s Services in 1956 and personally adopted eight Korean children (Hubinette 2005). 64

Power interrelationships, that is, how Holt engaged other actors to pursue the same goals, bound actors together in a process of aligning interests. These relationships underwent trials of strength or struggles known as translations which temporarily stabilised the union. Embracing the discourse of child rescue not only helped Harry Holt reach his goals, it allowed United States politicians to meet their own goals as humanitarian acts concerning children enhanced their public appeal and met other goals of international diplomacy. In turn, new actors were continually enrolled into the network through further translations. It was these interrelationships which brought actors together and translations which bound and stabilised the network, allowing the flow of discourse and fact building during the emergence of intercountry adoption. An actor network is performed rather than described with actors creating their own frameworks and contexts (Latour 2005; Law 2003).

Actor Network Theory has been criticised for the lack of a stable definition of ‘actor’ as an actor can both enrol others and be enrolled, in other words exert power or be relatively powerless, and that actors are solely concerned with the spread of influence (Callon 1999). Callon (1999) argues that this is in fact a strength of Actor Network Theory in that actors can only be truly understood by their actions. Actors in Actor Network Theory can be human and non human, each to be treated equally in the analysis. Actors cannot act without networks and no actor is so weak that it cannot exert influence. Power is viewed as an effect not a cause. Actors and networks are interdependent, engaged in a constant process of redefining each other and their roles, that is, a constant process of re-association and reassembling (Latour 1999b). Networks do not operate in isolation. There are other actors building other networks that are in some way relating to other networks (Callon et al. 1983). Likewise new actors to be enrolled may be also engaged in other networks. When this occurs, divergent interests may be at odds, which adds further complexity to trials of strength or power struggles that occur in translation processes. Actor networks influential in the diffusion and continuance of the practice of Korean intercountry adoption in Australia formed through translation processes are not identified in the literature, though particular groups such as Parent Support Groups are noted. It is noted that a group is not necessarily the same as a network. This is explained in Chapter Five.

Non Human Actors

The inclusion of non human actors as dynamic and equal entities in actor networks is essential to the application of Actor Network Theory and where this theory differs from others that seek to explain networks. Humans are no longer by themselves (Latour 1999b, p. 190). 65

Using the example of the Holt network, media representations that so clearly defined a problem that enabled Korean intercountry adoption as a solution was only possible with the enrolment of non human actors such as the camera, television, and the printing press. The enrolment of non human actors strengthens a network. Using this theoretical perspective, the promotion of child rescue was unlikely to have been as powerful at that time without the relationships formed between human and non human actors. These relationships produced visual representations of suffering Korean children that were transmitted across borders. Non human actors may initially appear invisible and silent within a particular network. However, this does not mean they do not ‘act’ in a hybrid relationship made up of human and non human actors (Johnson 1988; Latour 1999b).

Latour (1999b) explains the non human’s (object) role as an equal and contributing participant in any action by a subject, extending this understanding beyond the materialist’ perspective that the non human does nothing by itself and is solely reliant on the actions of the human actor and the sociological perspective that the non human actor is neutral and adds nothing to an action. Similarly the psychological and social being of the human actor is neither stagnant nor fixed. When the interests of human and non human actors merge, both are modified by this relationship and new goals emerge to replace the original. Human and non human are no longer ‘subject’ and ‘object’ but ‘actants’, hybrid entities, equally participatory in the relationship formed by their connection (Latour 1987, 1999b). Many examples of actants are found in the theoretical literature such as how a shooter and a gun become one, the driver and the car merge to form a new actant, and how an automatic door opener and the human alter through their translation (Dant 2004; Johnson 1988; Latour 1999b). Actors, human and non human, must be considered materially heterogeneous, that is, of equal status in any analysis (Law 2003).

Technological innovation of the last twenty years has further enabled the mobilisation of non human actors within adoption networks. The Internet features as an actor enrolled in networks engaged in intercountry adoption that enables and stabilises the networks with which it is engaged. The question of how the Internet is enrolled and enrols others as a hybrid actor in intercountry adoption is addressed in this thesis. Human actors enrol the Internet into networks and the new hybrid actor, in turn, enrols other humans. When this occurs both human and non human, the actant or hybrid, have been modified by the translation. Human actors have now changed how they communicate, reliant on an intimate and intricate relationship with a non human, in the process broadening their influence or the influences to which they are subjected. The Internet, already changed since its inception (Urry 2005), has now been 66 modified further and is enrolled in the Korean intercountry adoption discourse with human actors. Human and non human can no longer function in the same way, that is, as separate entities. The hybrid relationship creates new functions, possibilities and goals. Action is now the property of the collective of humans and non human. Where a few dozen humans were initially mobilised, now there are hundreds. This occurs with the actions of enrolling new actors and actors allowing their enrolment. These actions snowball where networks are merged into other intercountry adoption groups, nationally and internationally. Translation mechanisms are evident when all the actors mobilised are examined. There is now a chain of complex interactions, including domination and exclusions. Non humans in the collective make visible the activities of human actors. The Internet brings together human actors from different background, places and experiences, stabilising social interactions which are frequently labile and temporary. The Internet is a powerful actor bringing strength, longevity and stabilisation to the network, a collective of human and non human actors (Latour 1999b). Other non human actors identified in the literature review are faster and affordable transportation systems and the media, each representing networks.

Translations

Actor Network Theory describes processes where actors, human and non human, strategically position themselves through power struggles called translations to form networks. As a network rather than an individual actor, goals are more likely to be met and ideas more easily spread.

Translation stands for all the mechanisms and strategies through which an actor – whoever he may be - identifies other actors or elements and places them in relation to one another (Callon et al. 1983, p. 193).

Understanding translations is particularly important in understanding diffusion processes. Translations that occur to recruit new actors into networks engaged in the phenomenon of Korean intercountry adoption will be identified and explored in this thesis. A systematic analysis using Actor Network method will help making visible translations and tactics used by actors and the networks they form. Translation processes are integral to understanding Actor Network Theory. It creates the space where power is constructed and the conduit through which discourse is transmitted. Callon (1983) goes on to explain the complex and mutable world that an actor builds around it as it seeks to enrol others. This enrolment process or translation is constant and continuing, characterised by power struggles, tensions, resistance and conflict. The process of translation implies that power struggles between actors exist 67 because there are both similarities and differences between actors (Law 2003). A successful translation brings stability to a network as actors for a time are convinced to continue along the same path. This stability is always temporary as others are also seeking to enrol the recruited actor, or the recruited actor is attempting to enforce alternate views. This volatile world creates opportunities for actors to assert or transform their own or other’s identities. It is translations that define the problem or problems to be addressed by the network and enables the modification and spread of knowledge or discourse, as did the union of Harry Holt and the politicians. The rescue of children, how to make it easier and faster to adopt a child, and how to promote the practice, became the problems to be solved. It is the process of translation that determines with whom and what the network wants to form relationships and how these relationships are to eventuate. The power of translations lies in its capacity to form shared space allowing circulation of discourse and to cross time and geography in order to recruit new and influential actors.

As networks are neither stable nor stagnant entities, building and maintaining them requires constant attention to the translation process, iterative and fluid in nature, to ensure the enrolment of new and influential actors (Law 2003). If new translations do not occur and new actors are not enrolled, networks can lose their power and influence and the network weakens sometimes to the point of extinction. If the network begun by Holt, as understood in an Actor Network framework, had failed in the recruitment of new actors such as the media, legislators, the Korean Government, and people desiring to adopt children, the phenomenon of child adoption from Korea to the United States would have been short lived and localised with limited capacity to expand.

Callon (1986b) and Latour (1987) provide the means by which the nature of the translation process can be analysed through four interrelated and overlapping phases, that is, problematisation, interessement, enrolment, and mobilisation. These are the basic tenets of analysis used in Actor Network Theory.

Problematisation or how to become indispensable, the first moment of translation, is where an actor defines and aligns the interests of other actors with its own, and establishes itself in a position where other actors must pass through in order to meet their own interests. This is called an obligatory passage point. The scientists in Callon’s (1986b) study of the scallops attempted to establish themselves as an obligatory passage point. The success of this endeavour depends on the actor’s ability to achieve this goal and to overcome any resistance by the funneling of interests and establishing knowledge claims and spokesperson status. There are now common goals and interests. Actors to be 68 enrolled are ultimately integrated into the emergent network or reject the negotiation process by offering alternative interests or goals. Alternative interests or goals can, in turn, transform the interest and goals of the first actor and emergent network or establish a new network with opposing goals and interests. This process was seen in Callon’s (1986b) study of the St Brieuc Bay scallops where the scientists defined the problem and established themselves as the obligatory passage point. Yet the process of funneling interests of both fisherman and scallops with those of the scientists was not successful. Perhaps as Callon (1986b) suggests the scallops were the true obligatory passage point. With regards to the emergence of Korean intercountry adoption, Holt not only aligned interests but established himself as the obligatory passage point through which adoptions to the United States could be achieved by establishing Holt International Services.

Interressement or how allies are locked into place involves trials of strength as the relationships formed in the problematisation are not yet tested (Callon 1986b). The relationships must be stabilized in order to address the defined problem. To use Holt as an example, there would have been a process of engaging new actors such as politicians involving trials of strength or in other words ensuring the new actor embraces the goals of child adoption by appealing to their interests through some type of negotiations. Latour (1987) describes how fact building occurs during interressement by appealing to the explicit interests of others. In the process of Holt’s negotiations the need for child rescue from Korea (the solution) became a fact accepted by new actors such as politicians. Interressement is the space which lies between an actor and its goals, creating a tension that must be resolved. Tension exists and persists until a means of reaching that goal is found. Actors do this by self selecting what will best help them achieve their goal which usually involves the recruitment of others to help them. Callon (1986b) describes this process as locking allies into place. Latour’s (1987) identifies translations mechanisms such as I want what you want, I want it why don’t you, If you just make a short detour, Reshuffling interests and goals, Trials of attribution and Becoming indispensable, giving names to mechanisms that can relieve this tension and lock new actors into the network. To explain using one example, Latour explains that I want what you want, names a translation that describes the easiest way to get new actors to join the network, that is, to promote their explicit interests if at the same time yours will also be promoted.

Changed discourse and fact building occurs during interressement as two actors now accept the discourse as fact. Callon (1986b) defines interessement as:

…the group of actions by which an entity…attempts to impose and stabilise the identity of other actors it defines through its problematisation (Callon 1986b, pp. 206-7).

Stability or the process of agreement and absence of dissention regarding the goals to be reached within a network, if only temporarily, can be achieved by the enrolment of non human actors and the use of devices such as intermediaries. Callon (1991) defines intermediaries as anything that passes between actors and defines their relationship. He identifies four types, literary inscriptions or text, technical artifacts, disciplined human beings and currency, which are used in multilateral negotiations. Literary inscriptions or texts are used to engage and convince new actors. These include any material that is written, on paper or other media such as computer discs or email.

Inscription means conscription (Latour 1990, p. 50).

Inscriptions are therefore used to conscript new actors. The spread of innovations, beliefs or practices, relies on the capacity of that belief or practice to be mobilised. Literary inscriptions resist transportation in themselves and require other actors, such as the Internet/ human hybrid, to mobilise them. Technical artifacts include machines, consumer goods and other stable groups of non human entities that act by coordinating network roles. Human beings include specialist skills and knowledge that human beings possess. Currency is just that, money in all its forms, acting as an intermediary within a network.

Intermediaries can be used to trace the progress of ideas and knowledge or discourse by following them through translation processes and their transformations. It is these devices which enable interessement to be achieved. Intermediaries are used by heterogeneous actors aligned to form networks. They are active within translations and constitute that which passes between and defines the relationship between actors. Intermediaries active within the translations mechanisms in this study will be identified in the analysis.

Enrolment is the variety of ways in which actors are locked into networks and new actors accept the interests as defined by other actors. Actor roles, ideas and discourses are defined and strengthened. A number of tactics identified in the literature enable enrolment. These include displacing goals, inventing new goals, inventing new groups, rendering a detour invisible, winning trials of attribution, alliance formation, persuasion, manipulation, compromise, exclusion, misrepresentation, professional tactics, violence and lack of inclusiveness (Callon & Latour 1981; Dent 2003; Frew 2002; Latour 70

1987). For example, the enrolment of mothers who relinquish their children because of poverty and a belief that a better life for their child is possible in the United States into networks that enable intercountry adoption could be attributed to tactics of exclusion, manipulation or even misrepresentation. These particular tactics may or may not be evident in this study. The analysis will reveal the tactics performed in networks engaged in intercountry adoption which may be those previously identified in the literature or new tactics may emerge. Enrolment is the action in which these tactics are employed and the resistance or acceptance performed by the actor to be enrolled.

Mobilisation enables knowledge and discourses to be actioned in new ways as actors are now reassembled in a network, with spokespersons, devices and tactics. Latour (1990) highlights how important mobilisation is for domination. His argument is that no matter how inaccurate claims may be, they in fact gain accuracy as a consequence of mobilisation and subsequent acceptance by other actors. Successful mobilisation ensures the concept of irreversibility, that is, the point at which it is impossible for the network to return to the point where the translation was only one amongst others and where alternative possibilities no longer exist. Irreversibility ensures the longevity of the network and influences how future translations will develop (Callon 1991). Networks are so complex that irreversibility leads to the creation of black boxes. Black box is a metaphor for a belief or practice (many actors acting as one) that is no longer questioned, enabled by complex and convergent relationships (Latour 1987). It can be likened to a machine such as a computer or projector whose inner workings are hidden by its cover (Latour 1987). In other words, the inner workings of a black box are so accepted the contents no longer need to be considered or transformed. When a black box is closed it can be used as an already accepted resource by others. An actor world can be seen as a series of black boxes which can be opened and unpacked to reveal its inner workings (Callon 1986b).

Convergence identified through alignment and co-ordination describes how the process of translation leads to agreement (Callon 1991). When an alignment is successful it leads to an accepted and shared belief or discourse. Co-ordination also stabilises and creates rules such as who can speak on behalf of whom within the network. Networks that have been operational over long periods and characterised by intense effort and co-ordination are considered to be strongly convergent.

Network alliances are never stable and can be disrupted if enrolled actors break from the network by expressing divergent views and building alternative associations. The resilience and vigor of networks are subject to ongoing translations that occur within the power interrelationships. 71

Power

Power is a key concept in Actor Network Theory.

‘Networks are assemblages of forces. They emerge from and dissolve into the play of power. Power is what makes them what they are, and what – eventually – is responsible for their collapse’ (Brown & Capdevilla 1999, p. 38).

As this excerpt describes, the centrality and performative nature of power in Actor Network Theory is the key to understanding it. Callon (1986b) presents Actor Network Theory as a new approach to power, visible and invisible. Power in actor networks is not about the social distribution of power or hierarchical power but rather the power interplays at work within translation mechanisms that become evident during the analyses of such networks. It is a tactical exercise of power. For example, Holt did not possess hierarchical power yet his actions were able to mobilise a nation and ultimately the globe to support his belief of child rescue. Tactics and negotiations used in translations depend on the force of the actor who is imposed on or speaks and acts on behalf of another and the resistance encountered. Actors use control, alliance, antagonism, interest and structure in order to translate and create resources within a network (Clegg 1989). Actor Network Theory treats power and social relations as networks effects not as a cause or as an inherent part of any hierarchical structure (Law 1992). Power can only be understood relationally, that is, power is not possessed, and only exists when it is constituted through relationships and the translation process (Callon & Latour 1981; Clegg 1989; Latour 1988; Law 1992). Actor Network Theory cannot be properly understood without due attention to the power dynamics occurring within these network relationships.

There are similarities between Foucault’s power/ knowledge as power relations are produced through actors who perform translations (Calas & Smircich 1999). Extending Foucault’s concept of power where power is unstable and mutable, translation mechanisms found in Actor Network Theory provide ways to stabilise otherwise unstable networks (Clegg 1989; Foucault 1977). This stabilising effect creates social order, an order which is always temporary (Callon et al. 1983). Actor Network Theory and its translations describe how the actions of actors are both enabled and restricted. New actors must be convinced of the desirability of the route they must take as part of the network. Interests are strategically aligned and cemented through conscious and unconscious power tactics created by the actors themselves (Clegg 1989). An actor’s power, according to Latour (1988), occurs when an actor

72 can no longer be distinguished from powerful allies when all resistance that is enacted during enrolment has been overcome. Networks and their discourses can be powerful even at a distance provided they find the means to be mobile, become stable and are able to combine with others (Latour 1987). The more powerful a network, the greater is its resilience and life span.

Translations and the tactical use of power through motives, tactics and resources, enable the strengthening and momentum of some actor networks and their discourses and the weakening and sometimes demise of others. As described in Chapter Two, those actors who promoted programs which helped Korean families stay together did not gain the same influence, stability or longevity as those networks promoting intercountry adoption. Knowledge or discourse, ultimately, is created by the power enacted through a number of strategies. This knowledge or discourse is adopted and spread by actors whose individual viewpoints are often contradictory. It is the stabilising devices that hold them together and allow the spread of knowledge via future translations (Callon et al. 1983). Law (1992) identifies characteristics which support a network’s longevity and ability to overcome resistance. Some intermediaries used by networks are more durable such as written material and some can better negotiate distance such as electronic communications. These will potentially have greater influence than those that are less durable or less able to negotiate space and distance. Translations are more effective if responses and reactions can be anticipated. Translation must be reproduced in a variety of sites in order to spread and extend the network’s influence and position. Intermediaries can increase this proposition.

It is the capacity to enact power that is important to an Actor Network Theory concept of power and knowledge distribution. Actor Network Theory and the analysis of the four phases of translations are guided by the principles of agnosticism and generalised symmetry which demands actors and their conflicting viewpoints and actions are treated equally in any analysis and explained using the same terms (Callon 1986b). The third principle of free association demands the equal treatment of humans and non humans (Callon 1986b; Latour 1987). Non human actors, devices and intermediaries can be very important players, durable materials in the exercise of power and the mobilisation of ideas, knowledge or discourse. Power is the capacity of a network to spread, that is, mobilisation (Latour 1991). Networks, therefore, that are more able to spread particular discourse ensure the domination of their ideas over others less able to mobilise.

Summary

This chapter has explained Actor Network Theory with particular reference to actor networks, non human actors, translation mechanisms and power. An understanding of these core tenets of Actor Network Theory is essential to providing a framework that will inform the methodology and analysis and its usefulness in understanding the diffusion and continuance of Korean intercountry adoption in Australia and Queensland. There are many global and local actors, spokespersons and discourses that circulate in the world of Korean intercountry adoption. Yet little is understood about how this occurs. Greater understandings of who and what are influential in its diffusion into Queensland and its continuance will help understand this controversial phenomenon. The following chapter will present the research design and methodology informed by Actor Network Theory and how the theory will be applied in the analysis to answer the research questions.

Chapter Four Methodology

This thesis aims to apply Actor Network Theory to understand a specific case of the diffusion and continuance of intercountry adoption. The previous chapters have explored the emergence of intercountry adoption from Korea and the potential for Actor Network Theory to provide insight into the complex and multifocal nature of the phenomenon with particular reference to the actions of actor networks. As discussed in Chapter Three, the use of Actor Network Theory seeks to understand the Korean/ Australian intercountry adoption phenomenon by identifying the development of networks and the translation mechanisms that occur between actors as new actors are recruited. These translation mechanisms explain how some networks continue to grow and exert influence over others while other networks have a lesser impact. The theory informed the development of the research questions and the approach to the analysis which identifies and explores actor networks and performative power at work within translations. This chapter outlines the approach to the case study of the diffusion and continuance of intercountry adoption from Korea to Queensland. It identifies the research questions; explains how the data corpus was identified and collected; outlines how the analysis was conducted; discusses issues related to rigour and ethics; and finally notes the limitations of the approach.

The methodology is qualitative and driven by Actor Network Theory. The application of Actor Network Theory to this topic suggests that powerful networks created, implemented and performed particular discourses that became dominant and influential in the emergence, diffusion and continuance of intercountry adoption. Viewing the phenomenon through the Actor Network Theory lens enabled the diffusion and continuance of the practice of intercountry adoption from Korea to Queensland to be understood through the identification of actors and their translations. The analysis of the data corpus helped understand the development of networks concerned with Korean intercountry adoption and the power interrelationships identified between these networks that helped explain how the phenomenon became and continued to be an acceptable practice in Australia. The research sought to answer the following questions:-

1. Which actor networks exerted influence in the diffusion and continuance of Korean intercountry adoption to Australia and Queensland? 75

2. How have actor networks enabled, through translations, the diffusion of the phenomenon of Korean intercountry adoption to Queensland?

3. How did actor networks influence the continuance of Korean/ Australian intercountry adoption through translations and tactics found within them?

Research Design

The research design is a case study of the contemporary phenomenon of intercountry adoption from South Korea. The literature concerning Korean intercountry adoption paints a picture of a complex phenomenon. Existing knowledge is drawn from a number of disciplines. A case study approach informed by Actor Network Theory helps explore such a multilayered phenomenon, makes visible implications of the phenomenon not available by other methods such as the influence of translations on policies and practice, and allows for the ‘intensive analysis of multifarious phenomenon’ (Burns 1997, p. 366; Yin 2003).

Case studies have been ‘denigrated as having insufficient precision, objectivity, or rigour’ (Yin 2003, p. xii). Yin (2003) offers an alternative view of case study methodology, preferring to strengthen precision and rigour in all phases of the research, particularly research design and data analysis, as well as the traditional focus of case study data collection. For this reason, the current research paid particular attention to the logical plan of the research design, that is, how to ‘get from here to there’ (Yin 2003, p. 20). In an effort to provide a clear research plan, links between the theory, research questions and methods of analysis are outlined.

The research questions, framed by the theory, were addressed from evidence found in the data corpus. A purposive sampling strategy sought to identify key data sources. This was followed by a snowball sampling strategy that sought to extend possible data sources to include a broad range of perspectives. The data corpus included interviews and text. This data was analysed by methods found in Actor Network Theory using theoretical concepts such as problematisation, interessement, enrolment, and mobilisation, described in the previous chapter. These techniques identified formations of connected actors that constituted networks seeking to spread particular discourse and translation mechanisms and tactics used by these actors to increase their power and influence on the practice of Korean intercountry

76 adoption. This helped understand how the Korean intercountry adoption phenomenon diffused into Australia and how it has continued as a practice.

The geographical boundaries of this case study were limited to Korea and Australia, specifically the state of Queensland, inclusive of global actors and conditions of influence, and did not include the analysis of data concerning other receiving nations participating in intercountry adoption. Temporal limits spanned the period from the first negotiations regarding Australia’s status as a receiving country for overseas born children to when data collection ceased in 2007. This period began in the 1970s, marked by the first official8 arrival of Korean babies in New South Wales in December 1977, to 2007 representing over thirty years of Korean/ Australian intercountry adoption.

This case study comprised an analysis of interviews and text from:- • Interviews with key stakeholders. • Documentary sources such as government records and federal Inquiry documents. • Computer mediated communications such as an email discussion group and websites of key stakeholder groups. • Newspaper articles and reports identified in the other data sources. • Audiovisual productions such as television and radio broadcasts identified in other data sources.

The Data Corpus and Data Collection

A number of overlapping steps occurred in the data collection phase. These can be summarised as: • The identification of possible data sources by purposive sampling from the literature review. • The identification of groups that were historically (up to 2007) involved in the Korean intercountry adoption phenomenon and contactable. • Gaining approval from the Queensland Department of Child Safety (DCS) to access non client records and interview staff in relation to a range of factors influencing Korean intercountry adoption policy and practice in Queensland. • Gaining approval from the New South Wales Department of Community Services (DoCS) to interview staff in relation to a range of factors influencing Korean intercountry adoption policy and practice in Australia and Queensland.

8 ‘Official’ refers to arrangements made as a result of government to government negotiations. According the Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare official statistics, the first child was adopted into Australia in 1969 (Hubinette 2005, p. 264). 77

• Gaining approval to interview informants from interest groups such as the Australia Korean Friendship Group (AKFG) and the Inter-Country Adoptee Support Network (ICASN). • Commencement of data collection using snowball techniques to identify additional sources. • Pursuit of additional sources such as those identified through snowballing. • Simultaneous data entry into computer software storage and management program QSR Nvivo Program, Version 2.0.161. • Coding.

The data corpus was identified through a combination of purposive and snowball sampling and collected using multiple methods. An extensive literature review helped identify relevant documents and stakeholders. Literature was located using on-line data bases in the subject areas of social sciences, social work, sociology, Asian studies, psychology, and health and medical sciences, using search terms such as ‘intercountry’, ‘international’, ‘adoption’, ‘child*’ and ‘Korea’. Publications such as journals, books, conference proceedings and legislation were located via these extensive and multiple literature searches. Publications concerned with aspects of adoption such as psychosocial adjustment and family functioning were identified but not critically reviewed as this body of work did not address the research questions. All other literature was included given the broad nature and multitude of disciplinary perspectives concerning the phenomenon. These included sociological, demographic, historical and legal works. The literature identified that informed the research questions was thematically analysed, grouping into broad themes of connected information such as ‘Korean intercountry adoption’, ‘demographics’, ‘Korean domestic adoption’, ‘adult adoptees’, ‘parent groups’ and ‘legislation’. These themes continued to undergo refinement during data collection and analysis.

Organisations representative of these groups were located in the literature and via internet searches which allowed the elaboration of information concerning the specific organisations identified. The criteria for selection were groups that historically or during the data collection period were involved in Korean intercountry adoption, and that the organisations representing the groups were operational and could be contacted. Two categories of organisations were identified, those with administrative responsibilities and particular interest groups. These included global, Korean and Australian government and non-government organisations, adoptive parent support groups, and adult adoptee groups.

Organisations representing these groups were identified as possible data sources. Access to clarifying information regarding specific Korean government departments engaged in intercountry adoption was limited due to language barriers. Organisations identified in this stage of data collection included the Department of Child Safety (DCS), Queensland; the Department of Community Services (DoCS), New South Wales; the Australia Korean Friendship Group (AKFG), Queensland; and the Inter-Country Adoptee Support Network (ICASN). The Department of Child Safety (DCS), Queensland, was the sole agency with administrative and legislative responsibility for intercountry adoptions in Queensland. The Department of Community Services (DoCS) in New South Wales, at the time of data collection, was the lead Australian state for negotiations with South Korea. This meant the state of New South Wales held responsibility for communications with Korea and was the link between Korea and other Australian states9. The Australia Korean Friendship Group (AKFG), Queensland, was identified as the Queensland parent support group involved with intercountry adoption from Korea. Likewise, the Inter- Country Adoptee Support Network (ICASN) was identified as an Australian-based support network for adoptees.

During exploratory discussions with managers/ founders/ presidents of identified organisations and in formal interviews with nominated informants from these organisations additional data sources were identified such as email discussion groups; internet sites; text which included Departmental records, submissions to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005; and organisations not previously identified with interests in intercountry adoption. These organisations included the Attorney-General’s Department, Australia10, and the Permanent Bureau Hague Conference on Private International Law, The Netherlands. The examination of textual data also identified additional data sources not previously located such as the Mindeulae (Dandelions) a civic group of Korean birth mothers11 and Eastern Child Welfare Society

9 Each Australian state held responsibility for liaison with particular sending countries. 10 In 2006, the Australian federal government, as a result of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Inquiry Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, developed a new section in the Attorney-General’s Department which took responsibility from Australian states for the management and development of Australia’s government-to-government relations with respect to maintaining and developing intercountry adoption programs. The Attorney-General’s Department was identified during interviews with key informants as a possible data source during this period of significant change in the management of intercountry adoption programs in Australia. 11 As discussed in the Ethical Issues section of this chapter, the Mindeulae were not approached for interviews. 79

(ECWS), the Korean adoption agency that deals exclusively with Australia, Australian and Korean newspaper and magazine articles and audiovisual productions.

The sequence of data collection was, in part, driven by access issues, that is, access to stakeholders and official records. Data available such as computer-mediated communications, Inquiry transcripts; and media publications were collected throughout the data collection period from 2004 to 2007. Email, telephone and face to face interviews were also conducted at different points during the data collection period of 2004 to 2007. Analysis of the records held by the Queensland Department of Child Safety (DCS) took place between March and June 2006. Interviews with informants from the Queensland Department of Child Safety (DCS) and the Department of Community Services (DoCS), New South Wales, were conducted in April 2007 following the access of records held by the Department of Child Safety in Queensland to ensure opportunity for clarification of issues found in the documents. Interviews with these informants are discussed further in the section entitled, Interviews, in this chapter and are detailed in Table 2 on p 82.

Data corpus, identified and available, that was used for analysis consisted of:- a) Interviews. • Transcripts of interviews with key informants. b) Text. Documents and Records • Queensland Department of Child Safety documentation and other records identified such as correspondence, reports, memos and other written materials including publications such as conference proceedings and special reports not previously identified, from 1976 to 2004. An example of the type of source document and data collected is evidenced in the Data Recording Sheet (see Appendix One Sample of Data Recording Sheet on page 258). The Data Recording Sheet was used to record information, available and pertinent to Korean intercountry adoption, found in records held by the Department of Child Safety, Queensland. These records excluded confidential documents and those related to individual children and families. • Submissions provided to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005 and public hearing transcripts. Electronic versions of the 274 submissions made to the Standing Committee on Family and

Human Services Inquiry into Adoption of Children in Australia 2005 were accessed on-line (http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/fhs/adoptions/subs.htm) and hard copies obtained. Twenty-four of the 274 submissions were deemed confidential by the Standing Committee as requested by those individuals who made these submissions and were unavailable for analysis. Transcripts of public hearings were accessed on line and hard copies were obtained (http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/fhs/adoptions). • Hansard transcriptions concerning the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005. The Proof and Official Hansard transcripts of Senate Committee hearings, House of Representative Committee hearings, and joint Committee hearings were accessed on-line (http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard). Computer mediated communications • Information found on internet sites produced or sponsored by key groups and those sites identified during interviews, included the websites of adult adoptees and parent support organisations, Australian state and federal government, and Korean orphanage sites (see Appendix Two List of Internet Sites Accessed and Analysed on page 260). This textual information included posts; academic, news and opinion articles; organisational histories and philosophies, goals, objectives; activities and links. • Discussions from an electronic discussion group formed to connect people involved in Korean intercountry adoption in Australia and located in the public domain. Media • Newspaper, magazine and newsletter articles, identified in other text and in interviews. • Other media productions such as radio and television broadcasts identified from interviews and text.

Interviews

As discussed above, managers/ founders/ presidents of organisations identified as having administrative roles or interests in Korean intercountry adoption to Australia, specifically Queensland, were approached and asked to nominate key informants within their organisations best positioned to inform this thesis and who may be willing to participate in interviews. All organisations with a key administrative role, that is, the Department of Child Safety (DCS) Queensland, and the Department of Community Services (DoCS), New South Wales, relevant to Korean adoption to Queensland until 2007 agreed to participate in interviews. At that time, federal government departments did not play major 81 roles. Representatives from interest groups, that is, the Australian Korean Friendship Group (AKFG), Queensland, and the Inter-country Adoptee Support Network (ICASN) also agreed to participate in interviews. Informants who agreed to be interviewed from these organisations included managers, presidents/ founders, case workers, adult adoptee and adoptive parent representatives.

Six semi-structured (email, telephone and face to face) interviews were conducted with key informants who consented to participate, see Table 2 on page 82. The same interview schedule was used for all interviews, see Appendix Three on page 261. The pool of potential key informants in a position to inform the study in the Australian context was small and geographically dispersed. The three methods of interviewing, face to face, telephone and email, were employed to allow inclusion of interstate and overseas key informants. This proved a cost effective way of reaching a broad range of informants and allowed expression of insiders’ views of the phenomenon of intercountry adoption despite the methodological limitations of three different interview methods described later. The implications of excluding informants due to limited access and different interview methods would have meant a much narrower view of Korean intercountry adoption in Australia would have resulted. Joint interviews, that is, two informants present from the same organisation during the same interview, were conducted when nominated as desirable by the informant agency. The absence of interviews with Korean informants will be discussed in the ‘Ethical Issues’ section of this chapter.

Table 2 Nominated Key Informants Who Participated in In-depth Interviews and Type of Interviews Conducted ORGANISATION INTERVIEWS NOMINATED Administrative Intercountry Number Type REPRESENTATIVES Adoption Unit, 1 face to face 1 manager Department of Child 1 face to face 2 case workers Safety, Queensland (DCS) Adoptions and 1 telephone 2 managers Permanent Care Services, NSW (DoCS) Interest Australia Korea 2 face to face 2 representatives Friendship Group (AKFG, QLD) Inter-country 1 email 1 representative Adoptee Support Network (ICASN, QLD)

Other informants, listed below, identified in the initial literature review and through snowball sampling declined to be interviewed. Potential government and other interest group informants who did not participate declined, did not respond to the written request and telephone/ email follow up, or felt they had little to contribute to the Australian context. The scope of many interest groups extended beyond Australia and adoption from Korea to other sending countries. Government organisations such as the Attorney-General’s Department, Australia, and the Permanent Bureau Hague Conference on Private International Law, The Netherlands, declined to be interviewed. It is worthy of note, that Korean intercountry adoption, as discussed further in the ‘Ethical Issues’ section of this chapter, is a sensitive area of practice. At the time when interviews were being sought, some administrative responsibilities for intercountry adoption in Australia were about to change shifting from the states to the Commonwealth as a result of recommendations from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005. Sensitivities were thus further highlighted in this climate. Representatives from the following organisations were approached and did not agree to participate in an email, telephone or face to face interview. • The Attorney-General’s Department, Australia. • Permanent Bureau Hague Conference on Private International Law, The Netherlands. • Australian Intercountry Adoption Network (AICAN), Australia. • Australian Society for Intercountry Aid for Children, NSW (ASIAC). • Global Overseas Adoptees Link (GOAL), Korea. • Korean Adoptees Worldwide (KAW). • Mission to Promote Adoption in Korea (MPAK). • Overseas Korean Foundation (OAK).

The absence of these informants meant no information was available from interviews regarding the activities of the Australian federal government, some global actors, some adult adoptee organisations and some parent group organisations. There was, however, considerable information regarding these groups from other sources such as the Internet, archival records held by the Department of Child Safety (DCS) Queensland, and submissions and evidence given to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005.

The interview schedule was informed by Actor Network Theory in a way that focused on key actors and conditions, relational activities and connections with other actors and groups. The schedule

83 presents thirty-eight questions designed to seek information to answer the research questions by gathering information regarding groups, relationships, influences and beliefs surrounding past and present Korean intercountry adoption practices in Australia. A semi-structured interview format allowed the opportunity to explore topics in depth using probing questions to elicit further information. This enabled a comprehensive understanding of the topic under discussion. The interview schedule and interviewing techniques, such as unconditional positive regard, probing, reflection and summation, provided opportunities for interviewees to elaborate according to their areas of knowledge and expertise. Topics discussed in interviews reflected the perspectives and knowledge of the informants while recognising the theoretical concepts I brought to the interview schedule (Minichiello 2000; Patton 2002). The interview schedule was piloted with a person active in an intercountry adoption interest group who was concerned with adoption from another sending country, not Korea, to ensure the clarity, understandability and flexibility of the questions asked. Some minor changes related to the wording of questions were made as a result.

There were opportunities for additional interviews and clarification of information collected as required. One second interview with the two representatives from the Australia Korea Friendship Group (AKFG), Queensland, was required to complete the interview schedule due the depth and breadth of information provided. Face to face interviews were audiotaped and extensive unstructured notes taken. The telephone interview was taped using the Telstra (an Australian telecommunications company) conference recording service and extensive unstructured notes taken. These recordings were transcribed by the interviewer and transcriptions were provided to interviewees for member checking. Transcriptions were then entered into the data management program. The email interview was entered directly into the data management program. Transcription and coding were conducted as soon as possible after each interview.

Textual Data

As listed previously in this chapter, a wide range of textual data was available for analysis including government documents and records, federal Inquiry and Hansard documents, a range of information found in computer mediated communications, such as internet sites and an email discussion group, and some media such as newspaper and newsletter articles. Data recorded was selected from that available on its capacity to inform the research questions, provide information on actors and actor networks and how they interrelated. Information regarding the personal details of individuals, children, parents or families from any source was not included. My own interactions with the data, an awareness of Actor 84

Network Theory and of the research questions determined which information would be selected for analysis and which would not. Only information relevant to the aims of the research was coded, for example, information such as guidelines for conducting an assessment of prospective parents was not coded.

Access to some documents identified in interviews such as departmental records was limited. The Manager of the Department of Child Safety (DCS), Queensland, identified those records that could be made available for data collection. These were the documents not considered sensitive and did not relate to personal information concerning individual children or families. These were records of the Department of Child Safety (DCS), previously known as the Department of Children’s Services, pertaining to Korean intercountry adoption from 1976 to 2004. Current documents considered confidential and politically sensitive including those pertaining to shifting government responsibilities were not made available as a result of these decisions. Historical information was not considered sensitive. This information was valuable as it was able to inform this thesis and did provide some information that was not available through other sources. These documents were accessed between March and June 2006 over a four week period from files entitled PSJ/00148 Adoptions Foreign Countries created 12/4/99, Old Series, No 00546; Australia July 1980; Hong Kong Pre 1987; Intercountry Adoption General Information Pre 1985; South Korea 1977-85; Intercountry Adoption 1976-87 General Book 1; Intercountry Adoption 1976-87 General Book 2; Korea 1984-88; Korea Root Travel; and Korea Citizenship.

The Department of Community Services (DoCS), New South Wales, though providing interview participants, did not make their records available. Data collection from the Department of Child Safety (DCS), Queensland, was conducted in the departmental offices. Files provided included letters, memos, reports, file notes, newspaper articles, newsletters and ministerial memos and letters. Information examined and relevant information was recorded on a data recording sheet which included Access Date and archival source box; Source File; Source Document; Date of Document; Content Summaries of Document; Actors Identified; and Comments (Appendix One Sample of Data Recording Sheet on page 258). The majority of these documents did not have numbered pages. Where page numbers were available these are referenced in excerpts quoted in the analysis. Occasionally there were letters, memos and file notes that had no dates. The approximate or exact dates of these items could be ascertained either by dates within their content, surrounding documents, or other documents that referred to them. The data collected was also reorganised into chronological sequence which told a 85 story of Korean intercountry adoption in Australia, highlighting key events and temporal periods of significance.

As with other textual data sources, not all submissions to the Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Inquiry into Adoption of Children in Australia 2005 were available to the public. Twenty-four of the 274 submissions were deemed confidential by the Standing Committee as requested by those individuals who made these submissions and were unavailable for analysis.

Additional texts relevant to the topic were identified with snowball techniques, for example, a newspaper article or distributed letter from a government department that was circulated via the email discussion group or a website, was included in text available for analysis. Additional texts relevant to the analysis of network expansion, translations and discourse were located in records from the Department of Child Safety (DCS) Queensland; from interviews; in computer-mediated communications; and on key group internet sites.

A computer mediated discussion group relating to Korean/Australian intercountry adoption was identified in the interviews as a possible data source. Ethical issues relating to accessing this information are detailed in the Ethical Issues section of this chapter. The identity of this group is not disclosed in order to protect the confidentiality of the group. Discussion group text was available electronically in its entirety from the group’s inception in 2000. Key information, key events, themes and discussion threads relevant to this inquiry were summarised. The same criteria for selecting relevant textual data for analysis were applied to the discussion group and website text. Relevant text was summarised, copied or printed in case the website content changed over time.

Newspaper, newsletter articles and audiovisual productions identified were classified as text. Audiovisual productions included radio and television programs. In some cases, transcriptions of programs were available. Where possible the programs were transcribed or key points summarised with original audiovisual material accessible for review during analysis.

The inability to access certain information in the course of data collection had the potential to exclude particular viewpoints concerning contemporary and topical issues relevant to the research questions from the analysis. Overall, there were limitations to the access of some textual data and some interviews, however, considerable information provided by key organisations relevant to Korean 86 intercountry adoption in Queensland were accessed despite sensitivities. Access to records held by the Department of Child Safety in Queensland was crucial in providing a contemporary account of historical events. The data corpus was enhanced by multiple methods of data collection and sources.

The data collected was extensive. It was stored and managed by the utilisation of the QSR Nvivo Program, Version 2.0.161. to facilitate thematic coding and the development of systematic relationships among coded categories. All data, where possible, was entered into the Program for coding and analysis. All data was treated as of equal value in the analysis each representing the perspectives of the writer, orator or producer rather than one data source being considered more ‘truthful’ or ‘factual’ than another. To use an example, media reports located in the data were as helpful in understanding how discourses were spread as was information obtained through interviews.

Data Analysis

Data analysis was informed by Actor Network Theory. It sought to analyse how Korean intercountry adoption emerged in Queensland and became acceptable practice, and identified the factors that contributed to the continuance of its practice. In this thesis, Actor Network Theory linked the data to the research questions and guided the analysis through the identification of: actor networks engaged in Korean/ Australian intercountry adoption; the actors, human and non human, both visible and less visible12, operating within these networks; the translation mechanisms that explained how networks grew through their power struggles; how discourses performed by networks changed with the alignment of new actors through translations; how translations converged and stabilised networks; and how the discourses of certain networks became dominant over others.

Latour (1988) suggests the only task of the analyst is to follow the transformations experienced by actors during the course of their experiences. The analytical process explored the emergence of actor networks integral to the diffusion of the phenomenon. Particular groups who were engaged in activities concerning the adoption of children from Korea were identified in the review of the literature. These were adoptive parents, adoptees, governments and birth families. The process of analysis involved following the actions of these groups and the individuals in the data corpus. This showed how and if specific networks were formed that enrolled actors from each of these groups and how these networks

12 Actor Network Theory has the capacity to make ‘visible’ previously overlooked and silent actors such as the scallops that were invisible and silent actors in the St Brieuc Bay network prior to the Callon’s analysis (Callon 1986b). 87 increased or decreased their influence. It is these networks of human and non human actors which are the focus of this thesis. The discourses promoted by these networks and how these were spread to other actors in ways that ensured their enrolments were followed in the analysis via inscriptions. Inscriptions were text such as letters, memorandums, file notes, emails and media representations that provided a means of identifying particular ideas or beliefs in the data corpus. Inscriptions also provided a means of understanding how new actors responded to these ideas or beliefs. The interaction of actors with new actors and power struggles relating to the adoption, modification or rejection of particular discourse enabled the identification of network formation and how networks then interrelated.

Actor Network Theory method is a reflexive inquiry where by following the actors, translation mechanisms become visible, and where the researcher has an awareness of the reasoning processes used (Woolgar 1982). Latour (1988) explains an Actor Network approach to analysis used in his work ‘The Pasteurization of France’ as follows:-

The method I use here consists simply in following all these translations, drifts, and diversions as they are made by the writers of the period. Despite my search for complications, I could find no more than this simple method. Semiotics provides me with a discipline, but since it is too meticulous to cover a period of fifty years and thousands of pages, the semiotic method is here limited to the interdefinition of actors and to the chains of translation (Latour 1988, p. 11).

In order to follow the transformations experienced by actors, the data was approached in the following way. Data was entered into the Nvivo program as collected and transcribed. Interview and textual data were drawn together using line-by-line coding in coded categories called nodes that were theoretically relevant. Systematic relationships among coded categories were developed, for example, data drawn together under nodes entitled anti adoption, humanitarian, actions of politicians and enrolment that could be compared for common themes, patterns and particular events or issues. This enabled particular events, issues or themes to be identified in different data sources such as interviews and in government archival records. Information was also coded according to year so timelines and focal points could be identified. Reflection on the data occurred during data collection and coding and new nodes were created. The new data was compared in an ongoing way with the data previously entered during the coding process. Trees were established under parent nodes as categories were defined and new data 88 introduced. Nodes were further analysed and information was drawn together into additional trees, for example, anti-adoption was broken down into costs, length of process and attitudes of others. Nodes and trees were created until saturation point was reached. In total thirty-eight parent nodes were created. Each of these nodes headed trees broken down further into two hundred and forty-one child nodes.

My own impact on the relationship with the data during collection, subsequent analysis and findings cannot be discounted. Examples of the impact of researcher interaction with the data concerned the type of information collected, decisions regarding emergent codes and how to code the data which was relevant to one or more codes. To use one example, the adoption program from Korea experienced several periods in its history when Korea temporarily stopped accepting new application files from Australians wishing to adopt a child. Data concerning these episodes could have been coded under quotas or threats. On these particular occasions, the items were coded under each node as both were relevant. The process of coding and developing systematic relationships ensured I maintained a constant relationship with the data. During analysis five phases of inductive analysis as proposed by Moustakis (1990) and cited by Janesick (2000), immersion in the material, incubation, expanding awareness, exploring explanations and creative synthesis were used.

The approach to analysis was both deductive and inductive. Actor Network Theory was deductively applied in that there were assumptions made about actor networks operating in relation to this phenomenon and the analysis looked to identify actor networks and their activities. Actor Network method tracked how actors sought to impose particular beliefs on others. The analysis was also inductive. Systematic relationships between nodes and trees were identified by common events, timelines, particular phrases or words or overlapping themes. These relationships and the content of connected nodes were analysed using the Actor Network Theory methods that focused on the actions of actor networks that created and perpetuated ideas and practices. The analysis of the data obtained sought to identify how actor networks progressively expanded or decreased in influence and made visible actors and the translations they performed, in other words, how actors engaged and locked new actors into a network. Fact building occurred during translation and was a way of enrolling actors in networks by convincing them of the factual nature of promoted claims and the usefulness of these claims. The analysis sought to identify these processes. Systematic analysis developed themes, linked commonalities between themes and identified patterns and threads, and made visible translations and

89 tactics used by actors and the networks they formed. Reflection on and constant comparison of themes and patterns were the core analytical tool.

The theory posits that the enrolment process or translation is characterised by power struggles, tensions, resistance and conflict. Points in time where power struggles were evident and documented such as the build up to the establishment of formal programs between Korea and Australian states in the 1970s and the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Inquiry into the Adoption of Children from Overseas in 2005 were identified and examined as points for the analysis.

The analysis was guided by the three Actor Network Theory principles of agnosticism, generalised symmetry and free associations, where actors, regardless of size or human and non human status, and controversies were treated equally (Callon 1986b; Latour 1987). For example, the Internet was treated in the analysis in the same way as a parent organisation and the Korean government. In other words, no prior assumption was held that the Internet as a technological innovation was simply the object of human actions, rather together with a human it became a hybrid entity, exerting influence that a human or technology could not do alone. In another example, actors such as the United Nations and an adult adoptee organisation were treated in the same way during the analysis regardless of size and structure. Their influence was determined by their capacity to enrol others and keep them enrolled rather than the size of constitutional mandates. This method sought to map how actors aligned and enrolled other actors into networks through translations. As one example, the actions of actors in a network evident from the 1970s were followed in the analysis to identify the mechanisms used to attract influential new actors who could progress the goals of the network. Translation, is a process where the ‘possibility of interaction and the margins of manoeuvre are negotiated and delimited’ describe how enrolment is actually achieved (Callon 1986b, p. 203).

The content of nodes and their connections with each other were examined and analysed using four moments of translation, previously defined in Chapter Three as described by Callon (1986b) and Latour (1987). These four moments of the translation process are problematisation (how to become indispensable), interessement (how allies are locked into place, the action of enrolling), enrolment (defining and co-ordination roles), and mobilisation (are the spokespersons representative?). These moments were identified and tracked to explain the power interrelationships and identify tactics that created dynamic actor networks engaged in intercountry adoption and the web of relationships that 90 existed between them. To use an example from the analysis, the use of the term anti adoption was first identified during the 1970s. This term was linked to a number of themed nodes and its usage gradually increased over time becoming evident in some way in the discourse of all groups identified as engaged in intercountry adoption by 2005. How the term was used and the meaning attributed to it became important in the translation process and how power came to be performed. From this, inferences could be drawn concerning its impact on the phenomenon. Despite a lack of clear definition and its meaning open to interpretation by the user, the discourse of anti adoption enabled enrolments and created resistance.

Specific translation mechanisms and tactics were discussed and defined in the previous chapter. The analysis in this case study identified particular tactics used in translations specific to actors and actor networks engaged in Korean/ Australian intercountry adoption. Four types of intermediaries, literary inscriptions, technical artifacts, human beings, and currency, used by heterogeneous actors to align and form networks also discussed and defined in the previous chapter were used as sensitizing concepts to identify intermediaries used to mobilise discourses concerning Korean intercountry adoption were identified in the analysis.

This study utilised methods found in Actor Network studies, that is, to follow the actor in the analysis of data corpus which can include interviews, text, artefacts and other representations in order to strengthen validity and enable triangulation of data (Latour & Woolgar 1986; Law 1986a). Triangulation from multiple methods, that is, the analysis of interviews and different types of text such as web based material and government records identified key events/ focal points where power struggles ensued. These points where actors sought the dominance of particular ideas and beliefs over others facilitated the mapping of translations. For example, the actions of actor networks at key focal points such as the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Inquiry into the Adoption of Children from Overseas 2005 were identified.

Rigour

Since the 1980s, there has been much discussion related to validity and reliability issues in qualitative research, particularly in relation to its origins drawn from quantitative research, its development that highlights the need for more reflexive responses when applied to practice, and how best to address threats to rigour (Denzin & Lincoln 2000; Lincoln & Guba 2000; Marshall & Nossman 1995; Silverman 1993; Sparkes 2001; Whittemore, Chase & Mandle 2001). Whittemore, Chase and Mandle 91

(2001) describe qualitative research as a dynamic and fluid process that allows for emergent ideas and therefore requires a range of criteria and techniques that demonstrate rigour. They argue that researchers are able to select the best ‘fit’ criteria to address threats from a suite of possibilities related to the purposes and circumstances of the inquiry such as the importance of authenticity and criticality when encompassing and recognising multiple realities in research. Approaching research in an honest way, while openly identifying threats or distortions, such as respondent and researcher bias and reactivity, are important aspects of qualitative research and demonstrate rigor and integrity (Padgett 1998; Whittemore, Chase & Mandle 2001).

Reflexivity is a process that encourages an honest approach by demanding a constant and critically reflective check of the researcher’s influence on the choice of research questions, selection of the data corpus and the way the analysis is conducted (Lincoln & Guba 2000). For this reason, careful attention was paid in the analysis to themes and patterns and how these patterns could be interpreted against other perspectives (Stake 2000). This was achieved by constant self-checking and evaluation, for example, when the actions or inscriptions of particular actors were interpreted in a certain way, it was important to reflect on this analysis by reviewing the data, seeking corroborative evidence from other data sources and exploring alternate explanations. Though I am not a member of the adoption triad (birth parent, adoptee or adoptive parent) and therefore not a formal stakeholder in this debate, I am an experienced adoption contract worker. While the influence of prior professional experience and knowledge can lend richness to interpretations (Grbich 1999), almost twenty years professional experience in the field risks creating distortions biased to this experience in the analysis. It was therefore important in this thesis that as many perspectives as possible were included so conflicting and diverse opinions could be considered in the analysis. It should be noted that my experience relates to the assessment of the suitability of prospective parents and the adjustment of children and families affected by adoption, which is not the focus of this thesis. Preconceived beliefs that I do hold are related to the high quality of parenting provided by individual adoptive families in Australia rather than the actions of actor networks engaged in the diffusion and continuance of the phenomenon.

Practice experience did lend understandings to certain concepts and issues that arose in the data corpus such as differences between policies and procedures between Australian states, waiting times and eligibility assessment processes. Strauss and Corbin (1990) suggest that theoretical sensitivity is enhanced by conducting an extensive literature review, maintaining an ongoing relationship with the Theory and the wide range of data collected during the research process. Each of these circumstances, 92 that is, experience and a constant and dynamic relationship with the theory and data corpus, enhanced my capacity to make sense of information presented during the analysis and to be more aware of nuance that presents itself and its possible alternate interpretations (Orland-Barak 2002; Strauss & Corbin 1990). In some cases, the information available concerning the views of certain actors was insufficient to determine their positioning as opponents, nonpartisans or proponents. It was therefore important not to draw conclusions from limited information and to make these tensions overt.

Just as researcher bias can constitute a threat to rigour, respondent bias can also threaten the integrity of information provided. Multiple data sources and member checking helped address these issues. Interviews were transcribed. Member checking was also used to ensure that data collected was an accurate account of the informant perspective of the dialogue and not distorted, and provided opportunity to clarify any miscommunications or to provide additional information if necessary. Actor Network Theory is not concerned with the truth or otherwise of promoted claims, recognising that all voices whether presented verbally in interviews or found in written text is delivered from the perspective of the informant in context. Actor Network Theory is concerned with how claims or ideas are constructed, spread, and influence particular practices and the interrelationships between those actors who hold conflicting perspectives. Research driven by theory does not, in itself, ensure rigour. Faithfulness to the theoretical perspective, however, does add to rigour when coupled with an honest and authentic presentation of what is being studied (Whittemore, Chase & Mandle 2001). In this study, rigour was addressed at each stage of the research process through constant comparison, reflexivity, member checking, being alert to disconfirming information, using multiple data sources and the inclusion of a wide range of informer perspectives.

Triangulation of data, that is, the multiple methods of data collection in this study to include diversity of perspectives strengthened reliable and trustworthy inferences. Data was collected paying due attention to accepted data collection strategies, such as use of a Data Recording Sheet, an Interview Schedule, transcription of interviews, and the retention of original notes, recordings, and emails, that together provide an audit trail. Efforts to report the data fairly were strengthened by the inclusion of member checks and a dynamic and constant relationship with the data. The use of the theoretical concepts of four phases of translation, problematisation, interessement, enrolment, mobilisation to guide the analysis provided a framework for the collection and analysis of data that reflected the theory and method.

As Actor Network Theory was applied in a new way to the study of Korean intercountry adoption, it was important that I was alert to tensions that emerged during the analysis. One example of this was how some actors found themselves enrolled in a network in a way they never intended and consequently complicit with discourse with which the actor did not necessarily agree in entirety. Rigour is reflected in a sensitivity to tensions and a willingness to incorporate disconfirming evidence. The term, anti adoption, was one example of this. Anti adoption was identified as a term that was subjected to fact building and was attributable to actors that held particular roles such as state government adoption departments. Though a dominant theme identified in the analysis, the evidence did not support government departments as anti adoption actors. A careful analysis showed that actors holding opponent, nonpartisan and proponent positions were identified in all groups, that is, prospective parents, adult adoptees, and government adoption departments. An openness to and the inclusion of discrepant evidence sought to add to the rigour and trustworthiness of the analysis. Using such checks and balances during the analysis allowed an honest evaluation of the effectiveness of this theoretical approach to this case study (Padgett 1998).

Actor Network Theory is not concerned with causation rather with ‘how’ things occur. Nonetheless, the Theory was deductively applied, in that there were assumptions that actor networks concerned with the phenomenon were operating. From the outset, I was aware that it was possible that no actor networks may have been identified in the analysis. If identified, networks may also have had little influence on the Korean/ Australian adoption phenomenon. Networks, however, that were identified were not those constituted by actors usually positioned according to their location in particular groups. Inductive analysis presented tensions that exposed contradictions and these are reported in the analysis.

Ethical Issues

There were a number of ethical issues to be addressed in this thesis. These were unique issues related to computer mediated communications used in the on-line discussion group; specific cultural and political concerns relating to the Korean intercountry adoption phenomenon; and informed consent and privacy concerns relating to methods used in this research.

Computer Mediated Communications

The use of computer mediated communications for research purposes raised unique issues such as the blurring between public and private information, level of intrusion, participant vulnerability, confidentiality, and informed consent, not adequately addressed by standard codes of ethical practice 94

(Eysenbach & Till 2001; Siang 1999). By the late 1990s discussions regarding ethical practice in cyberspace surrounding these issues began to emerge in the literature (Boehlefeld 1996; King, S. A. 1996a, 1996b; Paccagnella 1997; Reid 1996; Thomas 1996; Waskul & Douglass 1996). In 1999, a special report was produced by the American Association for the advancement of Science and the United States Office for the Protection from Research Risks that provided general guidelines that began to address these challenges while recognising the unique circumstances of qualitative research and difficulties in generalizing all recommendations (Frankel & Siang 1999; Siang 1999). An awareness of these issues led me to evaluate the risks and benefits to participants in the discussion group and to seek additional consultation with the Human Research Ethics Committee, School of Social Work and Applied Human Science at the University of Queensland, to ensure all ethical considerations were adequately addressed.

A determination regarding the private or public nature of the discussion group needed to be made. The public or private determination directly impacted on the need for informed consent. In addition, if that consent was required what form should it take and how would that consent be obtained (Frankel & Siang 1999). An evaluation of the literature highlighted that black and white determinations are not always possible in cyberspace as many computer mediated communications present a mixed picture and sit on a continuum from clearly private to clearly public. On evaluation, this particular discussion group sat closer to the public end of the continuum for a number of reasons. The group, itself, did not delimit membership and accepted all those with a genuine interest in adoption. There were no membership fees or registration required. Group moderators approved entry to the group. Some authors suggest the size of the group is important in determining privacy status (Coulson 2005; Eysenbach & Till 2001). Using this criterion, the discussion group in this research was considered less private with a membership of over three hundred people as compared to less than one hundred which would be considered to be more private. The private/public nature of this discussion group became clearer when compared to membership requirements of other distinctly private groups such as the Mindeulae, a Korean based support group for birth mothers. This group only allowed entry to birth mothers to ensure confidentiality and a safe environment for vulnerable participants. The Mindeulae created a second website, not considered private, where selected information was posted in recognition of the interest of others such as adoptees and adoptive parents which was considered public.

It is reported that people who engage in on-line computer mediated communications hold varying degrees of expectations regarding anonymity regardless of the nature of the group (Frankel & Siang 95

1999; Siang 1999). It was therefore important to protect from harms such as deceit, embarrassment or exploitation. Informed consent used in traditional ethical approaches is not often possible in larger groups due to constantly changing memberships, instability of email addresses and pseudonyms used (Frankel & Siang 1999; Mann & Stewart 2000). Likewise, disclosure has been documented as causing individual harm and changed participation patterns in some cases (Frankel & Siang 1999; Reid 1996). After consultation and weighing up all aspects concerning consent, a detailed request for consent was sent to the founder and moderators of the discussion group. This letter provided details regarding the research project, the type of data that would and would not be collected, how that data would be used and outlined a number of strategies aimed to protect the interests of group members. These were to protect the identity of the group and individual members, not to cite verbatim any part of an individual email, and to respect all individuals and groups in the research. The benefit the group’s perspectives would bring to the research was also discussed. Contact details and opportunity to provide further information was also provided. Written permission was granted by the discussion group moderators.

A decision was made to keep identifying information regarding the name of this group confidential despite receiving permission from the group founder to identify the group. The decision regarding confidentiality was made after careful consideration of the ethical issues. The intercountry adoption community in Australia is small and there was the potential for individuals not only to be recognised by others but to also recognise themselves which has the potential to cause harm (McIlvenny & Raudaskoski 2005; Reid 1996; Sudweeks, Mclaughlin & Rafaeli 1997; Thomas 1996). Therefore, I have made every effort to protect the interests of group members by not disclosing the name of the group, not using direct quotes, nor using any information in the analysis that has the potential to identify any individual or family.

Cultural and Political Concerns

Considerations of cultural and political sensitivities were of utmost importance in this study. It became evident during the course of this study that concerns existed regarding the consequences of any negative commentary of the Korean adoption program. At the time of data collection, New South Wales was the lead state with the primary responsibility for all negotiations with South Korea. Concerns were expressed about the Korean government’s response to research concerning Korean intercountry adoption and the subsequent implications for the future of the program if research was conducted on this topic. It was requested by the Department of Community Services, New South

Wales, that I do not approach the South Korean government, non government agencies and other relevant groups in Korea to participate in this study. These limitations were respected.

I am not Korean and do not speak Korean. With self-awareness of an outsider view, I acknowledge that an understanding of Korean culture will be limited from my white, western perspective. For these reasons, it was important that ongoing reflection, respect and an awareness of cultural sensitivities were maintained where identified in this research. Tensions between Korean and western cultural perspectives were identified and discussed in a respectful and non judgmental way. An example of this is the discussion in the literature review surrounding the inclusion of widows and divorced women in the Korean definition of unwed motherhood.

Other Ethical Issues

Privacy, confidentiality and autonomy were respected with each method of data collection and were maintained during the analysis and reporting. At no stage were individual departmental case records of children and families accessed during the data collection phase of this study consistent with the aims of the study and ethical concerns. Confidentiality of individuals and families was considered paramount given the vulnerabilities of this client group and the strong emotions surrounding the intercountry adoption phenomenon. Access to this information was not necessary to inform this study. Informed consent was gained from all parties participating in interviews. Participation was voluntary. No information was used that was not relevant to the inquiry. Individual informants were not identified. A statement of the purpose of the study, a brief description of methodology, a confidentiality statement and methods of feedback were provided to interviewees. Each informant interviewed was provided with a transcript of the interview and given an opportunity to provide feedback. Summaries of the study’s findings will be provided to all participating informants.

Ethical clearance was sought and granted from the Behavioural and Social Sciences Ethical Review Committee (BSSERC), University of Queensland. Formal submissions were made to the Department of Child Safety Research and Development Committee, Department of Child Safety (DCS), Queensland; and the Department of Community Services for External Research, Department of Community Services (DoCS), New South Wales. Approval was granted by the Department of Child Safety, Queensland (DCS), to view departmental records and to conduct interviews. The Department of Community Services (DoCS), New South Wales, granted permission for one interview only due to perceived political sensitivity. 97

Strengths and Limitations

The strength of this thesis lies in its uniqueness in addressing a contemporary global phenomenon in a fresh way. By studying the phenomenon of Korean intercountry adoption through the application of Actor Network Theory new understandings have emerged and will be discussed in the analysis. These understandings identify discourses, counterdiscourses and the power interrelationships surrounding Korean intercountry adoption. Influences and actors previously invisible emerged that can inform the understanding and practice of intercountry adoption in Australia. There has been little research previously conducted in this area. This study addresses some of the gaps in the intercountry adoption literature and has the potential to inform Australian policy and practice frameworks.

The use of multiple interviewing methods, that is, face to face, telephone, and email, raised questions of trustworthiness. A different researcher and stakeholder relationship in different interview methods may exist. Email and telephone interviews may be less rich with the absence of non verbal exchange and nuance. I, in part, addressed this by use of a semi-structured interview schedule and feedback loop allowing clarification and further input by the informant of an interview summary. Reliability was further addressed by constancy of the researcher who conducted all interviews. Advantages included reduced costs, increased efficiency and allowing the informants time to carefully consider their responses while providing an immediate record of the interview (Hamilton & Bowers 2006). The use of multi-interviewing methods ensured important informants were not excluded by resource limitations. Likewise, data triangulation, or the use of multiple data sources, and method triangulation, the use of multiple methods such as interviews and textual analysis strengthened rigour. Archival records held by the Department of Child Safety, Queensland, were important to this study as it provided information concerning the diffusion and continuance of Korean intercountry adoption as it was unfolding.

Some primary documents and research reports were not accessed due to language barriers as I cannot read or write Korean. There exists, however, considerable literature and data that was available for analysis written in English. Multiple interviewing methods, that is, the inclusion of email interviews in the research design aimed to include potential key informants who were geographically dispersed such as those in Korea. Due to ethical considerations, informants in South Korea were not approached to participate in interviews. Given the ethical constraints, limited data concerning the Korean government, Korean non government agencies and Korean birth mothers and fathers could be obtained, however, other sources such as internet sites and media representations were identified and available in the data.

The analysis can therefore only be considered a partial view as comprehensive insights into the actions of some actors, particularly those in Korea, engaged in networks remains limited.

In the following three chapters the analysis uses Actor Network Theory to describe and explore the actions of networks that enabled the diffusion of Korean intercountry adoption into Australia and sought to promote or inhibit its continuance.

Chapter Five Diffusion of Korean Intercountry Adoption into Queensland

This chapter, the first of three analyses chapters, focuses on understanding how Korean intercountry adoption diffused into Queensland. In this analysis, the diffusion period spanned from 1969 when the first Korean child was adopted into Australia until the formalisation of the program in Queensland in 1983. The analysis of the textual data and interview transcripts sought to identify which actor networks exerted influence on the diffusion of the program to Queensland. This period was characterised by conflict between actors who held opposing views, each seeking to achieve particular outcomes concerning intercountry adoption. Three actor networks, proponent, opponent and nonpartisan, were identified as active during the diffusion of Korean intercountry adoption to Australia, then Queensland, with one proving more dominant than the others. How these networks differed from the groups (adoptive parents, adoptees and Korean and Australian government and non government agencies) identified in the literature review is explained in this chapter. The interest lies in understanding how one network dominated over the other two to promote the diffusion of intercountry adoption into Australia. This chapter also describes the local Australian enabling conditions, characteristics of each actor network, and the tensions enacted between them.

Network discourse was important to diffusion as it provided the means by which networks translated new actors, multiplied and enacted power struggles. The inductive process of analysis involved reading the data corpus, immersion in the material, expanding awareness, exploring explanations and patterns, being alert to disconfirming cases and identifying discourses through constant comparison of themes found in a range of text and interview transcripts. Where an actor network discourse was identified in one data source, for example, in a government letter or memo, corroborating or conflicting evidence of its influence was sought through the interrogation of other data sources such interview transcripts, submissions to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, or websites. Some data was contemporary (records of the Department of Children’s Services13 from the time) while others offered retrospective insights

13 The Department of Child Safety in the State of Queensland was previously known as the Department of Children’s Services.

100

(some submissions to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005). Network discourses and how these discourses were transformed through translations are introduced and expanded further in Chapter Six. In Chapters Six and Seven, the role of translations in the formation and strengthening of the dominant network in relation to other networks and how their actions enabled the diffusion and continuance of Korean intercountry adoption into Australia and Queensland are examined. The analysis in these three chapters assists in understanding the processes underpinning the diffusion of intercountry adoption to Queensland and its continuance.

Networks are not limited by the boundaries of geography or national borders. As will be described in this analysis, translations and network building crossed Australian and Korean borders to promote Korean/ Australian intercountry adoption as a desirable practice for both nations. The following section identifies and describes these networks.

The Identification of Networks

The analysis of text and interview transcripts identified three performative networks, adoption proponents, adoption opponents and adoption nonpartisans, spanning Australia and Korea, see Figure 3 Adoption Networks on page 102. These three networks share some characteristics of the value positions of abolitionist, promoters, and pragmatists as described by Masson (2001). There are, however, some essential differences. These differences are related to the focus of the analysis on translation mechanisms that enabled the movement of actors between networks. This allows for an understanding where shared value positions could be identified in more than one network. Some value positions identified by Masson (2001) as abolitionist are shared between some opponents and nonpartisans. Likewise, the dynamic nature of network discourse is highlighted in this analysis. Network discourse convinces actors that their goals will be met by enrolling in the network. This discourse can be altered to include new elements important to the actor to be enrolled and interpreted according to the perspective of actors. Like Foucauldian discourse, Actor Network discourse is concerned with the meaning actors attribute to phenomena by how it is expressed, how other actors are influenced by how it is practiced and its appearance across a range of text (Hall 2004; Latour 1988). These networks (proponent, opponent and nonpartisan), described by their discourse, emerged in the diffusion period while their characteristics altered over time. By 2007, the end of the data collection period, members of groups identified in the literature, that is, adoptive parents, adoptees and Australian and Korean governments could be identified in each of these networks. In the analysis, these actors 101 were followed by their actions, intermediaries such as inscriptions and currency that passed between them and the identification of tactics they used to engage new actors through the process of translation.

Figure 3 Adoption Networks

ADOPTION ADOPTION PROPONENTS OPPONENTS

TRANSLATION MECHANISMS

ADOPTION NONPARTISANS

The first identified network, adoption proponents, shown in Figure 3 above, is one that was firmly committed to adoption of children internationally. This network emerged as one defined by discourses that supported accessible and speedy pathways to intercountry adoption; promoted the rescue of children by adoption; claimed there were many untapped opportunities for intercountry adoption; claimed governments should eliminate perceived barriers to the goals of adopting children from overseas; and claimed to be acting ‘in the best interests of the child’. These ‘fact’ claims were strongly expressed from its outset, as found in documents such as a reply letter to prospective parents from the Director of Adoptions, Department of Children’s Services dated the 20th September 1977, that responded to some of these claims and in interview transcripts with informants from the Australia Korea Friendship Group (AKFG), Queensland, in May 2005.

Proponent discourse reflected those views expressed by Americans such as Holt during the emergence of the practice and its diffusion from Korea to the United States in the 1950s and was found in inscriptions circulated across borders and groups. One example of how fact claims were spread is in a retrospective article written by an proponent and adoptee from the USA in an official Queensland parent group newsletter dated Autumn 2005 that described the origins of intercountry adoption as a practice, the desirability of child rescue from Korean orphanages and the successful merging of Korean/ American identity through an ‘osmosis’ like process. Discourse connected actors via common perspectives and translations provided the means of cementing these connections. Early proponents

102 used a range of tactics that will be described in this chapter such as coercion and persuasion to convince other actors of the validity of their claims. Some of these attempts at translation were successful while others were not. Despite losing some power struggles, the proponent network influence grew and proved durable over time. This differed from some retrospective reports provided in evidence given to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005 where proponents did not describe themselves as influential.

Proponent discourse was dominant at key junctures such as during the diffusion period and the federal government’s Inquiry into Intercountry Adoption in 2005 (House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005). The following excerpt is a retrospective report provided to this Inquiry that identified the rigour of adoption processes in the early 1980s as problematic to proponents as it was perceived to lengthen the process of child adoption from overseas.

Going back to my own experience, the processes in Australia at the time we adopted in the early 1980s, which were run by the states, were very rigorous. The complaint of the adoptive families was that they were too rigorous because they took so long (Source: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, Public Hearing Canberra 9th May 2005, Richard Madden, Director of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare14, p.10).

This excerpt helps understand proponent discourse that supports speedier adoption processes and how obstacles in their way are interpreted. How proponents developed and used tactics to deal with such obstacles will be discussed later in the analysis. The proponent network, in particular, grew in strength and durability giving credence to the effectiveness of their tactics. This was in contrast to the early opponent network that disappeared entirely. It was replaced by a new opponent network of different origins and characteristics described in relation to its influence on continuance in Chapter Seven. Adoption opponents, emergent in the diffusion period, did not support intercountry adoption under any circumstances. The following excerpt describes the activities of the first opponent network identified in the 1970s.

14 Madden, speaking as the Director of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), is also an adoptive parent of two children born in Sri Lanka. 103

…threatened statements by the Australian Nazi Party who described Korean babies for adoption as ‘things’ and said that a bounty of dollars 100 [sic] had been placed on the heads of adoptive parents. Nazi party has apparently also communicated views directly to President Park and Minister for Health and Social Services. Other letters opposing program also received from Australia [sic]. As Minister Shin told the Ambassador ROK government naturally sensitive about whole concept of organised adoption from Korea [sic] … (Source: Inward cablegram to Department of Foreign Affairs, Canberra, from Seoul, 5th December 1977, Department of Children’s Services, July 1980 File, n.p.n.15).

These opponent activities were also documented in Queensland Newspaper articles found in the Department of Children’s Services records but in no other sources. This network was small and short lived as it failed to successfully convince new actors to be enrolled into it. Despite this, its impact was felt in Australia and Korea. The effects of opponent actions were found in documents such as that cited above and other notations in the Department of Children’s Services records found in the folder marked ‘July 1980 Part 1’ describing the chain of events. The discourse of this first opponent network was racist and violent. It did not survive power struggles for discourse supremacy, was short-lived, and did not survive past the diffusion period as a network with any influence.

In contrast to these preceding views, the third represents a network that can be called adoption nonpartisans. The actors in the nonpartisan network did not belong to either the proponents or opponents. However, as with all actors, nonpartisans had the capacity to be enrolled at various times with other networks when interests converged enabling them to meet their own goals at a particular time. The discourse of the nonpartisan network did not represent the polarised views found in the proponent and opponent networks; and also claimed to act ‘in the best interests’ of the child’. A letter to Australian state and federal members and senators describes this perspective.

Because adoption is such a delicate and sensitive matter, it is essential that a careful study is made in each instance to ensure that the interests of the children are protected both from legal and welfare points of view and also that possible rights of natural parents and others who may have had some responsibility for the children, are not overlooked. Consequently, the adoption process can be a very lengthy one because of this unique combination of legal

15 ‘n.p.n.’ will be used to indicate ‘no page number’. 104

and welfare concepts (Source: Letter to all Members and Senators from Minister for Social Security Parliament House, Canberra dated 22nd August 1976, Department of Children’s Services records, July 1980 File, n.p.n.).

As noted in the excerpt above, nonpartisan discourse was found to incorporate consideration of complex needs and multiple perspectives. Consistent with Actor Network Theory, this thesis argues that an actor’s position as an opponent, nonpartisan or proponent is determined by the discourse they adopt, that is, the network goals with which they align. The analysis of text and interview transcripts showed that the composition of a network was not necessarily defined by the groups to which actors belonged. The groups identified in the literature review were adoptive parents, adult adoptees, birth families, Australian and Korean government and private adoption agencies. Government includes politicians, administrators and policy makers and practitioners engaged in intercountry adoption practice. The networks identified spanned across these groups over time. As found in text and interview transcripts, some politicians held proponent views whereas others held nonpartisan or opponent positions. Some adult adoptees held views consistent with opponent discourse whereas others voiced proponent or nonpartisan views. These views which locate actors in particular networks are documented in inscriptions written by adoptees available on multiple websites such as Adoptee Solidarity Korea and Holt International Social Services. An extensive list of Internet sites accessed and analysed is provided in Appendix Two on page 260. An adoptive parent on the other hand could be aligned with the nonpartisan network and at other times be enrolled into the proponent network to achieve a particular purpose such as lobbying for increased financial support from the government. This was evident in the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Human Services Inquiry into Intercountry Adoption 2005 where a large proportion of submissions identified inadequate financial support as an issue. By 2007, some adoptive parents were also identified as actors in the new opponent network.

In effect, any member of any group could belong to any of the three networks dependent on successful translation processes and the alignment of interests. Consequently, networks overlapped as actors moved from one network to another as shown in Figure 3 Adoption Networks on page 102. Despite overlaps, some groups tended to be represented predominately in certain networks such as parent groups in proponent networks. This conceptualisation differs considerably from commonly accepted groupings where individuals are positioned and discussed according to their roles such as ‘adoptive parent’, ‘adult adoptee’ or ‘government employee’ rather than by their discourse and the goals they 105 hope to meet. Likewise, controversy tends to be described in these terms. For example, in public hearings and submissions to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Inquiry into Intercountry Adoption 2005, it was concluded by the Committee that government adoption departments held one viewpoint, that is, anti adoption (Sources: Overseas Adoption in Australia. The Report on the Inquiry into Adoption of Children from Overseas 2005; Bishop, Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, transcript of Babies without Borders 2006). This conclusion is not supported by the qualitative analysis of the data corpus undertaken in this thesis. The Report on the Inquiry into Adoption of Children from Overseas 2005 cited Boss (1992, p. 13):-

...intercountry adoption has aroused strong feelings, both for and against in the community. The protagonists are the many prospective adopters who wait patiently, or otherwise, for years for the placement of a child. The opponents are largely the professional groups involved in adoption, such as social workers and psychologists (Overseas Adoption in Australia: The Report on the Inquiry into Adoption of Children from Overseas 2005, pp. 6- 7, citing Boss 1992, p. 13).

This citation highlights discourse that identified polarised views, for and against, the demonisation and sanctification of particular stakeholders. Social workers and psychologists were perceived as placing obstacles in the way of intercountry adoption and were therefore problematic to proponents. An example of these obstacles is outlined below.

We believe there should be a shorter and more simplified assessment period with greater cost effectiveness as a result. It seems strange that so much professional time is being expended in the intercountry adoption process and we question the need for the extensiveness of the assessment process at the moment…surely a District Officer can make an assessment suitable for an intercountry adoption on only one visit (Source: Department of Children’s Services, South Korea Book 2 1984-88 Box 11637, Submission, Reverend Roger Ellem, Aid for Children of Brazil, New South Wales, ‘Report to the Council of Social Welfare Ministers and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of the Joint

106

Committee on Intercountry Adoption16 together with the Ministerial Response to the Report’, Joint Committee on Intercountry Adoption dated September 1986, p. 56).

These two excerpts cited above provide examples of how controversy was discussed in relation to groups and traditional notions of power such as the encapsulation of professional groups working in governments as one identity. This thesis argues for a more complex view that locates actors in government departments in nonpartisan, proponent and opponent networks. An Actor Network Theory analysis has enabled the identification of networks that formed as rhizomatous structures negotiating in and around traditional structures and notions of hierarchical power rather than being confined by them.

Each of the three networks could be unpacked to reveal a number of networks linking to form the larger network, for example, a number of different interconnected parent organisations were found in the proponent network. This did not imply that all individual actors in networks shared the same views in entirety. Rather, individuals during translation accepted the discourse that spokespersons promoted or were able to exert influence and alter it in some way in order to meet particular goals such as child adoption. Network spokespersons in all networks spread particular discourse on behalf of the network regardless of individual difference of opinions. A spokesperson is not necessarily identified by a formal position in an organisation; rather a spokesperson is one who speaks on its behalf. Using the example of the St Brieuc Bay scallops, the scientists found by the end of the study they were not the accepted spokespersons for the scallops and fishermen contrary to the initial intent (Callon 1986b). A network discourse describes an actor’s goals (defined the problem), and identifies the way an actor can best meet these goals. Discourse is adjusted in response to obstacles. According to this theory and demonstrated in the analysis, discourse is not stable and does not, in itself, drive the network. Discourse must be spread by the actions of actors.

The analysis of interview transcripts and text focused on the actions and interactions of human and non human actors in those networks that enabled intercountry adoption under particular local and global conditions. These actors built networks that proved capable of enrolling new actors across Korean and Australian borders as well as at local levels. Using Actor Network Theory, how actors established

16 The Committee was comprised of representatives from state and territory child welfare departments, the federal Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Department of Foreign Affairs; and the Council of Social Welfare Ministers. 107

‘fact’ and constructed discourse by their actions was understood. In other words, actors defined their reality through performance (Latour 1986, pp. 141-56; 2005). Network actions identified in the analysis made visible the realities particular networks created such as the need for the diffusion of Korean intercountry adoption into Australia and the controversies they enacted to ensure it. Network actions and interactions contributed not only to the phenomenon’s diffusion but also to its continuance. These early power struggles were identified as the building blocks for current controversies surrounding intercountry adoption in Australia.

The Diffusion Years in Australia

Intercountry adoption from Korea to Australia manifested during the inception of the wider intercountry adoption phenomenon into Australia. Its practice is important as it represented the greatest number of children adopted from overseas in the 1970s and 1980s. As identified in records of the Queensland Department of Children’s Services, Korean children represented 206 of the 297 children adopted into Australia between July 1975 and January 1986, 32 in Queensland17. As such, the predominance of Korean adoptions and the characteristics of the Korean adoption program have had significant influence on the nature and scope of Australian intercountry adoption practice as well as on the expectations of Australians engaged in it. The exploration of the role actor networks played is therefore important in understanding the diffusion and continuance of intercountry adoption practice in Australia.

Korean intercountry adoption became an official program in Queensland in 1983 as identified in the Adoption Service Agreement between the Queensland State Government and Eastern Child Welfare Society18 dated the 1st April 1983.

...in implementing the intercountry adoption program, the State Government of Queensland and Eastern Child Welfare Society, Inc. establish co-operatively a working relationship on

17 As detailed in a report entitled ‘Report to the Council of Social Welfare Ministers and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of the Joint Committee on Intercountry Adoption together with the Ministerial Response to the Report’, prepared by Joint Committee on Intercountry Adoption dated September 1986, p. 96-103. 18 In 1977 the David Livingstone Missionary Foundation Adoption Program established in 1972 became the Eastern Child Welfare Society (ECWS). In 1997 the name was changed to Eastern Social Welfare Society (ESWS). In 1977, ECWS was nominated the sole agency for Australian adoptions by the Korean government.

108

the basis of the belief of philanthropism [sic] (humanitarian spirit or common humanity) so that Queensland families hoping to adopt Korean children may share the pleasure with their adoptive children and children experience a happy life in their new homes in Queensland (Source: ‘Adoption Service Agreement’ dated 1st April 1983, Department of Children’s Services, Queensland, South Korea 1977-85 File, Box 11637, n.p.n).

The spirit of the Service Agreement promoted proponent discourse and belied the early tensions surrounding the diffusion of the adoption program from Korea. It is argued in this thesis that Korean intercountry adoption would not have diffused to Australia without the purposeful actions of an actor network whose goal was to establish intercountry adoption programs in Australia. It is these actions, the tactics they used, and the resistance from other actors and networks that created these tensions. These actions and the conditions that supported and limited them are the focus of this chapter.

The first temporal period of significance from the late 1960s to 1983 culminated in the diffusion of the Korean intercountry adoption phenomenon from Korea to other Australian States and then to Queensland, a result of the successful tactics used by proponents. Although intercountry adoption began from Korea to other countries such as the United States and Sweden from the 1950s, it did not permeate the Australian context as a permanent institution until the late 1970s, some twenty five years later. The first Korean child had, in fact, arrived in Australia in 1969 (Hubinette 2005, p. 264) followed by reports of more children arriving by 1976. This was documented in correspondence between the Australian federal Department of Foreign Affairs and the Queensland Department of Children’s Services. These adoptions occurred prior to the development of legal frameworks, processes and government to government negotiations. The first children who arrived ‘officially’19 to be adopted within Australia, did so in December 1977, as reported in an inward cablegram to the Department of Foreign Affairs, Canberra, from Seoul dated the 5th December 1977. The children arrived in the state of New South Wales escorted by Qantas20 flight staff. Two Korean children were adopted in Queensland in 1978. There were no further adoptions from Korea to Queensland reported in the Queensland Department of Children’s Services records available for analysis until 1983 when the program was formalised, thirty years after the emergence of the phenomenon from Korea to other countries such as the USA and Sweden.

19 ‘Official’ is used to denote those adoptions that occurred as a result of formal government to government negotiations. 20 QANTAS (Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Service) is a major Australian airline. 109

As reported at the time in the Department of Children’s Services records and retrospectively in submissions to the Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Inquiry into Adoption of Children in Australia 2005, the years leading up to 1983 saw intense activity from the emergent proponent network promoting Korean intercountry adoption to Australian state governments including Queensland. Examples of these activities were found in letters and representations by parent group spokespersons to the meetings of Commonwealth/State Committee on Uniform Working Arrangements for Intercountry Adoption and the Ad Hoc Committee set up by the Conference of Welfare Ministers during the late 1970s. Tactics such as persuasion and force emerged in this period in efforts to convince others of proponent discourse as outlined below.

Regarding the IAFQ (International Adoptive Families of Queensland)21, I should report that with the permission of the Minister given on the 23rd June, 1978, I met on the 19th July 1978, a deputation from the IAFQ which was introduced by Mr Peter McKechnie, MLA22, who is its patron23. The Secretary of the Association is Mrs Green24 who is quite aggressive in her representations that Queensland should make moves in a positive direction towards encouraging intercountry adoption (Source: Letter from Robert Plummer, Director, Department of Children’s Services Queensland to Mr C L Johnson, Under Secretary Department of Welfare Services, Brisbane, dated 18th August 1978, July 1980 File, n.p.n.).

This excerpt also positions McKechnie as a proponent actor. In addition to the activities of proponents, the 1960s and 1970s was a time of significant social change in Australia. As discussed in the literature review, this period saw the abolition of the White Australia Policy; the embracing of multiculturalism at a policy level; medical innovation such as the contraceptive pill; welfare reforms such as income support for single mothers; and the subsequent decline in the number of Australian children available for adoption (ABS 2001b; De Vaus 2002b; Jupp 1995; Lopez 2000). These local Australian conditions created a climate not simply characterised by passive acceptance of the adoption of children from

21 The Australia Korea Friendship Group (AKFG) Queensland was established in 1978 as an affiliate of this group (Source: Interviews with informants from the AKFG, 14.5.2005 and 5.7.2005). 22 Member of the Legislative Assembly in the State of Queensland. 23 The role of patron has been subsequently held by other Queensland politicians such as Yvonne Chapman. In 2008, the role was held by a celebrity, Deborah-Lee Furness, wife of Australian actor Hugh Jackman. 24 ‘Mrs Green’ is a pseudonym to protect the identity of this individual. 110 overseas but rather one that created opportunities for proponent actors to demand it. The diffusion of intercountry adoption did not simply coincide with these local conditions as had been previously reported (Standing Committee on Social Issues 2000). Early tensions were identified between proponent networks demanding the diffusion of the intercountry adoption phenomenon into Australia and those nonpartisan networks not yet convinced by proponent discourse. A report prepared by the Commonwealth/ State Inter-country Adoption Committee for the Conference of Social Welfare Administrators, entitled the ‘Australian Uniform Intercountry Adoption Program’, summarised the issues in this climate.

…that each state had more approved applicants than children; each state had a decreasing number of local children; and the obvious emotional motivation of a small but active group of Australian adults to help children in less developed countries, especially by adopting them (Source: ‘Australian Uniform Intercountry Adoption Program Report’, 21st March 1980, Department of Children’s Services, July 1980 File, n.p.n.).

Tensions regarding the availability of overseas-born children for adoption emerged as an ongoing area of dispute between proponents and nonpartisans.

It is often said that there are far more adoptive parents than there are children needing adoption. The reality is that many of the countries we deal with have many thousands of children who require parents. Quite often we are told that the process is as it is because there are simply too many parents applying and too few children who need adoption. That is not true; it is a myth and I like to dispel it as quickly as possible (Source: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia, Queensland, Public Hearing Brisbane 21st July 2005, Stephen Finkel, President Australia Korea Friendship Group, AKFG, p. 16).

As this excerpt shows, tensions continued between proponents and Australian state and federal governments up to 2007. This established a pattern of attempted enrolments used by proponents to convince other actors of particular positions and at times the resistance it engendered. Some of these attempts at enrolment were successful, others were not. These tensions, enrolments and tactics used are discussed further in Chapters Six and Seven.

111

Proponent Networks

Proponents emerged in the analysis of interview transcripts and text as an influential network successful at enrolling new actors and one that proved durable. The proponent network spread discourse that promoted adoption and was altered in translation as new actors were enrolled. At the local Australian level, three contrasting proponent views, each needs-driven, that promoted Korean intercountry adoption to Australia, were identified in the analysis. These views, found in inscriptions across government, prospective parent and adult adoptee informants were: a desire to increase the Australian population, an economic view; a desire to form a family detoured from Australian domestic adoption to the possibilities of intercountry adoption25, a self interested view; and as a form of aid to children in need, a humanitarian view. The alignment of these views; their convergence and acceptance by proponents of a more general overarching altruistic discourse that subsumed the three views; and the force of the impact on the diffusion into Australia were identified in the analysis. They were aligned by 1977 into one altruistic discourse. This altruistic view was characterised by the promotion of child international adoption as a form of child rescue and a preferred welfare solution for children in orphanages or in foster care.

The discourse of adoption as a means to increase Australia’s population first appeared in the data corpus in 1978. Speaking about McKechnie, a member of the Queensland Legislative Assembly, under whose patronage the International Adoptive Families of Queensland (IAFQ) the Queensland parent support group was formed, the Director of Children’s Services wrote:

…he was concerned that the population of Australia is not increasing at anywhere near a desirable rate; that it is therefore necessary to substantially increase immigration; that Queensland will not get sufficient immigrants from traditional sources and must look to Asian countries; and that he believes it is preferable to bring in children who will be raised in a Queensland environment rather than bring in adults who are used to another culture (Source: Department of Children’s Services, Memorandum to Minister, 12.2.1979, ICA 1976-87 General Book 1, Box 11637, n.p.n).

25 This detour reversed in 2005 and is discussed in Chapter Seven. 112

The discussion described referred to representations to the previous Queensland Minister of Welfare by McKechnie, Member of the Queensland Legislative Assembly. The views of McKechnie, an early proponent actor, sought to enrol the Queensland Minister of Welfare as a proponent by appealing to his interests. Adoption from Asia was presented as a more desirable and culturally homogenous alternative to the immigration of culturally diverse adults. This tactic was used to convince the Minister that broader political goals could be better achieved as a proponent actor. In this case, the attempt at translation was not successful. McKechnie’s view was expressed within the context of a conservatively governed Queensland, in the period that followed the demise of the White Australia Policy and the foray into a new multicultural Australian society. The concept of child intercountry adoption as an opportunity to increase Australia’s population did not become dominant in proponent discourse in the data corpus, suggesting it remained less convincing to new actors than humanitarian discourse during the diffusion period. It was not identified in the data to be discourse that spread to new actors during this period. In 2005, it was a perspective noted in public hearings and submissions to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005 such as in evidence given by an adoptive parent to the public hearing held in Brisbane on the 21st July 2005. It was also evident in government, where senior officers and politicians in Queensland expressed views that identified children adopted from overseas as social capital as reported in an interview transcript by a Department of Child Safety informant.

I was shocked to hear senior management and some politicians talked about social capital, children as social capital, and an opportunity to increase the population so I actually heard that said. I was shocked by it because that train of thought had never entered… (Source: Interview Department of Child Safety, Staff 19.04.07)

Regardless of theoretical perspective, social capital ultimately means some form of economic benefit will result (Winter 2000). The excerpt above showed that perspectives subsumed in translation were still present in proponent discourse many years later. This does not mean, however, that this was the discourse promoted by spokespersons. Despite relatively small numbers of adoptive families and children, the discourse of child adoption as a solution to population growth by proponents re-emerged in power struggles manifest in public hearings and submissions to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005. An analysis of these power struggles is further developed in Chapters Six and Seven.

113

In contrast to the economic discourse, the desire to parent a child as the motivation for many childless couples also emerged in the analysis in the diffusion period. It is cited in letters to and from politicians and government employees in the years preceding 1983, newspaper reports and retrospective reports provided to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005. The limited number of local children available for adoption was an important condition for the emergence of intercountry adoption. In the period 1972 to 1973, 1228 children were available for adoption in Queensland whereas in 1977-78 only 361 children were available as identified in a Briefing Paper to Minister dated 1979 located in the Department of Children’s Services records. In the same year, 1013 applications were received for local adoption in Queensland with a waiting list of three and a half to four years. This was reported to parallel the experience in other Australian states and territories in this document. Consequently, many people hoping to adopt a child and faced with long waiting periods were convinced the emerging alternative of intercountry adoption would help them meet their goals.

Humanitarian discourse of child rescue by adoption in the diffusion years emerged in proponent discourse found in data sources, often retrospectively.

Many of the first intercountry adoptive families already had children born to them and were adopting for altruistic [sic] rather than involuntary childlessness (Source: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, Submission 56 Australian Council for Adoption, p. 6).of

This excerpt highlights that this distinction was important to proponents. Likewise, the Australian Uniform Intercountry Adoption Program Report dated 21st March 1980 indicated that many prospective parents were motivated to help children in less developed countries by adopting them. The implication in this report was that the desire to adopt as a humanitarian act was driven by emotion to the exclusion of the exploration of other alternatives and perhaps not well considered. Humanitarian motivations as cited above were presented as positive in proponent discourse whereas it emerged that these motivations were treated with more caution by nonpartisans.

114

The main Western justification for overseas adoption (and enticement for prospective parents) is that the adoptees are promised more opportunities overseas than they may have if they were to remain in their native countries (Source: Interview Inter-country Adoptee Network, ICASN, 11.04.2005).

The Australian Uniform Intercountry Adoption Program Report was dated five years after Operation Babylift. Operation Babylift was preceded by well publicised emotional responses from the Australian public to the Vietnam War. This is discussed further in the Chapter Six. A number of failed adoption placements concerning this group of children occurred resulting in subsequent institutional placements. Reasons for these failures included the rejection of children for reasons such as skin colour. Reports of placement breakdowns were not only documented in Queensland Department of Children’s Services records but also reported in the media and commented on by the New South Wales Director of the United Nations consultative agency, International Social Services, ISS, (Source: ‘Adoption law move “threat to overseas children''’, The Australian, 7th March 1980). These circumstances, in hindsight, could be attributed to insufficient preparatory measures that did not include comprehensive assessments of prospective parents that informed their selection; lack of education about the implications of international adoption and the type of children to be adopted26; and the speed of the process itself driven by humanitarian concern. Rather than compromising standards and shortening processes due to humanitarian rescue concerns, a Confidential Paper for Parliamentary Committee to the Minister for Welfare (Queensland), referring to the adoption experience from Vietnam reported:-

Rather, it would be envisaged that successful applicants to adopt a foreign child would require additional skills such as a knowledge of the culture involved and demonstrated ability to cope with the raising of a child from that culture in an Australian environment (Source: Confidential Paper for Parliamentary Committee to the Minister for Welfare, Queensland, ‘Proposed Amendments to the Adoption of Children’s Act 1964-78’, Department of Children’s Services, n.d., circa 1979, n.p.n.)

26 These are issues addressed in the assessment of contemporary adoption practice in Queensland and supported by research (Freundlich 2002). 115

The existing nonpartisan network, therefore, was not easily convinced by humanitarian discourse and did not dismiss a cautionary approach. Rather it reflected a concern to recognise the complexity of the issues and the skills required for adoptive parenting.

Humanitarian motivations alone did not explain the diffusion of and the increasing demand for overseas adoptions. In the mid eighties, the Council of Social Welfare Ministers and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs called for a report on the efficiency of intercountry adoption services with a view to enhancing co-ordination between the commonwealth, states and territories. A Joint Committee on Intercountry Adoption27 submitted the report in September 1986, for their consideration. The Joint Committee on Intercountry Adoption rejected Australia’s official involvement in intercountry adoption as a humanitarian response:-

The committee could not accept that Australia’s present involvement in intercountry adoption resulted from an altruistic and humanitarian response to a pressing world problem. Apart from the 1974/75 airlift of children from Vietnam we found no evidence of specific government policies or directives that indicated the adoption of children from overseas resulted from a conscious humanitarian decision (Source: Department of Children’s Services, South Korea Book 2 1984-88 Box 11637, ‘Report to the Council of Social Welfare Ministers and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of the Joint Committee on Intercountry Adoption together with the Ministerial Response to the Report’, Joint Committee on Intercountry Adoption, September 1986, p. 31).

Though acknowledging submissions from people who appeared motivated to provide homes for children with limited life opportunities, the committee was not persuaded that humanitarian motivations explained the intercountry adoption phenomenon. Attempts at translation and enrolling the Committee members as proponents failed. Other views were found to be more convincing. The Committee also found in submissions widespread condemnation of Australia’s response to intercountry adoption as reactive; programs geared towards meeting the needs of prospective parents, infertile or

27 The Joint Committee was made up of representatives from State, Territory, and Commonwealth government departments. Thirty-eight submissions, twenty of which were from support groups including the South Korea Australia Friendship Group, were received. A full report was provided to the Council of Social Welfare Ministers and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in 1986. 116 not; and a focus on providing a service for prospective parents rather than the needs of children. The Report did not indicate the proportion of documents that expressed these views.

Many felt the attitudes underpinning current Australian intercountry adoption practices were (wrongly):- An inherent right to a child; wealth and/or influence will obtain a child; the child’s best interests will be served by a life in Australia (referred to by correspondent as ‘cultural imperialism) (Source: Department of Children’s Services, South Korea Book 2 1984-88 Box 11637, ‘Report to the Council of Social Welfare Ministers and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of the Joint Committee on Intercountry Adoption together with the Ministerial Response to the Report’, Joint Committee on Intercountry Adoption, September 1986, p. 31).

The views described in this submission did not necessarily reflect opponent views to intercountry adoption, but rather this view rejected the appropriateness of intercountry adoption as a service for adults and considered the possibility that better alternatives to intercountry adoption could be supported. The Joint Committee’s rejection of humanitarian motivations, based on the evidence presented to them, failed to predict the ongoing success of merged proponent altruistic discourse, its high emotional content that appealed to and enabled the enrolment of influential others (while creating resistance in others), and the capacity of networks to create their own sustainable realities and construct ‘facts’ regarding intercountry adoption. These aspects are discussed further in the next two chapters.

Some views promoting alternatives that would assist children and their birth families in different ways could also be viewed as humanitarian in nature. These views did not encompass nor promote the right to adopt children or adoption as a form of aid as an inherent part of that discourse. In the excerpt below the humanitarian tactic is used in a different way, that is, to promote welfare services in the country of origin. Proponent humanitarian discourse was not always accepted in its entirety by other actors. The submission to the Committee was quoted in the Report as follows:-

Why can’t we as a wealthy and privileged nation concentrate on helping these children and their families in their own environment rather than removing them – another ‘mother’ and ‘father’ is not the answer, least of all a strange one in a strange country…I would like to see us as a nation contributing and enriching the lives of children in other countries but adoption is not the answer. To remove them from their own people, homes and country is 117

criminal and a selfish indulgence on behalf of a few (Source: Department of Children’s Services, South Korea Book 2 1984-88 Box 11637, Submission, Jillian Anne Powell, Private Citizen, ‘Report to the Council of Social Welfare Ministers and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of the Joint Committee on Intercountry Adoption together with the Ministerial Response to the Report’, Joint Committee on Intercountry Adoption, September 1986, p. 32).

There is insufficient information in this excerpt to determine whether Jillian Anne Powell held a nonpartisan or opponent position. This perspective inclusive of preferred alternatives expressed in the excerpt above remerged later promoted by some adult adoptees and Australian birth mothers and was found in discourse represented in the later opponent network. Actor Network Theory brought forward differences in individual perspectives and how from these discourses were constituted.

The successful diffusion of intercountry adoption into Australia was the outcome of power struggles in which proponent views prevailed. The three proponent views (economic, self-interested and humanitarian) merged into one altruistic view that more easily allowed the enrolment of others and represented discourse that emerged in proponent and nonpartisan networks during the diffusion period. This view altered in the translation process becoming less specific, focusing on adoption as a means of meeting the needs of children and those who adopted them. While the resultant discourse allowed for the enrolment of those who hoped to form families and remained consistent with the economic position, it was the more generic altruistic view that came to dominate in proponent discourse spread by spokespersons and evident in the data corpus. Nonpartisan and opponent views were ultimately not as influential as those of the developing proponent network.

The comments and actions of actors located in the analysis suggested that those in government departments dealing with adoption held a range of views reflective of nonpartisan and proponent discourse. Markedly, it is only in the data sourced from prospective parents and other proponents that universally placed those in government departments as opponents. This may be the effect of enemy creation, a tactic that is explored in the next two chapters. Proponent discourse ultimately prevailed despite governments holding traditional seats of power while reports of the government’s predominantly opponent stance continued to circulate. The proponent position may have been fuelled by the resistance and failed translations such as that which occurred with The Joint Committee on Intercountry Adoption. The prevailing nature of proponent discourse can also be, in part, attributable 118 to proponents in Australian governments such as politicians and public servants who aligned their interests with proponents external to government to enable the phenomenon. Power struggles in an Actor Network sense are not defined by existing power structures. Confusion exists around controversy as power struggles tended to be described in terms of traditional notions of power rather than understandings found by following the actions of actors and actor networks and the performative nature of power. In other words, the analysis identified that controversies tended to be described as those between parent groups and governments, for example, rather than between proponents, opponents and nonpartisans who were found across groups.

The application of Actor Network Theory helps to explain power struggles between networks. The analysis identified that proponents, to a greater degree than opponents and nonpartisans, spread discourse which appealed to new and influential actors enabling successful enrolments through translation mechanisms. This discourse, inclusive of the right to parent, was altruistic and palatable to new actors as it proved able to translate others as shown by its dominance in the data until 2007. In contrast, reference to adoptions motivated by infertility emerged less frequently. The continued presence of the discourse of altruistic child rescue by adoption in the 1970s and 1980s and its spread to new actors in that period showed its influence in the diffusion of intercountry adoption to Australia and Queensland. Consistent with Actor Network Theory analysis, altruistic discourse was less open to dispute by actors enrolled in proponent or other networks, as it proved difficult to dispute humanitarian concerns regarding children, even if preferred solutions differed. Altruistic discourse absorbed economic and self-interested discourse through translation and it became the primary means of expanding the proponent network by spokespersons.

When the Korean program officially opened in Queensland in 1983, opponent discourses were not dominant and influential nonpartisan actors such as those in state adoption departments were enrolled, albeit temporarily, into the proponent network. For some, this appeared to be accepting the inevitability of intercountry adoption as a global practice much like Masson’s (2001) pragmatists. This was noted in the analysis of Children’s Services records from the late 1970s through to the 1980s such as in the feedback document on the 20th International Conference on Social Welfare held in Hong Kong in July 1980. Proponent and nonpartisan actors visible in the analysis were aligned with interests funneled in the same direction, that is, enabling the adoption of overseas born children into Australia for the benefit of children. Proponent networks were forming alliances and increasing in numbers which contributed to the network’s durability. A constant supply of new actors that could be enrolled 119 was available to the proponent network in the form of prospective parents who were unable to adopt domestically due to the reduced availability of Australian children. Proponents promoted intercountry adoption to governments as a desirable practice with which Australia should engage while nonpartisans became temporarily enrolled proponents who focused on the professional and ethical practice aspects of intercountry adoption. This intent was clearly outlined at a meeting held on 17th Aug 1978 of the Ad Hoc Committee set up by the Conference of Welfare Administrators to make preparations to visit certain Asian countries to investigate adoption practice and facilitate the arrangement of intercountry adoption. Korea was visited on the 27th and 28th of September 1978 by a delegation represented by the States of Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, New South Wales28. The purpose of the visit was to ensure best practice and to discuss details of the proposed working arrangements, not to arrange adoptions.

It is this juxtaposition that laid the foundation for the controversy over what constituted ‘the best interests of the child’. This controversy was found repeatedly in submissions and evidence given in public hearings to the Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Inquiry into Adoption of Children in Australia 2005 and the adoption legislation of all Australian states. Though enshrined in Australian legislation and in the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, it is the meaning of this term that was under dispute. Proponent actors by 2007 promoted intercountry adoption as in the best interests of a child, life in a loving Australian family versus life in an orphanage or foster care. Any obstacles to the speed and volume of this process were up till 2007 (the end of the data collection period) perceived as problematic and oppositional by many proponents. Some proponent spokespersons felt any barriers to overseas adoption were unacceptable.

From 1994 to 1998 hardly any work was done on establishing programs with new countries. If you look at the States, you can see that there are lots of other countries they are adopting from which Australians are not allowed to or able to. In 1998 when Australia ratified the convention it made a decision that no more programs would be opened with non-convention countries, so no non-convention countries are being considered today. The

28 Queensland was not part of this delegation. It was noted that the matter of the visit was under consideration at a political level in Queensland as the South Korean government was to wind down their program by 1980 and changes were needed to Queensland legislation. 120

only country that was considered at the time was China, and that was only through a push by Brian Harradine to get the program approved and a lot of lobbying by a lot of family and support groups that were trying to get the program up and running29. It took six years to get the China program approved and operational (Source: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Adoption of Children from Overseas 2005, Public Hearing Sydney 23rd September, Ricky Brisson, Executive Officer, Australian Families for Children, AFC, p. 24).

This excerpt highlights that even safeguards such as the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption was considered an obstacle to child rescue by adoption by proponent spokespersons. Power struggles over the meaning of ‘best interests’ used in attempts to enrol others became overt during the continuance debate and is discussed further in Chapter Seven.

The diffusion of intercountry adoption to Australia meant proponent actors could meet their needs for population growth, humanitarian concerns and infertility solutions by adopting altruistic discourse. For the period leading up to the official adoption of Korean children into Queensland in 1983, actors enrolled in the proponent network were actively involved in the promotion of the adoption of Korean children. Proponents were found in the ranks of Australian and overseas politicians; governments; diplomats; the media; prospective parents and the groups who represented them; religious and aid organisations; and Korean adoption agencies, that is, Holt International Social Services and Eastern Child Welfare Society. As parent supports groups dominated the proponent network, it is important to follow their actions to understand the diffusion of Korean intercountry adoption to Australia and Queensland.

Parent Support Groups as Proponent Actors The proponent network championed the diffusion of Korean intercountry adoption in the local context. Individual variance of viewpoints was largely subsumed within translations in order to meet the goal of child adoption from overseas. In other words, two things can happen in the translation process.

29 China was not a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. The opening of this Program was championed by Harradine, state politician from Tasmania and promoted by other proponents. 121

Discourse can be accepted and adopted in entirety by the new actor or it is altered in translation. Translations ensured spokespersons were thus able to speak on behalf of the individual. Understanding this process in an Actor Network framework suggests that shared interest and common goals ensured the sustained engagement in a network of those whose views were compromised in the translation process. The proponent network became an influential and durable network with spokespersons representing them. Its ability to convince others such as politicians and Korean actors to meet their own goals by following the proponent network became the driving force behind the diffusion of Korean intercountry adoption. Korean actors are discussed in the next chapter. By following the actions of early proponents and how other actors responded to these actions, a better understanding of how proponent actors enabled intercountry adoption in Australia can be reached.

Parent groups, as members of the proponent network, were active since the 1970s and their discourses were well represented in the data corpus. Rosemary Calder, President of the Australian Society for Inter-country Aid (ASIAC), Victoria, a parent support group, reported at the ICSW (International Conference on Social Welfare) Asia and Western Pacific Regional Conference in 1979, that the cautionary approach of welfare and government officials to intercountry adoption was understandable, as was the actions of prospective adoptive parents:-

…who in the those early days, pressured authorities, campaigned in the press, and in some instances, took the law into their own hands and pursued adoptions without the involvement of welfare and government authorities in this country. They were responding to an age-old instinct to want children (Source: Department Children’s Services, Intercountry Adoption General Information Pre 1985 File, Archive Box 11637, Calder 1979, p. 2130).

This excerpt describes the actions of early proponents who would go to great lengths to meet their goals, legitimising these actions by altruistic discourse. The Joint Committee on Intercountry Adoptions also noted these activities and in contrast reported on viewpoints that did not consider these actions justifiable:-

30 This article was located in the Department of Children’s Services records. 122

There was widespread condemnation of couples or individuals seeking to adopt a child from overseas for what were seen as selfish reasons, or attempting to bypass current requirements in their quest for a child. The Committee was not convinced that altruism and a child centred focus are reflected in current practice…Many submissions coupled these philosophies with the preparedness of many couples and individuals to bypass the system and a lack of enforcement of existing guidelines and controls (Source: Department of Children’s Services, South Korea Book 2 1984-88 Box 11637, ‘Report to the Council of Social Welfare Ministers and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of the Joint Committee on Intercountry Adoption together with the Ministerial Response to the Report’, Joint Committee on Intercountry Adoption, September 1986, p. 31-2).

Despite controversy, it is these actions which ignited intercountry adoption as an institutional practice in Australia. Australian parents who as proponent actors successfully negotiated systems that lacked legislative frameworks for overseas adoption began to form parent support groups from 1974 (Gray1996), a tactic described by Latour (1987, p. 115) as inventing new groups. Thus began the expansion of the proponent network.

This highlights the different ways networks emerged and explains their positioning in controversy. The first parent support groups were formed as a tactic of proponents with the purpose of enabling and promoting intercountry adoption (Calder 1979). Those that formed them were proponent actors so, in fact, they began as proponent organisations with specific goals relating the diffusion of the phenomenon. This explains the predominance of parent groups in the proponent network. Other groups involved in intercountry adoption, in contrast, did not begin with specific goals to promote or inhibit intercountry adoption. As found on the Inter-Country Adoptee Support Network (ICASN) website and in the interview with the informant from ICASN dated 11.04.05, adult adoptee groups in Australia, for example, were formed primarily to provide support for adoptees. It was therefore more difficult for the group to be identified as an enrolled opponent, proponent or nonpartisan as the group goal was not linked to a specific network goal. Individual group members, however, could be enrolled in networks when their interests aligned. How these networks changed and developed new roles and tactics are discussed in Chapter Seven.

Parent support groups as proponents assisted other prospective parents to adopt children prior to formal government to government negotiations and the development of legislative frameworks and processes. 123

As reported in a cable from the Department of Foreign Affairs to the Department of Children’s Services on the 2nd March 1977, five Korean children were reported to be adopted in this way through the Holt International Social Services31. It was these proponent actions that forced the enrolment of some Australian nonpartisan actors and their engagement in the practice of intercountry adoption in order to ensure proper and ethical practice. As one example, the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs felt compelled to issue visas as a result of these actions as reported by the Joint Committee on Intercountry Adoption in 1986. These adoptions, that is, those driven by the actions of proponents, accounted for the arrival of the first children in Australia according to the Commonwealth Department of Foreign Affairs.

…This somewhat explosive combination [altruistic philosophies and bypassing the system]32 has resulted in an undermining of guidelines by the sensationalisation of particular cases to create pressure on politicians and officers to achieve an end outside policy. Such exceptions threaten the future conduct of intercountry adoption (Source: Department of Children’s Services, South Korea Book 2 1984-88 Box 11637, ‘Report to the Council of Social Welfare Ministers Report to the Council of Social Welfare Ministers and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of the Joint Committee on Intercountry Adoption together with the Ministerial Response to the Report’, Joint Committee on Intercountry Adoption, September 1986, p. 32).

Intense lobbying characterised the actions of the proponent network, seeking a more direct and cheaper route to the goal of child adoption. In response to a letter from a proponent actor in 1977, the Director of the Queensland Department of Children’s Services advised that no legislation had yet been passed by any Australian or state governments that would enable automatic, less complicated, and less expensive adoption processes. The International Adoptive Families of Queensland (IAFQ), with which the Australia Korea Friendship Group (AKFG), Queensland, is affiliated, as previously referred to in this chapter was established in 1978 under the patronage of Peter McKechnie, a member of the Queensland Legislative Assembly. As a member of the governing coalition, McKechnie was a powerful actor well positioned to potentially influence the parliament. The International Adoptive

31 Holt International Services is the American based adoption agency established by Harry Holt after the Korean War. 32 Author insertion. The ‘explosive combination’ referred to the altruistic philosophies and bypassing the system discussed in preceding paragraphs. 124

Families of Queensland (IAFQ), as reported in a letter from Robert Plummer, Director, Department of Children’s Services, Queensland, to Mr C L Johnson, Under Secretary Department of Welfare Services Brisbane dated 18th August 1978, believed the Queensland government should be promoting, without reservation, intercountry adoption to Queensland. The Queensland government reported that it had no prior experience working with parent support groups and looked to other states for guidance regarding appropriate relationships with them as documented in a report on attendance at a meeting of the Commonwealth/ State Intercountry Adoption Committee held in Canberra, dated the 7th December 1978. As referred to previously in this chapter, the official spokesperson from the International Adoptive Families of Queensland (IAFQ) was noted to be ‘aggressive’ in such representations to the Queensland government in 1978. At a 1979 seminar on intercountry adoption Peter Fopp, Director of Special Projects, South Australian Department for Community Welfare, reports:

This is important33, because some Australians have given the impression overseas (by their fanatical determination to adopt children) that they would be unsuitable parents (Source: Department of Children’s Services, July 1980 File, Fopp 1979a, p. 28).

High emotion was commonly reported from the 1970s to 2007. Another example of this was found in a feedback report from the Senior Supervisor Metro [sic] in the Department of Children’s Services record concerning the 20th International Conference on Social Welfare held in Hong Kong on the 16- 22 July 1980.

The workshop on intercountry adoption required particular reference to Western Australia. Understandably there were different emphases on this topic particularly between donor and recipient countries. The workshop in general was emotionally charged. The impressions gained regarding the future of intercountry adoption however, would indicate that given the continued decrease in the supply of locally born children for adoption, and the sustained numbers of couples wanting a child, the demand will continue for overseas children. The views of the workshop tended to indicate that numbers of children from existing donor countries will not increase substantially, if at all (Source: Feedback report, Senior

33 Fopp was referring the need for prospective parents to work through government departments to ensure the confidence of overseas countries. 125

Supervisor Metro, Department of Children’s Services, 20th International Conference on Social Welfare held in Hong Kong on the 16-22 July 1980).

Inscriptions concerning high emotional content continued well past the diffusion period. A letter written by the President of the International Adoptive Families of Queensland (IAFQ) in May 1989 described the frustration and anger of their members and the fear they were reported to experience when making enquiries of the Queensland adoptions department in relation to the progress of their applications.

Parent groups featured as leading actors in the proponent network. As found in the analysis, proponents and their spokespersons were active during the diffusion period and remained so. Early tactics used to convince others to join them included force and persuasion that were often associated with high expressed emotion. At times these were met with resistance by other actors.

Opponent Networks

Counterpoint views to proponents represented in the diffusion period were those who were opposed (opponents) to the practice in all circumstances for reasons such as racism. In the diffusion period from the late seventies, one opponent network gained public visibility via the media and letter writing. Evidence of this first opponent network was only found in data sourced from the Department of Child Safety records which included memos, cables, notations and newspaper articles and was not present in data available for analysis from other sources. The influence of this network was short lived but extensive as its influence reached the Korean government and became the focus of diplomatic relations as reported earlier in this chapter.

A racist and threatening article appeared in the Queensland statewide tabloid newspaper, the Sunday Sun, on the 5th June 1977. Two self proclaimed Nazis, Fuehrer Bob and his associate Skull, put a bounty of one hundred dollars on the heads of anyone who adopted a Korean child, see Appendix Four Nazi threat to Korean kids on page 265. Fuehrer Bob and Skull left Queensland and returned to Sydney monitored by the Special Branch Police following the publication of this article. The Australian Nazi Party wrote directly to President Park and the Korean Minister for Health and Social Services to express their opposition to the diffusion of Korean intercountry adoption into Australia. As reported by the Department of Foreign Affairs in a cable from the Seoul Embassy dated 5th December

126

1977, other letters were also received by Korean authorities from Australians who opposed the adoption of Korean children into Australia but their content was not specified.

In June 1977, the Queensland’s Welfare Minister, John Herbert, sought the views of Queenslanders via the media regarding intercountry adoption from Korea. He advised Queenslanders that Korea had formally requested Australians to provide homes for their orphaned children34 (Sources: Newspaper articles found in the Department of Children’s Services records: 1977, ‘Would you adopt a Korean baby?’, The Courier Mail, circa 5th June 1977; 1977, ‘State ‘yes’ to the entry of Korean orphans’, The Sunday Mail, 26th June; Hand written notes in Department of Children’s Service File Archive 11637). In response, Herbert received an anonymous letter on the 27th June 1977, also racist in nature, which threatened to burn down the homes of anyone who adopted Korean children. The letter was forwarded to the Queensland Commissioner of Police for investigation.

Dear Mr Herbert, I would have written sooner but I did not think you would ever consider bringing in those little brown monkeys from Asia, while our own babies are being butchered in Sydney35. The houses they go to will need full time police protection, as I will not stand apathetic, and those houses will get burnt to the ground… (Source: Department of Children’s Services Note 27.6.1977, South Korea 1977-85 File, Archive 11637 Box, n.p.n.).

This excerpt was reflective of the racist and threatening views expressed by this opponent network. Herbert did report in the media that some letters were highly racist in content while nine letters were totally opposed to Korean adoption. Further detail of the views expressed in these nine letters was not provided. Overall, Herbert received a total of 111 letters by the 6th July 1977 from the public in response to his media plea. One hundred responses expressed a desire to personally adopt a Korean child. Twenty-four were on the local adoption list and were reportedly tired of waiting. One had been previously rejected for local adoption and expected more lenient criteria to apply to adoption from

34 There was no evidence of a formal request from Korea in the documents provided by the Department of Child Safety until 1983. A more recent posting in the Electronic Discussion Group claimed that the spokesperson for Eastern Child Welfare Society made this request of the Australian government when he visited in May 1977. This thesis suggests that there was considerable proponent activity in Korea prior to this request. 35 Abortions were conducted in Sydney and were illegal at that time in Queensland. 127

Korea. Sixty-three had children of their own and some responses indicated that they would prefer to help a child stay in their own environment in Korea. These details as reported in the media accurately reflected details recorded in Department of Children’s Services file notes, Archive 11637.

These response letters reflected the range of views found in proponent, opponent and nonpartisan discourse across informant groups. By February 1978, Herbert’s own views were expressed, again through the media, in a newspaper article, ‘Adoption queue grows’, published in a Queensland newspaper, the Telegraph on the 10th February, 1978, see Appendix Five Adoption queue grows on page 266. It was reported that he did not support the adoption of overseas children as a supplement to the diminishing numbers of local children available for reasons that differences in appearance, cultural background and societal attitudes could cause heartbreak for children and families. The article reported that Herbert had tested public views through the media as a result of pressure from groups lobbying for Korean adoption but felt the response was so poor it had little influence on his views. This suggests that proponent and opponent efforts to enrol Herbert were weak and failed to convince him that his own goals could be met through translation into either network. There was no information in the data corpus that lent insight into Herbert’s response to opponent threats and how this influenced his resistance to translation by proponents. The media, in order to meet its own goals, began to regularly feature as an enrolled nonhuman actor in all three networks. Latour (1987) highlights how the enrolment of nonhuman actors, such as the media, strengthens a network and provides an efficient way to spread network discourse not possible by human actors alone.

During this period audible opponent voices in Queensland were racist and violent in nature. These actors held no popular appeal and were unsuccessful in enrolling others into their network. These actors were unable to align interests or assist other actors to meet their goals. During the diffusion period, this opponent network lacked durability and cohesion, and was unable to grow in strength and influence without the capacity to recruit new and influential actors despite efforts to do so through the media and inscriptions in the form of letters. Opponents of the racist type are still visible in Australia today in various forms, for example, receiving racist pamphlets in letter boxes and racist feedback on radio talkback. Evidence of this was found in emails of the electronic discussion group circulating commentary regarding a Radio 2GB program and an interview with a Queensland Department of Child Safety informant on the 23.4.2007. Reports of racism were found across all informant groups. More recent reports appear to be of isolated incidents rather than attributable to network activity.

128

The influence of this first opponent network was felt in Korea. The nature of its racist discourse, lack of effective tactics, and an inability to align interests, meant it was unable to enrol others as opponents in Korea and Australia to help meet the goal of preventing the diffusion of Korean intercountry adoption to Australia. Information provided in the interview with the Inter-Country Adoptee Support Network (ICASN) informant suggested retrospectively that opponents did exist in Korea during the diffusion period. The general Korean public was not in favour of intercountry adoption and felt shamed by its practice. In contrast to the first opponent network, proponents made early connections with Korean proponents such as adoption agencies which included Holt International Services and worked with them towards a common goal. This is explored further in the next two chapters. Network influence that extended beyond Australian borders could only be strengthened through the alignment of interests.

Other actors who held opponents views, that is, against intercountry adoption in all circumstances were identified retrospectively through internet sources and evidence given in the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Inquiry into the Adoption of Children from Overseas 2005. These views had no commonality with the views of the first opponent network and there was no evidence in the data that these actors formed a network. These were some Australian mothers who lost their own children to adoption. Support groups were later formed to support Australian mothers whose children were adopted in a range of circumstances. As with other groups not all members of these mothers groups expressed opponent views and many could be considered nonpartisans. Though opponent views were held by some mothers there was no evidence available that a network was formed with the purpose of opposing intercountry adoption. This is in contrast to parent support groups who were first formed with the express purpose of promoting intercountry adoption. Like adult adoptees, spokespersons from these mothers’ groups expressed a variety of views. These issues are discussed in more detail later in the analysis.

As previously noted a new opponent network that was not connected to the one described in this chapter and did not hold racist views emerged during the continuance debate and is discussed in Chapter Seven. This opponent network had a different foundation and had no connections with racist opponent views evident during the diffusion period. The new opponent network is expanding and has found its hub in Korea with actors promoting the cessation of intercountry adoption working from within Korea. This flow of ideas is working in the opposite direction to proponent influence which flows from the West to Korea. This network is discussed in Chapter Seven. 129

Nonpartisan Networks

Herbert, Queensland’s Welfare Minister36, initially resisted enrolment by the proponent network, remaining unconvinced by attempts at translation. The proponent network’s size in terms of numbers belied its impact, durability and influence on new actors and their enrolment. Despite Herbert’s resistance, by June 1977, the official Australian government position supported intercountry adoption from Korea as documented in a Department of Children’s Services Memorandum dated the 6th June 1977. On the 16th June 1977, the Queensland government expressed the view in a telegram and letter to the Director of Social Security Department of Children’s Services that there was no objection to Korean intercountry adoption in principle, provided standards of good adoption practice was adhered to at all times. Consistent with nonpartisan views, the Queensland government remained hesitant for reasons such as an absence of a formal bilateral agreement with Korea, Korea’s stated intent to cease its adoption program by 1981, unknown long term outcomes for children and families, and changes required to Queensland adoption legislation (Sources: Department Children’s Services Minute dated 7.11.77, Folder marked July 1980 Part 1; Summary of Proceedings Commonwealth State Committee 17.8.1978, Folder marked July 1980 Part 1).

A formal bilateral agreement has never been signed between the Korean and Australian governments. An agreement (working arrangements) was signed between Eastern Child Welfare and the New South Wales government in May 1977. Eastern Child Welfare Society was the sole Korean adoption agency that deals with Australia. Working Arrangements between Eastern Child Welfare and other Australian States were later negotiated. An Adoption Services Agreement was signed between Eastern Child Welfare Society and the Queensland government on the 1st April 1983 (Sources: Department of Child Safety Interview 10.4.2007; Department of Community Services Interview 20.4.2007; Department of Children’s Services Records, South Korea 1977-85 File, Box 11637). The absence of a bilateral agreement is significant and foreshadows the position of the Korean government in the intercountry adoption phenomenon which is explored in Chapter Seven. It also shows the extent of Australia’s willingness to pursue an adoption program with Korea in its absence.

A Queensland Children’s Services internal memorandum found in the file marked ICA 1976-87 general book 1, Box 11637, n.d., identified that other Australian states, particularly South Australia and

36 The Welfare Minister was responsible for the Queensland adoption department. 130

Western Australia, were enrolled proponents and champions of intercountry adoption. These states, in particular South Australia, exerted influence over other Australian states urging serious engagement with intercountry adoption. By 1978, many Australian states were actively working on establishing appropriate practices between sending countries and Australia. An ad hoc meeting of Commonwealth, State and Territory representatives was held on the 17th August 1978 in Canberra. The purpose of the meeting was to make preparations to visit particular Asian countries including Korea to investigate adoption practices in potential sending countries and to facilitate intercountry adoption arrangements. Impressions, documented in an internal memorandum, of a senior executive of the Queensland Department of Children’s Services who attended that meeting were that South Australia and Western Australia were the most enthusiastic states regarding the visit and future negotiations. The South Australian delegate was ready to leave in September with or without other state delegates, thus exerting pressure on other states to join the delegation. An alternative view is presented in other documents. Submissions to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Inquiry into the Adoption of Children from Overseas 2005 from proponents, evidence presented at public hearing held in Perth on the 18th October 2005, and in electronic communications of parent support groups described the anti adoption nature of Western Australia from the time of the diffusion of intercountry adoption into Australia. These perspectives are not consistent with these early impressions as documented in the Department of Children’s Services memorandum. This raises questions about the use of tactics, their role in controversy, and proponent discourse that identified any perceived barrier to intercountry adoption as problematic. Anti adoption and enemy creation emerged as tactics used by proponents in this analysis and are discussed in Chapters Six and Seven.

The media in 1978 was also enrolled by politicians of other states to promote positive images of proposed adoption programs such as that found in a national newspaper (Source: Department of Children’s Services Records, Folder marked July 1980 Part 1: 1978, ‘New South Wales leads in intercountry adoption’, The Weekend Australian, 21-22nd January). In contrast, as found in retrospective reports, proponents reported their perceptions of media coverage from that period, such as reports of baby buying, were negative, presented an unbalanced view of intercountry adoption practices, and were in fact perceived as anti adoption or opponent views rather than nonpartisan (Source: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, Public Hearing 23.9.2005). The Korean government also indicated that these newspaper articles were negative as reported in an inward cablegram to Department of Foreign Affairs Canberra from Seoul dated 5th December 1977. Thus from the same events particular responses 131 emerged and were interpreted according to the perspective of the actor. The anti adoption theme was unpacked in the analysis to help understand its definition, construction and its application in proponent discourse. This is explored in Chapter Seven.

Two important practices in Australian modern history linked to the diffusion of intercountry adoption into Australia emerged in retrospective reports (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission 1997; Standing Committee on Social Issues 2000). These practices were The Stolen Generation and Australian past domestic adoption practices occurring from the 1950s to the mid 1970s. The Stolen Generation describes the removal of Aboriginal children from their families from 1900 to 1970 to be raised in the dominant white Australian culture. The long term negative consequences of these actions for families and children, now adults, are documented with relevance to the professional body of knowledge concerning adoption (Hubinette 2005; Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission 1997; van Krieken 1999). Australian domestic adoption practice, from the mid 1950s to the 1970s, was characterised by the placement of children born to unmarried mothers for adoption. Sometimes these adoptions were voluntarily, sometimes they were conducted under duress or by force, but all were framed by the social unacceptability of bearing a child outside of marriage and limited welfare provision to support single women with children (Standing Committee on Social Issues 2000). The relevance of these past practices to intercountry adoption found commentary in the discourse of all three networks, emerged retrospectively in submissions and public hearing transcripts House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005 and became another point of controversy (Sources: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, Public Hearing Adelaide 17.10.2005, Canberra 9.5.2005, Hobart 16.9.2005; Submissions 74, 33). Proponent actors did not consider that these practices had any relevance to intercountry adoption whereas nonpartisans and opponents suggested there were issues that did relate to intercountry adoption. Some Australian mothers whose children were adopted were identified in the opponent and nonpartisan networks.

The experience of these practices added layers of complexity to intercountry adoption discourse, that is, cultural identity, ethical practices related to birth mothers, and factors contributing to relinquishment of children. Retrospective reports by proponents indicated these complexities influenced nonpartisan attitudes that, in the proponent view, were anti adoption. Recognition of complexity fuelled resistance to enrolment into the proponent network marked by one-dimensional, wholly positive discourse. Resistance, an exercise in power, threatened discourse that sought to enrol other actors into networks 132 through the promotion of one-dimensional or wholly positive views. The following excerpt from a proponent actor highlights how wholly positive discourse did not allow for complexity and excluded particular actors such as birth parents.

Facilitating intercountry adoption is the obvious solution to the current problems. Intercountry adoption is a win-win-win - and there are no losers. If Australia needs to boost its population and be mindful of world population pressures, then surely intercountry adoption is the answer (Source: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, Submission 74, Name withheld, p. 3).

This contrasted with the nonpartisan position which considered the perspective of birth parents as found in a letter to all Members and Senators from the Minister for Social Security dated the 22nd August 1976. The documented experiences of the Stolen Generation and Australian birth mothers in the 1950s and 60s did not allow for such a wholly positive discourse. These experiences raised issues such as ethical practices and cultural identity to be considered whenever removal of children from their birth families and cultures occurs. The analysis of text and interview transcripts showed that actors in proponent, opponent and nonpartisan networks made retrospective links between the two phenomena, that is, intercountry adoption and the Stolen Generation. Examples are provided below. An actor’s perspective of these practices was influenced by their positioning as proponent, nonpartisan or opponent.

Actors in the Australian intercountry adoption phenomenon that were silent in the diffusion period were later able to add to these complexities. Australian adult adoptees provided evidence to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia regarding the reasons behind the formation of the Intercountry Adoptee Support Network (ICASN).

Many intercountry adoptees seek to understand our histories and to access as much information about our beginnings as we can. For the older generation of adopted children, such as the Vietnam War Orphan, many have grown up without knowing our original names, biological parents’ names, place or time of birth, whether we have biological siblings or details of our migration. For these adoptees these questions remain forever 133

unanswerable; a situation sometimes likened to the Stolen Generation (Source: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, Submission 234, InterCountry Adoptee Support Network, ICASN, n.p.n.).

Actors linked intercountry adoption to earlier practices of domestic adoption and fostering in Australia. Dubious health, legal and welfare practices, lack of financial and welfare support, family rejection and community disdain caused many children in these situations to be adopted with questionable processes of parental consent and limited exploration of alternatives (Farrar 1997). Australian mothers who lost their children to adoption years previously gave such evidence to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005 and some related their experiences to silent mothers compelled to pursue adoption in relinquishing countries such as Korea:-

We have no reason to believe that the grief and loss associated with adoption is any different for mothers from developing countries than it has been for us here in Australia…we cannot overlook the analogies of the past…when I had my son twenty-six years ago, people thought it was better for him to be adopted than to be brought up by a young, single woman…looking at the experiences of… Korea…It is no different from the sort of experiences we have had in our lifetime. It was considered better to be adopted into a nice home with married parents than it was to be brought up with a single mother. We are saying that if women and families in these countries are given the sort of support they need the children could stay there. They have families. They are in orphanages because there is no community support (Source: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia, Public Hearing Adelaide 17.10.2005, Association of Mothers Separated from their Children by Adoption, ARC, p. 81).

An alternative discourse rejected these phenomena as practices with no relationship to intercountry adoption as it is practiced between Australia and sending countries. The only perceived relevance of these practices is attributed to history with no bearing on the present.

…there is a problem coming from the universities - there seems to be a mindset that is 30 or 40 years old that goes back to the good old days of the stolen generation and back to when adoptions were considered secret and hideous problems that teenagers had to go through - 134

…but we have to move forward. It is not 1975 it is 2005 (Source: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005 Public Hearing, Sydney, 23.11.2005, Joanne Ellem, Private Citizen, p. 4).

These wholly positive views are constructed on assumptions that practices related to birth mothers and cultural factors in overseas countries such as Korea are adequately addressed. In contrast, informants interviewed from the Australia Korea Friendship Group, Queensland, on the 14th May 2005 identified similarities between the circumstances of unmarried mothers in Korea today and parallel experiences in Australia decades earlier giving credence to the complexities of these situations. Resistance to the diffusion of intercountry adoption by nonpartisans that may have existed due to the Stolen Generation and earlier adoption practices was not documented in the records available for analysis prior to 1983 but were frequently referenced in retrospective reports by proponents, nonpartisans and opponents. Concerns related to the Vietnamese adoption experiences where some Australian placements broke down soon after the children’s arrival were documented and created resistance to processes that compromised standards of practice. The following statement summarises the views of the nonpartisan network since the 1970s.

I know there are anti adoption people in the community who think that adoption should never occur in any circumstances and that the transracial placement of children should never occur, and that there are people at the other end of the spectrum who think all disadvantaged children in Australia and the world should be removed from these circumstances and placed in adoptive families. So I think the adoption area is challenged to find a balance between these often irreconcilable views, and that is often a very difficult place to be (Source: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, Public Hearing 17th October Adelaide, Cynthia Beare, Manager, Adoption and Family Information Service, Department Families and Communities, South Australia, p. 54).

Nonpartisan views that sought to meet the needs of all stakeholders in intercountry adoption have proved unable to convince many who hold the polarised views of actors in the other networks. Nonpartisan discourse does not encompass wholly positive discourse promoted by proponents nor provide clear cut solutions to assist actors to achieve goals such as adoption from overseas. Wholly positive discourse, as discussed further in the next two chapters, and its role in diffusion and 135 continuation, provided a more convincing means of enrolling new actors and helping them meet their goals.

Conclusion

As discussed in the literature, Korean intercountry adoption emerged after the Korean War as a result of champions such as Holt and other connected actors across the globe enabling the phenomenon. Holt International Services was identified as a proponent actor connected to proponent actors in the Australian context during the diffusion of Korean adoption to Australia until the late 1970s. In this chapter the analysis informed by Actor Network Theory identified three Australian networks operating during this period, proponent, opponent and nonpartisan networks. These networks were not the same as previously defined groups such as prospective parents or governments as actors from any group could align interests to any of the three networks dependent on the goals they hoped to achieve. Australian parent support groups were formed in the diffusion period by proponent actors and were established with proponent goals from the outset. Consequently, they predominated in the proponent network. The proponent network constructed discourse that emerged from three distinct viewpoints and through translation merged into a generalist wholly positive altruistic discourse that proved palatable to new actors in the sociopolitical context of the 1970s in Australia. Korean intercountry adoption became the focus of proponent actors on a larger scale following the cessation of adoption of children from Vietnam and a dramatic decrease of children available through domestic adoption. Discourse constructed by networks in those early days began from the same events yet developed vastly divergent paths dependent on the perspective and goals of actors and their capacity to convince others of their claims. It is from these divergent interests that early tensions between networks began during attempts at translations and subsequent resistance and were continued. These tensions laid the foundation for future interactions between networks. By 1983 enrolled nonpartisans focused on best practice standards while proponents sought the shortest possible route to achieve their goal of intercountry adoption. Controversies existed as to whose interests would actually be met by the practice of intercountry adoption.

Two opponent networks were identified in the analysis of text and interview transcripts. The first opponent network that emerged in the diffusion period was short-lived, not influential, and its discourse was not attractive to new actors. The proponent network, in contrast, proved to be more influential than its size could predict in the 1970s and was integral to the diffusion of the phenomenon into Australia. This thesis argues that the diffusion of Korean adoption into Australia was not a naturally 136 occurring event rather the result of the purposeful actions of the proponent network. Politicians and the media were identified in the analysis as important and influential actors. Queensland politician McKechnie was identified as a proponent actor under whose patronage the first Queensland parent support group was established. He also engaged in attempts to enroll the Queensland government as a proponent actor. In contrast, other Queensland politicians such as Herbert remained unconvinced by proponent discourse. The presence of politicians and the media as actors in diffusion reflected actors and their actions operational in the emergence of the phenomenon from Korea twenty years prior.

This chapter highlighted the relevance of emotions in power struggles inherent in translations and in discourse constructed in this period. Prospective and retrospective references were made to high levels of emotions experienced by proponent actors during the diffusion period in the data corpus, usually in relation to convincing others to help them meet their goals. From 1983, the theme of high emotion continued to emerge and was present in the data until 2007, the end of the data collection period. Emotion became important in developing tactics and enacting translations that were able to enrol new actors and spread network discourse. This was particularly the case when combined with self-interest such as the desire to form families and humanitarian concerns of child rescue and is discussed in the ensuing chapters.

All informant groups were able to provide retrospective understandings of this period, however, the Department of Children’s Services records available for analysis provided knowledge of events as they were unfolding. These records included official letters, memos, reports, statistical information and other documents. They also included information from a range of sources and viewpoints such as letters, newspaper articles, newsletters from parent support groups and Eastern Child Welfare Society, and correspondence from Korea. Particular discourses emerged in the analysis such as altruism, child rescue by adoption, a desire to parent, possible alternatives to intercountry adoption, anti adoption, and the best interests of the child, flavoured by highly emotive contexts. These discourses will be further developed in the next two chapters.

The following chapter examines how these networks extended their influence and how proponent discourse, in particular, dominated and proved successful at enrolling new actors into their networks, through translation processes. Translation processes are examined more closely in relation to the diffusion and continuance of Korean intercountry adoption.

137

Chapter Six Network Influence in Diffusion

Chapter Five identified the networks, proponent, opponent and nonpartisan, their discourses and the enabling conditions necessary for the diffusion of Korean intercountry adoption into Queensland. This diffusion was set in motion by a complex chain of events that saw the convergence of multiple and often opposing viewpoints of those who sought particular objectives. The formation of networks enabled particular discourses to be accepted and spread in a way that was more likely to influence the perspectives of others, which in turn, assisted them to meet their goals. In the previous chapter, the conflict that occurred between networks was found to be characterised by vested interests and often high emotions. The dominating influence of the proponent network and its altruistic discourse was discussed in relation to the less influential discourses of early opponents and nonpartisans. Proponent discourse and its mobilisation were identified as central to the diffusion of Korean intercountry adoption to Queensland. This chapter extends these understandings and focuses on how the proponent network achieved this dominance in diffusion and foreshadows its influence on the continuation of the practice. It explores adoption from Vietnam in the mid 1970s as a forerunner to the institutional practice of Korean/ Australian adoption, the vital role of parent groups and the influence of actors outside Australia. The role of the Korean government, Korean adoption agencies and the role of intermediaries in the diffusion and continuance of the Korean/ Australian adoption program are also examined in this chapter.

Translation, a core tenet of Actor Network Theory described in Chapter Three, is used to explore these relationships and reach new understandings. Translations are the way actors attract and join with other actors to meet mutual goals. Translation mechanisms and tactics that were first apparent during the diffusion period are identified. These are emotional connectivity, simplification, enemy creation and importunate action. These tactics have overlapping elements that make them interdependent. How these tactics are defined, how they worked for the benefit of the proponent network and the resistance they created are explored. These tactics proved successful and continued to be seen to be in use by the proponent network up until 2007 when data collection ceased. The role of translations in the formation and strengthening of the proponent network is discussed. Through translations the power struggles between proponents, opponents and nonpartisans are understood.

138

According to Actor Network Theory, networks are formed through the alignment of common interests that seek to meet particular goals such as child adoption from overseas. Translations and the tactics used provide the means to convince new actors that their goals will be met by network discourse. Successful translations and their replication ensure the dominance of some networks over others. In order to gain strength and influence, networks seek to enrol new human and non human actors. These efforts are fraught with power struggles as some actors may already be enrolled in or influenced by other networks. Networks are mutable and require ongoing attempts to enrol others in order to ensure network longevity. Without these efforts, networks may not survive, let alone reach their goals. The early opponents were one example of a network that did not achieve longevity. This chapter seeks to understand the beginnings of Korean/ Australian intercountry adoption in these terms and highlights the translations that would be repeated over the next thirty years of Korean adoption in Australia.

The analysis followed the actions of actors by their inscriptions. Actor Network Theory guided this analysis by examining the four overlapping phases of translation, problematisation, interessement, enrolment and mobilisation. As discussed in Chapter Three, these phases describe how the problem can be defined, how actor interests can be aligned and locked into place, and how network stability and influence can be achieved. These four overlapping phases provide a framework for analysis that helps understand the specific translation mechanisms used to build and strengthen the proponent network. The analysis of interview transcripts and text from multiple data sources helps understand these processes. The focus is on the translations used by networks to enrol others rather than exploring the dynamics of networks within networks. As the focus is on the broader picture, individual translation experiences of many actors within networks will not be reported. This chapter will help explain how Korean intercountry adoption diffused into Australia and became acceptable practice. Mechanisms that limit and control discourse, specific tactics used in translations, the role of Korean actors and intermediaries are discussed in relation to the diffusion of the phenomenon to Australia.

Translation Mechanisms

Actor Network Theory posits that proponent, opponent, and nonpartisan networks did not increase or decrease in influence by accident. Rather their development or demise depended on the network’s ability to survive the trials of strength inherent in successful and reproducible translations. This network therefore attracted new actors and increased its influence to the point where the proponent network was able to achieve its goal of establishing a Korean adoption program in all Australian states. The translations and tactics used to achieve this are examined in this section. The importance of 139

Vietnamese adoption, specifically Operation Babylift, as an essential precursor to the diffusion of Korean intercountry adoption to Australia is discussed. Its role in the construction of an altruistic proponent discourse is identified.

The Vietnam War as a Precursor

The diffusion of Korean intercountry adoption into Australia cannot be fully understood without examining the influence of Vietnamese adoption in its development. Queensland Department of Children’s Services records concerning adoption from Vietnam were not accessed during data collection. The data corpus that provided contemporary evidence was found in the Department of Children’s Services records pertaining to files on adoption from Korea in the form of minutes, notes, newspaper articles and reference to articles and conference proceedings that described adoption from Vietnam and the shift of focus to Korea. Retrospective evidence was provided in interviews with informants from the Queensland Department of Child Safety, the Inter-Country Adoptee Support Network (ICASN) and the Australia Korea Friendship Group (AKFG) Queensland; adoptee websites; media representations such as television productions circulated via email discussion groups37; and in public hearings and submissions to the federal House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005. The information concerning Vietnamese adoption was consistent across all data sources. It was the interpretation of the meaning of events rather than the recall of facts that differed. Interpretation tended to be aligned with the positioning of perspectives as opponent, nonpartisan or proponent.

The adoption of Vietnamese children into Australia set the scene providing an example of intercountry adoption to Australia as being possible under the right conditions. Television began in Australia in 1956, three years after the end of the Korean War, but in time to capture and transmit images of the Vietnam War. The media, as a dominant actor engaged in the diffusion of the Korean intercountry adoption phenomenon into Australia, emerged in this period as an actor able to enrol new actors and, in turn, be enrolled by other actors seeking to meet their own goals. ‘The media’, itself a black box, can be unpacked to reveal multiple networks of human and non human actors such as journalists, telecommunication technologies, producers, writers, editors, cameras, film, television, newspapers and photographers who worked together to produce particular knowledge or discourse that was spread

37 One example of this is the Australian Sixty Minutes production entitled Operation Babylift which aired on the 20th March 2005. Links to and messages concerning this retrospective documentary were circulated via the email discussion group. 140 because of its actions. In this way, other actors defined problems and embraced particular discourse in relation to the Vietnam War. The media was revealed as a particularly influential actor that proved highly successful in the enrolment of others through the transmission of inscriptions in the form of print, photographs and film images.

Rosemary Calder, president of the Australian Society for Intercountry Aid for Children (ASIAC), Victoria, graphically described the impact of the media.

For the first time in history, television and telecommunications brought that war into people’s living rooms at dinner time. Ordinary people, normally untouched and unaware of the despair and tragedy of a civil war, saw it, felt it and cared about it. A major part of the media coverage was the exposure of the civilians in a war- the women and children. A groundswell of emotions began and with it came the beginnings of intercountry adoption into Australia (Source: Department Children’s Services, Intercountry Adoption General Information Pre 1985 File, Archive Box 11637, Calder 1979, p. 22)38.

The first moment of translation, that which defined the problem, occurred between the media and Australians in their lounge rooms. The media presented the information that allowed the problem to be defined. As described in the above excerpt, the desperate plight of the Vietnamese people and children in war torn Vietnam was represented. The transmission of inscriptions in the form of television broadcasts into Australian homes created a space where intense emotions were felt leaving strong and lasting impressions that were revisited at every broadcast. Australian emotions and abhorrence at the circumstances presented in the media became the interest of Australians. International child adoption became a solution. The humanitarian discourse of child rescue by adoption, that is, the rescue of children orphaned through war, emerged and was embraced and mobilised by the media, in turn, enrolling individual Australians and families. Couples and families sought assistance from aid organisations, churches and embassies whose members shared humanitarian interests and had the necessary overseas experience and connections through their organisations to enact a solution, that is, the rescue of these children through adoption.

38 This reference (Calder 1979) was identified in this source document. 141

It wasn’t uncommon in the 70s if I recall. People like defence personnel, bankers, diplomats to go overseas and be so moved by the circumstances that they see children in, that they feel so moved that they want to bring them into the family and adoption is the way to go (Source: Interview with Department of Child Safety, Staff 19.04.2007).

These events were also cited from Bowers (1983) in Submission 135 from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services, Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005. These early experiences described retrospectively in the excerpt above provided the vision and capabilities to progress intercountry adoption practices to an organised level. These experiences were reported across government, parent and adult adoptee informant groups in interview transcripts, computer mediated communications and text. The influence of this early network necessarily extended beyond Australian borders. As successful adoptions of individual children occurred, more Australian actors began to be enrolled, each wanting to reach out to children in need and provide better opportunities, in their view, than the children could possibly have given the circumstances presented in media images. This network was led by parents who had successfully achieved adoption of children from overseas. Their focus of interest was ignited by the plight of Vietnamese children, creating the common goal of child rescue by adoption and the provision of support for Australians negotiating adoptions outside a legislative framework. Parent support groups were ultimately established in every state to achieve these ends.

These early events highlighted the dichotomy between the sense of urgency felt by adoptive parents and the more cautious approach of Australian governments. This created resistance and early conflict between them as reported by parent groups and government in the analysis documented and described in Chapter Five (Sources: Department of Children’s Services, South Korea Book 2 1984-88 Box 11637, ‘Report to the Council of Social Welfare Ministers and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of the Joint Committee on Intercountry Adoption together with the Ministerial Response to the Report’, Joint Committee on Intercountry Adoption dated September 1986; Bowers 1983)39. The following excerpt highlights the Queensland government’s response to the emotional impetus driving intercountry adoption in the early 1970s:-

39 This article (Bowers 1983) was referenced in this report. 142

Likewise with enquiries received regarding the adoption of children from foreign countries, the Department must exercise extreme caution in this area because of the high risk of applicants being motivated by sentiment. It is also doubtful if sufficient knowledge has been acquired regarding the effects of such children being removed into another culture and that the solution of their problem by adoption may only lead to further disruption and trauma for the children involved (Source: Department of Children’s Services Annual Report 1972, p. 9).

This excerpt highlights the recognition of complexity in nonpartisan perspectives and the polarisation of responses to intercountry adoption from its early days. The excerpt above was referred to during the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005 in the Public Hearing in Sydney on the 23rd September 2005. It was cited to support an opponent position. This is an example of how nonpartisan discourse was interpreted in certain ways according to the perspective of particular actors.

Proponents urged easier and faster processes for intercountry adoption whereas the government was concerned because sentiment appeared to be driving this process. As found in Chapter Five, the proponents’ (mostly prospective parents at this stage) goal was speedier paths to child rescue by adoption whereas Australian governments responded in a slower and more cautious way. The analysis identified that polarisation between proponents and governments, despite claims emanating from both poles that each were acting ‘in the best interests’ of children, was intense and immediate with frequent references in the available documents from the Department of Children’s Services and reports to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005 to the highly emotive content of actor interactions. Pressure and resistance became the foundation for power interrelationships that has influenced network interrelationships and the progress of intercountry adoption in Australia.

Individuals were now a network, lobbying politicians for speedier adoptions and legal processes that enabled them. Politicians listened to their constituents and wrote to relevant Ministers as documented in the records of the Queensland Department of Children’s Services. The convergent interests of churches, aid organisations, the media, prospective adoptive parents, politicians, and the mobilisation influences of the armed forces and Qantas (Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Service) airlines culminated in Operation Babylift to Australia in 1975. This occurred despite the Vietnamese 143 government’s opposition to the adoption of their children overseas as reported in the Queensland Department of Children’s Services’ Annual Report 1968.

Vietnamese adoption to Australia did not continue. It ceased in 1975 as it was not supported by the Vietnamese government (Harvey 1982, 1983; Williams, I. 2003). In contrast, Vietnamese adoptions to the USA did continue, strengthened by the post war relationships between the USA and Vietnam. These relationships were cemented by the significant aid provided by the United States to Vietnam. In contrast Australian proponents did not wield sufficient influence for the continuance of Vietnamese adoption to Australia and were unable to enrol Vietnamese proponents into the network. Enrolled Australian proponents now needed an alternate focus as the path to meeting their goals had been blocked. In an Actor Network sense, detours needed to be found. In these early days, adoptions from other sending countries had occurred representing individual cases rather than organised programs. However when programs were eventually established, these programs did not reach the size or in many cases the longevity of the Korean/ Australian program.

By 1977, primary Australian interest had transferred from Vietnamese to Korean children. A memorandum to the Queensland Welfare Minister on the 12th February 1979, linked the interest in Korean children to reducing numbers of available local children and media representations of Vietnamese and Korean children:-

During 1977/78 financial year 1013 applications were received to adopt a child (in Queensland). The waiting list from time of initial application to placement is bout 3 ½ to 4 years. This trend may have contributed to the number of people in Australia inquiring about the possibility of adopting children from overseas, particularly south-east Asian countries. In Queensland the airlift of certain Vietnamese children to Brisbane in April 1975 and the publicity surrounding the likelihood of children from Korea in June 1977 has led to enquiries to the Department from Queensland couples. Publicity of the arrival of refugees (particularly from Vietnam) in Australia has also bought enquiries from the public upon whether children in such circumstances are available for adoption (Source: Department of Children’s Services, Intercountry Adoption 1976-87 File, Archive Box 11637, Memorandum to Minister 12.2.79, n.p.n.).

144

Actor Network Theory proposes that actors seek new ways to reach their goals, via detours, when their path to a goal is blocked. This excerpt indicates proponents were seeking alternate sources of adoptable children. The public shift of focus from Vietnamese to Korean children described above occurred within a two year period and is an example of such a discourse. Yet, as explained further in this chapter, the altruistic rescue discourse remained, though altered in translation. Cautious approaches by governments appeared to have little impact on proponent discourse, or the speed at which the phenomenon progressed. The next section highlights the importance of parent support groups in this process.

Parent Support Groups as Obligatory Passage Points Parent support groups, clearly proponents, formed from 1974 in Australia. They actively enrolled others with the common goal of seeking to adopt children from overseas. As leaders in the proponent network, the actions of parent support groups, that is, forming groups and lobbying actions, were highly visible. It was these actions combined with a lack of existing processes that enabled parent support groups in Australia to position themselves as the obligatory passage point through which all other actors must pass in order to achieve an overseas adoption in those early days. These groups were a source of information for prospective parents on how to adopt from overseas outside a legislative framework and were a source for humanitarian news stories. This position was legitimised as state government departments referred prospective parents to them for pre and post adoption support. Evidence for this was located primarily in public hearings and submissions to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Inquiry into Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, in Queensland Department of Children’s Services records and newspaper reports, articles and conference proceedings referenced in these records such as Bowers (1983) and Calder (1979). These same articles and proceedings are referenced in other sources such as Submission 135 from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005.

Parent support groups since their formation have been a source of media stories representing particular views on intercountry adoption. Proponents have not always been satisfied with the results of media enrolment by other networks as the following excerpt shows:-

When my first sister came from Korea back in 1978, DOCS [Department of Community Services, New South Wales] had advised everybody to keep the adoption process secret 145

but, more than that, the press was filled with stories of baby buying and how wrong it was to remove a child from a culture, even though an orphanage is no culture. In the eighties the press was incredibly very bad but, especially over the past 12 to 18 months, press coverage has done almost an about-face. While there still may be little negative tones out there, I have to point to two excellent articles by Hamish McDonald in the Sydney Morning Herald—there was one last week. Ray Martin on Channel 9, of all places, every now and then pops up a story on international adoption that really takes your breath away and you think, ‘Wow, there are actually media people there who don’t think we’re the enemy; they think we’re friends’. That is invaluable, because it teaches the community (Source: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, Public Hearing Sydney 23rd September, Joanne Ellem, Private Citizen, p.5).

The assessment of media reports as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ by proponents depending on the discourse it spreads continued until 2007. Media reports were ‘good’ when they mobilised proponent discourse. In the data corpus such commentary was predominantly and consistently found in email discussion group communications and mostly used by proponents.

The role of parent support groups as an obligatory passage point was well established prior to the commencement of the official Korean program in Queensland in 1983. This relationship is depicted in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4 The Obligatory Passage Point, Parent Support Groups

PEOPLE HOPING TO ADOPT A OBLIGATORY CHILD PASSAGE

POINT MEDIA

PARENT SUPPORT AUSTRALIAN GROUPS STATES AND TERRITORY KOREAN GOVTS ADOPTION AGENCIES

Spaces where translations are enacted GOAL ATTAINMENT - CHILD ADOPTION

146

Figure 4 shows how each actor passed through parent support groups in some way in order to achieve particular goals. Parent groups were a source of proponent representation for the media, a source of important information on how to adopt for prospective parents and linked to state governments as referral agents aware of the needs of adopted children and parents (described below). Parent group engagement in direct communication and negotiations with Korean adoption agencies in order to facilitate adoptions is also discussed later in this chapter. The spaces between other actors and parent support groups are where translations are enacted, that is, attempts to enrol other actors as proponents. According to Actor Network Theory this is easier to do when the enrolment helps an actor meet their goals.

Parent support groups successfully enrolled others by becoming indispensable to the goals of others, a tactic described by Latour (1987, p. 119). In the 1970s, the Australian state and territory governments were not yet formally engaged in the institutional practice of intercountry adoption as official government to government arrangements were not in place to facilitate adoption. Parent support groups had the experience and information needed to assist prospective parents to progress successful international adoptions prior to legislative or policy frameworks and were formed for this express purpose (Source: Department Children’s Services, Intercountry Adoption General Information Pre 1985 File, Archive Box 11637, Calder 1979)40.

Countries like Australia, which have had legislation for many years still do not have specific legislation to cover inter-country adoption, and when their citizens began adopting children from other countries, they were unprepared (Source: Department Children’s Services, Intercountry Adoption General Information Pre 1985 File, Archive Box 11637, Fopp 1979b, p. i)41.

As this excerpt shows state governments were not prepared for the intercountry adoption phenomenon. In recognition of the needs of adoptees and parents, state governments referred prospective parents to these support groups for pre and post adoption support, legitimizing this role. These actions were noted in Queensland Department of Children’s Services records from the mid 1970s. These roles, the

40 Calder (1979) was referenced in this record. 41 Fopp (1979) was referenced in this record. 147 provision of support by parent groups and state departments as agents of referral have continued expand.

The actions of parent support groups such as assisting prospective parents to arrange their own adoptions pressured governments and politicians towards enrolment. This created tensions that resulted in resistance from some actors and the enrolment of others as proponent actors (Source: Department of Children’s Services, South Korea Book 2 1984-88 Box 11637, ‘Report to the Council of Social Welfare Ministers and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of the Joint Committee on Intercountry Adoption together with the Ministerial Response to the Report’, Joint Committee on Intercountry Adoption dated September 1986). After the establishment of official adoption programs, parents support groups retained the function as the obligatory passage point through which all actors pass evidenced in a range of data sources including support group websites and information pertaining to pre and post adoption support found in Queensland Department of Child Safety records and informant interviews. Prospective parents thus became members of the proponent networks for the duration of the adoption process and many remained active in this network due to post adoption supports provided by parent support groups and commitment to adoption as a desirable phenomenon. This meant that proponent discourse had an assured path of transmission. Proponent discourse promoted child rescue by adoption as a welfare solution; viewed intercountry adoption as wholly positive; and espoused that the pathways to international adoption should be speedy and unencumbered by bureaucratic obstacles.

Proponent discourse presented the need for child rescue by adoption as fact and that a life with a loving family in Australia was superior to one of poverty, growing up in an orphanage and one of social stigma. Korea was no longer war torn and, in fact, was increasingly prosperous, so child rescue by adoption from Korea by 1977 became rescue from an orphanage and discrimination, not from war42. Translation had altered proponent discourse to include and promote child adoption from Korea. The discourse of child rescue was by this stage indisputable and blackboxed. As explained by Actor Network Theory, differing proponent discourse (economic, self interest, and humanitarian) had merged

42 For many years, Korean children who are to be adopted internationally are cared for by foster mothers until the child leaves Korea. This service is included in the costs of care paid for by the prospective parents. This service is not provided for children who will not be adopted overseas. It is those children such as those with disabilities who remain in the orphanages. 148 into a single dominant discourse. The previous motivations of actors, such as infertility and population growth, were translated into an altruistic discourse of child rescue by adoption where original motivations, though present, were no longer distinguishable. The new altruistic discourse provided the justification for Korean intercountry adoption.

The rejection of humanitarian motivation by the Joint Committee on Intercountry Adoption in 1986 appeared to have had little impact on the discourse of the proponent network. The need for child rescue by adoption remained dominant in proponent networks until 2007. Evidence for this is found in public hearings and submissions to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia, 2005 and in the email discussion group. The discourse of child rescue by adoption was one dimensional, wholly positive, and not amenable to the consideration of complexities of social circumstances, politics and local receiving country conditions that impacted on the availability of children for adoption.

Retrospective data from interview transcripts and submissions to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005 showed differing views that highlighted complexities were taken personally, denigrated and refuted. As described in the previous excerpt on pages 146 and 147, the media were either friend or foe depending upon the focus of particular reports. Submission 33 to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005 from a representative for The Adoptive Families of Association of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and EurAdopt (parent support groups) describes how a lot of people were hurt (unspecified) in interactions during the 1970s. Despite these issues wholly positive discourse was easily adopted by those seeking to be enrolled, as shown by the growth and influence of the proponent network since the 1970s, evident in all data sources.

Though some prospective parents motivated by humanitarian concerns already had children, infertile couples who sought to create families favoured the route towards international adoption over more limited domestic adoption opportunities. The analysis identified prospective parents hopeful of creating families found the usual path blocked due to the lack of children available for adoption locally. This was documented in letters and memos in the Queensland Department of Children’s Services records, newspaper articles found in these records, interview transcripts and retrospective reports to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in 149

Australia 2005. In order to meet their goal of child adoption, these actors passed through the obligatory passage point, that is, parent support groups. A detour was presented to fulfill their hopes in a new way via international adoption. As reported across all informant groups, Korea provided young and well-cared children for adoption. Though intercountry adoption is a legitimate way of creating a family, the altruistic discourse dominated regardless of the initial motivation such as the desire to parent a child. Local Australian social and political conditions in the 1970s provided the backdrop that enabled intercountry adoption as an acceptable practice. This may not have been possible in the era of the White Australia Policy.

The funneling of interests as described by Callon (1986b) was evident in the alignment and merging of humanitarian, self interest and population growth discourse into altruistic discourse. Allies were locked in through shared discourse of altruistic concern regarding the well being of children. Interressement or how allies are locked together, according to Actor Network Theory, has been achieved. Prospective parents hoping to adopt a child found their usual path blocked, that is, domestic adoption. Though achievable, domestic adoption now involved lengthy waits and alternative sources of adoptable children were needed. Korean intercountry adoption provided a speedier and more efficient way to adopt young, healthy babies.

Parent support groups, as the obligatory passage points, were powerful players in the intercountry adoption phenomenon, being indispensable in different ways to all parties. In this way parent support groups, as proponent spokespersons, were able to define proponent network identity, network goals and how these goals could be achieved. In other words adoption of children from overseas should be possible with the enrolment of Australian state governments. The detours championed by proponent spokespersons, such as international adoption as a better way to meet goals, were created through translations. These detours were ultimately accepted by those successfully enrolled. Nonpartisans, not enrolled proponents, conceded to parent support group as the obligatory passage point for information and support to those seeking to adopt and legitimised this position. As identified in the analysis, this arose through comparative lack of experience and expertise regarding the process of achieving intercountry adoption evident prior to official government to government negotiations, changes in legislation and the establishment of formal programs (Source: Department Children’s Services,

150

Intercountry Adoption General Information Pre 1985 File, Archive Box 11637, Bowers 1983; Calder 1979; Fopp 1979b)43.

An underestimation of the force created by parent support groups, as the obligatory passage point, by governments had the unintended consequences of a drive towards less restrictive, rapid adoption processes fueled by wholly positive discourse. This later led to attempts by nonpartisans to reign in this rapid impetus as referred to in the 1986 Joint Committee Report (Source: Department of Children’s Services, South Korea Book 2 1984-88 Box 11637, ‘Report to the Council of Social Welfare Ministers and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of the Joint Committee on Intercountry Adoption together with the Ministerial Response to the Report’, Joint Committee on Intercountry Adoption dated September 1986). These attempts heightened power struggles where proponents sought significant and increasing input into intercountry adoption in Australia from the 1970s to 2007 transforming the adoption of children into a political phenomenon that ensured proponents met their goals, and in many ways cementing views already polarised.

The increasing influence of the proponent network was testimony to the success of its tactics. Evidence for this increasing influence is found on parent group internet sites; public hearings and submissions to House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005; and regular meetings held between the Queensland government Departments of Children’s Services and Child Safety and Queensland State Welfare Ministers as identified in interviews with key informants from the Department of Child Safety and the Australian Korea Friendship Group (AKFG) Queensland. Enrolments were achieved through successful translations that were repeated, continuing to enrol new actors.

Actor Network Theory proposes that translation mechanisms and tactics can be identified by following the actions of actors through their inscriptions. The following section describes tactics identified in the analysis that ensured these enrolments. These tactics were used in translation processes enacted by networks during the diffusion period and continued to be used until 2007. The success of these translations contributed to the expansion in size and influence of the proponent network. The problem

43 Bowers (1983), Calder (1979) and Fopp (1979) were found in the archive.

151 had been defined and tactics aligned actor interests and locked them into place. These tactics have been called emotional connectivity, simplification, enemy creation and importunate action.

Emotional Connectivity

Emotional connectivity is a tactic that creates and strengthens shared connections between actors and network discourse in the form of emotional investment in the goals to be reached. It convinces actors to adopt network discourse as a way of meeting these goals.

Actor Network Theory posits that there is a space between an actor and that actor’s unfulfilled goals where tension is created. Actors seek ways to relieve this tension. Media representations of the Vietnam War helped proponents define the problem (children in need) and created an emotional response. Once the problem was defined, proponents could determine how that problem should be resolved (child rescue by adoption) as found across a range of contemporary and retrospective data sources and described earlier in this chapter. Thus tension was created between prospective parents and their unmet goals of child rescue. Proponents needed to relieve this tension. The need for child rescue by adoption became the means by which the tension in this space could be relieved for proponent actors. Adopting a child from overseas became the goal and the means to cross this space. The media had successfully enrolled the prospective parents living in Australia as identified in the Queensland Department of Children’s Services record citing Calder (1979) and other retrospective reports found on internet sites and public hearings and submissions to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005. New prospective parents were subsequently engaged through the alignment of interests and the forming of groups. Parent support groups formed and became indispensable to reaching the goal of child rescue through adoption, first from Vietnam, then other countries, in particular Korea. As proponent spokespersons, parent support groups were in a position to promote particular discourse and attract new actors.

The tactic of emotional connectivity, used by actors to enrol others, emerged by following proponent actors. Emotional connectivity, as used by proponents, can be understood as a powerful tactic where the enrolling actor offers a palatable solution to the problem it defined. New actors must first accept this goal (child rescue by adoption) as valid and experience an emotional response to the defined problem. Actors must then seek resolution to the tension that is created between them and the goals they seek to achieve. This was done by creating potential for an emotional attachment between the 152 actor and the discourse presented, that is, the need for child rescue by adoption. The attachment became personally meaningful which allowed the discourse to be more easily embraced. The degree of intensity of this attachment, or in other words the strength of this connection, was related to the degree of commitment to the discourse that emerged as a result of the translation. The more intense was this attachment, the more stable the connection of that actor to the network. The greater the intensity of emotional connectivity, the more the network was strengthened, made durable and able to enrol new actors with this tactic. Examples of this are found at the key junctures in intercountry adoption in Australia. Numerous accounts across a range of contemporary and retrospective data sources characterised many interactions between proponents and governments, in particular, as highly emotive during the diffusion period and in the period prior and during the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Inquiry into Overseas Adoption in Australia. Emotional connections to children, the desire to rescue them by adoption, combined with the need to parent created intense feelings. The plight of ‘orphaned’ children represented as critical and urgent was easily embraced by new actors.

Emotional connectivity emerged as a powerful tactic in the analysis. It is powerful in terms of being widely presented in the data and in effectiveness. The following retrospective excerpt shows how the images of war in Vietnam became close and personal to Australians through the medium of television. It presented a problem that needed to be solved.

Firstly, because many of the first intercountry adoptive families already had children born to them and were adopting for altruistic rather than voluntary childlessness. This was largely influenced by the growth of audio-visual media such as television. The suffering of children in armed conflicts such as the Vietnam War, literally came “into people’s faces” [sic] in their lounge room. This led to the lobbying for Vietnam War orphans to be allowed to enter Australia (Source: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, Submission 56, Australian Council for Adoption, attached document ‘From the trenches of the war on adoption in Australia’ by T. Rosenwald, p.6).

This retrospective report typified descriptions of Vietnamese adoption into Australia in the 1970s found across data sources. This excerpt shows how important the media actor was in establishing emotional connectivity as an effective enrolment tactic. It also helps understand how this led to actors joining to 153 take actions that would help them reach their goal. Without the intense emotional connection to the problem of children in need, it is argued that Australians may never have felt or owned the problem as their own and consequently not sought the solution presented of child adoption. The political and social climate described in the literature review suggests local conditions were conducive to Australians responding to these concerns. Yet discourse still needs mobilisation. Further tactics were ignited by emotional connectivity. The following section explores another tactic, simplification.

Simplification

Simplification, another tactic used by proponents, is defined as the purposeful simplification of the discourse to be embraced. Simplified messages are more easily embraced, spread and adopted as fact (Latour 1987). This heightens the likelihood of attracting new actors and increasing network influence. Simplification was found to have an interconnected relationship with enemy creation, each having an influence on the operation of the other. Enemy creation is made easier by simplification. The capacity to blame an enemy when goals cannot be reached provides a simplified message that is easily spread. These concepts are explained in more detail in the next section.

There were a number of simplified messages found to circulate in the proponent network since the inception of intercountry adoption into Australia. These include a wholly positive view of intercountry adoption, the existence of thousands to millions of orphans in the world that must be adopted and the polarising of views as anti or pro adoption. A ‘simple’ or one dimensional message such as the need for child rescue by adoption as a ‘win-win-win’ situation, was more easily accepted or rejected as it left little room for blurring of messages or alternate discourse to be generated within the space between actors where translations occurred. Latour (1987, p. 109) suggests simpler arguments increase resistance to challenges and are therefore more unifying for networks. Questioning of ‘fact’ was minimised when an argument was simplified. A new actor, to use an example, was either for or against, pro adoption or anti adoption which links to enemy creation. Simplification, as a tactic, has developed during the historical course of intercountry adoption in Australia, referenced with increasing frequency across data sources until 2007. Up until 2007, it was a common power play for proponents to simplify discourse such as the labeling of nonpartisans as anti adoption as a form of controlling alternate and more complex discourse. If an actor did not accept proponent discourse in its entirety and support child rescue by adoption without question they must be anti adoption.

154

According to proponent actors who gave retrospective accounts to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, Submission 56, the use of the word anti adoption was attributed to William Pierce of the National Council for Adoptions in the USA and readily adopted by Australian proponents. The anti adoption message since the 1970s was transmitted by inscriptions that more recently includes email communications, other publications and newspaper articles. The computer mediated communications demonstrated that the proponent network has forged links with proponents from the USA. Naming individuals who worked for governments in adoption areas as anti adoption was common in email discussion group threads leading up to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005. Many of these postings were cross messages from other groups not necessarily engaged solely in intercountry adoption from Korea.

To be for or against, the simplification of perspectives to anti or pro adoption, shifted the power struggle from the ‘factual’ nature of the discourse promoted, to a power struggle relating to where an actor was situated in the debate. This tactic was pervasive in the data corpus and was a powerful strategy in its effect. Simplification was easily replicated in proponent discourse and disallowed the inclusion of complexity in discourse. To use an example, when a nonpartisan actor, say an Australian adoption authority, was labelled as anti adoption by the proponent network, discussions diverted from the purpose of its role in adoption, that is, to ensure that legal and appropriate child placements occurred, to defending against the label. The label anti adoption implied an unwillingness to work for the benefit of all parties in the adoption triad, in particular, proponents. In other words, if proponent discourse was not accepted and spread by a government adoption authority, this agency was not doing its job. The emphasis for nonpartisans shifted from the promotion of complex understandings of adoption practice to defending against anti adoption labels. Alternate, more complex discourse was therefore disallowed.

The following excerpt highlights how events were often differently interpreted from polarised perspectives. These perspectives reflected simplified messages that remained in circulation amongst proponents for many years.

...I felt crushed when I realised what was going on. Up until that point I was pleased believing the good old days of adoption were over. I have seen a number of horror stories that span the twenty-seven years. I am talking about things that happened to my family and 155

friends and even my parents. These things are things that to anyone on the outside would wonder why people put themselves through such torment – to adopt a child when the people they are dealing with will do anything to stop the process going through? (Source: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, Public Hearing Sydney 23.9.2005, Joanne Ellem, Private Citizen, p.4).

This statement is taken from evidence provided by a second generation adoptive parent, reflecting on and interpreting her own experience of the adoption process and the experience of her parents in the 1970s and 80s as told to her. This simple message that places government workers as people who will do anything to prevent intercountry adoption is also one that is emotionally charged. These perspectives were only found in proponent discourse and were not supported by other evidence found in the data corpus. These interpretations leave little room for views that do not represent these extremes. Anti adoption as one example of simplification overlaps with and is important to the tactic of enemy creation.

Enemy Creation

Enemy creation is defined as the creation of an enemy through the simplification of discourse into two opposing positions. The function of an enemy in network discourse is to strengthen the connections between actors in the network through resistance and to provide reasons as to why particular goals are not reached. This strengthening ensures network durability and influence as actors are less likely to be influenced by alternate discourse. In this analysis, enemy creation has an interdependent relationship with simplification and emotional connectivity. Enemies were created through the construction of simple messages such as the categorisation of alternate views as anti adoption found to be pervasive across all data sources. Enemy creation ensured the intensity of emotional connectivity remained high at key junctures when network cohesion was most desired and maximum influence important. The presence of enemies and high emotion at these junctures was noted in retrospective reports found in email discussion group threads, internet sites, informant interviews and public hearings and submissions to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005. High emotional intensity strengthens an actor’s connection to network discourse and increases network activity such as the mobilisation of discourse, conversely if that intensity abates this connection is weakened and network activity lessens. Therefore tactics that heighten emotional activity are desirable when action is required within a network. This was done by 156 creating an enemy of those whose own discourse threatened the discourse of the enrolling network and in this way heightening the emotional intensity of the actors. This conceptualisation is expanded further in the next chapter.

Successful translation processes meant discourse was accepted in its entirety or altered in the translation process in a way acceptable to the enrolling network. When these positions were rejected an enemy was created of the resistant actor. Creating an enemy was a form of coercion and a way of controlling an actor not yet enrolled. In this way, the network was again strengthened and cohesive through increased intensity. This was demonstrated by the government’s perceived inaction in embracing Korean intercountry adoption without reservation in the diffusion period and more recently in terms of embracing proponent discourse that aimed to reduce barriers to adoptions by introducing faster and less regulated adoption processes. Resistance enacted in the translation process accentuated polarisation and perceptions of enemies in other networks, which in turn, heightened emotional connectivity between actors and locked them more firmly into network discourse. Those who were not enrolled as proponents and were not opponents were threatened by anti adoption labeling as a form of coercion. This labeling was found in evidence from multiple sources from interest group websites, newsletters and letters, informant interviews and was a strongly represented in the data corpus.

The expansion of anti adoption discourse, as one example of simplification; its relationship to enemy creation used to exert power over those that could not be successfully enrolled; and its relevance to the continuance of the phenomenon is explored further in Chapter Seven. The following excerpt highlights how the tactic of enemy creation is used when discourse is not adopted entirely.

In the fifteen years that we have been dealing with officers of adoption sections, not once in all that time have we ever heard one positive word about adoption. The atmosphere is always one of negativity when we deal with them. We feel that the major inconsistency is between families where children are born to the parents and those where children are adopted is the attitude of officers within the adoption sections (Source: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, Public Hearing, Brisbane 21st July 2005, Daphne Law, Secretary. Australian Council for Adoption Inc, p.18).

Law then went on to say:- 157

We would like to present evidence regarding the behaviour of the delegates who represented Australia at The Hague international conference, which is not supportive of intercountry adoption44. So we are concerned that the selection of delegates to go to the conference at The Hague in September are people who are supportive of adoption and whose motivation is to support adoption (Source: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, Public Hearing, Brisbane 21st July 2005, Daphne Law, Secretary. Australian Council for Adoption Inc, p.18).

This view was then countered by Rita Carroll, the coordinator and past president of the Australian Council for Adoption Inc. who exempted the then current staff of the Queensland Adoptions Department and identified the then Queensland Department of Child Safety Minister, Mike Reynolds, as pro adoption and therefore not an enemy. This was an important attempt to engender cooperation. This excerpt highlights how important it is to proponents that only proponent viewpoints are expressed. Views that incorporate complexities or alternative understandings are considered to be enemy positions and present dangers to meeting proponent goals. Attempts to enrol politicians such as the Queensland Welfare Minister Reynolds into the proponent network have been visible since the activities of Holt in the 1950s. Importunate action, a tactic identified in the data corpus, offered a means of achieving these enrolments and mobilizing discourse.

Importunate Action and Inscriptions

There was a well established proponent network by the time Korean intercountry adoption diffused into Queensland. From the outset, the tactic of importunate action that included the intense lobbying of politicians and media engagement was used by proponent actors. Importunate action is defined as repeated and persistent efforts to gain the attention of those actors seek to enrol. As one example, in 1979, Ministers received ‘considerable’ (amount undefined) correspondence from couples and parent support groups regarding the establishment of formal programs with overseas countries as described in

44 The evidence regarding inappropriate conduct at The Hague conference was submitted to the Committee. It was correspondence from William Pierce (National Council for Adoptions in the United States) who wrote about the views of Australian government representatives in attendance but no details were disclosed. Pierce was deceased at the time this evidence was given. 158 a Memorandum to the Welfare Minister dated 12th February 1979. Importunate action was widely evident across all data sources.

Actors enacted importunate action with inscriptions and other forms of communication to the target actor. Importunate action was noted during the diffusion period and two occasions provide examples. Firstly, importunate action was found in relation to the adoption of children from Vietnam and secondly, in the actions of proponents that pressured the Queensland Welfare Minister Herbert resulting in a public plea to Queenslanders. Parent support groups became adept at importunate action and some politicians over time responded. Responses of politicians to these actions are documented in internal memorandums and letters to and from Ministers describing these actions found in the Departments of Children’s Services and Child Safety records and noted retrospectively in interviews with informants from the Australia Korea Friendship Group. As described in Chapter Seven, by the 2000s importunate action became an effective proponent tactic in relation to enrolling influential new actors into the network.

The establishment of parent support groups as proponent spokespersons anchored the network, defined roles and allowed mobilisation. Inscriptions in the form of letters, newsletters and more recently email communications spread proponent discourse and enacted tactics such as enemy creation labels and simplification. As a political phenomenon, proponents sought to enrol politicians and achieve their goals through importunate actions and the use of inscriptions. In Queensland, McKechnie, a state politician and Member of the Legislative Assembly, was already successfully enrolled by 1978 as the patron of the International Adoptive Families of Queensland (IAFQ). The media was an actor engaged in many networks and did not maintain a constant presence within the intercountry adoption proponent network. The media actor could easily be enrolled by either the proponent, nonpartisan or opponent networks in order to meet its own goals. Like many actors in the intercountry adoption phenomenon, the media and parent support groups enrolled each other at various points when their alignment and translation were needed to strengthen their influence for a specific purpose.

One example of this was in 1978, when the media and parent support groups joined to criticise the inaction of government and politicians and to express the belief that the government should be actively promoting intercountry adoption. During the same period, print articles appeared that described intercountry adoption as a solution to infertility and as a baby buying practice (Rees 1977). These articles were identified in contemporary data from the Queensland Department of Children’s Services 159 and retrospectively in proponent evidence to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005. These articles were labeled by proponents as anti adoption rather than the presentation of issues which should be considered. Alternate discourse to child rescue by adoption was rejected by proponents. A campaign of letter writing to politicians (importunate action), first noted in the data corpus in the mid 1970s continued throughout the late 1970s and early 1980s. Inscriptions such as letters and memorandums found in the records of the Department of Children’s Services clearly indicated to politicians the directions they should take to enable intercountry adoption as an easier and faster process and the opening of programs such as that from Korea.

Within the Queensland government, different politicians of the governing coalition government were enrolled in different networks. While McKechnie was an enrolled proponent, Herbert, the Welfare Minister, remained unconvinced that intercountry adoption was a desired phenomenon despite attempts by parent groups to enrol him into the proponent network through written correspondence. This was documented in file notes and newspaper articles found in the Queensland Department of Children’s Services records (Parker 1978). Herbert died in 1978 and there were four subsequent Welfare Ministers from 1978 to 1983 (Queensland Parliament, viewed 10th October 2007). This instability was likely to have made the impact of protracted enrolment campaigns less effective and possibly added to the frustrations of proponents. As there was little documentation available from that period to confirm this or otherwise, no firm conclusions can therefore be drawn about this.

In the late 1970s, there were other pressures on the Queensland government and its politicians from other Australian states who were by this time successfully enrolled proponents. As previously noted, the South Australian and Western Australian governments were firmly committed to intercountry adoption and South Australia forced the hand of other states regarding the delegation visit to Asian countries in 1978. A sense of early competition surrounding children available for adoption was starting to emerge, not only between states but also between receiving nations (Sources: Department of Child Safety Proceedings Commonwealth/State Committee on Uniform Working Arrangements 29.6.79, Report, 20th International Conference on Social Welfare Hong Kong, 16-22 July 1980, Newspaper Article, Parker 1978)45. This information was not found in other data sources.

45 Parker (1978) was found in this record. 160

Members of this committee saw Australia in competition with other receiving countries for Korean children. Yet at this time, Korea was not interested in a government to government agreement or extending the adoption program to Australian states other than Western Australia and New South Wales (Source: Department of Child Safety Proceedings Commonwealth/State Committee on Uniform Working Arrangements 29.6.79). The Department of Foreign Affairs was also recommending a low profile be maintained due to Korean sensitivities as Korea was planning to cease the program in eighteen months. Queensland rejected the attempt at enrolment by the other states and was not part of the 1978 delegation for the above reasons. Meanwhile, parent support groups and the media began to respond to the sense of competition between states and nations comparing the length of adoption processes, identified obstacles and rated success by the numbers of children adopted into Australia sourced from newspaper reports found in the Queensland Department of Children’s Services records (Parker 1978; ‘New South Wales leads in intercountry adoption’ 1978). This approach gained impetus into the 2000s. By 1983, the commencement of the official Korean program to Queensland was evidence that the Queensland government and the Minister of Welfare were enrolled proponents.

The actions of local Australian proponent actors were essential to the diffusion of Korean intercountry adoption. Their actions alone, however, did not fully explain the diffusion of Korean intercountry adoption and represented only a partial picture. The actions of Korean networks and the inclusion of Korean actors in the proponent network completed the diffusion picture and the part Korean actors played in the continuance of the phenomenon. These relationships are explored in the next section.

Korean Actors and Diffusion

Evidence for the analysis in the following section was found predominantly from government sources and interviews with informants from the Australia Korea Friendship Group (AKFG) Queensland and some websites such as Adoptee Solidarity Korea (ASK). Government sources included a range of documents found in the Queensland Department of Children’s Services records and information from informant interviews with the Queensland Department of Child Safety (DCS) and the New South Wales Department of Community Services (DoCs). The analysis would have been enhanced with the inclusion of Korean informants. However, as described in Chapter Four, this was not possible for ethical reasons. The archival records from the Department of Children’s Services, however, did include correspondence from Korean informants such as Eastern Child Welfare Society.

161

Four Korean actors engaged in Australian Korean adoption were identified in the data corpus. Though direct access to Korean actors was not possible, all data sources provided information regarding Korean actors and their role in Korean/ Australian adoption. These four actors were the Korean government, Korean adoption agencies, Korean children to be adopted and Korean birth parents. Korean children and Korean birth mothers were not visible at the time of diffusion and their voices were silent. Their emergence in the debate is discussed in Chapter Seven. The following section outlines the role of the Korean government, Korean adoption agencies and the role of intermediaries in the diffusion and continuance of the Korean/ Australian adoption program.

The diffusion of Korean adoption into Australia, in seeming contradiction, occurred at a time when Korea was espousing plans to systematically reduce and cease its intercountry adoption program by 1981 in accordance to the Five Year Plan for Adoption and Foster Care 1976-1981 (Sources: Department of Children’s Services, July 1980 File, Summary of Proceedings Commonwealth/ State Committee on Uniform Working Arrangements for Intercountry Adoptions 17.8.78; Adoptee Solidarity Website, ASK). It can be argued that many Korean actors were successfully enrolled as proponents in Korean/ Australian adoption despite Korean government rhetoric that aimed to cease intercountry adoption and promote domestic adoption as a replacement phenomenon. The Korean government rhetoric had little impact on the commencement of a new program with Australia. According to the Queensland Department of Children’s Services records, Korean domestic adoption increased fifteen fold between the 1970s and 1980s.

At the time of diffusion, Korean intercountry adoption was already well established with other countries. It was reported to meet the goals of the Korean government by providing a low cost welfare solution for children unable to be cared for by their biological parents (Huh 1993; Lee 2007). The goals of Korean adoption agencies were met by finding homes for these children. In addition, a well run, efficient, and reliable intercountry adoption program which provided healthy and well cared for young children made Korea an attractive sending country for many prospective parents and placed it firmly in the spotlight of proponent spokespersons (Sources: Department of Child Safety, Letter from Eastern Child Welfare 18.3.77, 10.11.1988, Newspaper Article, 1989 'Childless couples hit' Sunday Sun; Department of Child Safety informant, Interview, Staff 10.4.2007; Department of Community Services, New South Wales, Interview, Staff 20.4.2007). Adoption of children from Korea proved attractive to Australian proponents following the closure of Vietnam as a source country.

162

It can be inferred that the benefits for Korea and the activities of Korean and Australian proponent networks outweighed negative publicity and criticism in the 1970s as the adoption program was extended to Australia. Korean actors were enrolled by the Australian proponent network to meet these goals. Korean adoption agencies embraced altruistic discourse to meet the goals of caring for children in orphanages. This discourse is vocalised in the Christian prayer Dr. Kim Duk Whang, the first president of the Eastern Child Welfare Society (ECWS), reads to every baby before he/she departs from Korea found in Appendix Six of this thesis on page 267 (Source: Electronic Discussion Group circulated this prayer sourced from an Eastern Social Welfare Service Newsletter). It is argued in this thesis that the Korean government also embraced this discourse but only under prescribed conditions, using tactics of threats of exclusion. Threats of closing the Korean program by the Korean government in view of any adverse publicity was noted in the Queensland Department of Children’s Services records since prior to its commencement in 1977 and in interviews with informants from the Queensland Department of Child Safety and the New South Wales Department of Community Services.

At the time of diffusion to Australia, the children to be adopted and birth parents were silent. They were represented by Korean adoption agencies as spokespersons, the obligatory passage point through which all actors must pass in Korea. Korean adoption agencies were both actors and intermediaries, as disciplined bodies, of the Korean government. The actions of these agencies were controlled by the Korean government, particularly in terms of quotas46, diplomatic relations, and agency funding (Source: Department of Child Safety, Correspondence from Eastern Child Welfare; Adoptee Solidarity Korea Website). Though knowledge of quotas were found across data sources, detailed information concerning these issues was found only in correspondence located in the Queensland Department of Children’s Services records.

Children were represented by those who spoke for them as abandoned, at risk of vilification and in need of a home. As identified earlier in the literature review, birth parents were represented as unmarried and subjected to cultural norms. Birth fathers were not present and devoid of responsibilities. It was reported that birth mothers were unable to keep their children in Korean society without adverse social consequences to themselves and their children. However, as reported by adult

46 An official quota system was introduced in 1987 in response to criticisms surrounding the Seoul Olympic Games (Daum 2000). 163

Korean born adoptees, some children came from two parent families affected by poverty (Sources: Australia Korea Friendship Group Interviews 15.5.2005, 5.7.2005; House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, Public Hearing Sydney 23.09.2005; InterCountry Adoptee Support Network Website; Adoptee Solidarity Korea Website, Kim, U. 1996). Information provided to some adoptees by the Korean adoption agency about their birth circumstances was incorrect.

Altruistic discourse fulfilled the function of masking gaps in Korean welfare services, rendering invisible the social and economic circumstances of birth mothers or families. It enabled Korea to open a new adoption program with Australia at a time when political rhetoric aimed at cessation of all intercountry programs from Korea.

The Role of the Korean Government

At the time of Australian diffusion, the Korean government’s distancing from contentious issues was evident in a number of ways. As the ‘problem’ of unmarried mothers in Korean society remained hidden and absent from welfare policy, so too did the government’s role in the intercountry adoption phenomenon. The Korean government was an influential though distant actor using tactics of exclusion, repeatedly advising Australian governments that any adverse publicity surrounding the adoption of Korean children would result in the cessation of adoptions from Korea found in only government data sources (Sources: Department of Child Safety, Inward Cable Dept of Foreign Affairs 5.12.1977, Letter Director Children’s Services 18.8.1978, Preliminary Report Australian Delegation on ICA to Certain Asian Countries 13.11.1978, 12.1978). This would suggest that if Australian or Korean governments wished to cease intercountry adoption it would have been easy to do so.

The prospect of unwanted publicity in the diffusion of Korean adoption to Australia was perceived as a threat by the Korean proponents. Yet, adverse publicity by Australian opponents had little effect on its diffusion in the late 1970s. On the 19th July 1977, the Department of Foreign Affairs confirmed that despite the negative publicity and reports in the media that the Korean program was cancelled, Korean adoption would continue though all communications with Korea must occur via the Australian Embassy in Seoul. This advice belied the Korean government’s tactic of exclusion and the program did not cease. In December 1977, advice was received that the Korean government was still reluctant to become involved in an official bilateral agreement with Australia preferring private arrangements between the Eastern Child Welfare Society and the Australian government. Adverse publicity was 164 given a new role, that is, as a reason to avoid formal government to government agreements rather than ceasing a program that met the needs of proponent actors. The reasons given in 1977 for not entering into a formal bilateral agreement with Australia were adverse publicity in Australian newspapers, specifically the article concerning Australian Nazis and one which referred to baby markets, rather than the Korean government’s own desire to distance itself from the intercountry adoption phenomenon. Korea reiterated that intercountry adoption would only continue without the direct involvement of the Korean government and no negative publicity. There was no direct Korean government involvement as all activities were administered by Eastern Child Welfare Society. Disturbing and threatening negative publicity did occur, yet the Korean government continued the planned adoption program to Australia. The program, in fact, over the next few years extended to other Australian states such as Queensland. Korea, however, remained unwilling to sign a formal bilateral agreement from the 1970s to 2007. A formal bilateral agreement between the Australian and Korean governments has never been signed. Instead formal working arrangements between the Eastern Child Welfare Society and Australian states have been preferred.

The Korean government did make it clear that it had the power to cease the program at any time. It was noted in the Departmental records that adoptions to Switzerland had ceased and Denmark, like Australia, had been limited to one agency (Source: Department of Child Safety, Inward Cable Dept Foreign Affairs 5.12.77). The same communication, in contrast, announced the expected arrival of the ‘first’ children into the Australia. Future adoptions, however, would be limited to two babies per flight, in order to minimise publicity. Two years prior to these threats to the Australian program, Scandinavian countries had resolved a similar situation with Korea. Hubinette (2005) reports that in Sweden, Norway and Denmark, negative publicity from North Korea and local publicity concerning disrupted adoptions where Korean children were placed in institutions and foster homes had led to a cessation of Korean intercountry adoption between 1969 and 1975. Hubinette (2005) describes intense lobbying of groups in Scandinavia that promoted intercountry adoption and Sweden’s role in the United Nations Security Council that enabled the re-opening of the program. Korea insisted that prospective Scandinavian parents would in future fly to Korea personally to pick up their children (as opposed to using escorts) and adhere to media secrecy. With the exception of the ‘first’ Korean children to Australia, Queensland parents have been required to travel to Korea to bring their adopted children home47.

47 The practice of using escorts differed between Australian states. 165

The Korean government’s ongoing insistence that a low public profile be maintained and threats of cessation were reflective of the government’s distancing from the phenomenon as a form of power and control. Proponents desired the diffusion of Korean adoption into Australia. Korea was in a position to meet this demand under certain conditions that met its own goals, that is, the provision of a welfare solution. Intercountry adoption as a welfare solution for a rapidly changing economy and society was more durable though undesirable as it drew international criticism. Without the Korean government’s enrolment, Korean/ Australian intercountry adoption would not have been possible.

The Eastern Child Welfare Society was placed in the position of intermediary and the obligatory path of all communications between the Korean and Australian governments. This allowed the Korean government to create the appearance of distance from the intercountry adoption phenomenon, preferring ‘private’ arrangements. Private arrangements also ensured limited government funding consistent with Korea’s approach to welfare. The Korean government committed Australia to a ‘secrecy pact’ where Australia was allowed to participate in the phenomenon of intercountry adoption provided secrecy was maintained. These interchanges were explained by Australian government departments as the need for sensitivity to the position of the Korean government and the importance of not placing Korean intercountry adoption in the limelight as described in the Report of the Standing Committee dated December 1978. The analysis revealed political actions and cultural sensitivity merged to where they were indistinguishable and all actions by the Korean government were considered by Australia to be of cultural rather than political origins. This was still evident in 2007 and found in information provided in interviews with informants from the New South Wales Department of Community Services (DoCs) and the Queensland Department of Child Safety (DCS).

The Korean government exerted power over the diffusion of the phenomenon through distancing and threats of program withdrawal. Proponents including Australian governments wanted an adoption program between Korea and Australia, which by 1983 also included the Queensland government, and proponents were therefore willing to meet the political requirements of the sending country such as limiting publicity and the acceptance of formal working arrangements rather than formal bilateral agreements, under the guise of cultural sensitivity. Distancing by the Korean government was so entrenched, Korean government representatives did not turn up to official meetings with delegations or reply to formal correspondence regarding formal bilateral agreements, leaving all discussions to the nominated Korean adoption agency as intermediary. This approach was documented in the Department 166 of Children’s Services records in 1978 and again 2002, and verified in interviews with a Department of Child Safety informant on the 19th April 2007.

The Enrolment of Korean Adoption Agencies

The first adoptions from Korea to Australia were arranged by Australian couples through Holt International Services without Australian government assistance. These communications between relevant Korean agencies and proponents continued even after the establishment of formal programs (Sources: Department of Children’s Services, Inward Cable Dept of Foreign Affairs 2.3.77; Australia Korea Friendship Group Interviews14.5.2005, 5.7.2005; Department of Child Safety Interview 10.4.07, 23.4.2007). Proponents took every opportunity to express their desire to adopt more children from Korea through persuasion and importunate action.

As early as 1977, there were explicit requests from Korea and the Australian Embassy in Seoul that all communications be official, that is, between the Eastern Child Welfare Society and Australian governments, not between prospective parents or parent support groups and the Korean agency. These requests were in response to pressure on the Korean adoption agency from parent groups and prospective parents. The veracity and necessity of restricted contact by proponents as advised by the Queensland government were questioned by proponents or at times ignored throughout the years of Korean intercountry adoption in Queensland.

The first recorded example of this in the data available for analysis occurred in 1979. An adoptive father returned from Korea with information regarding the sending of applicants’ files to Korea that contradicted information provided by the Queensland adoption department. The information provided by the Department was documented advice from Korea (Source: Department of Children’s Services, Note 17.12.79). Whether these miscommunications related to nuances and proficiency of cross cultural communications, courtesy, or the position in the Korean agency of staff members who were approached and the knowledge to which they were privy, the reasons for contradictory messages remain unexplained. However, what is evident is that proponents rejected messages not conducive to their goals of enabling Korean intercountry adoption and took every opportunity to promote their cause, often directly to Eastern Child Welfare Society. Whether due to cultural reasons, politics, fear of causing offence, or reliance on donations, the Korean government and agencies seem to have never made their preferences clear to prospective parents. These requests seem to have only been relayed by Australian governments and therefore accepted or rejected at will by adoption proponents. These 167 miscommunication issues became another focus of power struggles, an example of inaction and anti adoption attitudes of state governments, and where proponents felt a legitimate avenue of influence had been blocked.

Contact between parent support groups and the Korean adoption agency, Eastern Child Welfare Society (ESWS) that dealt with Australia were frequent from diffusion to 2007. This was in many ways inevitable as parents traveled to Korea to pick up their adopted children. The work that parent groups do in relation to aid and assistance was highly valued by Eastern Child Welfare Society as reported across informant groups. The Eastern Child Welfare Society was an enrolled proponent and worked for the common interest of children in the orphanage as defined by proponent discourse, that is, child rescue by adoption. Consequently, interrelationships between Australian and Korean proponent spokespersons were strengthened by shared goals, excluding Australian state governments from these communications. The following excerpt shows the difficulties in communications between parent support groups, Korean adoption authorities and Australian governments.

Korean authorities did not want parent groups talking to them but that was blatantly overlooked…it caused tension between Korean and Australian adoption authorities and Australian adoption authorities and parent bodies…it is almost as if the government agencies are quite powerless. There is non assertive willingness by government to step in and say these are the boundaries (Source: Department of Child Safety Interview, Staff, 10.4.2007).

As this excerpt highlights, tensions were evident yet only addressed by Australian authorities. Connections with parents groups were important to the Eastern Child Welfare Society to meet the goals of finding homes for children and receiving financial support, yet the pressure experienced from parent groups was not wanted.

Proponents used tactics such as persuasion and importunate action to enrol Korean actors. In effect, a powerful relationship developed between the obligatory passage point in Korea (Eastern Child Welfare Society) and the obligatory passage point in Australia (parent support groups) during the diffusion period. This interrelationship lacked hierarchical power such as legal authority, however, according to Actor Network Theory, the actions of actor networks, in effect, made it a powerful interaction. There were two forms of interactions, the first was the official communications between the Australian 168 government and Eastern Child Welfare Society through whom Korean government communications were filtered, see Figure 5 Translations and Obligatory Passage Points in Diffusion on page 169.

Figure 5 Translations and Obligatory Passage Points in Diffusion

Korean Australian Government Governments

Children Prospective To Be Eastern Parent Parents Adopted Child Support Welfare TRANSLATIONS Groups Society

Media Birth Mothers/ Parents

The second, also depicted in Figure 5, was the space between the obligatory passage points in Australia and Korea, where tactics used by proponents to enrol Korean actors were enacted through translations. The Eastern Child Welfare Society was an enrolled proponent, however, this did not mean that the agency necessarily accepted and acted on all proponent discourse. There was resistance to translations because of pressure to increase Korean adoption numbers to Australia and achieve faster adoptions. The Korean adoption agency was linked to a more influential actor, that is, the Korean government who decided on quotas and the future of intercountry adoption. Therefore enrolment was conditional and subjected to particular rules and expectations of the Korean government. Maintaining a low profile was in the interests of the Korean government. Increases in quotas would attract further public criticism from opponent actors who were vocal in their opposition. There were repeated requests from Korea to Australian state governments to manage communications from proponents as proponent actions created pressure on Eastern Child Welfare Society to meet their goals. The Eastern Child Welfare Society did not have sufficient influence to make these changes under the quota system.

Figure 5 shows how Eastern Child Welfare Society and Australian support groups functioned as obligatory passage points. Power struggles inherent in translations were enacted in the space between them. It was in this space where proponents sought to advance their cause in the form of increased and 169 speedier adoptions by placing pressure on Eastern Child Welfare Society. Resistance and requests to reduce this pressure by limiting this communication created triangular and indirect communication patterns. The distancing of the Korean government meant most communications from Australian governments and proponents were conducted through Eastern Child Welfare Society. Negative messages such as limiting communication or changes in quotas were to be conveyed through the Australian governments. This triangulation of communication contributed to tensions and mistrust by proponents, in particular, parent support groups in relation to Australian state government adoption agencies.

Aid and Donations as Intermediaries

The use of intermediaries strengthened translations between the Eastern Child Welfare Society and Australian proponents. Callon (1991) defines intermediaries as anything that passes between actors that defines their relationship and identifies four types, literary inscription or text, technical artifacts, disciplined human beings and currency, which are used in multilateral negotiations. Donations and other aid acted as intermediaries in the adoption phenomenon. The Korean government provided only limited funding to the four Korean adoption agencies that were engaged in intercountry adoption and operated on a private basis. In 1988/89, the quotas to Australia were reduced by sixty percent officially attributed by Eastern Child Welfare Society to the establishment of Korean domestic adoption, a trade surplus and successful family planning48. Increases in donation fees were required in the same period to help the agency meet their costs as documented in a letter from Eastern Child Welfare Society to the Department of Children’s Services dated the 10th of November 1988. It can be inferred that decreased funds from international adoption that enabled the agency to operate caused a shortfall. Korean government funding did not meet the costs of running such agencies and funding had to be found elsewhere. As a result, Eastern Child Welfare Society was dependent on donations and aid in order to meet the costs for care of children in their orphanages and to ultimately help fund other welfare programs run by the agency, such as programs for children with disabilities and assistance for unwed mothers. This aid was provided by adoptive parents and parent support groups. Agency dependence on donations and aid was in place between other Korean adoption agencies and receiving countries prior to the commencement of Korean/ Australian adoption.

48 This contrasts evidence found in the literature that indicate reductions in international adoptions during this period were attributable to international criticism (Daum 2000; Hubinette 2005). The reasons given above also bear no shame. 170

When Korean government actions restricted quotas of children to be adopted, financial pressures on the Korean adoption agency that dealt with Australia resulted as no additional financial support was provided by the Korean government. Variations in quotas depended on internal and international politics, economics, and natural disasters and were evidenced in communications between the Korean agency and the Queensland government (Sources: Department of Child Safety, Letters 26.07.77, 3.12.86, 21.11.88, 24.3.89, 8.11.89, 29.12.2000, Note 3.2.2000, 27.12.2004). These restrictions impacted on the financial viability of the adoption agency’s welfare strategies and usually resulted in increased fees. Likewise, additional donations were required to ensure the viability of welfare programs and the care of children. Decreases in quotas created strong negative reactions from proponents across the globe, while increases brought criticism from opponents. It remained, however, in the Korean government’s financial interests to allow dependence on foreign aid from parent support groups, rather than placing the costs of welfare on the Korean government.

Financial dependency on parent groups in receiving countries, altruistic discourse, and successful translations by Australian proponents, were enabling conditions that galvanised the opening and continuation of an adoption program to Australia. This financial dependency, that is, where Korean adoption agencies place children with members of parent support groups on whom there is significant financial dependence, and the lack of comprehensive and adequate support from the Korean government to meet the cost of care for children in orphanages and foster care, placed both adoption agencies and parent support groups in ethical dilemmas that are avoidable. While there is no suggestion that improper conduct has occurred between Korea and Australia, the practice was encouraged by the lack of adequate Korean government financial support and highlighted ethical concerns of conflicted interests.

The goals of Korean adoption agencies to care for their children and those of adoption proponents were aligned, ensuring, as proponent actors, their goals headed in the same direction. Lack of Korean government financial responsibility disallowed alternative discourse and the development of approaches to welfare such as comprehensive welfare support for mothers and families that enabled them to care for their own children49. The proponent network crossed national borders and was strengthened as a result of this alignment, ensuring the goal of Korean/ Australian adoption was achieved. Where they failed with Vietnam, proponents were successful with Korea. Aid and financial

49 Some welfare assistance for single mothers now exists but is limited in scope (Huh 1993; Sarri, Baik & Bombyk 1998). 171 dependence became powerful intermediaries that operated within the proponent network. The Korean approach to welfare provided the conditions that enabled the commencement of a new program to Australia at a time when the government planned to cease all intercountry adoptions by 1981, while the actions of proponents activated the phenomenon. Likewise the continuation of the program was assured while these relationships were maintained.

Conclusion

The diffusion of Korean intercountry adoption to Australia came about as a result of the actions of proponent networks that spanned national borders championing their cause in Australia and Korea; the network’s success at enrolling others; and the willingness of Korean actors to be enrolled to meet their own objectives. The dominance of proponent discourse and proponent success in power struggles enacted with others ensured the diffusion of Korean/ Australian adoption. Proponents were found in the ranks of Australian parent support groups, prospective parents, Australian and Korean politicians, Korean adoption agencies, public servants and the media. Proponents were highly successful at enrolling new and powerful actors through translation processes into the network. A number of tactics proved to be highly effective strategies achieving problematisation, interessement, enrolment and mobilisation, the four overlapping phases of translation. Tactics identified by following actors were forming new groups, force, persuasion, becoming indispensable, emotional connectivity, simplification, enemy creation, importunate action and threats of exclusion. Expanding on power struggles identified in Chapter Five has helped explain the significant role emotions played in tactics that bind actors together. The importance of the media and parent support groups in defining the problems and how they needed to be solved was highlighted. Tactics that had proved effective continued to be used and were influential in the continuance of intercountry adoption and will be discussed further in the next chapter.

This chapter has highlighted how through the recruitment of new actors discourse alters in translation processes. In the previous chapter three viewpoints converged into one more general altruistic discourse of child rescue by adoption while in this chapter it is found that what was once child rescue by adoption from war became child rescue by adoption from orphanages. These translations were able to be repeated over the course of Korean intercountry adoption to Australia making the network durable. Alignment with actors in Korea and their ability to be translated proved essential to the diffusion of the phenomenon but not without tensions. Some tensions could not be resolved such as waiting times and limiting quotas. Korean proponent actors were essential to the network. Indirect 172 communications had increased tensions between networks in Australia adding to distrust and conflict. The role of aid as an intermediary between parent support groups and the Korean adoption agency had proved a strengthening factor in interlocking interests. These interlocking interests and their benefits outweighed negatives such as international criticism for the Korean government who though a distant actor, was an actor nonetheless who was an enrolled as a proponent.

The analysis in this chapter has led to a greater understanding of the development of identified tactics. The examination of translation processes helped understand how tactics worked to attract and enrol new actors that enabled Korean intercountry adoption to diffuse into Australia. This laid the foundation for understanding how Korean intercountry adoption has continued to Australia. The following chapter will examine the interrelationships of proponent, opponent and nonpartisan networks, translations and tactics used by these networks to influence the continuation of the Korean adoption program to Australia. Chapter Seven shows how the proponent network in Australia has grown to include not only those actors interested in Korean intercountry adoption but also adoption from other countries. In addition, it discusses the increasing influence of a new opponent network that includes some adult adoptees and Korean birth mothers and explores how activities have led to current controversies about the continuation of Korean intercountry adoption and alternative ways sought by proponent actors to meet their goals.

173

Chapter Seven Continuation

Chapter Six explored translations and tactics used by proponents. This chapter examines how these same translations and tactics including enemy creation, emotional connectivity, simplification and importunate action were repeated, making the proponent network durable over time. This durability positioned proponents to exert increased influence in continuance despite the emergence of a new opponent network. Attempts at translations and resistance continued between proponents and nonpartisans. Nonpartisans, particularly government departments engaged in adoption activities, remained fairly constant with little change to their core activities until the House of Representatives Inquiry in 2005 when new directions were imposed on them through translations. The emergence of a new actor, the Internet/ human actant, has been important in developing the opponent and proponent networks and spreading particular discourse. The Internet featured strongly in continuance bringing speed and increased opportunities for multiple and far reaching translations. At the same time, a number of threats to continuance emerged that included an increasingly visible opponent network and the promotion of Korean domestic adoption. Intercountry adoption from Korea to Queensland, Australia, continues to the present. This chapter traces the activities of the proponent network, identifies threats to the continuance of Korean Intercountry adoption and explores the responses. It highlights the influential role of the Internet in continuance controversies.

This chapter focuses on the continuance of Korean intercountry adoption from Korea to Queensland and Australia. It explores the actions of opponent, proponent and nonpartisan actors and tactics used in translations that contribute to continuance. New actors emerged that were not visible during the diffusion period into Australia. These included Korean birth mothers and international adoptees who are now adults. These actors pose significant threats to the Korean intercountry adoption program. Emerging in the 2000s, the voices of Korean opponent actors were identified and attempts to enrol new actors into this network were successful. Though these actions were felt in Australia by 2007, there was little impact on proponent discourse. Opponent discourse was evident in inscriptions such as videos, essays and newspaper articles that were spread via computer mediated communications such as internet postings of adult adoptees (Birthmothers protest to end adoption 2007; Kim, Y.-g. 2007; Kim & Trenka 2007; Park 2007b). Inscriptions spread via the Internet were prominent in the data corpus in 174 this period in the form of discussion group email communications and postings on Internet sites. As discussed in Chapter Four, ethical considerations prohibited the replication of exact content of email communications. Consequently direct quotes from this type of inscription are not used in this chapter.

As discussed in Chapter Five, when proponent network goals were blocked during diffusion new ways of achieving these goals were found. The shift of focus from Vietnam to Korea as a source of adoptable children was one such detour. In continuance, several key events such as the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Inquiry into Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005 and program slow downs such as that which occurred in the 2000s50 provided key junctures for the enactment of network controversies and the development of new detours. Proponents continued to demand access to overseas born children for adoption. In this climate, threats to the Korean program persisted. Parent support groups, as Australian proponent actors, responded by promoting detours such as the opening of programs with new sending countries. Whereas new proponents such as some Australian politicians sought detours that would achieve adoption within the local Australian context in a new way.

Data sources analysed that contained information about the continuance of intercountry adoption included direct and indirect sources. Direct data sources included interviews, Department of Child Safety documents and evidence from public hearings and submissions to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005. Indirect data was found in email discussion group communications, websites and some Department of Child Safety and House of Representative documentation such as newspaper articles and references to conference proceedings and other articles. Indirect data also included media representations such as videos that were mobilised via electronic means to spread particular network discourse. The analysis showed the importance of inscriptions to the construction of network discourse and how these inscriptions were used to attract new actors to a network. The analysis identified how dominant proponent discourse has shaped how intercountry adoption came to be practised in Australia and how new opponent actors have brought new influences to the continuance of Korean intercountry adoption.

50 In 2005 the quota of Korean children to Australia was 100. In 2006 it was 70 and in the first few months of 2007 no new files from Australian prospective parents were accepted (Source: Interview Department of Community Services, New South Wales, Staff 20.4.07). 175

By 2007, intense proponent activity in Australia, the growing presence of opponent actors overseas and the capacity of the Internet to mobilise discourses bring new complexities to the continuation of Korean intercountry adoption to Queensland and Australia. This chapter examines network actions and interactions by examining the role of the Internet, Korean actors, and proponent responses to threats, and detours that emerged in translations.

The Internet as a Non Human Actor

It is argued in this thesis that the Internet accelerated the activities of particular networks in a way not previously experienced. The Internet, crucial to the spread of intercountry adoption in Australia, emerged as an influential actor enrolled in global networks, in terms of its frequent appearance in the data corpus and in its capacity to mobilise discourse. The Internet enabled human actors to cross time and geography in a way not previously possible. The Internet/ human actant strengthened existing links and forged new ones with other actors and networks at national and global levels. Examples of this were the cross posting evident between the many local and international discussion groups that spread proponent discourse and the ways proponent actors could enact tactics such as importunate action and enemy creation over the Internet. In the analysis, the Internet appeared as an actor in all networks, promoting proponent, opponent, and non-partisan discourse. Yet government departments especially Queensland failed to utilise the Internet as a tool to spread adoption information to the same extent as proponent and opponent networks. One exception found in email discussion group communications showed that the Australian state of New South Wales used this method of communication to promote local fostering options for particular children to proponents. Networks seek to spread particular messages to enable them to meet a goal. In this case, the nonpartisan goal was to find foster homes for particular children. The nonpartisan network, unlike proponents and opponents, did not have particular goals that promoted or inhibited intercountry adoption rather it had a broader investment in the welfare of children.

In the Australian context, not limited by state borders, the Internet was an important actor for groups as well as networks. This was particularly evident in two groups, that is, adult adoptees and prospective parents. The Internet since its initial translation into networks51 cemented connections between actors and replicated translations in these groups in a powerful way. One electronic communication group open to Australian adoptive parents, prospective parents, adoptees and other parties interested in

51 The date of translations with the Internet differed between groups and networks. 176

Korean intercountry adoption to improve communication and support between them was established by adoptive and prospective parents in 2000. Almost all postings, however, were those from prospective and adoptive parents. Cross postings found in this discussion group were linked to other state, national and overseas groups that used similar communications. Perspectives expressed in email discussion group communications were chiefly proponent in nature, as were the newspaper reports and other inscriptions circulated via these means. Some newspaper reports were also spread via the Internet that represented threats to Korean adoption such as those concerning the promotion of Korean domestic adoption which elicited a variety of responses. Proponent discourse and reports of threats circulated via the Internet were also presented in public hearings of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Inquiry into Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005. Many of the submissions to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Inquiry into Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005 such as submissions 2, 4 15, 16, 17, 27, 33, 38 and 158, promoted proponent discourse and/ or identified threats to continuance.

Cross messaging was common across email communication groups for parent groups linking to spokespersons in other Australian and United States groups, particularly at key junctures. For example, cross messaging activity increased when inscriptions needed to be spread. The number of messages on the computer mediated discussion group ranged from 116 to 300 messages per month leading up to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005 compared with monthly postings ranging from 44 to 153 in 2003. Messaging was most frequent at key junctures such as this where group cohesion was necessary to ensure network strength. Proponent inscriptions in email discussion group communications leading up to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Inquiry into Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005 sought media enrolment, actors prepared to be interviewed by the media and celebrity enrolment. The aim for proponent spokespersons was to promote proponent discourse, spread positive adoption messages and support the establishment of private agencies, an identified detour to speedier and cheaper adoptions. Fundraising activities to support these proponent activities were established by these means. Cross messaging weakened the boundaries between groups concerned with Korean adoption and groups with interests in adoption from and to other countries. By the time of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Inquiry into Overseas Adoption began in 2005, the activities of the Korean email communication group was part of the wider proponent network concerned with intercountry adoption from many source countries.

177

Human and non human actors, hybrid actants in the proponent network, enrolled others by translation using particular tactics and are described later in this chapter. The Internet and human actors together become an influential actant that enrolled others through emotional connections that were not limited by temporal and geographical boundaries, an action neither human nor non human, it is argued, could achieve alone in such a rapid and extensive way. As a hybrid proponent actor, the Internet appeared to have trustworthy status as perceived by fellow proponents and those they sought to enrol. Examples of this are provided below. Human actors turned to the proponent Internet/ human actor, a non human/ human hybrid, in order to seek reassurance or information concerning adoption issues, rather than turn to actors in other networks who may provide the more direct or accurate information such as government departments concerned with intercountry adoption. Proponent inscriptions perpetuated a distrust of government agencies as an unreliable source of information. Evidence for this distrust was found across all informant groups, in email discussion group communications, interviews with informants from the Australia Korea Friendship Group (AKFG) Queensland and the Queensland Department of Child Safety interviews, and in public hearings and submissions to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005.

The following excerpt shows how the Internet/ human actant was considered a more trustworthy and speedier source of information, even those based overseas.

Thus, via communication with overseas applicants, adoption applicants in Australia are aware of when they should be hearing news of the results of their applications (Source: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia in 2005, Submission 86, Families with Children from China, FCC, p.25).

Trust in Internet communications and examples such as that described above were consistently found in the data corpus. The Internet spread particular discourse and successfully translated others using the tactics of emotional connectivity and enemy creation. These tactics strengthened actors’ alignment at key junctures when it was crucial that network force was felt at full power. The analysis showed how the Internet circulated discourse that offered resolution to the tension between actors and their goals by creating the potential for emotional attachment to discourse such as child rescue. It did this by enabling human actors to share their feelings with each other in an immediate and personal way. Actors were no 178 longer alone. They were connected with shared emotional experiences regardless of geography. The emotional intensity created by emotional connectivity strengthened actor commitment to proponent discourse and their connections with other proponent actors. This was found in computer mediated communications where actors responded via the Internet and rallied support concerning particular issues. One example of this was the organising of lobbying activities. Using email discussion group communications proponents circulated formats of letters that could be sent to politicians, located adoptive families who were prepared to be interviewed by the media, and distributed lists of celebrities with personal affiliations to adoption seeking those who may know and be willing to approach them.

Inscriptions, in the form of email communications and website postings, provided efficient ways of circulating discourse and strengthening networks. Inscriptions spread by the Internet were more easily translated as a result of emotional connectivity. In continuance, key junctures such as the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Inquiry into Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005 presented opportunities to strengthen emotional connectivity to discourse and unite proponents via the Internet. Likewise, threats or obstacles that lay between an actor and its goals could be identified in this way. These threats include reports of the possible closure of the Korean intercountry adoption program or Australian government policies and procedures that were perceived to slow down the process. Messages spread via inscriptions found in computer mediated communications and evidence given in public hearings and Submissions to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Inquiry into Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005 in the 2000s offered detours to proponents such as the establishment of private agencies and the opening of new source countries.

Not all proponent actors agreed with proposed detours. In the process of power struggles enacted in translations, many ultimately accepted these detours as a way of reaching the goal of child adoption. The following excerpt from a parent support group informant provides an example.

The world has shrunk in size. Emails. We know what is happening in Western Australia when an allocation comes through. The world is so much smaller. For that reason I think there’s pressure there. The idea of being privatised is not because people ultimately think that’s the best way to go. I just think they have struggled with government who can’t seem to get it right and if you can’t get it right then maybe we should go down this track (Source: Australia Korea Friendship Group Queensland, Interview, 14.5.2005). 179

Thus actors were enrolled and transformed by accepting the translations imposed on them by proponent spokespersons in order to meet their own goals such as that described in the above excerpt. Translation did not mean all promoted discourse was accepted in its entirety, rather enrolment offered political expediency, a better way to meet one’s goals for a period of time. The new actor accepted the force and power of proponent discourse as a superior (or only) route to attaining desired outcomes. The following quote expands on this.

People obviously have their own agendas and there’s people that you’ll come across who are doing it because of their own personal beliefs or whatever. There’s people in Australia who are pushing for reforms in adoption that have the ambition to have Australia’s largest private adoption agency. People are out there who want to see adoption privatised and to set up shop (Source: Australia Korea Friendship Group, Interview, 14.5.2005).

As the above excerpt demonstrates, actors in the proponent network were not a homogenous group. According to Actor Network Theory, this meant ongoing efforts were necessary to ensure actors stayed enrolled. The replication of translations and the use of tactics were required to ensure network durability and strength. The Internet actor provided this means and supported tactics that were used to stabilise and expand the network. Where a few dozen humans were initially mobilised, internet enrolment meant there were hundreds of actors enrolling or being enrolled into other intercountry adoption networks, nationally and internationally. As an example, a spokesperson from one parent support group, Adoptions International, that provided pre and post adoption support described extensive national and international links in evidence to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005 during the Public Hearing in Perth on the 18th October 2005. A chain of complex interactions was thus identified in the proponent network. The Internet through the mobilisation of inscriptions made visible the activities of human actors that could be followed in the analysis. The Internet brought together human actors from different backgrounds, places and experiences, temporarily stabilising social interactions that were frequently labile.

The Internet also featured as an actor in nonpartisan discourse. The informant from the local Australian adoptee group, Inter-Country Adoptee Support Network (ICASN) identified the group as nonpartisan and purposefully non-political. 180

ICASN attempts to raise awareness (via the Internet website) of adoption issues to its members as well as the general public, where in past, this knowledge may have been limited. Issues have always surrounded the practice of inter-country adoption and it is ICASN’s intention to ensure both its members and interested parties have access to non- political and non-biased information (Source: Inter-Country Adoptee Support Network, Interview, 11.4.2005).

Though purposefully apolitical, the ICASN website displayed links to other adoptee websites across the globe that promoted nonpartisan, opponent and proponent discourse highlighting the lack of homogeneity in groups. In this way, Australian adults adopted from Korea as children were linked to politically active adoptee groups across the globe. Adults adopted from Korea as children were a global community and geographically dispersed52. They were connected through the Internet. Adoptees dispersed across the globe were also linked by shared Korean origins and the shared experience this implied rather than geography.

...the Internet has helped Korean adoptees stay closer together. ‘I think the Internet was really an important way, technology, for them to connect to each other’, Kim said. ‘Often they would say they thought they were the only ones, and suddenly they realise there are thousands of others that were also adopted like they were.’ The Internet also provided the adoptees with a way to participate in the adoptee community in a comfortable and safer way, even being able to open up to those who might have felt uncomfortable about talking face to face about the issue, she said (Source: Website: Le Fromage Electronic, Kim, Y.-g. 2007).

The analysis of internet sites identified that adoptees shared identity as shown in the above excerpt. This group was tolerant of individual adoptee translations with each network and spread inscriptions reflective of nonpartisan, opponent and proponent discourse that were represented on a range of websites to which they were linked. This was not found to the same extent, for example, in parent support group inscriptions that strongly reflected a dominant proponent discourse.

52 Information represented on multiple adoptee websites such as Adoptee Solidarity Korea (ASK) indicated that many adult adoptees had returned to Korea to visit or live forming their own community in Korea. 181

The Internet provided a virtual community within which inscriptions were spread allowing diverse goals to be reached. In this analysis, diversity could exist within the adoptee group where goals and enrolment in particular networks were not necessarily the same amongst group members. There were examples of many Korean adoptees whose perspectives reflected non partisan and proponent discourse. The adoptee websites show, however, that the goals for many Korean adult adoptees around the globe were opponent, that is, their goal was to cease intercountry adoption from Korea. Using this example, it was this shared goal which enabled translations between adult adoptees, Korean birth mothers (also now connecting with each other through the Internet), and in some cases adoptive parents. It is these translations and the mobilisation of discourse that made opponent networks more visible in the continuance debate as demonstrated in Internet, email, video and media inscriptions (Source: Website Le Fromage Electrique, Korean birthparents against international adoption, Dandelions Birthparents Group 2007; Moon 2007; Na 2007; Park 2007a, 2007b; Roh 2007, accessed 10th December 2007)53. While the Internet and human proponent actant promoted Korean intercountry adoption across the globe, the Internet and human opponent actant also spread an opposing view. The Internet was a powerful actor that strengthened any network with which it was enrolled. Yet as identified in the data corpus, the Internet actor was one with which nonpartisans, especially government departments concerned with intercountry adoption, rarely engaged with the exception of departmental websites. The lesser extent of nonpartisan enrolment with the Internet enabled certain tactics such as enemy creation. In the absence of discourse spread by the Internet/ nonpartisan actor, proponents were able to create their own discourse concerning nonpartisans and their goals. As nonpartisan discourse was not spread as efficiently, proponent discourse that labelled nonpartisans as enemies dominated.

Information concerning threats to the continuation of Korean intercountry adoption was circulated by proponents via the Internet and located across the range of data sources. Threats elicited proponent responses such as resistance and new ways to meet one’s goals. Modern Korean domestic adoption, promoted as a replacement phenomenon, emerged as a threat to the continuance of Korean intercountry adoption for Australian prospective parents, a message mobilised across all groups and networks.

53 These videos and news articles were posted on adoptee websites. 182

The Actions of Korean Actors

Korean Domestic Adoption

Just as Korean domestic adoption represented a threat to non Korean prospective parents, it also represented the Korean response to external threats such as international criticism and subsequent goals to cease intercountry adoption and achieve international credibility. Domestic adoption, like intercountry adoption, also represented a relatively cost effective way to manage Korean welfare issues. As discussed in previous chapters, the Korean government had voiced opposition to intercountry adoption and established government policies that aimed to reduce intercountry adoptions and promote domestic adoption as a replacement phenomenon (Hubinette 2005). These intentions were supported in the data and found consistently in the Queensland Department of Children’s Services documents from the 1970s such as the proceedings of the Commonwealth/ State Committee dated 17.8.78 and other internal memorandums and letters. The actions of the Korean government, such as the opening of an adoption program to Australia, were shown to be supportive of intercountry adoption despite official rhetoric since the 1970s that indicated intercountry adoption would cease. These timeframes for cessation have continually shifted which is consistent with reports in the literature. The first cessation timeframe documented in the Queensland Department of Children’s Services records prior to the commencement of a Korean/ Australian adoption program was 1981. The position of the Korean government on intercountry adoption has been subjected to political, diplomatic and economic influences on a global level as discussed in the literature review. More recently a number of Korean government actions such as financial incentives for Korean prospective parents indicated that the government actively promoted Korean domestic adoption as a preferred alternative to intercountry adoption. News of these incentives and the progress of domestic adoption in Korea were circulated in email discussion group communications and posted on adoptee websites (Park 2007a; Rahn 2006). The focus shifted to increasing the numbers of Korean domestic adoptions which in effect constituted the development of a new replacement phenomenon rather than addressing issues that contributed directly to intercountry adoption in the first place. These issues are support for families and single parents, community development approaches, sex education and access to family planning.

Korean domestic adoption and intercountry adoption were found to be different phenomenon in this analysis. They were constructed by the actions of different though connected actor networks. Intercountry adoption was enabled by specific conditions and driven by the actions of the proponent

183 network that were subsequently able to enrol governments and other actors. In contrast, Korean domestic adoption was promoted by the Korean government, some Korean adoption agencies and organisations such as the Mission to Promote Adoption in Korea (MPAK) to replace intercountry adoption. Evidence for this was found in text on websites and newspaper articles circulated via computer mediated communications (Park 2007a). These actors were also engaged in intercountry adoption and therefore had interests in both phenomena. The analysis of the data across all sources identified that intercountry and domestic adoptions have different origins and were subjected to different influences. Korean intercountry adoption emerged as a result of proponent actions enabled by particular conditions. It diffused as an altruistic act of child rescue by adoption and was championed by proponent spokespersons who built influential networks. In contrast, modern Korean domestic adoption emerged as a response by the Korean government to the international criticism of intercountry adoption practices and was not initiated nor driven by those in Korea hoping to adopt a child who had formed an influential network. These differences were able to be understood through the lens of Actor Network Theory and raise questions relating to the expansion of a network that promoted Korean domestic adoption.

The implementation of a domestic adoption program in Korea did not, in itself, make it an acceptable practice that would be easily embraced by new actors. The promotion of Korean domestic adoption was driven from the top down by actors in the Korean government, operating on the assumptions of hierarchical power and influence. More recently agencies such as the Mission to Promote Adoption in Korea (MPAK) became involved54. As a phenomenon, Korean domestic adoption has not gained the same impetus or influence of networks that were constructed through the shared discourse and interest of those hoping to adopt a child internationally such as the proponent network that promoted intercountry adoption in Australia. As found in Chapter Six, it was the promise of reaching one’s goals that enabled the proponent network to grow in Australia. As a result of the network’s ability to attract new actors in this way, the proponent network rapidly increased its influence. It easily recruited other actors whose interests already pointed in the same direction, that is, the desire to parent a child. These

54 MPAK formed in the late 1990s is a Christian organisation formed by a Korean adult adoptee with links to Holt International Services. 184 actors already shared the same goals, whereas the promotion of Korean domestic adoption had to convince new actors to adopt new goals55.

The proponent network’s influence increased as it recruited new actors through successful translations at a local Australian level, whereas the promotion of Korean domestic adoption required more direct actions such as the use of intermediaries to strengthen translations in a Korean context. These included financial incentives such as government entitlements for prospective parents. Intercountry adoption advanced without such incentives. Attempts to promote Korean domestic adoption extended to include the enrolment of the Korean media actor and Korean celebrities. These actions were described and circulated via email communications by proponents. New goals relating to Korean domestic adoption were created and spread via computer mediated inscriptions including on-line news articles. As one example of this, an article was circulated in email discussion group communications that described how the Korean government sought to convince the Korean people that they should adopt a Korean child as a sense of national responsibility for increasing the declining population. These discourses were less convincing to new actors and were unable to recruit at the desired pace, measured by the inability of Korean domestic adoption to replace intercountry adoption, or provide solutions for children with disabilities. Attempts at persuasion of prospective Korean parents also meant different standards of eligibility were applied to domestic Korean adoption applicants compared to Australian prospective adoptive parents, such as different requirements in marital status and age. These were evident in documents and newspaper articles spread via emails and websites.

The Korean government’s goals encompassed aspects of avoiding shame on the international stage and providing an alternative low cost welfare solution. Other actors identified in the data corpus as engaged in the promotion of Korean domestic adoption such as Korean adoption agencies and some adult adoptees, were also actors engaged in intercountry adoption. The promotion of Korean domestic adoption, in effect, maintained the invisibility of some actors such as children to be adopted and birth mothers. These actors were historically invisible in both intercountry and domestic adoption in Korea, with spokespersons such as adoption agencies speaking on their behalf as described in Chapter Six.

55 Korean domestic adoption has always been practiced but is very different to the Western concept of adoption (Chun 1989). Embracing the practice required the replacement of an Eastern approach to adoption by a Western one. This required changes in values, culture and the law. 185

Korean mothers have more recently expressed their own views, supported by actors such as adult adoptees and influential champions such as some adoptive parents. Computer mediated communications including websites such as Adoptee Solidarity Korea and Le Fromage Electrique describe how adult adoptees have been living and working in Korea for some years using importunate action and persuasion to influence the view of the Korean government. For example, an article transmitted via email discussions by adoptive parents reported on the actions of an affluent American, Dr Boas. Dr Boas is an adoptive parent who transferred his support from financial assistance to prospective adoptive parents in the USA to that of activist for the rights of Korean unwed mothers (Kim & Trenka 2007). This reflected a shift from an adoption driven value base to one that recognised the existence of previously silent Korean actors, that is, birth mothers. Dr Boas left the pro-adoption organisation he established in the USA and founded the Unwed Korean Mothers’ Support Network in Korea in 200756.

Some Australian parents lent support to the promotion of Korean domestic adoption as noted in email discussion group communications. Groups such as the Australia Korea Friendship Group (AKFG) Queensland also provided aid to single mothers as noted in interviews with informants from this group dated 14.05.05, 5.07.2005. This aid is usually conducted through the Korean adoption agency and their program for single mothers and was not independent of these agencies. Evidence of this type of support was also found in other data sources such as the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Inquiry into Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, Public Hearing held in Perth on the 18th October 2005 and in computer mediated communications.

In 2007, the new opponent network converged in Korea bringing together adult adoptees, Korean birth mothers and adoptive parents such as Boas57. It was these more recent enrolments and subsequent increase in opponent influence that began to spread across the globe by the opponent network via the Internet making the invisibility of birth mothers and their children no longer possible. Korean birth mothers have formed the Mindeulae (Dandelions) group supported by adult adoptees in Korea and themselves connected through the Internet as opponent actors who did not believe intercountry adoption was ‘in the best interest of the child’. Opponents also used importunate action in the form of

56 Dr Boas’ story is now available on the TRACK (Truth and Reconciliation for the Adoption Community in Korea) website (Boas 2008) and on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9p-ohslFag. 57 http://adoptionjustice.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/08/dr-richard-boas-at-kwdi.html. 186 petitions and protests. Television productions presenting complex perspectives were spread via computer mediated communications linking to video sharing sites on the Internet such as You Tube (Birthmothers protest to end adoption 2007; Stop intercountry adoption 2007; Park 2007b; Roh 2007).

As the support needs of Australian mothers began to be addressed in Australia, the numbers of children available for domestic Australian adoption declined dramatically. If the support needs of Korean birth mothers were addressed it is likely to have an effect on the numbers of children requiring adoption whether that be domestic or intercountry. It is yet to be seen if Korea’s experience would parallel that of the Australian experience of the 1970s. In 2007, there was a sense of competition between domestic and intercountry adoption in Korea which posed threats to Australian prospective parents as Korean domestic adoptions began to be given first priority in the allocation of children. In addition, Korean children when adopted overseas were several months older than children adopted previously due to these new measures. Proponents did not view this as ‘in the best interests’ of the children. Evidence for this was circulated via email discussion group communications and informant interviews. Increased threat to the Korean/ Australian program comes in the form of visible opponents who converged in Korea in the 2007, the same year the Korean program to Australia slowed. How Australian proponent actors responded to these threats is discussed in the next section.

Proponent Responses to Threats

The proponent network has proven durability surviving thirty years of Australian/Korean adoption, a status the newer opponent network has yet to achieve. The proponent network continued to promote Korean intercountry adoption despite the increasing visibility of opponent voices. Despite this, the analysis revealed an acceptance found across all data sources that eventually intercountry adoption from Korea may cease. The Korean government’s intention, as found in the Queensland Department of Children’s Services records, was evident prior to the commencement of adoption from Korea to Australia and has not been enacted in thirty years of Australian/Korean adoption and fifty years of the phenomenon globally. Actions such as the promotion of Korean domestic adoption and intermittent slow downs of the program have not resulted in the cessation of the program by 2007 indicating proponent discourse still dominated. However, the influence of opponent voices, globalisation, international politics, public shame and the impact of the global economic crisis that emerged in 2008 cannot be minimised. It is yet to be seen if the target cessation date of 2015 will be deferred.

According to Kim, U. (1996) as found on the Adoptee Solidarity Korea (ASK) website:- 187

The government says that it wants to eliminate foreign adoptions, however, professors and experts interviewed by one reporter summed up their skepticism by saying, ‘And what has the ministry done to follow it up? Nothing’. By delegating a large part of the responsibility to private organisations, the government continues to provide little in the way of services for unwed mothers, better orphanage and foster care facilities, and, most importantly, to increase Korean consciousness about adoption. Foreign adoption has been a convenient way for the government to avoid having to deal with these deeper social issues. Douglas Kim agrees that ‘it has been easier to sanction and promote foreign adoption of Korean children, rather than to deal with the circumstances that necessitate their adoption’. In addition, adoption has contributed to the government's aim of easing overpopulation and has conveniently relieved it of future social service and welfare costs (Source: Adoptee Solidarity Korea website, Kim, U. 1996, accessed 16th July 2005).

This excerpt highlights ongoing support for intercountry adoption by the Korean government and the issues that are ignored by a singular focus on domestic adoption as a replacement. There has been much rhetoric regarding the cessation of Korean intercountry adoption and the promotion of Korean domestic adoption as a replacement phenomenon, yet intercountry adoption continues. This implies that the influence of the proponent network dominated and the failure of a singularly focused solution. The activities of the opponent network in Korea, however, were increasing the threat to intercountry adoption by increased visibility and the spread of alternate discourse. The Korean government was taking a number of steps to promote domestic adoption as the preferred alternative to intercountry adoption. One example was policy change in 2007 that ensured domestic adoption possibilities were fully explored in the first five months of a child’s life before overseas adoption could be considered (Park 2007a; Shin 2007). As discussed in email group communications many proponent actors did not believe this was ‘in the best interests of the child’ as the children would be older when adopted.

In 2006, a newspaper announcement was circulated electronically that announced Ko Kyung-hwa of the Grand National Party planned to introduce legislation that would prohibit adoption of Korean children by foreign parents outside Korea while systematically supporting domestic adoption. One response to this threat saw some proponents proposing the enrolment of adopted children of an appropriate age to write to the Korean government in protest using importunate action. Yet many parents of Korean children supported Korean domestic adoption and would also have liked to see 188 children remain with their birth families if possible. This was identified in interviews with Australia Korea Friendship Group spokespersons and in email discussion group communications. A variety of responses by proponents to these threats of program cessation were identified. Some adoptive parents who had completed their families through adoption were supportive of positive moves by Korea to find their own domestic solutions. Some parents remained concerned that their children will be part of finite number of Korean born adoptees when Korean adoption is no longer practiced and may suffer negative consequences as a result. Those prospective parents who had not completed their families became concerned that they may not achieve their goals of child adoption from Korea. Some of these prospective parents changed their preferences to other source countries such as China. Actor Network Theory suggests that networks seek to keep actors enrolled by convincing them that they can still reach their goals, however, a detour may be necessary to do so.

Detours

There was evidence across data sources that prospective parents prepared for cessation by examining detours presented by proponent spokespersons as alternatives, such as adoption from China58 and lobbying for the opening of other new adoption programs to Australia. Inscriptions promoting detours were found in interviews with informants from the Queensland Department of Child Safety (DCS), the Australia Korea Friendship Group (AKFG) Queensland, email communications and submissions to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005 such as Submission 33.

The analysis also identified new and influential proponent actors such as Australian Federal politician and Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, Bronwyn Bishop, along with other committee members who gave voice to a new detour, one not necessarily intended by the proponents who sought to enrol these politicians. This proposed detour met the interests of those seeking to adopt and also the then federal

58 China signed an agreement with Australia in 1999. Senator Brian Harridine, member of the Australian Senate representing Tasmania, championed this action as a result of importunate action by proponents. Senator Harridine ensured changes in Australian legislation that complied with Chinese legislation, enabling adoption from China, despite China not being a signatory to the Hague Convention at the time. Since the establishment of the China/Australia program, China’s popularity has exceeded that of Korea (Source: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, Submission 33; Public Hearing, Brisbane 21.7.2005). Quick, a member of the House of Representative Standing Committee, also visited a Chinese orphanage during the Inquiry. 189 government’s goals of seeking low cost welfare solutions by sourcing local children for adoption in the ranks of those children born to ‘unfit’ parents. Evidence for this was found in public hearing transcripts of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005 and in newspaper reports circulated via email communications (Metherell 2007), see Appendix Seven: MPs call for addict’s children to be adopted on page 268.

According to Actor Network Theory detours promise alternative ways for actors to meet their goals. Actors, however, can feel cheated when original goals are not achieved or if the alternate routes do not prove better (Latour 1987, pp. 111-21). Actors will seek to identify the cause of these failures, that is, if a promised detour does not deliver. It therefore becomes important that spokespersons, who create such detours in an effort to keep actors enrolled, exercise control by fact building and when there is a failure, identify a source of that failure external to the network such as an anti adoption culture. In this way, knowledge is controlled, external events or people can be blamed for failures, and networks remain in tact even strengthened by enemy creation. Enrolled actors are convinced to remain enrolled proponents if delays are experienced.

The development of an influential proponent network and the enrolment of the Internet have meant the interests of parent support groups associated with one country such as Korea have merged with other parent support groups across Australia. They were represented by proponent spokespersons who promoted particular discourse. Proponent discourse was most evident in and dominated particular sources such as email discussion group communications and in evidence given to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005. It is this discourse which dominated the proponent network regardless of difference in local activity and diversity of opinion. This discourse espoused Australia’s failure as an adoptive country measured by low numbers of adoptions, length and cost of the adoption process, and the existence of barriers such as comprehensive social work assessments. Evidence such as that given to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005 during the Public Hearing in Hobart on the 16th September argued that there are vast numbers of adoptable children languishing in orphanages and there should be few barriers to their international adoption. This discourse was also found in email communications, media representations, letters, submissions and testimonies in public hearings. Submissions 15, 33, 137, 158, 161, and 241 to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Inquiry 2005 provide examples. International adoption was promoted as wholly positive and discourse that complicated this 190 view was rejected by the Committee. Australian state governments and their anti adoption attitudes were identified by proponent spokespersons in the analysis as the barriers to faster and cheaper access to overseas adoption.

Privatisation of adoption in Australia and the opening of new programs with new countries were presented as solutions by proponents. These proposed detours would ensure organisations concerning intercountry adoption in Australia would be proponent and adoption driven while the role of obligatory passage point and spokespersons for the many would be further legitimised and maintained. Proponent spokespersons who promoted particular agendas such as finding a source of local children for adoption, privatisation, and the opening of new countries whether they be Hague signatories or not, presented these detours as a quicker and more cost effective way of meeting goals. This discourse dominated power struggles in the 2000s. How detours were proposed in response to threats is depicted in Figure 6, Proponent Detours, shown below.

Figure 6 Proponent Detours

Prospective Parents

THREATS OF CESSATION PROPONENT AND PROGRAM NETWORK SLOW DETOUR DOWNS

OPEN NEW PROGRAMS and LOCAL ALTERNATIVES Goals May Not Be Met Your Goals Will Be Met If You Follow Me

Figure 6 shows how actors may not be able to meet their goals when faced by threats. In contrast, if they enrolled into the proponent network, alternate ways of meeting these goals were proposed. In this way discourse promoted by proponent spokespersons was more readily accepted during translation 191 processes. Two detours were proposed each offering different solutions. These were adoption from overseas from countries yet to be convinced to engage in intercountry adoption with Australia, and increasing the numbers of local Australian children available for adoption, a goal never intended by proponent actors.

Computer mediated communications such as email discussion groups and Internet sites and evidence provided to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, revealed diversity of functions of parent groups and a range of views found in them. Some group members embraced proponent discourse in its entirety whereas others could be considered nonpartisan and held views open to complexity and alternate considerations. As previously discussed in this analysis, some nonpartisan actors were translated into proponent networks, for example, to seek more financial support and the same government subsidies for adoptive parents as biological parents. A call for increased financial support was consistently found in evidence given at the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005 and in email discussion group communications during 2004 and 2005.

Parent support groups by 2005 had blackboxed into a cohesive whole, despite the variance of individual opinion within adoptive and prospective parent groups and between individuals. A recommendation from the Report on House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005 formalised the blackboxing of parent support groups through the establishment of a national peak body59 (Overseas Adoption in Australia: The Report on the Inquiry into Adoption of Children from Overseas 2005). It is argued in this thesis that the power of the proponent network and its success in translating others were only possible through the enrolment of non human actors such as the Internet and the rapid mobilisation of discourse its enrolment allowed.

The following section explores tactics used in translations and proposed detours identified during the continuation period. These translations are those which have strengthened the proponent network in Australia and ensured its longevity and influence. Proponent discourse was consequently effective at maintaining actor enrolment and convinced new actors that they must follow their path. Detours and

59 This national peak body was established in 2008 (after the data collection period). Adoptive parents represented the majority of its membership. 192 their promotion by proponents have the potential to influence future policy directions and the way intercountry adoption is practiced in Australia.

Continuation Strategies

Enemy Creation, Fear and Continuance

Threats to the goal of child adoption meant the proponent network, now blackboxed, had to find new ways to increase their influence. This was done by creating detours to achieve their goals. As discussed in Chapter Five, Australian state adoption departments, the only legal route to child adoption, resisted enrolment into proponent networks. At times of threat proponents escalated tactics that sought to enrol nonpartisans. These attempts at translations were inherently fraught with conflict due to power struggles between nonpartisans and proponents regarding what constitutes the ‘best interests of the child’.

A core premise of this thesis is that proponent actors perceived their needs to be as one with children to be adopted (as opposed to after an adoption when a family has been formed). It therefore follows that proponent actors, in their view, should be influential players in the phenomenon of child adoption and be able to exert greater influence than government departments and other actors. Evidence of these perceptions were found in inscriptions spread by electronic discussion groups, in public hearings and submissions to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005 such as submissions 33 and 118 and the interview with the informant from the Queensland Department of Child Safety 10th April 2007. Discourse that did not include these perspectives posed threats to proponent discourse.

Resistance to the embracement of proponent discourse in its entirety presented obstacles to the spread of proponent influence. State government adoption authorities upheld the legal principle that the ‘interests of the child’ was paramount by promoting child centred services while proponents promoted ‘the best interests of the child’ as met in adoption driven discourse. The following excerpt explains the position of the Queensland government.

One aspect of adoption process and practice that is clearly consistent across all Australian jurisdictions is the paramountcy [sic] given to the welfare and interests of the child. The principle is reflected in all Australian adoption legislation, the United Nations Convention

193

on the Rights of the Child, the Council (Australian) Social Welfare Minister’s National Minimum Principles in Adoption 1993 and The Hague Convention on the Protection of Children in Respect of Intercountry Adoption…Importantly this principle recognises that: adoption (including intercountry adoption) is a service to provide permanent care for children who would not otherwise have a permanent legal family, and as such, relies on the recruitment and assessment of suitable prospective parents, and: no person has a right to adopt a child (Source: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, Submission 204, Mr Mike Reynolds, Minister for Child Safety, Queensland, p. 2-3).

This excerpt highlights the philosophy that had driven adoption practice in Queensland and other Australian states from the perspective of the Department of Child Safety. In contrast, proponent discourse was built around the urgency of the ‘fact’ that thousands to millions of children around the globe require homes.

I would like to raise one more matter – that is, consideration of the term that is used so often in international adoptions – it used by central authorities, it is used by the Hague and NGOs, and I have heard it once here this morning. It is the term ‘in the best interests of the child’. This seems to be the term that is mentioned with all good intentions but sometimes it seems to be misused and even abused. I find it hard to see how the best interests of the child are always a priority. For example, you have heard that in 2003-4 there were 369 adoptions internationally into Australia. Yet in the same year, 40,000 adoptions occurred around the world – 20,000 went to the US and approximately the same to Europe. In the best interests of the child we managed to take in 369. Yet estimates are that there are anything up to 100 million orphans around the world. It is very hard to reconcile that term with the processes that are in Australia and with what we are making ourselves available to (Source: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, Public Hearing, Tasmania 16.9.2005, Reverend Sherrin, President of Australian African Children’s Aid and Support Inc, p. 24).

This view highlighted ‘facts’ in proponent discourse and how adoption success is measured in numbers. This view, however, was not accepted as ‘fact’ in all networks as found in interviews with

194 informants from the Department of Community Services, New South Wales on the 20th April 2007, the Queensland Department of Child Safety on the 23rd April 2007, adoptee websites and submissions and evidence given to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005.

International adoption is a complex social phenomenon. There is a view that there are thousands of children languishing in orphanages waiting for families and that there should be few or no barriers to stopping this from happening or the standards for intercountry adoption should be lower. The international demand for young children leaves overseas adoption open to abuse and creates significant risks for vulnerable children…There are many children in the world who live in orphanages or institutions and who do need families. Unfortunately many children in orphanages are not available for adoption or not able to be placed with families because they are older, are part of a large sibling group, have disabilities, special medical conditions, other special needs or difficult backgrounds… (Source: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, Submission 263, Department of Human Services, Victoria, p.1).

According to Actor Network Theory, when influential actors cannot be enrolled, actors in the enrolling network must find ways to exercise power and control controversies. This ensures alternate discourses are rejected by others in the network which results in the network maintaining strength through continued enrolments. One way that this was achieved by proponents was the use of the tactic, enemy creation. In the analysis, the concept of fear, as an element of enemy creation, first appeared in proponent discourse during the first period of threat which followed the Korean Olympic Games. It was first claimed in an International Adoptive Families of Queensland (IAFQ) Newsletter dated May 1989 that applicants were too frightened to contact the Department of Children’s Services with inquiries about the progress of their files in case they failed their assessments. In 1989, indicative of the emotional distress of this period, there was also considerable internal conflict within the International Adoptive Families of Queensland (IAFQ), resulting in the resignation of the president also detailed in June Newsletter of the same year. The analysis identified that enemy creation was a powerful tactic, of which fear is an element. Fear gave strength and durability to proponent networks through heightened intensity cementing the existence of an enemy. Fear was characterised by statements such as:-

195

We certainly find that as applicants go through the process they are extremely nervous that, if they do something wrong, they will fail or go to the bottom of the list or that, if they are seen to be bucking the system, they will be disadvantaged in some way. Whereas with an association like ourselves, they are quite happy to come and speak with us because we can represent them (Source: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, Public Hearing Canberra 9.5.2005, Ann Plohberger, President, Adoptive Families Association of the Australian Capital Territory, p. 37).

This excerpt from evidence given by the President of this parent support group highlighted the role of fear and the importance of adoptive parent groups as obligatory passage points as a position of influence in translations. As frequently noted in computer mediated communications and evidence to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, fear was spread by proponents, and became an integral part of proponent discourse and an effective tool to strengthen connections between actors in networks. As evidenced in the House of Representatives Inquiry, proponent actors recounted hearsay stories of other unidentified people’s experiences as if their own. This type of commentary was invited by politicians on the committee.

You can only say it is an undercurrent. No one says it outright but there is quite often a feeling that some of these people think we shouldn’t be adopting (Source: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, Public Hearing Brisbane 21.7.2005, Louise Nielson, Private Citizen, p. 88).

I know from speaking to other adoptive parents that some people working in the field of adoption give off a vibe that adoption is not a valid form of forming a family (Source: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, Public Hearing Canberra 17.8.2005, Lisa Wilson, Private Citizen, p. 22).

When we went through our first adoption there was very much a culture of not rocking the boat or you will get in trouble—and you just heard the chorus of ‘mmmm’! Your file might fall off the back of a desk. Someone might get cranky with you (Source: House of 196

Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, Public Hearing Brisbane 21.7.2005, Sue-Belinda, Vice-President, Families with Children from China, p. 64).

There’s an element of fear if you rock the boat too much things could slow down, be held up or make it difficult. So people are frightened to come forward and give anything a try (Source: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, Public Hearing Brisbane 21.7.2005, Stephen Nielson, Private Citizen, p. 91).

As highlighted in these excerpts ‘vibes’ and ‘undercurrents’ were constructed as current and pervasive ‘facts’. Other examples used isolated individual experience, or commonly unidentified and unquantified historical experiences of others as the basis for fact construction. Evidence supporting a fearful position was not located in the Queensland Department of Child Safety records available for analysis. It is argued in this thesis, that the construction of enemy status was assisted by fear based on perceived power imbalances between proponent actors and government departments. This power imbalance, based on traditional notions of power, was discussed by an adoptive parent in Submission 70 to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005. Actor Network Theory proposes that networks do not develop their influence through traditional notions of power. Examining power in a traditional sense can fail to bring to light alternate activities that ultimately wield significant power and influence. Proponents used tactics such as enemy creation to translate nonpartisans into proponent networks. Power struggles ensued. Nonpartisans resisting enrolment were identified as enemies who should be feared. Such inscriptions, identified in the documents available for analysis, were first noted in the International Adoptive Families of Queensland (IAFQ) Newsletter dates June 1989 and more recently by inscriptions spread by the human/ Internet actant.

Resistance by nonpartisans to proponent discourse was perceived as an obstruction to reaching proponent goals and as anti adoption described below.

I get feedback from our state representatives and many of our members. This suggests that, of all the states, Victoria has been quite anti adoption. Whether that is entirely true I do not know; I am just giving an indication of the perception I get from our members. It seems so 197

consistent. I do not know how many of them would be brave enough to say that, when the experience is that they would be in trouble if they do. However, many of our Queensland members would say the same thing. I am not sure that it is entirely true that they are anti adoption, but their system is. The system in Queensland is anti adoption; it does nothing to help people adopt (Source: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, Public Hearing Tasmania 16.9.2005, Reverend Sherrin, President Australian African Children’s Aid and Support Inc, p. 31).

Anti adoption labeling, as identified in the above excerpt, was not targeted exclusively at Australian governments, and was a powerful way for proponents to control how intercountry adoption was discussed. After the screening of a television program, Insight, on Australian SBS television, an adult adoptee from the Inter-Country Adoptee Support Network (ICASN) who appeared on the show wrote the following in the ICASN Newsletter dated April 2006:

Since the SBS show I have had a lot of stimulating dialogue with adoptees and parents. One issue that came out is what side of the fence did I sit on and how I came across. Many have mistakenly labeled me anti adoption. This left me feeling angry at first. How dare people judge me on the basis of a few comments that really only glazed over the surface of a very complex issue? I guess I am not out there yelling how grateful I am that I have been adopted and how much I love my family people assume what I haven’t said means I am not happy about being adopted or that I don’t agree with adoption . That is not the case. I guess people that don’t know me don’t know that I have a close relationship with my parents who support me in my views… I am not here to tell adoptive parents they have done a good job or did the wrong thing by adopting, nor am I here to judge an adoptees journey or views on adoption. I simply speak up because I see a lack of understanding in our society of issues adoptees face at various times through their lives and I try to provide a glimmer of insight and understanding so that others may be better equipped to deal with the needs of adoptees (Source: Intercountry Adoptee Support Network, ICASN Website, accessed 20th December 206).

This excerpt highlights that no group or individual was exempt from this tactic, even adoptees. Proponent spokespersons used discussion group emails to label as anti adoption individual government 198 employees and adult adoptees who offered alternate views to adoption as wholly positive. The discourse of adoptive parents from the United States as heroes and their entitlement to government financial support, as promoted by President Bush was lauded by some proponent actors and spread via the proponent/Internet actant. A United States Presidential press release circulated by Australian proponents via electronic inscriptions, outlined this view, see Appendix Eight on page 269. Anything less than adherence to adoption as wholly positive was perceived as discrimination and anti adoption in proponent discourse, see Appendix Nine, The Adoption Twist on page 270.

Dominant proponent discourse that was mobilised promoted the existence of an enemy who was anti adoption and should be feared as shown in the previous excerpts. This discourse ensured the enrolment of new actors, such as prospective parents, and their movement through parent support groups as an obligatory passage point where support and trustworthy information could be found. The construction and circulation of fear blocked or clouded the usual route of communication from prospective parents to government agencies dealing directly with adoptions. Instead, fear promoted circular communication through the proponent network as the obligatory passage point. This controlled communication and ensured proponent discourse remain influential. Fear of dealing with enemies in Australian state adoption departments who reportedly did not support the goals of child adoption was accepted by prospective parents. As found in email discussion group communications and evidence provided to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005 many prospective parents talked about fear even when there had been little contact with government departments or no personal negative experiences. Discussions about fear were present across inscriptions spread by prospective parent groups, newly enrolled actors such as politician, Bishop, and Australian government departments, but were absent from adult adoptee inscriptions. These claims, likewise, were readily accepted by enrolled media actors and some politicians.

The claim that the department’s adoption service is anti adoption continues to be made despite evidence to the contrary in the adoption service’s behaviour. Over the years, these claims have been published in newspapers and magazines and thereafter they have spread as a source of contention and myth. It is the department’s view that repetition of such claims has contributed to heightened anxiety amongst applicants and possibly reduced the number of applicants. The facts do not support the assertion that there is anti adoption conspiracy (Source: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, Public Hearing Perth 18.10.2005, Leah 199

Bonson, Director, East Directorate, Community Development and Statewide Services, Western Australia Department of Community Development, p. 4).

This excerpt above summarises and supports the findings in this analysis. Apart from statements made by proponent actors of an anti adoption culture present in State adoption departments, there is no evidence of this from any other sources. The analysis, however, does show that enemy creation is an important tactic in the domination of proponent network discourse.

The Enrolment of Celebrity and Politicians

As nonpartisans continued to resist enrolment and Korean opponents strengthened their network, proponents sought to enrol Australian politicians. Politician enrolment proved effective at a number of junctures including the emergence of the phenomenon from Korea in the 1950s, diffusion into Australia in the 1970s and the opening of the China Program in 1999. Proponents sought enrolment through importunate action, seeking new actors such as politicians, celebrities and other persons in high profile positions with adoption connections. Relationships were developed with the media to champion the cause. These campaigns were conducted via the Internet and by letter writing as identified in email discussion group communications. They were targeted and well orchestrated encouraging proponents to take every opportunity to make connections with influential persons who had personal associations with adoption.

News of recent success was circulated via email discussion group communications by proponent spokespersons announcing that Australian actor Deborra-lee, an adoptive mother herself and wife of actor, Hugh Jackman, had become an enrolled proponent. She since formed an action group to lobby governments to enable easier intercountry adoptions established through a website ‘Orphan Angels’60 (Connelly 2007a, 2007b, 2007c). Furness promoted proponent discourse and child rescue. Furness requested inscriptions in the form of letters and other correspondence from prospective parents and proponent actors via electronic communications. The website listed supporters or ‘friends’61. These people could be considered enrolled proponents with the capacity to mobilise inscriptions regarding dominant child rescue by adoption discourse. The federal politician and Chair of the federal Inquiry into adoption, Bishop, was listed as a ‘friend’ of Orphan Angels. Particular media proponent actors

60 http://www.orphanangels.com.au 61 The ‘friend’ list is no longer available on the website noted on the 4th January 2009. 200 were named and thanked and key people listed were predominantly representatives from parent support groups.

Proponent spokespersons exercised control over inscriptions used in importunate action to ensure messages were powerful and consistent across proponents. Proposed drafts of letters provided by proponent spokespersons, for example, were distributed via email discussion group communications to guide the content of inscriptions to be sent to politicians. These actions, adopted and championed by proponent politician, Bishop, culminated in the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Inquiry into Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005. During this Inquiry, proponents sought to enrol politicians using their words, for example, promoting intercountry adoption as a solution to a declining birth rate using Costello’s62 call for Australians to have three children, one for the mother, one for the father and one for the country as found in the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, Public Hearing, Brisbane dated 22.7.2005. Paradoxically, Korea was addressing the same issue with the 1-2-3 Program encouraging women to have three children before they turn forty, on one hand encouraging women to have children, on the other adopting Korean children overseas. Both these perspectives were spread via the email discussion group.

Politicians on the Committee of the House of Representatives Inquiry were readily translated by proponent discourse compatible with their political goals. It could be argued that the Chair of the Inquiry, Bishop, was already an enrolled proponent at its commencement. As shown in official transcripts, politicians were proponent actors for the duration of the Inquiry, accepting anti adoption and humanitarian discourses and the ‘facts’ constructed within these discourses in its entirety, without question.

Exactly like Queensland…if you raise your voice above the norm, there’s a good chance it will disappear down to the bottom of the pile…If you upset the applecart you go to the bottom of the pile. That is their way of punishing you and keeping you quiet and subservient (Source: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, Public Hearing, Melbourne 3.8.2005, Quick, Politician and Committee Member, p.44).

62 Costello is an Australian federal politician and at that time, Treasurer. 201

This view was expressed by Quick, a committee member, and federal politician from Tasmania. This type of comment was commonly made by committee members throughout the Inquiry.

Alternate nonpartisan and opponent discourse tended to be silenced by committee members with examples of bullying tactics such as cutting people off, verbal putdowns, and discrediting professional reputations. One example of bullying tactics is shown in the following excerpt. This excerpt was preceded by a discussion where Ponsonby (Team Leader, Adoptions Unit, Office for Children, Youth and Family Support, ACT Department of Disability, Housing and Community Services) was explaining complex issues related to grief and infertility with which the Chair of the Committee, Bishop, did not agree.

Ms Ponsonby: Can I say just say too it is quite difficult having someone sitting, for example, in a seminar program contemplating the issues they need to contemplate about intercountry adoption and finding in fact they are consumed with grief around their own issues of biological parenting. It’s not actually putting them in a place where they can really- Chair (Bronwyn Bishop): - You are making a hell of a lot of suppositions about what is good for you, Sunshine (Source: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, Public Hearing, Canberra 17.8.2005, Bronwyn Bishop, Chair, and Ann Ponsonby, Team Leader, Adoptions Unit, Office for Children, Youth and Family Support, ACT Department of Disability, Housing and Community Services, p.18).

This comment from Bishop, in effect, silenced Ponsonby. The preceding conversation indicated that Bishop may have interpreted Ponsonby’s perspective as one that placed unnecessary obstacles in the path of those wanting to adopt63. Silencing more complex (as found in this excerpt) and opposing

63 The Adoption Amendment Act2008 was passed by the New South Wales Parliament in November 2008, making adoption easier for couples wishing to adopt in New South Wales. Applications from prospective parents actively pursuing fertility treatments are now accepted 202 views were evident. Individual proponent spokespersons did not hesitate to name and discredit individual employees of government departments in electronic communications, labeling them as anti adoption and therefore untrustworthy. All informants from government departments who were interviewed were surprised at the dominance of anti adoption discourse at the federal Inquiry, given their perceptions of their then working relationships with proponent groups. The following excerpt highlights this.

I must say…staff were a bit perplexed about that [alleged anti adoption culture]. I think that may have been true in the past but in the past few years there have been enormous changes in the program to improve the process for clients…we have that down to nine months for a first and six months for a second. We are actually bringing some of the first ones through under nine months. So it was interesting to hear all that and disappointing I guess. But you still have people who went through the system years ago who are still involved in the support groups and unfortunately if you have a bad experience you tend not to forget it… (Source: Interview Department of Community Services, DoCS, Staff 20.04.07).

This suggests that the labelling of particular views as anti adoption continued in forums to which government adoption employees may not have been privy. It was found in the data corpus in email discussion group communications, House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005 transcripts and in interviews with informants from the Australia Korean Friendship Group (AKFG) Queensland. The analysis identified that anti adoption themes and enemy creation were easily adopted by politicians on the Committee and promoted purposively by their selective actions and interactions with proponents, opponents and nonpartisans during the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Inquiry into Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005.

Australian opponents were identified in the analysis in the 1970s. Opponents represented a new voice in the continuance debate globally by the 2000s. However, opponent perspectives were not strong or influential in the Australian context. In this context, opponent voices emanated from people also www.community.nsw.gov.au/parents_carers_and_families/fostering_adoption/adoption/adoption_act_2000/changes_to_the _act.html. 203 personally touched by adoption specifically Australian birth mothers. Their personal stories described the consequences of past practices in the history of Australian domestic adoption. These voices were audible in evidence provided to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Intercountry Adoption 2005 and on the websites of organisations who provided support to these women. It is noteworthy, that not all mothers who relinquished their children or organisations representing them were identified as opponents. As given in evidence to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, opponent perspectives feared similar practices were occurring in modern intercountry adoption practice. These opponent perspectives did not support intercountry adoption believing the focus of governments and the public should be on the circumstances of birth mothers and families, finding ways to keep families together and preventing systems abuses. This discourse was not popular nor understood by proponents within the context of history. They saw no relevance of these perspectives to the phenomenon of intercountry adoption today.

As the federal Inquiry was underway in Australia, a 2005 Korean television production that focused on the issues confronted by Korean birth mothers was produced (KBS 2005). It was spread as a You Tube Video with English subtitles, and was circulated by an adoptive parent via the electronic discussion group with little subsequent commentary from proponent actors. This production was reported to be the first of its kind to be produced in Korea. It dealt with adoption from the perspective of those historically silent, the birth mothers, and the views of adult adoptees returning to and residing in Korea. This production provided insights into Korean circumstances which supported some views held by opponent and nonpartisan Australian actors.

A twenty year old unwed mother asked the In-Depth 60 Minutes team to help her find her baby. According to her, the baby was taken by an adoption agency without her consent, as soon as she gave birth at an Obstetrics and Gynaecology Clinic. The transaction of money in the background was traced between the clinic and the adoption agency related to this. Why is money involved to secure babies for adoption? (Source: Email Communication Group, Synopsis of ‘Baby exporting Nation: The two faces of intercountry adoption’, KBS 2005).

Korean intercountry adoption could therefore not be considered a wholly positive phenomenon as highlighted in this excerpt. However, in the analysis influential proponent actors were not influenced 204 by the layers of complexities these reports lent to the continuance debate. Senator Bronwyn Bishop, Chair of the federal Inquiry silenced any suggestion by Ms Gribble, Policy Officer, Families with Children from China, Australia (a parent support group), that abuses could occur within intercountry adoption in Australia. The only view acceptable to Bishop was that intercountry adoption in Australia was wholly positive and other considerations were not relevant to the Australian context64. The following excerpt is taken from evidence given in the Inquiry where Gribble (Policy Officer, Families with Children from China) identified that adoption driven by market forces and profit should be resisted.

Chair (Bishop): I am a bit confused. You did say, and I got the message that you knew of adoptions here in Australia that had bad outcomes. You are not saying that? Mrs Gribble: No, I was saying that intercountry adoption can be a bad thing. It is possible for it to be a bad thing. It is not a universal good. Chair: Well I’m glad we clarified that, because I thought you were saying it was bad here. Mrs Gribble: No. Chair: So it always good here? Mrs Gribble: I guess. As far as I know… (Source: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, Public Hearing, Sydney, 23.9.2005, Bronwyn Bishop, Chair, and Kathleen Gribble, Policy Officer, Families with Children from China, p. 40).

This excerpt highlights how alternate or more complex views were silenced through simplification during the federal Inquiry in 2005. Politicians serving on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005 readily adopted proponent discourse of humanitarian rescue.

Opponent and nonpartisan voices in Australia proved weak and were silenced in power struggles through a number of tactics. As shown in the excerpt from the Public Hearing held in Canberra on the

64 In 2008, the news broke that a number of children adopted from India to Australia and Queensland were illegally trafficked. This news was spread via computer mediated communications and the media and did not support that practice is Australia is wholly positive and untouched by concerning practices. 205

17th August 2005, bullying and simplification tactics were used by proponent politician actors. Actors were relegated as anti or pro adoption in transcripts from the Brisbane Public Hearing on the 21st July, House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005. Other tactics that exercised power and control over alternate discourse were also identified such as emotional connectivity with particular reference to thousands to millions of children requiring adoption. Translations enacted by politicians on the House of Representatives Committee are depicted in Figure 7 below on page 206.

Figure 7 Politician Enrolment

Proponents Opponents Nonpartisans

POLITICIANS (House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005)

Tactics - bulling Discourse -enemy creation Translation Altered -simplification (Tactics – Simplification. Through Enemy Creation, Translation Emotional Connectivity) (e.g. sourcing local children for adoption)

Enrolment Rejected

Figure 7 depicts the process of translation by politicians on the House of Representatives Standing Committee who became enrolled proponents. They accepted proponent discourse succumbing to particular tactics and engaged in power struggles using other tactics to influence the alternative views of nonpartisans and opponents during attempts at translation.

Some adoptive parents brought their children to give evidence to the Inquiry as examples of the desirability of intercountry adoption as a practice. This constituted a strategy that heightened 206 emotional connectivity. As described in the excerpt below, the wholly positive evidence elicited from these children was accepted by politicians at the inquiry, modified in content through translation and repeatedly used as a means to silence and discount alternate viewpoints that brought complexity to the issue.

Ms Arthur (Origins)…it is like the stolen generation. Unless we come to some sort of reconciliation at least 150,000 women in this country who have had human rights crimes and statutory crimes committed against them, we cannot fully accept that women in other countries where we cannot see what is going on are not going to have the same instances of human rights committed. Ms Bishop (Chair): When a young 14-year-old girl from Ethiopia says she is so grateful and loves being in Australia because, if she had stayed in Ethiopia, her life expectancy would be 39 and she could now have a full life, that is pretty good testimony (Source: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, Public Hearing, Sydney 2005.9.23, Bronwyn Bishop, Chair, and Lily Arthur, Coordinator, Origins Inc. Supporting People Separated by Adoption, p. 44).

Bishop continued to use these children as an example of the wholly positive nature of intercountry adoption, frequently referring to them during the course of the Inquiry. Alternate more complex views were rejected by Bishop and silenced through simplification.

Australian politicians on the House of Representatives Committee readily became enrolled proponents and accepted humanitarian discourse. This discourse, however, was altered by their translations in order to meet the needs of politician actors in a way not necessarily intended by proponents who sought to enrol them. The necessity of child rescue from orphanages became accepted and blackboxed, that is, accepted as truth without question. The focus of the Inquiry, led by new proponents such as Bishop, turned to seeking alternative sources of children to intercountry adoptions in order to meet perceived demand. Underlying the need for detours may have been the reality that there were few opportunities to increase intercountry adoptions despite proponent discourse to the contrary.

As reported in the literature review, domestic and intercountry adoptions in Australia together with IVF fell short of the demand for adoptive children while many countries were reluctant to release their 207 children for adoption (AIHW 2003, 2006). If demand was to be satisfied, detours needed to be found. One detour proposed on one occasion by a member of the Inquiry Committee, Quick, a Federal member of parliament from Tasmania, suggested speedier and more efficient adoptions could be arranged if people involved with overseas adoptions would accompany trade committees overseas, in order to be exposed to arenas of influence. This detour would help prospective parents meet their goal, by seeking solutions with trade partners, that is, the United States as one example, in effect treating children as another commodity for trade (Source: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, Public Hearing, Brisbane 11.9.2007). Bishop, Chair of the Committee, diverted attention from this suggestion.

A detour, proposed by the Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee, Bishop, was perpetuated during the course of the hearings. It offered a local solution to the demand for adoptable children, that is, to increase Australian domestic adoption. Bishop proposed the following:-

What we have found is that domestically – all the words that you have said is not at odds with this - there is an anti adoption culture. The pendulum seems to have swung from the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s right over here and gone to an anti adoption stance… It is right across the country. The anti adoption culture spills into the overseas adoptions in attitudes to why these parents need to adopt. There is a big debate in this country about there being so few children to be adopted, and what has happened to all these children? We know the answer – they are in foster care. What happens to this child? Where has this child gone? This is the one who is found in the street with both parents out cold from drug injections, one with a needle hanging out of the arm. Is that child given back to the parents? (Source: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, Public Hearing Canberra 12.10.2005, Bronwyn Bishop, Chair, p. 8).

In the above excerpt, Bishop, clearly shifts the focus from intercountry adoption to locating children within the foster system in Australia for adoption. Australian domestic adoption was not the intended focus of proponent actors. Proponent discourse was altered in translation when enrolment of powerful actors such as politicians occurred. Politicians allowed themselves to be enrolled by changing discourse during translation to meet their own agenda. As found in the analysis, politicians merged ‘facts’ as promoted by proponents such as an anti adoption culture and policies with the then federal 208 government’s approach to welfare solutions. In order to meet proponent demands, Australian politicians on the Committee began to view children in foster care as a source of children who could be adopted from ‘undeserving’ to ‘deserving’ families. The debate changed from the need to expedite easier, cheaper, faster and more intercountry adoptions to why there were so few adoptable children in Australia. Like Korea, the focus on adoption driven practices diverted political attention and funding sources away from support for families, prevention and treatment programs, and research. Thus anti adoption becomes pro fostering in translation. Simplification and the acceptance of adoption as wholly positive allowed altered discourse that provided a solution for couples seeking to adopt while reducing the costs of existing child protection and foster care programs and masking gaps in these services. These views were also circulated in the form of parliamentary media releases and newspaper articles in computer mediated communications, see Appendix Seven MP calls for addicts’ children to be adopted on page 268. The enrolment of influential actors such as celebrities and politicians can be attractive to networks as these actors have the potential to influence others. On the other hand, their enrolment also brings risk as original network goals such as adopting children from overseas may be altered.

During the Inquiry, some adoptive parents voiced concerns regarding trends towards open adoptions that could make local adoptions less palatable to prospective parents when compared to overseas adoptions.

…as they found in America [open adoption philosophy] you have trouble having crack- addicted babies adopted – I am talking about locally adopted – because prospective parents do not want constant visitations by the crack addicted birth parents, at least until the child is 18 (Source: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, Public Hearing Brisbane 21.7.2005, Rita Carroll, Coordinator and past President, Australian Council for Adoption Inc, p. 19).

This excerpt highlights that some detours were not as attractive to some proponents as certain expectations existed regarding the type of child to be adopted and their circumstances, and open adoption practices.

Conclusion

Tactics used in translations that previously proved effective in diffusion continued to be used by proponents in continuance ensuring their ongoing influence. These tactics were emotional connectivity, 209 enemy creation, simplification and importunate action. Influential actors such as celebrities and politicians became enrolled proponent through translations. The possibility that Korean intercountry adoption may one day cease was found to be generally accepted across all networks while proponent discourse expounded that there were a vast number of children in the world who required adoption. Proponents attempted to translate Australian politicians and governments to meet their goals by expanding existing adoption programs and establishing new ones. The reality that there may be limited opportunities to do so forced an alternate detour that also suited particular political agenda, that of sourcing local Australian children. Proponent discourse has altered little in the thirty years of Korean/ Australian adoption despite increasing awareness of the complexity of intercountry adoption practice. Attempts at translations and subsequent resistance to them reinforced longstanding controversies. The advent of new influences in the 2000s, however, impacted in unexpected ways.

It is argued that the Internet’s enrolment into the proponent network increased their influence in a way that would not otherwise have been possible. The Internet/ human actant was an influential actor in proponent and opponent networks, but appeared to be used to a lesser extent by nonpartisans in Australian government adoption departments. This enabled proponents to spread their own discourse concerning nonpartisan actors and their goals described as anti adoption in nature. There are opportunities for nonpartisan actors, particularly Australian governments, to consider the usefulness or otherwise of Internet enrolment from their perspective.

A number of threats have emerged relating to the continuance of the Korean intercountry adoption. These include the increasing visibility and influence of the opponent network and the promotion of Korean domestic adoption as a replacement phenomenon. Korean domestic adoption represents the Korean response to threats, yet, in itself, threatens the future of Korean intercountry adoption. The analysis highlights the inadequacy of the singular focus on Korean domestic adoption as the desired welfare solution for children relinquished for adoption. The opponent network has grown in influence, attracted actors from all groups, adoptees, birth mothers and adoptive parents and highlighted gaps in welfare provision.

Despite discussions that Korean intercountry adoption is likely to cease, proponent actors remain influential in its global practice. If it were to cease in 2015, a range of welfare responses may be required by the Korean government as this thesis raises questions about the capacity of Korean domestic adoption to replace intercountry adoption. In addition, new funding arrangements and 210 practices regarding foster care, institutional care and welfare programs may need to be made in lieu of funding currently obtained from intercountry adoption practices. Likewise, Australian governments will be faced with people who want to adopt children, yet it is likely that limited options to source these children remain. Influences that promote its continuance include ongoing support by proponent actors and a pattern of shifting forward cessation dates since the 1980s.

The next chapter discusses the significance of the findings from this study, its contribution to knowledge and the value of an Actor Network Theory approach in answering the research questions. It also discusses how understanding translations can lead to new ways of addressing controversy with particular reference to the role of emotions, the enrolment of politicians and celebrity, the position of Korean birth mothers and adoptees. Opportunities for future investigations are also identified.

211

Chapter Eight Discussion and Conclusion

Actor Network Theory has proved useful in gaining new understandings of Korean intercountry adoption in Australia, specifically Queensland. Actor Network Theory has traditionally been applied to the study of science and technology tracing how innovations diffuse and become acceptable practice (Callon 1986a, 1986b; Latour 1987, 1988; Latour & Woolgar 1986). As a theory it was intended to address the gap between the social and technological or scientific. It theorised that humans do not act alone rather they do so in networks where non humans hold equal status. Rather than focusing on a scientific or technological advancement as the central hub of the study, this thesis focused on understanding the innovation of Korean intercountry adoption as a new practice that emerged in the 1950s, diffused into Australia in the 1970s, and has continued as an accepted institutional practice between the two countries despite controversy. Actor Network Theory has helped identify networks that included human and non actors and understand how their interrelationships within and between networks influenced the views of others and the practice of Korean intercountry adoption in Australia. This is significant in that it highlights how power is operationalised in ways not limited by hierarchical structures such as governments. It is power in the Actor Network sense that has enabled the emergence and spread of the Korean intercountry adoption phenomenon. Actor Network Theory has proved useful in understanding a phenomenon generally viewed as social that, in actuality, proved to be intrinsically linked with non human actors such as the Internet within a global context. Korean/ Australian intercountry adoption, the controversies enacted within Australia, and its impact on policy and practice can now be understood in a more complex way.

Adoption from Korea has dominated the development of intercountry adoption policy and practice in Australia. Korean children represented the majority of children adopted into Australia every year until adoption from China proved more accessible from 1999 when the program from China commenced. Adoptions from China had exceeded those from Korea by 2003. The diffusion of the Korean program to Australia not only influenced the development of policy, it also created expectations regarding how intercountry adoption should be practiced in Australia. The Korean program was characterised by a yearly supply of set numbers of young, healthy and well cared for babies who could be viewed within an altruistic frame of being rescued from orphanage life. It was promoted as a program that met the needs of all parties affected and was sanctioned by the Korean and Australian governments. This 212 created a model for proponent actors. It provided an example of how intercountry adoption programs could look in terms of predictability and accessibility. As real threats to the Korean program such as the promotion of Korean domestic adoption and opponent influence became evident, proponent actors looked for alternate ways to continue a predictable supply of adoptable children and expand intercountry adoption practice in Australia. This thesis highlights the importance of historical context in understanding intercountry adoption in Australia. In the 1970s, it was found that when children were less available domestically, intercountry adoption became a source of adoptable children. In the 2000s, under a conservatively governed Australia, detours towards domestic adoption were proposed in response to threats to programs such as Korea. This occurred against a backdrop where new medical innovations or practices in the treatment of fertility such as surrogacy were not available to those seeking to be parents. Actor Network Theory helped explain how network discourse and the enactment of power influenced adoption practices in Australia. Detours required the actions of actors to make them possible.

This thesis sought to explain how actors and influences enabled the diffusion of Korean intercountry adoption to Queensland and how these actors have influenced its continuance. An Actor Network Theory approach allowed for the expansion of knowledge that incorporated complex interrelationships, multiple perspectives and dynamic power struggles that were constantly enacted by networks. Actor Network Theory proved particularly useful in understanding Korean intercountry adoption as a modern, global practice that developed as it did through network actions. Most recently, the enrolment of the Internet in the proponent and opponent networks has increased the range and impact of the translations and influence these networks seek. The analysis identified the Internet and new opponent and proponent actors as influences not previously visible.

This thesis aimed to identify which actor networks were influential in the diffusion and continuance of Korean intercountry to Queensland and how translations and tactics enabled network influence in diffusion and continuance. The analysis of the data corpus identified the proponent, opponent and nonpartisan networks that did not align with traditional groupings, such as adoptive parents, adoptees and governments. Individuals in these groups can be found in each network though some groups are well represented in particular networks such as adoptive parents in the proponent network. The analysis showed the mechanisms by which proponent discourse came to dominate in the Australian context. Korean intercountry adoption was a phenomenon subject to multiple influences and perspectives. It has also been shown that Korean intercountry adoption in Australia did not operate in 213 isolation from adoption from other countries. Proponent spokespersons by 2007 were concerned with the promotion of intercountry adoption from a range of countries, not restricted to Korea. While in Korea during the same period, opponent influence was increasing with little impact on proponent discourse in Australia. As the Australian proponent network expanded and increased in influence, links were formed with other local, national, and global groups, uniting the actions of networks regardless of local activity, goals and functions. Boundaries merged and the discourse of networks associated with Korean adoption became indistinguishable from networks concerned with adoption of children from other countries. This was particularly evident at key junctures such as the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Inquiry into the Adoption of Children from Overseas in 2005. Threats to continuation led to the increased mobilisation of proponent discourse and the creation of detours such as privatisation and the pursuit of new sending countries to help reach the goals of international child adoption.

Proponent network attentions shifted easily when delays in reaching their goals were experienced. The first shift occurred between 1975 and 1977 where Korea overtook Vietnam as the source of needy children, and a second shift is apparent in 2003 when Australian intercountry adoptions from China surpassed those of Korea. By 2005, arrangements from new source countries were desired and promoted. Though networks concerned with Vietnamese adoption remained unexplored in this thesis, Vietnam ceased adoption to Australia in 1975 reportedly due to government opposition to the practice, yet it continued to the United States where post war economic and diplomatic relationships were strong (Harvey 1982, 1983; Williams, 2003). This suggests that ultimately the sending country has the power to either decline or accept enrolment into particular networks, influencing their involvement in intercountry adoption practice and that this power is exercised according to particular aspects of globalisation such as economic and diplomatic relationships. It follows that the proponent network and the congruence of proponent goals with the Korean government’s approach to welfare was stronger than all other opponent or nonpartisan influences that called for alternate welfare approaches.

The machinations of networks were previously unidentified in Australia and the views of Korean birth mothers and those adopted from Korea as children were not highly visible in the Australian context. Likewise, the actions of proponent network spokespersons such as those identified in parent support groups have been underestimated. Proponent discourse has been successful in enrolling politicians such as federal politician, Bronwyn Bishop, and celebrities such as Deborra-Lee Furness. The actions of networks were purposeful and political and the tactics they used effectively enrolled others by the 214 promise of reaching the goal of child adoption. Their actions and proposed detours such as placing pressure on new countries to adopt their children and promoting the privatisation of adoption were in direct opposition to the growing network that opposed the practice and those who promoted more complex understandings. The new opponent network included those affected by adoption in the first instance, that is, the mothers (and families) and their children who are separated by poverty, the lack of appropriate welfare support by the Korean Government and the lack of attention these issues attracted. Proponent discourse in Australia continued to marginalise these voices and minimised the impact of their own actions on the perpetuation of the practice of intercountry adoption over other solutions.

Undertaking this thesis, took me on a path I had not predicted. Despite working in the area of intercountry adoptions as a contract assessment worker for the Department of Child Safety in Queensland since the early 1990s, it became evident that I knew little about how the practice diffused into Australia and the many controversies enacted throughout its continuance. I was also surprised by what unfolded in the analysis, particularly in relation to the circulation of particular discourses. This was especially the case with regard to the existence of an ill defined, all inclusive ‘anti adoption culture’ reported to be pervasive in Australian government departments, a perspective I had never experienced in my professional dealings with the Queensland Department of Child Safety which dealt with local and intercountry adoptions. I was therefore keen to identify evidence for these perspectives in the data corpus. I only found it, however, in proponent discourse. It should be acknowledged that some proponents had a very broad view of what constituted ‘anti adoption culture’ including, for example, concerns relating to benefits and entitlements such as the federal government’s Baby Bonus entitlement and variations in some adoption eligibility criteria between Australian states. This broad view enabled actors to make their own interpretation of anti adoption which enhanced the mobilisation of this discourse.

Actor Network Theory made the unpacking of particular discourse and understanding the purpose of tactics and positions of leverage they enabled in power struggles possible. Following the actors engaged in intercountry adoption and their inscriptions, allowed the identification of networks and their actions, addressed the aims of this thesis and helped clarify my own position as nonpartisan. Understanding Korean intercountry adoption through Actor Network Theory also highlighted crucial influences relating to future policy development in Australia. The analysis identified increasing proponent influence on these policy directions. Policy, however, that is adoption driven and seeks to meet the needs of only one group bears inherent risks. These include a shift of focus from child centred 215 services to those driven to meet the needs of those hoping to adopt; the inhibition of the development of appropriate welfare services and community development strategies in source countries such as Korea; the maintenance of dependence on foreign philanthropic aid in the Korean welfare sector; and compounding the risks of child trafficking through market forces.

The examination of networks and how they exerted their influence provided insights into how controversies were created, how they were fuelled, and how some tactics were more effective than others. The nonpartisan network has proved less effective at translating others and therefore less influential. This is perhaps because nonpartisans such as Australian state and federal government departments concerned with intercountry adoptions did not have a goal to either inhibit or promote intercountry adoption rather they aimed to manage its legal, social and psychological implications for children and their adoptive families. It is also relevant that government departments were in many instances unable to counter or address many ‘facts’ constructed by other networks due to confidentiality and other professional and legislative requirements and responsibilities. As evident in the data corpus, many proponent actors were also identified in government departments from the 1970s. The struggle of the proponent network and its capacity to label Australian state governments as opponent actors challenges traditional understandings of hierarchal power. Hierarchical power ensured legal adoptions but proved less influential than the power exerted by the proponent network that propelled the practice within Australia.

Proponents may argue that they wielded little power as evidenced by the perceived barriers to speedy, cheaper and less bureaucratic adoption processes. Power exerted to influence how intercountry adoption was practiced created new actor enrolments and resistance in some others. Power in the actor network sense, however, has proved more capable of creating systemic change. Changes to Australian Commonwealth / State government responsibilities occurred in 2007 as a result of the Commonwealth Inquiry in 2005. The Commonwealth government took over responsibility for the negotiations of new programs with new sending countries from the states and territories (Sources: Email Communication Group, Email Communications; Overseas Adoption in Australia: The Report on the Inquiry into Adoption of Children from Overseas 2005)). Power in the Actor Network sense, has also propelled a movement towards less government influence by increasing proponent spokesperson involvement (including some politicians and parent support groups), and the push to create more opportunities to locate alternate sources of children for adoption. Increased public visibility and broader acceptance of

216 proponent discourse has been achieved through successful tactical exercises of power by the enrolment of influential others such as politicians, celebrity and the media.

It could be argued that the nonpartisan network, particularly government departments, should develop particular goals concerning intercountry adoption and set about enrolling influential others to adopt a more complex discourse. If this does not occur, there are risks that discourses that promote one dimensional messages will continue to dominate in Australia. Goals relating to adoption could include the education of not only prospective parents but the wider Australian public in relation to adoption understandings based on sound research and factual information. This would require a shift in focus from the passive stance adopted by governments that counters or deflects criticism to one that reflects a new way of operating that is dynamic and seeks to promote particular adoption perspectives not influenced by short term political agendas. Likewise, these activities when viewed in network terms would mean the strengthening of the nonpartisan network and seeking new enrolments of actors from all groups including adoptive parents. In this way, it could no longer be viewed as governments versus parents rather as a network whose discourse incorporates the experiences of all parties engaged in intercountry adoption and one that promotes complex and multiple understandings. In can be argued that in many ways adoption departments already attempt to spread such discourse, however, the intended audience has been limited to those seeking to adopt and the families they form. Many prospective parents have already been influenced by proponent tactics and hold strong proponent views. Limitations for government adoption departments were identified in the form of the actions of some politicians; short term political goals such as frequent departmental restructurings; and a failure to enrol influential actors such as the media and the Internet.

The existence of networks with opposing views, in itself, sets the scene for controversy. Translations and the tactics used within them created and perpetuated controversy where one discourse sought supremacy over others. Tactics used in translations, such enemy creation and simplification, diverted attention from real issues concerning intercountry adoption that should be debated to actors defending their positions against these labels. Understanding networks allowed an appreciation of these controversies and perhaps how to avoid and resolve them. Exposing tactics and the construction of facts that have been blackboxed and perpetuated as truths revealed mythologies and created spaces where new, more complex understandings could be reached. This provides opportunities for new actors to be enrolled in the nonpartisan network as wholly positive discourse can be critically appraised rather than accepted as fact. As this thesis argued, successful translations were not simply about 217 translating multiple others; it was also about the influence of who or what was translated. If networks that promote wholly positive discourse continue to enrol influential actors such as politicians, the media, and celebrities, they will continue to perpetuate controversy attempting to exert more influence on intercountry adoption than other networks. In these circumstances, it can also be postulated that broader positional shifts may be less likely to occur.

If the nonpartisan network sought to influence (also using power in an Actor Network sense) simplistic discourse and to promote more complex perspectives, the answer may not be to simply replicate the tactics that have proved successful such as enrolling celebrity as the Korean government has done to promote Korean domestic adoption. Additional tactics may be needed. A strategic focus on who should be targeted may be indicated. Existing spokespersons in the proponent network could be targeted, aiming to shift their focus from simplistic to more complex knowledge positions. It can then be hypothesised that they, in turn, would wield influence within their network and promote new and altered discourse. According to Actor Network Theory, translation may not be possible if an actor is unable to meet their goals. Translation may prove difficult if nonpartisan discourse could not promise a more expedient, less expensive and more accessible source of children to be adopted. The promise of faster, more accessible adoptions may not be possible with an inclusive and comprehensive understanding of intercountry adoption. Intercountry adoption practice that recognises alternate discourses and solutions such as welfare programs for birth mothers and families will not help proponents reach their goals. Perhaps all actors involved in intercountry adoption need to refocus on the needs of children in a way that recognises and incorporates complexities and reject wholly positive discourse such as child rescue by adoption. The needs of children to be adopted may not be the same as prospective parents. In this way all actors can begin with the same goals, that is, meeting the needs of children and birth families in situations influenced by many factors such as poverty. This locates the problems to be solved before the need for intercountry adoption as a solution arises. This approach, however, does not preclude intercountry adoption as an appropriate option for some children.

Tactics such as simplification, enemy creation, and emotional connectivity, therefore, can be exposed as such. Tactics are just that – tactics. The difference between tactics and knowledge can be made explicit while knowledge is promoted. There has been little investment by Australian and Korean governments in research concerning intercountry adoption. A gap in knowledge therefore exists. A conceptual shift for all involved in intercountry adoption is also required. Intercountry adoption is not a local phenomenon. The influences affecting it are not restricted to local Australian ones or the actions of 218 proponents. It is important that contemporary understandings extend beyond borders and include the perspectives of birth mothers and adoptees. Practices, preparatory work and educational activities for prospective parents could therefore reflect these understandings.

The following sections discuss insights into how understanding translations may inform approaches to controversy that encourage broader understandings of the issues related to intercountry adoption practice. Emotional connectivity, the enrolment of politicians and celebrity, the position of Korean birth mothers and adoptees are discussed. This chapter concludes with a discussion concerning the future of Korean intercountry adoption and future investigations.

Translating Emotions

Proponents fuelled controversy through the enactment of particular tactics such as emotional connectivity, enemy creation and simplification. These tactics proved highly effective and were replicated in a process of continuous actor recruitment. Emotional connectivity was identified as a tactic where the enrolling actor offered resolution to the tension between an actor to be enrolled and the new actor’s goals by creating potential for an emotional attachment between the actor and the discourse presented. Enemy creation heightened tensions between disparate networks that ensured ongoing alignment with network goals. Alongside emotional connectivity, simplification operated by ensuring palatable, wholly positive messages that were mobilised efficiently via the Internet. Pro and anti adoption labeling provided such messages in highly politicised and emotionally charged environments. The label anti adoption was loose and had been indiscriminately applied. The very looseness of the term and its simplicity allowed for a flexible construction, expansion and spread of the term. Adoption of pro and anti adoption labelling ensured an enemy, honed emotional connectivity and maintained strong connections between actors within networks. These tactics proved highly successful and found their way into inscriptions used in importunate action aimed at enrolling powerful politicians and the media.

The effectiveness of emotions in strengthening connections has been supported by other theoretical perspectives, located in social and political psychology. These perspectives are concerned with the social sharing of emotions and construction of emotional climates studied in groups, communities and nations which can, in this study, be applied to networks, their translations and durability (Bar-Tal, Halperin & de Rivera 2007; Rime 2007). Rime (2007) established an argument that an emotion experienced by an individual is shared which heightens emotions felt by both the sharer and the target. 219

This process is repeated until an entire community or nation is affected, regardless of individual experience. It could be argued that the inclusion of non human actors in this analysis quickens the process of this replication. An emotional climate is constructed. He also argued that on each occasion a sharing takes place, emotion is heightened creating increased connectedness between the sharer and the target. Bar-Tal, Halpein and de Rivera (2007, p. 441) focused on the importance of collective emotion in ‘creating, preserving and resolving conflict’ and how it shapes society’s response to the emotional climate. They went on to highlight that group emotions felt are not necessarily those felt as a result of individual experiences, but rather as a result of membership in that group or society and the emotion shared. Group emotions are highly contextual. Bar-Tal, Halpein and de Rivera (2007) identified hatred and fear as important components of an emotional climate as it makes it possible for groups to adapt and to act, often in a political sense, whereas hope provides goals that the group seeks to attain. These perspectives support the findings in this study that suggested emotional connectivity and enemy creation were powerful tactics used by proponent actors. Findings suggested that actors, in order to maintain network strength and attractiveness to others, socially constructed fear and conflict as tactics. This was a performance of power which maintained a conflictual and tense emotional climate.

It was the absence of the sharing of emotions that put many in the nonpartisan network at a disadvantage in attracting others to its discourse. State government departments concerned with adoption, as one example of a nonpartisan actor, by their very nature were excluded from emotional sharing as impartial and accountable services were provided. Evidence given to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Inquiry into Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005 by many prospective parents identified the absence of emotional connections in interactions with government departments as problematic. It then follows that many prospective parents as new actors were more easily attracted to the proponent network through emotional connectivity and a sense of social belonging rather than to networks that do not enrol others through emotional connectivity. The proponent network ensured social cohesion through tactics such as enemy creation that maintained heightened emotions. Rime (2007) highlighted from a psychosociopolitical perspective the important role of political leaders and the media in the construction of emotion. In this analysis, some politicians and the media were actors crucial to the diffusion and continuance of Korean intercountry adoption to Australia and Queensland.

220

Translating Politicians

Politicians have played a significant role in the diffusion of Korean intercountry adoption to Australia, some supportive from the outset, others not readily convinced. Ultimately, influential Australian and Queensland politicians were enrolled proponents enabling Korean/ Australian intercountry adoption. Some politicians visible in the continuance debate were proponents who supported proponent discourse over others. As identified in the analysis, certain politicians found the use of tactics such as emotional connectivity, simplification, and enemy creation helped them promote their own agenda and political goals. These tactics created connections with the media actor that provided broader exposure to the voting public. Political adoption of altruistic discourse was positive for a politician’s public persona and generated a number of media reports circulated in computer mediated communications. Political leaders, as members of the governing party, were influential actors worthy of enrolment into any network as they were able to engage with others in government at a high level. Proponent actors, as identified in the analysis adopted purposeful actions described in computer mediated communications that sought to enrol politicians as proponents. Importunate actions was a tactic repeated over time and reached new heights in the 2000s when the convergence of media and politician enrolments coincided to maximise impact and the acceptance of proponent discourse.

Politicians serving on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005 selectively embraced as their own ‘facts’ espoused in proponent discourse, particularly the altruistic nature of intercountry adoption, the existence of an anti adoption culture proved by the small numbers of actual adoptions in Australia compared to countries like the USA, and the perceived barriers of procedures such as comprehensive social work assessments. Other perspectives and views were not conducive to the goals of proponent politicians and the wholly positive and simplistic discourse was accepted over these alternatives. As shown in Chapter Seven, those actors who presented alternate views during the Australian government Inquiry were subjected to tactics that, in effect, minimised the relevance of their perspectives.

The analysis revealed that the focus of certain politicians, as enrolled proponents, was to meet the needs of prospective parents seeking to adopt a child from overseas and did not incorporate broader global understandings. Proponent discourse identified the needs of adoptive parents and the needs of children to be adopted as the same. This notion was blackboxed and accepted without question by members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services

221

Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005. Unpacking the black box or questioning this notion would have introduced uncomfortable and complex issues to be considered, an undesirable direction for a ‘positive’ Inquiry outcome. Clearly, in the Australian context, the focus of political action culminated in the Inquiry in 2005 and some subsequent changes occurred in Australian federal and state governments as a result. One example of this impact at a practice level illustrates implications for children and families. As identified in interviews with informants from the Department of Child Safety, in Queensland, prospective parents were required to produce a ‘Life Story Book’65. This was a photograph album, or similar medium, created by parents with photographs and other depictions, designed to tell the story of how the adopted child came to be part of their family. Drawing from professional experience as a private adoption worker in the field, this book has been loved by many adopted children, providing a personal history and special individual meaning to the child. Likewise adoptive parents have found this book a very personal and special way to introduce the concepts of adoption early in a child’s life and to open channels of communication about sensitive issues. From 2007, this was no longer required in order to minimise ‘red tape’ for adoptive parents. The focus on the child was no longer present nor was the therapeutic process the use of this book provided for parents and children. Rather the focus shifted to parents’ needs to minimise preparation paperwork. This was clearly a shift to meeting the needs of adoptive parents, as defined by proponents, above practice knowledge. During the Inquiry, discourse shifted from placing the needs of children as primary and balancing the needs of all other parties in adoption processes to one that was adoption driven. Discourse began to merge the needs of the child as the same as the needs of those seeking to adopt. Resistance or alternative views were labelled as anti adoption.

The actions of politicians shifted the practice of adoption from the field of human and welfare services placing it firmly into the political arena subjected to the same influences as economics, trade relations and popular opinion. The perspectives of traditionally silent voices in adoption, that is, the children at risk of separation from their birth families, those children adopted, and those unable to care for their children for a range of reasons, were minimised in politically driven adoption discourse. The only relationship considered was that between prospective parents and children to be adopted relegating intercountry adoption to a local rather than global practice. The formula was simple, easily digested, easier and cheaper to achieve. Discourse espoused that parents who could provide loving and nurturing homes should be able to adopt a child if they so wish as there were millions of children without

65 The ‘Life Story Book’ could be created by prospective parents in any medium (such as a photo album) that they chose. 222 families in orphanages around the world, presenting an unarguable equal sum equation, a ‘win-win- win’ situation. Examples of these views were provided in the preceding analyses chapters. In the Australian context, the risks were not about the quality of outcomes for children or parents that can and do provide loving homes. The risks concerned a politically driven agenda that could be described as popularist, simplistic, and designed to maintain political expedience. This approach, by its design, ignores complexity and promotes wholly positive discourse. Promoting complexity has the potential to jeopardise local political agendas.

The process of translation showed that discourse could be altered during its enactment which involved the merging of interests. Proponent discourse was adopted but altered during translation to incorporate the discourse of the actor seeking to be enrolled. The enrolment of some politicians in the continuance debate was successfully enacted. An unexpected detour, proposed by politicians, attempted to change the nature of the intercountry adoption debate. It shifted from Korean intercountry adoption or intercountry adoption generally, to children in foster care or living with ‘unfit’ parents as a potential source of children for those wishing to form families. According to Actor Network Theory, this provided a detour to meet one’s goals and proponents had to be convinced to accept these new detours. This detour placed the Committee politicians in the forefront of this campaign, side shifted from the original goals of proponents to a new goal of ‘fixing’ the problem of Australian domestic adoption, a potential source of children over which politicians could wield more local control. Increasing Australian domestic adoption would provide an achievable, less expensive and more accessible route to child adoption. As discussed in Chapter Seven, this detour may not represent a goal in the sights of proponent actors.

The linking of children whose parents struggle with drug addiction and those in foster care as a potential source of children for adoption offered a numbers of benefits for proponent politicians. It would meet the demands of prospective parents who claimed altruistic motivations and reduced the costs of preventative and ongoing child protection services. This detour applied the same principles of simplification to an equally complex phenomenon that encompasses a myriad of issues and marginalised disenfranchised voices. In effect, it applied the same solutions as the Korean government did for illegitimate children. Rather than provide appropriately funded and directed services that supported families and addressed systemic organisational problems, it promoted a ‘win-win-win’ solution such as enforced adoption. This political approach to welfare did not support funding for research or evidence based practice, rather supported a system that constructed heroes of the 223

‘deserving’ and vilified the other, the ‘undeserving’. Briggs (2006, p. 76) grounded the roots of such philosophical approaches in ‘a liberal saviour complex and a centuries-old English history’ of viewing the ’poor’ as having bad character and, in effect, ‘toxic’ to their own children, vilifying the ‘undeserving’. It did, however, offer a politically attractive solution, in that, parents seeking to adopt could reduce expenses, avoid legal requirements and restrictions enforced by sending countries and reduce the pressures on politicians to seek new sending countries as sources of children. As the needs of children to be adopted and the needs of those seeking to adopt were considered the same in wholly positive one-dimensional discourse, there was an assumption that these actions were ‘in the best interests of the child’. Bishop, Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, went on to Chair a second Inquiry, House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services, The Winnable War on Drugs: The Impact of Illicit Drug Use on Families in 2007. Recommendation Five from this Inquiry recommends the development of a national adoption strategy for children of parents with addiction problems and to establish adoption as a default child care option for children less than five years of age (Family and Human Services Committee 2007, p. xxii).

The analysis identified that adopting children from care where different expectations apply in terms of birth parent contact may not be the goal that some adoptive parents may wish to reach. This challenges altruistic motivations and may not achieve emotional connectivity in the same way. The analysis identified that this was not necessarily a preferred parenting option. Some prospective parents may prefer the independence intercountry adoption guarantees. As found in the computer mediated communications and evidence to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, some proponents believed the experience in the USA where prospective parents did not wish to adopt children of parents struggling with drug addiction would be relevant in the Australia context. Briggs (2006) described two systems in the United States, the public and the private. Despite significant monetary incentives for prospective parents in the United States to adopt from the public system that dealt with traumatised children in care, many prospective parents still preferred to adopt from the private system that primarily dealt with white infants, adopt internationally or access reproductive technology markets (Briggs 2006). The findings of Brigg’s (2006) study indicated that domestic and intercountry adoptions in the United States were in practice distinct phenomena. This raises questions about the capacity of one to replace another in Australia as well as the USA. Prospective adoptive parents, like Callon’s (1986b) fisherman and scallops, may not find this detour acceptable. Resistance may be created. 224

Translating Celebrity

The use of celebrity appeal to attract support for ‘charitable’ causes was not new to the intercountry adoption phenomenon considering examples such as Pearl S. Buck, Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt and Madonna. Celebrity enrolment was used as a strategy in Korea to promote domestic adoption, where stories about Korean celebrities who adopted children domestically were publicised and spread via email discussion groups. Though adoptions by Australian celebrities such as Nicole Kidman were known and have been publicised, the successful enrolment of Australian celebrities, such as Deborra- lee Furness, into the proponent network only emerged in computer mediated communications in 2007. As a politically active proponent, Furness began campaigning for more expedient, less expensive, and easier adoptions. Her enrolment followed a long and relentless campaign by proponent spokespersons to connect with those of celebrity status who had personal connections to adoption. Furness’ promotion of the concept ‘Orphan Angels’ on her website and in the media was not supported by all members of the adoption community as found in email discussion group threads. The experiences of politician and celebrity enrolment though desirable due to their potential influence also highlighted struggles where changed discourse that occurred during translation was not necessarily what was first intended by the enrollers.

Despite some resistance, the successful enrolment of celebrity into the proponent network was a powerful strategy that had the potential to attract other influential actors such as the media who could mobilise particular discourse. This increased the likelihood of the acceptance of a practice promoted by a celebrity. The enrolment of Furness was the first major success of the Australian proponent network in celebrity enrolment. Controversy was evident over Furness’ conceptualisation of ‘Orphan Angels’ that renders birth mothers and families invisible.

The Mythology of the Korean Birth Mother

The diffusion of intercountry adoption was not as simple as supply and demand. Although demand certainly played a part, the alignment of actor interests and actions were also required. It was driven by a demand for particular types of children that fitted the constructs of proponent discourse. These were children whose stories reflected proponent discourse of altruistic actions, that is of abandonment, who were orphaned, needed rescuing and lived elsewhere. The acceptability of Korean intercountry adoption to Australian prospective parents had in part rested on the understanding that Korean children were abandoned and their relinquishment was voluntary, managed in the best possible way, and that

225 other alternatives would be detrimental to the child. This belief was unquestioned, blackboxed and accepted as fact, unchanged from the 1950s to 2007. Many adoptive parents felt secure in the circumstances surrounding child relinquishment in Korea, that is, that mothers were single making international adoption the only possible choice within their cultural context, and received appropriate counselling and support regarding their decisions.

Emerging voices of birth mothers visible in Internet sources, however, painted a different picture of the constructed ‘facts’ of relinquishment in Korea. The coercive nature of the lack of options for birth mothers for whatever reasons was inserted into discourse. ‘Single’ mothers could mean unmarried mothers, widows and separated women. There were reports that some mothers were married, simply poor or experienced some other form of social or family difficulties. A lack of services that sought to address underlying issues was highlighted. Likewise, those mothers who were single did not have sustainable welfare options open to them under the Korean welfare system. According to these Internet reports, counselling services were provided by agencies also engaged in intercountry adoption, which could only represent a conflict of interests. It could therefore be argued that the placement of a child for adoption was not necessarily a choice. Rather, it was driven by political agenda and national priorities rather than those of culture.

Intercountry adoption in proponent discourse began at the orphanage. It failed to truly incorporate the circumstances and fully address the reasons why children were relinquished for adoption in the first place, perpetuating the ongoing need to ‘rescue’ children. Children born outside of traditional cultural norms and single parenthood were reasons enough. As long as the proponent network maintained one dimensional discourse which polarised other views into anti adoption, birth parents, adoptive parents and children will continue to be disadvantaged through limited understandings. An adoptive parent cannot be available to meet the challenges of adoptive parenthood when understandings concerning the complexities of birth circumstances are sacrificed for constructed ‘fact’.

Embryonic links were formed between the opponent network in Korea and opponents elsewhere in the world through connections created via the Internet. Australian and Korean opponent voices were not influential in Australia and were generally dismissed by Australian proponent spokespersons. What cannot be dismissed is the familiar echo of the stories of Korean birth mothers and commonalities with the experiences of Australian birth mothers of previous decades. Marginalisation of their discourse heightens an emotional climate of tension and controversy that limits the capacity for adoptive parents 226 to fully understand the circumstances in which they find themselves. At the time of completion of this thesis, the strength of proponent voices continued to increase despite the emergence of alternative perspectives.

The Influence of Adoptees

Many adoptees are now adults and contributing to the body of knowledge concerning intercountry adoption practice that has directly impacted on their lives and identities. They are speaking for themselves. Their contributions are not necessarily conducive to proponent discourse and have to date not had the same influence on adoption practices as proponents in Australia. Adoptees have established global connections that promote complex and multiple views, enrolled new actors such as Dr Boas, an adoptive parent discussed in Chapter Seven, and supported the disempowered mothers in Korea helping them find their own voice. The reunification strategies of Segyehwa have provided opportunities for adoptees to return to Korea, enter dialogues with the Korean government about intercountry adoption and to express their own views. Academic works by adoptees constitute inscriptions that can be spread via computer mediated communications, publications, and citations in other academic works. In this way understandings drawn from research can be mobilised in an Actor Network sense and their influence extended. Their perspectives paint complex pictures concerning race, identity, circumstances concerning relinquishment, politics and alternatives to intercountry adoption (Berquist et al. 2007; Brian 2007; Hubinette 2005; Hurdis 2007).

The Future of Korean Intercountry Adoption

The Korean government was relying on the success of the Korean domestic adoption program to eliminate the need for intercountry adoptions. The findings of this study suggested that, though there were links, different networks were engaged in the promotion of each phenomenon. The proponent network promoting intercountry adoption was influential and had proven durability, replicability and capacity to enrol powerful others with a range of tactics. The actions of actors created and constructed the problem, the solution, and ‘facts’. Proponent networks were driven from the ground up in receiving countries forcing change in government policies and practices that enabled them to meet their goals of intercountry adoption whereas domestic adoption programs were driven from the top down. Korean domestic adoption was promoted by the Korean government as an alternative that met the government’s need to avoid shame and international criticism. It also provided a less costly alternative for the social problems that contributed to the relinquishment of children. As solutions were politically driven, the impact on the disenfranchised was not considered. 227

Different standards and criteria between Korean domestic and intercountry adoptions were allowed to encourage domestic adoption in Korea. Just as some potential Australian adopters in the 1970s thought more lenient rules may apply to the adoption of Korean children, the Korean government relaxed eligibility criteria for Koreans adopting Korean children compared to Australian adoptions. Financial incentives were also applied to encourage motivation for Korean people to adopt Korean children. On the 28th February 2009, a Korean newspaper article (Bae 2009) was circulated via the email discussion group. This article claimed that in 2008 Korean domestic adoptions exceeded intercountry adoptions, reporting that in that year Korean domestic adoptions totaled 1,388 while intercountry adoptions totaled 1,264. This article also claimed that two children who had been adopted domestically in Korea were abandoned every day. It cited court records of 762 cases of abandoned adoptees in 2006. This raises new concerns about how domestic adoption is practiced in Korea and the value of a politically driven, singular focus on increasing the numbers of domestic adoptions to replace intercountry adoption without taking other factors into account. Solutions that are politically driven risk placing politically positive outcomes above solutions that incorporate complex factors and acknowledge and address the interests of the disaffected in adoption practice.

Though Korean government rhetoric since the 1970s predicted the abolition of intercountry adoption, the only strategy thus far offered was domestic adoption despite reports of support for other programs such as western style fostering arrangements. The actions of proponent actors remained influential and were aligned with the welfare goals of the Korean government. There was no evidence by 2007 that the demands of the proponent network would abate. It is likely that Korean domestic and intercountry adoption will continue to co-exist provided discourse surrounding intercountry adoption remain wholly positive and the failure of its cessation be attributed to the inadequate numbers of Korean domestic adoptions to replace it. The only real threat to the continuation of intercountry adoption was the growing network of opponents. Unless tactics used to enrol influential others become as effective as those used by proponents, their influence will be lesser. Opponent influence, however, continues to increase and attract new actors. Hubinette (2005, p. 74) reports the Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare have committed to the cessation of the Korean intercountry adoption program by 2015, following a flexible percentage of yearly decreases in quotas. Cessation will require the convergence of interests of all influential actors engaged in the phenomenon. Emerging concerns over Korean domestic adoption practices may inhibit this progress. Since the completion of data collection in 2007, new influences such as the global economic crisis that emerged in 2008 have become apparent. Its impact on the practice of Korean intercountry adoption is not yet known. In 1997-99, intercountry 228 adoption increased a result of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) crisis (Hubinette 2005; Kim & Finch 2002). If and when cessation does occur, the question of the Korean government taking appropriate and adequate financial responsibility for a range of welfare programs may need to be addressed. Intercountry adoption:

…can at best provide help for individual children, never a solution to wider issues of poverty (Selman 2004, p. 270).

The insistence of the Korean government’s distancing and the perpetual understanding that current adoption practices are culture-driven failed to incorporate the realities of Korean globalisation where Korea chose aspects of globalisation such as economic development to be embraced and rejected others. Just as Korean domestic adoption and fertility control challenged ‘culture’ and was openly promoted, other aspects of ‘culture’ such as sex education and the development of a range of welfare supports and programs for unmarried parents and families could also be addressed if the government so chooses.

Limitations and Future Investigations

There are limitations to this study. Due to ethical considerations and language limitations, global and Korean informants were unable to be accessed except via inscriptions on the Internet. This presented lost opportunities to gain an in-depth understanding of the local workings of Korean proponent, opponent, and nonpartisan networks. Therefore their actions could only be viewed and understood by their interrelationships with Australian actors. The inability to access Korean informants was not only inhibited by language barriers but also by a politically sensitive context where there were genuine concerns about causing offence to the Korean government, maintaining the status quo in Australia, and maintaining the good will of proponent actors. In a sense my desire to access these informants, in itself, became subject to translation and tactics of exclusion in order to maintain the status quo of current practices.

Very little was revealed in the material available for analysis of the role of global institutions in Korean intercountry adoption apart from Australia becoming a signatory to the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, which came into force in December 1998. Influences at an international level visible in the analysis were those of globalisation, economics and politics. These were Segyehwa, the impact of economic crises and government policies. 229

Global institutions did not emerge as actors central to network controversies identified in this study. Australia’s position as signatory to the Convention was identified by proponent spokespersons as a limiting factor to the opening of new source countries. As discussed in Chapter Seven this was ultimately not a barrier to the opening of the China program to Australia. This raises questions regarding the impact of global institutions on local practices. Most intercountry adoptions in Australia occur from countries that are not signatories to the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption (AIHW 2008).

Australian data available for analysis was limited as records considered politically sensitive and those of the New South Wales government department concerned with adoption were not made available for analysis due to the politically sensitive nature of Korean intercountry adoption. The effect of secrecy imposed by the Korean government in the history of Korean adoption to Australia and the fear of causing offence has been a limiting factor in actor interrelationships and communications between groups. As long as intercountry adoption remains a politically driven phenomenon, the multiple influences of intercountry adoption may be hidden behind a veil of political sensitivity often masked by the term ‘cultural’ sensitivities. Consequently, the complexities of issues may never be fully addressed nor fully understood by all actors engaged in Korean intercountry adoption practice. While saying this, the cooperation received from the Department of Child Safety in Queensland and the Department of Community Services in New South Wales was considerable and their willingness to provide access to records and informants made this thesis possible.

Further research is required to understand the machinations of networks in sending countries such as Korea that enable the practice of intercountry adoption above other solutions. As discussed in the literature, Miller (1971) identified an early program that addressed issues at a community level and reported no children were abandoned in that Seoul community for the duration of the program. An Actor Network Theory analysis exposed the lack of investment by Korean and Australian governments, organisations and individuals in community programs and services that address the causes of child relinquishment and empower families and communities to seek their own solutions. A lack of research concerning these issues as well as research that focuses on the circumstances and experiences of birth families is highlighted. Given the usefulness of Actor Network Theory in understanding the Korean experience, its applications to other source countries may help understand their unique experiences. It can help understand the factors that contribute to the opening and closing of particular countries to intercountry adoption and identify commonalities with the Korean experience. Actor Network Theory 230 presents a new lens from which to view cases of intercountry adoption enabling complex phenomenon with multiple influences to be understood in a broader, global context.

An Actor Network Theory analysis highlighted gaps in knowledge particularly in relation to the lack of research concerning birth mothers, fathers and families. Likewise, little is understood about the distress felt by Australian prospective parents who have placed considerable hope on intercountry adoption as a way of forming families and their expectations of fertility treatments and other medical advancements, promotion of parenting as a right, and expectations concerning more expedient adoption processes have on their distress. These issues impact on the continuation of controversy and would benefit from future exploration.

The analysis did not identify many examples that challenged the emerging understanding of networks, translations and tactics. Reflection on this raised questions regarding the nature of the theory itself. Disconfirming cases that were identified such as the use of anti adoption labeling found only in proponent discourse and the concept of fear were important in terms of their significance in the development of controversies surrounding intercountry adoption practice. Reflecting on the theoretical perspective, it is valid to say that a network either exists or it does not; increases in influence and becomes durable over time or does not such as the example of the early opponent network. Actor Network Theory enables researchers to follow the relational activities of actors and networks identifying what enables and what restricts them, rather than focusing on the truth or otherwise of claims. Despite the lack of theoretical concern over the truth or otherwise of claims, analysis can highlight claims that are constructed on tenuous experience or tactical exercises. It is at the level of analysis where tactics are examined and black boxes unpacked that the existence of supporting evidence of claims made can be located. As described in Chapter Three, one criticism of Actor Network Theory is its failure to make moral judgments on truth of particular discourses. Though Actor Network Theory does not take a moral position it does leave room to evaluate claims against existing evidence. It does this by making hidden actors visible and unpacking claims previously blackboxed as accepted truths. This is where disconfirming evidence is most likely to be found such as the case of anti adoption labeling.

Conclusions

The use of Actor Network Theory to examine the phenomenon of Korean intercountry adoption proved useful in terms of the analysis of complex and diverse data. It has helped explain a multifarious and 231 controversial phenomenon that has dominated the global adoption practices over the last fifty years. Actor Network Theory helped make visible voices previously overlooked. Research informed by singular perspectives is limited when applied to broader questions concerning how the phenomenon emerged and became institutionalised across the globe and in countries like Australia. Actor Network Theory has provided the means to gain an expansive and inclusive view.

Without taking sides, without reducing all action to the manifestation of some agencies’ punitive intentions or interests, or making it the outcrop of some structure, the approach provides an empirical sociology of power rather than a moral philosophy (Clegg 1989, p. 204).

Identified as a strength and weakness, the lack of moral judgment inherent in an Actor Network Theory approach provided insights in a way other methods could not. It explained power interrelationships enacted in Korean intercountry adoption in a new way. By understanding the origins and perpetuation of controversy, these issues can be addressed at their source rather than building on existing struggles where networks vie for supremacy. Actors do not work alone and are in a constant and dynamic process of change and reassembling alliances and discourse.

The analysis revealed a local Australian situation that was, in fact, global and did not operate in isolation of Korean influences. It was driven by political agenda that sought to meet the goals of spokespersons of dominant networks. My own bias brought to the research a belief that the views and approaches held by individual adoptive parents demonstrate a genuine concern for children and often incorporate the complexities of issues surrounding intercountry adoption. However, findings suggest that the level of antagonism constructed by spokespersons of the proponent network in Australia is detrimental to all who work for the benefit of children placing obstacles in the path of adoptive families, birth parents faced with limited alternatives, children placed in the centre of these controversies and specialist adoption workers in government departments faced with ongoing political interference. It is important for all concerned that wholly positive discourse is not the only perspective voiced while other voices are controlled through fear of anti adoption labeling. Politicalisation of adoption has been infused by the absence of appropriate funding for child adoption departments in Australia and a lack of attention and funding for Australian based adoption research. Practices and policies need to be driven by quality research outcomes where personal biases and alliances are openly declared by the researchers, rather than by wholly positive and politically advantageous discourse. 232

This study supports other findings such as Masson (2001) and King (2009) that identify common discourses and controversy between groups and the intense emotion identified by Saclier (2000). These understandings are extended with the inclusion of the actions of actors that enabled discourse mobilisation and exerted influence through translations and tactics. It is important that those actors promoting negative climates and perpetuating high emotional states rethink their position in terms of the impact this creates in others. Likewise governments need to evaluate their capacity to meet the emotional needs of those seeking to adopt in a new way. Government adoption departments in Australia are indeed properly focused on the needs of the child. This focus should remain at all costs. Attention may also need to be paid to the emotional needs of those seeking to adopt, a role which has historically fallen to parent support groups. Though outside the core business of governments, that is, services for children, non biased and professional support for prospective parents that is not agenda laden may be indicated in addition to the support functions of parent support groups. Parent support groups are not equipped to do this and perhaps should not be expected to do so. The analysis identified the importance of emotional connections at the individual level, which indicated the need for pre adoption support as well as post adoption services. It is important that these services are professional, skilled and absent of personal agenda. If Australian state and federal governments do not meet these needs individuals will seek to meet these needs in other ways. Childlessness and declining population growth is a growing concern for many post-industrial nations including Australia. Many countries will not engage in intercountry adoption preferring other welfare solutions and countries such as Korea may indeed cease their program. The findings suggest proponents will continue to pressure governments to seek international solutions while other evidence suggests enforced domestic adoption in western countries like the USA does not hold the same appeal by those seeking to meet their parenting needs. Welfare strategies driven by the personal belief systems of politicians, such as the renewed focus on the ‘deserving’ and the ‘undeserving’, and the desire to pursue new source countries present significant risks and challenges to appropriate practice interventions, broader welfare strategies and prevention. The acceptance of blackboxed beliefs (such as the existence of millions of children that should be adopted) in proponent discourse and the focus on the right to parent renders invisible the possibility that parenting may not be possible for all who wish to do so, or at least not in the way they would wish.

In 2009, one third of the recommendations made by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services 2005 have been achieved while the others are in the process of being actively addressed by government (AHIW 2008; Commonwealth Government 2006; Overseas Adoption in Australia: The Report on the Inquiry into Adoption of Children from Overseas, 2005). 233

Proponent discourse was found to have dominated evidence given to the Inquiry; successful translations were achieved with members of the Committee; and proponent discourse strongly influenced its recommendations while others did not. It can only be concluded that proponent influence continues to drive adoption policies and practices within Australia while other voices are marginalised. This approach may prove consistent with dominant discourse in other receiving countries such as the USA, yet it may also be at odds with alternate perspectives mobilised in a global sphere of influence. These findings also show local influences do not operate in isolation.

Perhaps like Callon’s (1986b) scientists, proponents who have established themselves as the spokespersons for the silent actors in the Korean adoption phenomenon may find adoptees and birth parents are now representing themselves and exerting their own influences. These voices may disrupt the proponent discourse in ways that both the nonpartisan and previous opponent perspectives have largely failed to do. In doing so, the inherent complexity of intercountry adoption will be brought forth, becoming visible to all those who have eyes to see it.

234

List of References

Abramson, BD 1998, 'Translating nations: Actor-network theory in/ and Canada', Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 1-20. ABS 2000, Australian Social Trends 1998: Family - Family Formations: Adoption, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra. ---- 2001a, Australian Demographic Statistics 2002: Population: Special Article –Teenage Fertility, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra. ---- 2001b, Australian Social Trends 1996: Family - Family Formation: Trends in Fertility, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra. ---- 2002, Year Book Australia 2002; 2002 Population Births, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra. Adoptee Awareness Wall Project, viewed 10th August 2006, . Adoptee Solidarity Korea (ASK), first viewed 6th August 2006, . Adoption founder now supports unwed mothers., 2008, You Tube, viewed 30th September 2008, . Ahluwalia, P 2001, Politics and Post Colonial Theory: African Inflections, Routledge, London. Ahn, S-D 1986, 'A study of the unwed mother', Women's Studies Forum, 31st December, p. 51. AIHW 1998, Adoptions Australia 1997-98, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra. ---- 2003, IVF birth numbers higher than others, AIHW media release, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, viewed 6th January 2008, . ---- 2004, Adoptions Australia 2003-2004, Child Welfare Series No. 35, Cat. No. CWS 23, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra. ---- 2006, Adoptions Australia 2005-06, Child Welfare Series No. 39, Cat. No. CSW 27, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra. ---- 2008, Adoptions Australia 2006-07, Child Welfare Series No. 44, Cat. No. CWS 32, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra. A.K.A. Inc. (Also Known As), first viewed 10th July 2006, . Alford, CF 1999, Think No Evil: Korean Values in the Age of Globalization, Cornell University Press, New York.

235

Altman, V 1996, ‘Baby trafficking or inter-country adoption’, CAI News and Information, viewed 29/05 2003, . Altstein, H & Simon, J 1991, Intercountry Adoption: A Multinational Perspective, Praeger, New York. Alvernaz, R & Tieszen, HR 1958, 'Technical assistance for child welfare in Korea', Children, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 134-9. Armstrong, S & Slaytor, P 2001, The Colour of Difference: Journeys in Transracial Adoption, The Federation Press, Sydney, Australia. Australian Christian Lobby, viewed 11th January 2006, . Australian Christian Lobby (Queensland), viewed 11th January 2006, . Australian Families for Children (AFC), first viewed 20th April 2006, . Australian Family Association (AFC), first viewed 20th April 2006, . Australian Family Association, Queensland (AFC), first viewed 20th April 2006, . Australian InterCountry Adoption Network (AICAN), first viewed 20th April 2006, . Australian Korean Friendship Group, Qld (AKFG), first viewed 10th August 2005, . Australian Society for Intercountry Aid for Children (ASIAC), viewed 10th January 2006, . Australians Adopting European Children (AAEC), viewed 4th March 2006, . Babies without Borders 2006, Television Broadcast, SBS, 28th March, Australia. Bae, J-S 2009, '2 adopted children abandoned daily', Korea Times, viewed 1st March 2009, . Bai, TS 2007, 'Korea's overseas adoption and its positive impact on domestic adoption and child welfare in Korea', in KJS Berquist, ME Vonk, DS Kim & MD Feit (eds), International Korean Adoption: A Fifty-Year History of Policy and Practice, The Haworth Press, New York, pp. 207- 19. Baik, Y & Chung, JY 1996, 'Family policy in Korea', Journal of Family and Economic Issues, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 93-112.

236

Bar-Tal, D, Halperin, E & de Rivera, J 2007, 'Collective emotions in conflict situations: Societal implications', Journal of Social Issues, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 441-60. Bartholet, E 1993, 'International adoption: Current status and future prospects', The Future of Children, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 89-103. Bastard Nation, first viewed 24th December 2005, . Batrouney, T & Stone, W 1998, 'Cultural diversity and family exchanges', paper presented to Changing Families, Challenging Futures. 6th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference, Melbourne, 25-27th November. Berker, T 2006, 'The politics of “Actor-Network Theory”: What can "Actor -Network Theory” do to make buildings more energy efficient', Science, Technology and Innovation Studies, Special Issue no. 1, pp. 61-79. Berquist, KJS, Vonk, ME, Kim, DS & Feit, MD (eds) 2007, International Korean Adoption: A Fifty- Year History of Policy and Practice, The Haworth Press, New York. Birthmothers protest to end adoption, 2007, You Tube, viewed 30th September 2008, . Boas, R 2008, Speech to the Korean Women's Development Institute 14th August 2008 (and press debriefing), TRACK: Truth and Reconciliation for the Adoption Community of Korea, viewed 17th August 2008, . Boehlefeld, SP 1996, 'Doing the right thing: Ethical cyberspace research', The Information Society, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 141-52. Bojorge, C 2002, 'Intercountry adoptions: In the best interests of the child?' Law and Justice Journal, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 266-91. Boli, J & Thomas, G 1999, 'INGOs and the organization of world culture', in J Boli & G Thomas (eds), Constructing World Culture, Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp. 13-49. Borowski, A 2000, 'Creating a virtuous society: Immigration and Australia's policies of multiculturalism', Journal of Social Policy, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 459-75. Boss, P 1992, Adoption Australia, National Children's Bureau of Australia Inc., Australia. Bowers, J 1983, 'Intercountry adoption', Australian Child and Family Welfare, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 16-24. Brey, P 1997, 'Philosophy of technology meets social constructivism', Society for Philosophy and Technology http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v2_n3n4html/brey.html, vol. 2, no. 3-4, p. 14.

237

Brian, K 2007, 'Choosing Korea: Marketing 'multiculturalism' to choosy adopters', in KJS Berquist, ME Vonk, DS Kim & MD Feit (eds), International Korean Adoption: A Fifty-Year History of Policy and Practice, The Haworth Press, New York, pp. 61-78. Briggs, L 2006, 'Orphaning the children of welfare', in JJ Trenka, JC Oparah & SY Shin (eds), Outsiders Within; Writing on Transracial Adoption, South End Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 75-86. Brown, SD & Capdevilla, R 1999, 'Perpetuum mobile: Substance, force and the sociology of translations', in J Law & J Hassard (eds), Actor Network Theory and After, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 26-50. Burns, RB 1997, 'Case studies', in Introduction to Research Methods, 3rd edn, Addis on Wesley Longman Australia, Melbourne, pp. 365-86. Byma, S 1974, 'Overseas adoptions threaten development of local services', Canadian Child Welfare News, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 7-11. Calas, M & Smircich, L 1999, 'Past postmodernism? Reflections and tentative directions', Academy of Management Review, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 649-71. Calder, R 1979, 'Inter-country adoption from the point of view of adoptive parents', Proceedings of a Seminar on Intercountry Adoption and Sponsorship. Shaping the Future for our Children, ICSW Asia and Western Pacific Regional Conference, Melbourne, Australia. Callon, M 1986a, 'The Sociology of Actor Network: The Case of the Electric Vehicle', in M Callon, J Law & A Rip (eds), Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology, Macmillan, London, pp. 19-34. ---- 1986b, 'Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay', in J Law (ed), Power, Action, and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?, Routledge, Kegan and Paul, London, pp. 196-233. ---- 1987, 'Society in the making: The study of technology as a tool for sociological analysis', in WE Bijker, TP Hughes & TJ Pinch (eds), The Social Construction of Technological Systems, MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 83-103. ---- 1991, 'Techno-economic networks and irreversibility', in J Law (ed.), The Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, Routledge, London, pp. 132-61. ---- 1999, 'Actor-network-theory - the market test', in J Law & J Hassard (eds), Actor Network Theory and After, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 181-95. Callon, M, Courtial, J-P, Turner, W & Bauin, S 1983, 'From translation to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis', Social Science Information, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 191-235. 238

Callon, M & Latour, B 1981, 'Unscrewing the big Levanthian: How actors macro-structure reality and how sociologists help them do so', in K Knorr-Cetina & AV Cicourel (eds), Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Towards an Integration of Micro- and Macro-Sociologies, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, pp. 277-303. Callon, M, Law, J & Rip, A (eds) 1986, Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology, Macmillan, London. Callon, M & Rabeharisoa, V 1998, 'Articulating bodies: The case of muscular dystrophies', in M Akrich & M Berg (eds), Bodies on Trial; Performance and Politics in Medicine and Biology, Duke University Press, Durham, N, Ca. Canda, ER, Shin, S-i & Canda, H-j 1993, 'Traditional philosophies of human service in Korea and contemporary social work implications', Social Development Issues, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 84-104. Castles, S 2002, 'Migration and community formation under conditions of globalization', International Migration Review, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 1143-68. Cauchi, J 1987, 'International Conference on Adoption, Athens - 6-9 July 1987', Family Research Bulletin, vol. 14, September, pp. 16-7, 23. Chang, K-S 1997, 'Modernity through the family: Familial foundations of Korean society', International Review of Sociology, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 51-63. Cherot, N 2009, 'Storytelling and ethnographic intersections: Vietnamese adoptees and rescue narratives', Qualitative Inquiry, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 113-48. 'Childless couples hit', 1989, Sunday Sun, 29th January, pp. 7, 27. Cho, H 1997, 'Fertility control, reproductive rights, and women's empowerment in Korea', Asian Journal of Women’s Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 103-32. Cho, O 2005, 'Modernization experiences of urban and rural low income Korean women', in P Chang & E-S Kim (eds), Women's Experiences and Feminist Practices in South Korea, Ewha Woman’s University Press, Seoul, pp. 205-17. Choy, CC 2007, 'Institutionalizing international adoption: The historical origins of Korean adoption in the United States', in KJS Berquist, ME Vonk & MD Feit (eds), International Korean Adoption: A Fifty-Year History of Policy and Practice, The Haworth Press, New York, pp. 25-42. Chun, BH 1989, 'Adoption and Korea', Child Welfare, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 255-60. Clegg, SR 1989, Frameworks of Power, Sage Publications, London. Commonwealth Government 2006, Commonwealth Government Response: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services "Report Overseas adoption in Australia",

239

viewed 5th November 2007, . Connelly, E 2007a, 'Furness attacks adoption culture', The Sunday Telegraph . ---- 2007b, 'Furness to lobby on adoption', The Daily Telegraph , 12th August. ---- 2007c, ‘Deborra-lee’s adoption victory’, The Associated Press ,23rd December Coulson, NS 2005, 'Receiving social support online: An analysis of a computer-mediated support group for individuals living with Irritable Bowel Syndrome’, doi:10.1089/cpb.2005.8.580, CyberPsychology & Behavior, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 580-4. Cumings, B 1981a, The Origins of the Korean War: The Roaring of the Cataract 1947-1950, vol. 2 of 2 volumes, Princeton University Press, Oxford. ---- 1981b, The Origins of the Korean War: Liberation and the Emergence of Separate Regimes 1945- 1947, vol. 1 of 2 volumes, Preston University Press, Oxford. Daly, K 1988, 'Reshaped parenthood identity: The transition to adoptive parenthood', Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, vol. 17, pp. 40-66. Dandelions Birth Parents Group, first viewed 26th May 2007, . Dant, T 2004, 'The Driver-car', Theory Culture and Society, vol. 21, no. 4/5, pp. 61-79. Daum, C 2000, 'The history of adoption from Korea', Yisei, Harvard Computer Society. De Vaus, D 2002a, 'Fertility decline in Australia', Family Matters, vol. 63, pp. 14-21. ---- 2002b, 'Marriage, births and fertility', Family Matters, vol. 63, pp. 26-9. Delany, D 1997, 'Understanding adoption: Epistemological implications', paper presented to 6th Australian Conference on Adoption, Brisbane, Australia, June. Deleuze, G & Guattari, F 1981, 'Rhizome', Ideology and Consciousness, vol. 8, pp. 49-71. Dent, M 2003, 'Managing doctors and saving a hospital: Irony, rhetoric and actor networks', Organization, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 107-27. Denzin, NK & Lincoln, YS 2000, 'Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research', in NK Denzin & YS Lincoln (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp. 1-28. Department of Child Safety (DCS) Queensland, first viewed 20th May 2005, . 240

Department of Community Services (DoCS) New South Wales, first viewed 20thMay 2005, . Dickens, J 2002, 'The paradox of inter-country adoption: Analysing Romania's experience as a sending country', International Journal of Social Welfare, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 76-83. Doe, SS 2001, 'Comparative review of children's rights and women's rights in Korea', The Society for International Development, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 111-6. Doolin, B & Lowe, A 2002, 'To reveal is to critique: Actor-network theory and critical information systems research', Journal of Information Technology, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 69 - 78. Duk, YJ 2002, 'Globalisation and recent changes to daily life in the Republic of Korea', in J Lewis & A Sesay (eds), Korea and Globalization: Politics, Economics and Culture, Routledge Curzon, London, pp. 10-35. Eastern Social Welfare Society (ESWS), viewed 3rd July 2007, . Ellison, MA 2003, 'Authoritative knowledge and single women's unintentional pregnancies, abortions, adoption, and single motherhood: Social stigma and structural violence', Medical Anthropology Quarterly, vol. 17, no. 3, p. 322. English, BA 1990, 'Inter-country adoption: The context of recent developments and the need for research', Children Australia, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 16-20. Eysenbach, G & Till, JE 2001, 'Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities', British Medical Journal, vol. 323, pp. 1103-5. Family and Human Services Committee 2007, The Winnable War on Drugs, House of Representatives, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Farrar, P 1997, ''What we did to those poor girls!' The hospital culture that promoted adoption', Separation Reunion Reconciliation Proceedings from The Sixth Australian Conference on Adoption, Brisbane, June. Fopp, PA 1979a, 'Inter-country adoption from the point of view of the recipient countries' policies and practices', paper presented to Shaping the Future for our Children: ICSW Asia and West Pacific Regional Conference, Melbourne, Australia. ---- 1979b, 'Proceedings on a Seminar on Intercountry Adoption and Sponsorship', paper presented to Shaping the Future for our Children: ICSW Asia and West Pacific regional Conference, Melbourne, Australia. ---- 1982, 'Inter-Country Adoption - Australia's Position', Australian Journal of Social Issues, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 50-61. 241

Foucault, M 1977, Discipline and Punish, Penguin, England. Frankel, MS & Siang, S 1999, Ethical and Legal Aspects of Human Subjects Research on the Internet. A Report of a Workshop, 1999, Washington DC, American Association for the Advancement of Science, June 10-11. US Office for Protection from Research Risks, viewed 27th July 2008, . Freundlich, M 2002, 'Adoption research: An assessment of empirical contributions to the advancement of adoption practice', Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 143-66. Freundlich, M & Lieberthal, JK 1999, The Gathering of the First Generation of Adult Korean Adoptees: Adoptees Perceptions of International Adoption, The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, viewed 3rd January 2004. Frew, R 2002, 'Researching actor power: Analyzing mechanisms of interactions in negotiations over space', Area, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 29-38. Gehrmann, R 2005, 'Promoting multiracial Australia: Population policy and intercountry adoption', AQ. Journal of Contemporary Analysis, vol. 77, no. 4, pp. 13-8. Global Overseas Adoptees Link (Goal), viewed 20th March 2005, . Goldberg, S & Marcovitch, S 1997, 'International adoption: Risk, resilience, and adjustment (Introduction to the special section)', International Journal of Behavioral Development, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 1-2. Gray, C 1996, Intercountry Adoption and Parent Support Groups, New South Wales Law Reform Commission, Sydney, New South Wales. ---- 1997, Intercountry Adoption and Parent Support Groups. Research Report 6, 6, Law Reform Commission (NSW), New South Wales. Gray, KM 2007a, ‘''Bananas, bastards and victims?”: Hybrid reflections on cultural belonging in intercountry adoptee narratives', PhD thesis, University of Newcastle. ---- 2007b, 'Identity and international adoptees: A comparison of the Vietnamese and Korean adoptee experience in Australia', in KJS Berquist, ME Vonk, DS Kim & MD Feit (eds), International Korean Adoption: A Fifty-Year History of Policy and Practice, The Haworth Press, New York, pp. 237-62. Grbich, C 1999, Qualitative Research in Health, Allen and Unwin, St Leonards, New South Wales Australia. Hall, S 2004, 'Foucault and discourse', in C Seale (ed.), Social Research Methods, Routledge, London, pp. 345-9. 242

Hamilton, RJ & Bowers, BJ 2006, 'Internet recruitment and e-mail interviews in qualitative studies’ 10.1177/1049732306287599, Qualitative Health Research, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 821-35. Harvey, I 1982, 'Transracial adoption in Australia', Adoption and Fostering, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 43-9. ---- 1983, 'Adoption of Vietnamese children: An Australian study', Australian Journal of Social Issues, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 55-69. Herman, E 2002, 'The paradoxical rationalization of modern adoption', Journal of Social History, vol. 36, no. 2, p. 339. Herrmann, KJ, Jr & Kasper, B 1992, 'International adoption: The exploitation of women and children', Affilia, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 45-8. Hollingsworth, L & Ruffin, VM 2002, 'Why are so many U.S. families adopting internationally? A social exchange perspective', Journal of Human Behaviour in the Social Environment, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 81-97. Holt International Social Services Inc., first viewed 3rd March 2005 . House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Overseas Adoption in Australia 2005, first viewed 11th January 2006 < http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/fhs>. Hubinette, T 2002a, 'The adopted Koreans: Diaspora politics and the construction of an ethnic identity in a post-colonial and global setting', paper presented to Transgressing Culture: Rethinking Creativity in Arts, Science and Politics. Third Space Seminar, Malmo, Sweden. ---- 2002b, 'The adoption issue in Korea: Diaspora politics in the age of globalization', Stockholm Journal of East Asian Studies, vol. 12, pp. 141-53. ---- 2003, 'The adopted Koreans and the construction of an imagined community', paper presented to Korea Klubben's Conference: The Meaning of Roots: Ethnic Identity and Biological Heritage, Copenhagen, Denmark. ---- 2005, Comforting an Orphaned Nation: Representations of International Adoption and Adopted Koreans in Korean Popular Culture, Stockholm University. ---- 2007, 'The Korean adoption issue and representations of adopted Koreans in Korean popular culture', in KJS Berquist, ME Vonk, DS Kim & MD Feit (eds), International Korean Adoption: A Fifty-Year History of Policy and Practice, The Haworth Press, New York, pp. 221-33. Huh, NS 1993, 'Services for out-of-wedlock children in Korea', Early Child Development and Care, vol. 85, pp. 35-46. ---- 2007, 'Korean adopted children's ethnic identity formation', in KJS Berquist, ME Vonk, DS Kim & MD Feit (eds), International Korean Adoption: A Fifty-Year History of Policy and Practice, The Haworth Press, New York, pp. 79-97. 243

Huh, NS & Reid, WJ 2000, 'Intercountry, transracial adoption and ethnic identity: A Korean example', International Social Work, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 75-87. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission 1997, Bringing Them Home. National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Australia. Hurdis, R 2007, 'Lifting the shroud of silence: A Korean adoptee's search for truth, legitimacy, and justice', in KJS Berquist, ME Vonk, DS Kim & MD Feit (eds), International Korean Adoption: A Fifty-Year History of Policy and Practice, The Haworth Press, New York, pp. 171-85. Inter-Country Adoption Support Network (ICASN), first viewed 20 February 2005, . Inter-Country Adoption Support Network, Qld (ICASN), first viewed 20th February 2005, . International Adoptive Families (IAF), viewed 3rd March 2006, . Jacobs, D 2000, 'Low public expenditures on social welfare: Do East Asian countries have a secret?' International Social Welfare, vol. 9, pp. 2-16. Janesick, VJ 2000, 'The choreography of qualitative research design: Minuets, improvisations, and crystallization', in NK Denzin & YS Lincoln (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 379-99. Ji, L-J, Nisbett, RE & Su, Y 2001, 'Culture, change, and prediction', Psychological Science, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 450-6. Joe, B 1978, 'In defence of intercountry adoption', Social Services Review, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 1-20. Johnson, J 1988, 'Mixing human and nonhumans together: The sociology of a door-closer', Social Problems, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 298-310. Joo, J 1999, 'Explaining social policy adoption in South Korea: The cases of the Medical Insurance Law and the Minimum Wage Law', Journal of Social Policy, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 387-412. Juffer, F & van IJzendoorn, MH 2007, 'A longitudinal study of Korean adoptees in the Netherlands: Infancy to middle childhood', in KJS Berquist, ME Vonk, DS Kim & MD Feit (eds), International Korean Adoption: A Fifty-Year History of Policy and Practice, The Haworth Press, New York, pp. 263-76. Jupp, J 1995, 'From "White Australia" to "Part of Asia": Recent shifts in Australian immigration policy towards the region', International Migration Review, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 207-28. Kane, S 1993, 'The movement of children for international adoption: An epidemiologic perspective', Social Science Journal, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 323-39. 244

KBS 2005, Baby exporting nation: The two faces of intercountry adoption, , KBS, South Korea, May. Keck, ME & Sikkink, K 1998, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics, Cornell University Press, Ithica. Kelly, S 2000, 'Adoption in Australia - An Overview', paper presented to Family Futures: Issues in Research and Policy. 7th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference, Sydney, 24-26th July 2000. Kendall, G & Wickham, G 1999, Using Foucault's Methods, Sage, London. Kendall, L 1996, Getting Married in Korea: Of Gender, Morality and Modernity, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Kim, Andrew E 2000, ‘Korean religious culture and its affinity to Christianity: The rise of Protestant Christianity in South Korea’, Sociology of Religion, vol. 61, no. 2, pp.117. Kim Chi Club, viewed 12th July 2007 . Kim, DS 1978, 'Issues in transracial and transcultural adoption', Social Casework, vol. 59, no. 8, pp. 477-86. ---- 2007, 'A country divided: Contextualizing adoption from a Korean perspective', in KJS Berquist, ME Vonk, DS Kim & MD Feit (eds), International Korean Adoption: A Fifty-Year History of Policy and Practice, Haworth Press, New York, pp. 3-23. Kim, Eleana 2003, 'Wedding citizenship and culture: Korean adoptees and the global family of Korea', Social Text 74, vol. 21, no. 1. ---- 2005, 'Wedding citizenship and culture: Korean adoptees and the global family of Korea', in TA Volkman (ed.), Cultures of Transnational Adoption, Duke University Press, Durham and London, pp. 49-80. ---- 2007, 'Remembering loss: The Koreanness of overseas adopted Koreans', in KJS Berquist, ME Vonk, DS Kim & MD Feit (eds), International Korean Adoption: A Fifty-Year History of Policy and Practice, The Haworth Press, New York, pp. 115-29. Kim, Eunjeong 2003, 'Issues and concerns about a prospective child support enforcement policy in South Korea', Women’s Studies International Forum, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 443-53. Kim, E & Davis, K 2003, 'Conceptualizing unmarried motherhood in South Korea: The role of patriarchy and confucianism in the lives of women', Journal of Social Work Research and Evaluation, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 107-20.

245

Kim, E & Trenka, JJ 2007, Adoption and the law, viewed 24th May, , 24th May. Kim, H 2007, 'Mothers without mothering: Birth mothers from South Korea since the Korean War', in KJS Berquist, ME Vonk, DS Kim & MD Feit (eds), International Korean Adoption: A Fifty- Year History of Policy and Practice, The Haworth Press, New York, pp. 131-53. Kim, JR 2006, 'Scattered Seeds: The Christian influence on Korean adoption', in JJ Trenka, JC Oparah & SY Shin (eds), Outsiders Within: Writing on Transracial Adoption, South End Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Kim, J-W & Henderson, T 2008, 'History of the care of displaced children in Korea', Asian Social Work and Policy Review, vol. 2, pp. 13-29. Kim, M 2003, 'Social Welfare System', Social Indicators Research, vol. 62, no. 63, pp. 265-89. Kim, S-k & Finch, J 2002, 'Living with rhetoric, living against rhetoric: Korean families and the IMF economic crisis', Korean Studies, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 120-39. Kim, SS 2000, Korea's Globalization, Cambridge Asia-Pacific Studies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kim, U 1996, Dark side of Korean adoption, Adoptee Solidarity, viewed 16th July 2005 Adoptee Solidarity Korea (ASK), < http://www.adopteesolidarity.org>. Kim, WJ 1995, 'International adoption: A case review of Korean children', Child Psychiatry and Human Development, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 141-54. Kim, WJ, Shin, Y-J & Carey, MP 1999, 'Comparison of Korean-American adoptees and biological children of their adoptive parents: A pilot study', Child Psychiatry and Human Development, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 221-8. Kim, Y-g 2007, ‘Interview with Eleana Kim: Korean adoptees seek identity through community’, ', Yonhap, 5th August. Kim, Y-g & Trenka, JJ 2007, 'American father launches campaign to help unwed Korean moms', Yonhap , 14th June. Kim, YS 1995, 'Outlining the blueprint for Globalization', in Korea's Quest for Reform and Globalization: Selected Speeches of President Kim Young Sam, The Presidential Secretariat, Seoul, pp. 268-73. King, S 2009, 'Challenging Monohumanism: An argument for changing the way we think about intercountry adoption', Michigan Journal of International Law, vol. 30, p. 72, viewed 25th January 2009,< http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1298464>.

246

King, SA 1996a, 'Commentary on responses to the proposed guidelines', The Information Society, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 199-201. ---- 1996b, 'Researching internet communities: Proposed ethical guidelines for the reporting of results', The Information Society, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 119-27. Klein, C 2003a, Cold War Orientalism, University of California Press, Berkeley. ---- 2003b, 'Family ties and political obligation: The discourse of Adoption and the Cold War commitment to Asia', in C Klein Cold War Orientalism, University of California Press, Berkley, pp. 35-66. Korean Adoptees Worldwide, viewed 20th March 2005, Korean birthparents against international adoption. Dandelions Birthparents Group 2007, Video, viewed 6th August, , Korea. Korean Social Services, viewed 15th March 2006, . KoRoot, viewed 15th March 2006, . Kwon, S 2001, 'Economic crisis and social policy reform in Korea', International Journal of Social Welfare, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 97-106. Kwon, S & Holliday, I 2006, 'The Korean welfare state: A paradox of expansion in an era of globalisation and economic crisis', International Journal of Social Welfare, vol. 16, pp. 242-8. Kwon, T-H, Jun, K-H & Cho, S-N 1997, Induced Abortion in Korea, Seoul National University Institute for Social Development and Policy Research ISDPR Social Studies Series No 2, Seoul National University Press, Seoul. Latour, B 1986, 'The powers of association', in J Law (ed.), Power, Action and Belief. A New Sociology of Knowledge?, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, pp. 264-80. ---- 1987, Science in Action, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. ---- 1988, The Pasteurization of France, Harvard University Press, USA. ---- 1990, 'Drawing things together', in M Lynch & S Woolgar (eds), Representations in Scientific Practice, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 19-68. ---- 1991, 'Technology is society made durable', in J Law (ed.), The Sociology of Monsters. Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, Routledge, London, pp. 103-31. ---- 1993, We Have Never Been Modern, 6th edn, Harvard University Press, Cambridge Massachusetts. ---- 1997a, On actor-network theory: A few clarifications, www.nettime.org, viewed 15th March 2008, . ---- 1997b, On recalling ANT, Sociology Department, Lancaster University, viewed 11th February 2007, . 247

---- 1999a, 'On recalling ANT', in J Law & J Hassard (eds), Actor Network Theory and After, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 15-25. ---- 1999b, Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. ---- 2003, 'Is re-modernization occurring - and if so, how to prove it?' Theory Culture and Society, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 35-48. ---- 2004, Politics of Nature, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. ---- 2005, Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, Oxford University Press, New York. Latour, B & Woolgar, S 1986, Laboratory Life: The construction of Scientific Facts, Princeton University Press, New Jersey. Law, J 1984, 'How much of society can the sociologist digest at one sitting? The 'macro' and 'micro' revisited for the case of fast food', Studies in Symbolic Interaction, vol. 5, pp. 171-96. ---- 1986a, 'Laboratories and text', in M Callon, J Law & A Rip (eds), Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology, The Macmillan Press Ltd, Houndsmills, pp. 35-49. ---- 1986b, 'On power and tactics: A view from the sociology of science', The Sociological Review, vol. 34, pp. 1-38. ---- 1986c, 'On the methods of long-distance control: Vessels, navigation and the Portuguese route to India', in J Law (ed.), Power, Action and Belief. A New Sociology of Knowledge?, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, pp. 234-63. ---- 1987a, 'On the social explanation of technical change: The case of the Portuguese maritime expansion', Technology and Culture, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 227-52. ---- 1987b, 'Technology and heterogeneous engineering: The case of the Portuguese expansion', in WE Bijker, TP Hughes & TJ Pinch (eds), The Social Construction of Technological Systems, MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 111-34. ---- 1992, 'Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity', Systems Practice, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 379-93. ---- 1999, 'After ANT: Complexity, naming and topology', in J Law & J Hassard (eds), Actor Network Theory and After, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 1-14. ---- 2003, Transduction/ trahison: Notes on ANT, Centre for Science Studies Lancaster University, viewed 3rd February 2007, .

248

Lee, A-R 2003, 'Stability and change in Korean values', Social Indicators Research, vol. 62, no. 63, pp. 93-117. Lee, BJ 2006, 'Adoption in Korea: Current status and future prospects', International Journal of Social Welfare, vol. 16, no. 75-83. ---- 2007, 'Recent trends in child welfare and adoption in Korea: Challenges and future directions', in KJS Berquist, ME Vonk, DS Kim & MD Feit (eds), International Korean Adoption: A Fifty- Year History of Policy and Practice, The Haworth Press, New York, pp. 189-206. Lee, H-j 2008, 'A unique case of adoption', JoongAng Daily, viewed 2nd May 2008, , 10th April. Lee, JK 2005, 'Neo-familism and women: The modern transformation of the Korean family', in P Chang & E-S Kim (eds), Women's Experiences and Feminist Practices in South Korea, Ewha Woman's University Press, Seoul, pp. 155-75. Le Fromage Electrique, first viewed 2nd August 2007, . Lincoln, YS & Guba, EG 2000, 'Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences', in., NK Denzin & YS Lincoln (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edn, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp. 163-88. Lindblad, F, Hjern, A & Vinnerljung, B 2003, 'Intercountry adopted children as young adults - a Swedish cohort study', American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 190-202. Lopez, M 2000, 'The politics of the origins of multiculturalism: Lobbying and the power of influence', People and Place, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 22-8. Lovelock, K 2000, 'Intercountry adoption as a migratory practice: A comparative analysis of intercountry adoption and immigration policy and practice in the United States, Canada and New Zealand in the post WWII period', International Migration Review, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 907- 49. Mann, C & Stewart, F 2000, Internet Communication and Qualitative Research: A Handbook for Researching Online, Sage, London. Marshall, C & Nossman, GB 1995, Designing Qualitative Research, 2nd edn, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. Martel, J 2004, 'Policing criminological knowledge: The hazards of qualitative research on women in prison', Theoretical Criminology, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 157-89. Masson, J 2001, 'Intercountry adoption: A global problem or a global solution?' Journal of International Affairs, vol. 55, no. 1, p. 141.

249

Matthews, L 1977, 'Despite popularity, Korean babies aren't for export', The Wall Street Journal, January 7, n.p.n. McDonald, P 2000, 'Low fertility in Australia: Evidence, causes and policy responses', People and Place, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 6-11. McIlvenny, P & Raudaskoski, P 2005, 'Figuring the transnational 'Child-to-be-adopted': The web as a virtual sociocultural contact zone for intercountry adoption', in B Preisler, A Fabricius, H Haberland, S Kjaerbeck & K Risager (eds), The Consequences of Mobility, Roskilde University, Dept of Language and Culture , Roskilde, Denmark, pp. 58-70. Meier, PJ & Zhang, X 2008-9, 'Sold into adoption: The Hunan baby trafficking scandal exposes vulnerabilities in Chinese adoptions to the United States', Cumberland Law Review, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 87-130. Metherell, M 2007, 'MPs call for addicts' children to be adopted', Sydney Morning Herald , 14th September. Miller, H 1971, 'Recent developments in Korean services for children', Children, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 28. Minichiello, V, Aroni, R, Timewell, E & Alexander, L 2000, In-Depth Interviewing, 2nd edn, Addison Wesley Longman Australia Pty Ltd. Mission to Promote Adoption in Korea (MPAK), viewed 9th September 2007, . Mol, A 1999, 'Ontological politics: A word and some questions', in J Law & J Hassard (eds), Actor Network Theory and After, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 74-89. Moon, K 1997, Sex Among Allies, Columbia University Press, New York. Moon, G-l 2007, 'Adoptee seeks to end overseas adoptions', Joongang Daily, 4th August. Moustakis, C 1990, Heuristic Research Design, Methodology, and Applications, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Na, J 2007, Why does South Korea keep exporting babies? , 1st August. Neary, I 1999, Children's rights in Korea, Department of Government, University of Essex, viewed 29/05 2003, . Nelson, KP 2009, Mapping Multiple Histories of Korean American Transnational Adoption, Working Paper Series, WP 09-01, U.S.- Korean Institute, Washington, D.C, viewed 25th January 2009, . Noh, HJ 1995, ‘The study on social welfare policy for unmarried mothers in South Korea’, Hanyang University, Seoul. 250

'NSW leads in Asian adoption' 1978, The Weekend Australian, 21-22nd Jan. Oppenheim, R 2007, 'Actor-network theory and anthropology after science, technology and society', Anthropological Theory, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 471-93. Orland-Barak, L 2002, 'The theoretical sensitivity of the researcher: Reflections on a complex construct', Reflective Practice, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 263 - 78. Orphan Angels, viewed 13th May 2008 Oum, YR 2003, 'Beyond a strong state and docile women', International Feminist Journal of Politics, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 420-46. Overseas Adopted Koreans (OAKS), viewed 20th March 2005, < http://oaks.korean.net>. Overseas Adoption in Australia. The Report on the Inquiry into Adoption of Children from Overseas, 2005, The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services, Canberra, Australia. Overseas Koreans Foundation, viewed 20th March 2005, . Paccagnella, L 1997, 'Getting the seats of your pants dirty: Strategies for ethnographic research on virtual communities', Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 3, no. 1, doi: 10.1111/j.083-6101.1997.tb00065.x. Padgett, DK 1998, Qualitative Methods in Social Work Research: Challenges and Rewards, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Park, SO 1998, 'Globalization in Korea: dream and reality', Geojournal, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 123-8. Park, T-G 1999, 'Change in US policy toward South Korea in the early 1960s', Korean Studies, Annual, p. 94. Park, S-m 2007a, 'Loving homes wanted: In Korea, please', JoongAng Daily , 8th August. ---- 2007b, 'Mothers call for an end to international adoption', JoongAng Daily , 8th August. Parker, E 1978, 'Adoption queue grows', Telegraph, 10th February, p. 14. Parliament of Australia, Hansard, accessed 18th October 2007. Patton, MQ 2002, Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd edn, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Pertman, A 1999, 'Korean adoptees gather to share history: Meeting blends celebration, research', Boston Globe, Sep 12, p. 14. ---- 2000, Adoption Nation: How the Adoption Revolution is Transforming America, Basic Books, USA. 251

Picton, C & Calder, R 1982, 'Inter-country adoption policy in Australia - the abnegation of responsibility?', Australian Child and Family Welfare, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 10-3. Price, C 2000, 'Australian population: ethnic origins', People and Place, vol. 7, no. 4. Pronk, I 2008, 'Weer ophef rond adoptie utt China’ Trouw . Qu, L, Weston, R & Kilmartin, C 2000, 'Effects of changing personal relationships on decisions about having children', Family Matters, vol. 57, pp. 14-9. Queensland Parliament, first accessed 10th October 2007, . Rahn, K 2006, 'Korea struggles to shed baby-exporter image', Korea Times, 5th October. Rees, J 1977, 'The baby trade row', The Bulletin, 25th June. Reeves, J 1993, 'The deviant mother and child: The development of adoption as an instrument of social control', Journal of Law and Society, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 412-26. Reid, E 1996, 'Informed consent in the study of on-line communities: A reflection on the effects of computer-mediated social research', The Information Society, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 169-74. Reynolds, D 2005, 'Empire, region, world: The international context of Australian foreign policy since 1939', Australian Journal of Politics & History, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 346-58. Rime, B 2007, 'The social sharing of emotion as an interface between individual and collective processes in the construction of emotional climates', Journal of Social Issues, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 307-22. Roesch-Rhomberg, I 2004, 'Korean institutionalised adoption', in F Bowie (ed.), Cross-Cultural Approaches to Adoption, Routledge, Oxfordshire, pp. 81-96. Roh, M-j 2007, 'Korean adoptees from abroad and birth mothers protest overseas adoption’ . Yonhap, 5th August. Rosenwald, T, Garton, A & O’Connor, M 2008, 'Well-being an identity in intercountry adoptees and non-adopted migrant peers in Western Australia: Looking different and the continuity of a minority group', paper presented to Adoption in Australia; Contemporary Cultural, Theoretical Perspectives Symposium, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, 3-4 July. Saclier, C 2000, 'In the best interests of the child?' in P Selman (ed.), Intercountry Adoption: Development, Trends and Perspectives, British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, London. Sarri, R, Baik, Y & Bombyk, M 1998, 'Goal displacement and dependency in South-Korean - United States intercountry adoption', Children and Youth Services Review, vol. 20, no. 1/2, pp. 87-114.

252

Selman, P 2000, 'The demographic history of intercountry adoption', in P Selman (ed.), Intercountry Adoption: Developments, Trends and Perspectives, British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, London. ---- 2001, 'Intercountry adoption in the new millennium; the "quiet migration" revisited', paper presented to European Population Conference, Helsinki, Finland. ---- 2002, 'Intercountry adoption in the new millennium; The "quiet migration" revisited', Population Research and Policy Review, vol. 21, pp. 205-25. ---- 2004, 'Adoption: A cure for (too) many ills?' in F Bowie (ed.), Cross-Cultural Approaches to Adoption, Routledge, Oxfordshire, pp. 257-73. ---- 2006, 'Trends in intercountry adoption: Analysis of data from 20 receiving countries, 1998-2004', Journal of Population Research, vol. 23, no. 2, p. 183. ---- 2007, 'A demographic history of intercountry adoption', paper presented to Moving Cultures, Shifting Identities, Adelaide, Australia, 3-5th December. Serbin, LA 1997, 'Research on international adoption: implications for developmental theory and social policy', International Journal of Behavioral Development, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 83-92. Shin, C-S & Shaw, I 2003, 'Social policy in South Korea: Cultural and structural factors in the emergence of welfare', Social Policy and Administration, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 328-41. Shin, H-i 2007, 'New family system to take effect in 2008', The Korea Herald , 4th June. Shoib, G, Nandhakumar, J & Jones, M 2006, 'Using social theory in information systems research: A reflexive account', Quality and Impact of Qualitative Research. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Qualitative Research in IT and IT in Qualitative Research, Brisbane, Australia. Siang, S 1999, 'Researching ethically with human subjects in cyberspace.' Professional Ethics Report , vol. 4, p. 12. Silverman, D 1993, Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text and Interaction, Sage Publications, London. Smolin, DM 2004, 'Intercountry adoption as child trafficking', Valparaiso University Law Review, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 281-324. ---- 2005, 'Child laundering: How the intercountry adoption system legitimizes and incentivizes the practices of buying, trafficking, kidnapping and stealing children', The Berkley Electronic Press, no. 749, pp. 1-78. Social Welfare Society Inc . 253

Sokoloff, BZ 1993, 'Antecedents of American adoption', The Future of Children, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 17- 25. Song, JA 1999, 'Heartache and Hope', Far Eastern Economic Review, vol. 162, no. 42. Sparkes, AC 2001, 'Myth 94: Qualitative health researchers will agree about validity’ 10.1177/104973230101100409, Qualitative Health Research, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 538-52. Spence, S 1975, 'Some considerations on the adoption of Vietnamese Children: an international social welfare issue’ 10.1177/002087287501800403, International Social Work, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 10-20. Stake, RE 2000, 'Case studies', in NK Denzin & YS Lincoln (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 435-54. Standing Committee on Social Issues 2000, Releasing the Past: Adoption Practices, 1950-1998: Final Report, Parliamentary Paper; No 600. Report 22, Sydney, NSW. Sterett, SM 2002, 'Introductory essay', Law and Society Review, vol. 36, no. 2, p. 209. 'Stop intercountry adoption', 2007, Hankyoreh , 5th August. Strauss, A & Corbin, J 1990, Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, Sage, Newbury Park. Strum, SS & Latour, B 1987, 'Redefining the social link: from baboons to humans', Social Science Information, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 783-802. Sudweeks, F, Mclaughlin, M & Rafaeli, S 1997, Network and Netplay: Virtual Groups on the Internet, AAAI/ MIT Press, Cambridge. Tavan, G 2005, 'The limits of discretion: The role of the Liberal Party in the dismantling of the White Australia Policy', Australian Journal of Politics & History, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 418-28. Therborn, G 2000, 'Globalizations: dimensions, historical waves, regional effects, normative governance', International Sociology, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 151-79. Thomas, J 1996, 'Introduction: A debate about the ethics of fair practices for collecting social science data in Cyberspace', The Information Society, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 107-17. Tieszen, HR 1966, 'Changes in services to children: A report from Korea', Children, vol. 13, no.1, pp. 28-30. Trenka, JJ, Oparah, JC & Shin, SY 2006, Outsiders Within: Writing on Transracial Adoption, South End Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Triseliotis, J 2000, 'Intercountry adoption: global trade or global gift?' Adoption and Fostering, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 45-54.

254

Triseliotis, J, Shireman, J & Hundleby, M 1997, 'Intercountry adoption', in Adoption Theory, Policy and Practice, Cassell, London. UNICEF 1998, 'Intercountry adoption', Innocenti Digest, UNICEF, International Child Development Centre, vol. 4. Urry, J 2005, 'The complexities of the global', Theory, Culture and Society, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 235-54. van Krieken, R 1999, 'The 'Stolen Generations' and cultural genocide: The forced removal of Australian indigenous children and their families and its implications for the sociology of childhood', Childhood, vol. 6, no.3, pp. 297-312. Van Loon, JHA 1990, Report on Intercountry Adoption, Hague Conference on Private International Law, The Hague. Volkman, TA 2005, Cultures of Transnational Adoption, Duke University Press, Durham and London. Vonk, ME, Yun, SH, Park, W & Massatti, RR 2007, 'Transracial adoptive parents' thoughts about the importance of race and culture in parenting', in KJS Berquist, ME Vonk, DS Kim & MD Feit (eds), International Korean Adoption: A Fifty-Year History of Policy and Practice, The Haworth Press, New York, pp. 99-112. Walsham, G 1997, 'Actor-Network Theory and IS research: Current status and future prospects', Information Systems and Qualitative Research: Proceedings of the IFUP TC8 WG 8.2. International Conference on Information Systems and Qualitative Research, Philadelphia, USA, 31st May -3rd June. Walsham, G & Sahay, S 1999, 'GIS for district-level administration in India: Problems and opportunities', MIS Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 39-65. Walton, J 2008, 'More than a 'Korean adoptee': Making sense of identity and adoption in South Korea', paper presented to Adoption in Australia: Contemporary, Cultural, Theoretical and Political Perspectives Symposium, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, 3-4 July. Waskul, D & Douglass, M 1996, 'Considering the electronic participant: Some polemic observations on the ethics of on-line research', The Information Society, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 129-39. Weil, RH 1984, 'International adoptions: The quiet migration', International Migration Review, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 276-93. Weston, R & Parker, R 2002, 'Why is the fertility rate falling?: A discussion of the literature', Family Matters, vol. 63, pp. 6-13. Whiteford, P, Bond, K & Seth-Purdie, R 2000, Australian Children: Circumstances and Trends, Department of Family and Community Services.

255

Whittemore, R, Chase, SK & Mandle, CL 2001, 'Validity in qualitative research', Qualitative Health Research, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 522-37. Williams, LS 1992, 'Adoption actions and attitudes of couples seeking in vitro fertilization', Journal of Family Issues, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 99-113. Williams, I 2001, 'Diversity and diaspora: Vietnamese adopted as children by non Asian families', The Review of Vietnamese Studies, vol. 1, no. 1. ---- 2003, 'Not quite/ just the same/ different: The construction of identity in Vietnamese war orphans adopted by white parents', Masters thesis, University of Technology. Williams Willing, IA 2007, 'Operation Babylift', The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 111-3. Winner, L 1993, 'Upon opening the blackbox and finding it empty: Social constructivism and the philosophy of technology', Science, Technology and Human Values, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 362-78. Winter, I 2000, Towards a Theorised Understanding of Family Life and Social Capital. Working Paper 21, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne, Australia. Woll, L 2000, 'Reporting to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child: A catalyst for domestic debate and policy change?' The International Journal of Children's Rights, vol. 8, pp. 71-81. Won, TH 1990, 'A study on Korean Adoption Policy', Abstract of thesis, Ewha Women's University. Woo, M 2003, 'Social welfare policy in South Korea: An analytical case study', PhD thesis, Brown University. Woolgar, S 1982, 'Laboratory Studies: A comment on the state of the art', Social Studies of Science, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 481-98. Yang, J 1999, 'Confucianism, institutional change and value conflict in Korea', Korean Social Science Journal, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 209-36. Yang, OK 2003a, 'Family structure and relations', Social Indicators Research, vol. 62, 63, pp. 121-48. ---- 2003b, 'Quality of life across domains: Family structure and relations', Social Indicators Research, vol. 62-63, no. 1-3, pp. 121-48. Yang, S & Rosenblatt, PC 2001, 'Shame in Korean families', Journal of Comparative Family Studies, vol. 32, no. 3, p. 361. Yi, JD 2002, 'Globalization and recent changes to daily life in the republic of Korea', in J Lewis & A Sesay (eds), Korea and Globalization: Politics, Economics and Culture, Routledge Curzon, London, pp. 10-31. Yin, RK 2003, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd edn, vol. 5, Applied Social Research Methods Series, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California. 256

Yngvesson, B 2002, 'Placing the "gift child" in transnational adoption', Law and Society Review, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 227-56. Zigler, E 1976, 'A developmental psychologist's view of operation babylift', American Psychologist, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 329-40.

257

Appendix One: Sample of Data Recording Sheet

ACCESS SOURCE DOCUMENT DOCUMENT CONTENT SUMMARIES OF ACTORS COMMENTS DATE and DATE DOCUMENTS IDENTIFIED SOURCE FOLDER 8/02/06 Briefing paper prepared by Peter 14th March Importance of the vital role of the Department State and territory Not seeking to increase numbers or seek Folder Fopp, Special Projects, Department 1980 of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in inter- officials. publicity marked for Community Welfare South country adoption arrangements highlighted July 1980 Australia, for senior officers 1.1.Purpose to meet with foreign adoption Australian Attachment– working relationship Part 1 visiting other countries – Statement authorities to discuss ICA arrangements; adoption between state and territory adoption of Purpose of the Australian negotiate working arrangements for ICA authorities authorities to facilitate adoption of Delegations (attachment 5 gold based on draft text previously presented by children for approved Australian paper) and Statement of Principles Australian overseas missions (objectives- Foreign adoption applicants plus requirements of home and Typical Procedures (white state principles under which ICA authorities study (Australia-wide consistency); and paper) arrangements can be made, provide uniform proposed ICA adoption arrangements: arrangement for state and territories, allow DIMIA legal aspects of the drafting, negotiation adoption authorities of both countries to meet and conclusion of the document- requirements, safeguard interests of child, The child briefing by Dept of Foreign Affairs responsible country decides if ICA is best form of available care for the child then Adoptive Parents Australia ensures suitable people adopt); if negotiations are successful documents agreed Media on and signed by foreign authorities and permanent heads of states and territories; Inscriptions – conclusion of arrangements and exchange of diplomatic notes,

258

diplomatic notes to allow both national formal working governments to declare their intention to arrangements facilitate operation of the arrangements in accordance with responsibilities.1.2 provide the delegation opportunity obtaining first- hand inform 2.1 The purpose does not include a (efforts to increase number of children; locating children who may be available for adoption; Attempting to facilitate the adoption of any children; not seeking publicity)

259

Appendix Two: List of Internet Sites Accessed and Analysed

List of Internet Sites Accessed and Analysed

Inter-Country Adoption Support Network (ICASN) http://www.icasn.org Inter-Country Adoption Support Network, (ICASN), Queensland http://www.geocities.com/qld_icasn Eastern Social Welfare Society (ESWS) http://www.eastern.or.kr/e_htm/home.htm Mission to Promote Adoption in Korea (MPAK) http://www.mpak.com KoRoot http://www.koroot.org Holt International Social Services Inc http://www.holt.or.kr Social Welfare Society Inc http://alovenest.com/english/index.php Korean Social Services http://www.kssinc.org/main_E1.htm Kim Chi Club http://www.geocities.com/kimchi_club International Adoptive Families (IAF) http://www.iafq.org.au/mambo Australia Korean Friendship Group, Qld (AKFG) http://www.iafq.org.au/mambo/content/view/38/53 Overseas Adopted Koreans (OAKS) http://oaks.korean.net Global Overseas Adoptees Link (Goal) http://www.goal.or.kr A.K.A. Inc (Also Known As) http://alsoknownas.org Adoptee Awareness Wall Project http://www.ibyang.com Australian InterCountry Adoption Network (AICAN) http://www.aican.org Australian Families for Children (AFC) http://www.australiansadopt.org Australian Society for Intercountry Aid for Children (ASIAC) http://www.asiac.org.au Australians Adopting European Children (AAEC) http://www.ldaus.com.au/aaec Australian Family Association (AFC) http://www.family.org.au Australian Family Association, QLD (AFC) http://www.family.org.au/qld/index.html Bastard Nation www.bastards.org ASK (Adoptee Solidarity Korea) http://www.adopteesolidarity.org Australian Christian Lobby www.acl.org.au Australian Christian Lobby (Qld) http://www.acl.org.au/qld/index.stw Department of Child Safety (Qld) www.childsafety.qld.gov.au Department of Community Services (DoCS) NSW http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/index_a.htm Korean Adoptees Worldwide www.koreanadoptees.net Overseas Koreans Foundation http://www.okf.or.kr/eng/index.html Le Fromage Electrique http://jjtrenka.wordpress.com/ Dandelions Birth Parents Group http://www.birthmothersmeeting.com De-identified Electronic Discussion Group

260

Appendix Three: Interview Schedule

The following questions seek your opinions about local and global people, events and conditions that have influenced intercountry adoption from South Korea to Australia at different points in time. I am interested in the emergence of intercountry adoption from Korea, how it became an acceptable practice and factors that support or inhibit its continuance.

INTERVIEW GUIDE Date: Name of Organisation: Mission Statement /Goals /Purpose of the Organisation:

HISTORY OF THE ORGANISATION This section seeks specific information concerning your organisation.

Can you please describe when, why and how the organisation was formed?

Can you tell me about the organisation’s development in relation to intercountry adoption generally (if relevant) and Korean intercountry adoption specifically?

Is there a documented history of the organisation’s development in relation to intercountry adoption generally (if relevant) and Korean intercountry adoption specifically?

Can you tell me about who was influential in the development of the organisation’s role in intercountry adoption generally (if relevant) and Korean intercountry adoption specifically?

Were there other influences on the organisation’s development in the area of intercountry adoption generally (if relevant) and Korean intercountry adoption specifically? How have the goals and functions of the organisation in relation to intercountry adoption changed over time?

What has brought about these changes?

261

MAJOR INFLUENENCES IN THE EMERGENCE OF INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION FROM KOREA TO AUSTRALIA The following questions seek to identify the people and conditions influential in the emergence of intercountry adoption from South Korea.

In your opinion, who and what do you consider to be influential in the history of intercountry adoption from Korea to Australia / Queensland?

In your opinion, what are the conditions or factors that allowed intercountry adoption to emerge from Korea to Australia / Queensland?

The literature indicates politicians and politics have played a major role in the development of intercountry adoption. In your opinion, how have politics or the actions of politicians influenced the history of intercountry adoption from Korea to Australia / Queensland?

The literature also suggests religious based organisations have played a role in the development of intercountry adoption. In your opinion, what role did religion or religious organisations play in the development of Korean intercountry adoption in Australia / Queensland?

In your opinion, what kind of influence did local and international legislation have on the development intercountry adoption from Korea to Australia / Queensland?

In your opinion, are there any other major influences?

What are the factors, in your opinion, that has made intercountry adoption generally and Korean intercountry adoption specifically possible and acceptable to Australians / Queenslanders?

CURRENT SITUATION

MAJOR CURRENT INFLUENCES ON THE PRACTICE OF INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION FROM KOREA TO AUSTRALIA / QUEENSLAND

262

The following questions seek information about the current situation concerning Korean intercountry adoption

What are the particular ideas/beliefs (themes) concerning intercountry adoption generally (if relevant) and Korean intercountry adoption specifically today? Can you describe the current political climate in which intercountry adoption generally (if relevant) and Korean intercountry adoption specifically is practiced?

In your opinion, who or what do you consider to be the significant influences on intercountry adoption generally (if relevant) and Korean intercountry adoption specifically, at this present time?

Are there other influences or conditions?

What are the current issues in relation to intercountry adoption directly affecting this network presently?

What are the future directions of this organisation?

How is the organisation going to reach these goals?

In your opinion, what is the future of intercountry adoption generally and Korean intercountry adoption specifically?

RELATIONSHIPS

The following questions seek information about the relationships your organisation has with other groups / organisations involved in intercountry adoption Can you identify other networks, groups and organisations involved with intercountry adoption from Korea?

Can you tell me how this organisation links with these agencies or groups, formally and informally?

Can you describe the nature of relationships with these groups or agencies? 263

In your opinion, who supports and who opposes the work of this organisation?

In your opinion, which groups or individuals do you believe are most influential on the practice of intercountry adoption?

What are the government, private sector and other interests at work in Korean intercountry adoption?

INFORMATION ABOUT LOCAL KOREAN SERVICES

Do you have any knowledge or information about local Korean adoption practices?

Can you provide me with contacts who could inform my study regarding local Korean practices?

Are there services that offer alternatives to intercountry adoption in Korea?

Who promotes and opposes these alternatives?

GENERAL

How do the practices of this organisation compare with counterparts in other Australian states? (if relevant)

How does the practice of intercountry adoption from Korea to Australia differ to practices in other countries? Can you provide any documents or statistics that provides further details or information discussed in this interview?

Can you identify any other person who may be willing to be interviewed and could further inform this study?

THANK YOU. YOUR ASSISTANCE IS GREATLY VALUED AND APPRECIATED

264

Appendix Four: Nazi Threat to Korean Kids!

265

Appendix Five: Adoption Queue Grows

266

Appendix Six: Dr Kim’s* Prayer

Precious lives, our angels, we send away these lives to foreign countries, with scarred memories of their homeland. Please forgive our sins and allow Korea to be a better country, so that we will be adopting children from other countries, instead of us always sending ours away. We send them for care. So please protect these lives and help them lead a happy life in their new homes. Always provide them with grace and intelligence, lead them to live by the rules of Jesus Christ, to have all the luck, to help benefit others, and to return the glory to our Lord. It is our sincere wish that these lives will not forget their home country and the love of the people who took care of them. Father, please remember the foster families who worked hard whether it is favorable or unfavorable conditions to protect these lives, And give them blessings for the benefits they provided with. By your blessings, these adoptive families will be full of love and be under your protection. Now the children are leaving; Please make their way as easy as possible, lead them to the most pleasant life In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

* Dr. Kim Duk Whang, the first president of the Eastern Child Welfare Society (ECWS), reads this Christian prayer to every baby before he/she departs from Korea (Source: Electronic Discussion Group circulated this prayer found in an Eastern Social Welfare Service Newsletter). ESWS is the only Korean adoption agency able to provide children for adoption into Australia.

Source: Email Discussion Group, 2007.

267

Appendix Seven: MPs Call for Addict’s Children to be Adopted

Mark Metherell September 14, 2007

GOVERNMENT MPs have called for the infant children of illicit drug users to be put up for adoption in a report advocating hardline measures aimed at addicts who are parents.

The parliamentary committee chaired by Bronwyn Bishop has demanded a rethink of Australia's "anti-adoption attitude" in proposals that have drawn criticism from Labor MPs and community groups.

Its report, which includes heart-wrenching cases of children who have suffered and even died as a result of their addicted parents' neglect, says such children are among the most vulnerable members of the community.

It recommends that the Federal Government with the state and territory governments establish adoption as the "default" care option for children aged up to five where child protection orders involve illicit drug use by parents.

The committee also calls for a national adoption strategy that acknowledges that "adoption is a desirable way of providing a stable life for a significant proportion of children with drug-addicted parents".

It cites the death of six-year-old girl in NSW after her mother and a boyfriend administered methadone to her and calls for withdrawal of prescription subsidies for takeaway supplies of methadone for drug-using parents.

The committee also recommends that any illicit drug use by parents should trigger the new Centrelink income management provisions under which payments to parents can be withheld and only spent on food and essentials.

But three Labor members of the committee dissented from the majority report and said the Government members had argued that addiction alone should determine whether a child was separated from parents rather than the more robust test of the best interests of the child as assessed by qualified people.

The inquiry had focused on attempting to legitimise the political stance of the Government, said the Labor members, who included the committee's deputy chairwoman, Julia Irwin.

A spokesman for the Minister for Families and Community Services, Mal Brough, said the minister would respond to the report once he had studied it.

The Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform said the report was a recipe for disaster, disregarding the existing evidence in proposing a reversal of harm-minimisation policies.

"What is amoral is that the report says that the lives and wellbeing of our young people and of the whole community are less important than forcing people to become drug free," said the group's president, Brian McConnell.

But the report blames "drug industry elites", who it said had hindered the zero-tolerance approach advocated by the Federal Government. These elites advocated treatment approaches that aimed to reduce harm, "but do not have the aim of enabling users to become drug-free".

The report, by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services, also calls for government funding to favour treatment centres whose objective is to make their patients drug-free.

But the president of Hepatitis Australia, Helen McNeill, said the measures recommended by the committee "would almost certainly lead to an increase in incidence of hepatitis C and could ultimately cost lives". She said the report eschewed the successful government policy of harm minimisation over the past 20 years. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/09/13/1189276899593.html Source: Email Discussion Group, 2007.

268

Appendix Eight: Presidential Proclamation

Presidential Proclamation For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary November 5, 2001 NATIONAL ADOPTION MONTH BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROCLAMATION

Children deserve to be raised in loving families with parents who protect and nurture them. For some children, adoption is their best chance for a healthy and happy life. Each year, American families adopt approximately 120,000 newborn or older children, providing them with a loving and supportive environment. Despite this substantial number of annual adoptions, more than 134,000 children are currently waiting adoption. While our foster care system can provide a safe, temporary home for these children, adoption would give them the love and stability of a permanent family that would better enable them to develop to their full potential.

My Administration is working to help states promote and support adoptions. This year, 35 states and the District of Columbia received adoption incentive awards for increasing the number of children they placed from foster care into permanent homes. States have reinvested these bonuses to enhance their adoption and child welfare programs, which has resulted in an unprecedented 79 percent increase in adoptions from 28,000 in 1996 to 50,000 in 2000. Although we have made dramatic advances in encouraging adoption, we must strengthen our efforts to find a safe, loving, and permanent home for every child awaiting one. One important way to advance towards this goal is to ease the financial burden on families that adopt children. The tax relief bill that I signed into law earlier this year extends and increases the adoption tax credit for qualified expenses from $5,000 to $10,000 per child. The new law also increases the tax credit for adoptive parents of children with special needs from $6,000 to $10,000 per child, regardless of expenses. Parents who adopt children with special needs will benefit from this meaningful tax credit because it will help cover unique adoption costs. Ensuring the provision of post- adoptive services also plays an important role in facilitating successful adoptions. I support the Promoting Safe and Stable Families proposal, currently before the Congress, which would improve post-adoptive services by -prioritising research and evaluation for these services and establishing systems to ensure that they are available to meet the needs of adoptive families. In addition, this proposal provides for education and training vouchers to children adopted after the age of 15.

Adoptive parents have a special calling - sharing a loving home with children in need, offering them hope for a brighter future. Federal, State, and local governments must continue supporting these quiet heroes as they make the considerable sacrifices and receive the countless blessings of parenthood that come from providing a child with the chance of a lifetime - an upbringing in a happy and healthy home. Now, therefore, I, George W. Bush, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and Laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim November 2001, as National Adoption Month. I call on all Americans to observe this month with appropriate programs and activities to honor adoptive families and to participate in efforts to find permanent homes for waiting children. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this fifth day of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand one, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-sixth.

GEORGE W. BUSH

Source: Electronic Discussion Group, 2001.

269

Appendix Nine: The Adoption Twist

Starting a family comes easily to most women and men but some of us face significant obstacles -physical, biological and even financial. In these three articles we examine how difficult having children has become for some and the options they face in order to achieve parenthood. In the first Diana Bagnall reports on the adoption option.

There is no knowing exactly how many abandoned children languish in orphanages around the world. Governments are loath to talk about such things. National pride comes into it. There are some clues, though in Russia, children are abandoned to the state at a rate of more than 100,000 per year, according to a 1998 human rights watch report. The Chinese government acknowledges it has 100,000 orphans in institutions,

In Australia, these numbers are a source of considerable anguish and frustration, born partly of humanitarian concern (who can forget the wretched images that came out of Romanian orphans a decade ago?) but also of thwarted desire. Affluent middle age couples (and a minority of singles) who have run over their reproductive limit see in them babies to adopt. And though it is not politically correct to mention it, these babies – unlike the few local children now put up for adoption – the illusion of a fresh start. It’s rare for them to come with strings attached… a perfect match of supply and demand, and the assurance that the world will be a better place for that match being made. The truth is rather more complex.

There has been a steady flow of children from developing countries for about 39 years. In the US, where adoption is supported unambiguously from the top down with the Bush administration last year increasing the adoption tax credit for expenses from $US 5000 ($9300) to $US 10,000 per child, that flow is in flood. Between 1992 and 2000, intercountry adoption to US families increased from 6536 to 18,477 children. Announcing National Adoption Month last November, President George W Bush called for all levels of government to keep supporting these quiet heroes (adoptive parents).

In Australia, however, the reverse seems to be happening. Despite Australia being a signatory to the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co- operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, which came into force in December 1998, the numbers if intercountry adoptions have fallen considerably over the past decade. In 1990-91, 393 overseas children were adopted by Australian families. In 2000-2001 the figure was 289. And far from being feted as heroes, Australians seeking to adopt talk of feeling embarrassed and guilty “we are subject to tirades about stealing children” says Queensland adoptive parent John Telfer, whose two adopted daughters live in a Calcutta orphanage for 2 years before they came to Australia aged six and nine. But there are 100 homeless children a day picked up at the interstate railway station in Calcutta’

Whereas in the US intercountry adoption is run by private licensed agencies with all the pitfalls that involves, in Australia it is a highly controlled government operation, overseen by the federal Attorney-General’s Department. Each state has it own legislation and there are variations in how each bureaucracy manages adoption. South Australia contracts its management to the country’s only private adoption agency, Australia Aiding children. It may be coincidence, but in South Australia there is no waiting list, according to the director, Sue Priest. Last year 44 overseas children were placed with South Australian families.

In Queensland by contrast, there were 469 applicants waiting for foreign children at the end of last year. During the 2000-01, 49 overseas children were placed with Queensland families, down from 60 the year before and in Western Australia where 20 overseas children were placed in 2000-2001, the parent support group, Adoptions International of Western Australia has 365 people in its books with all applications in progress.

Since Craig Moore became the manager of the NSW Department of Community Service Adoption and Permanent Care Branch 14months ago, the waiting list has increased from 420 to 620applicants. The number of children placed increased by 30 in 2000-01 to 84. Moore is actively trying to expand the countries with which NSW has adoption programs. But it is not straight forward. For example, Lithuania and Poland are Hague convention signatories, but they don’t have babies for adoption, only children over three, and those mostly have special needs.

Adoption programs are not inherently stable. They’re extremely sensitive to allegations of corruption or child-trafficking (Romania most recently imposed a moratorium on all intercountry Adoptions) and to a political climate change (Fiji has been off limits since the 1999 coup). Australia’s most active programs in 2000-2001 were with South Korea (26% of adoptions that year), India 14%, Ethiopia 13%, and Thailand 12%. With the Koreans, says Moore, you know exactly where they stand. “we’ve been running it for a while now, its smooth and completely above board’. There’s good reason for being sure of this – the threat of future litigation is one of the biggest (unspoken) fears of adoption bureaucracies.

Attitudes towards local adoption strongly inform intercountry adoption policies. As more has become known about the suffering of women who relinquished their children under pressure in the 50s and 60s, the voice of the mother has become more powerful, Moore says there is a view among some of these women that adoption is not the right thing, ever. ‘He doesn’t agree, but nonetheless willing to compare the culture of adoption and what happened

270

with the stolen generation and child migrants. ‘You can see the parallels of treating children as commodities’, he says. ‘We have moved totally away from that’.

Intercountry adoption advocate Trudy Rosenwald calls that link mischievous. Rosenwald, a psychologist who works for a parent support organisation, Adoptions International of WA, who has 8 adopted children and 2 biological children says Australia now has an anti adoption culture. William Pearce who spent 6 years at the Hague during the 19990s first as a member of the US delegate before representing the American Alliance of Adoption Support Groups, wrote an email to her dated February 6. ‘I’ve been using the word (anti adoption) for some years and shared some years back, my experience with some Australian officials at the Hague, who in my view, were the most hostile to intercountry adoption of any of the 66 nations represented’.

Adoption, says Rosenwald, keeps being portrayed in Australia as a last resort, ‘what an insult to the children’ she says. ‘It is the best option for children who can’t grow up in their own family. An institution or growing up in an abusive birth family, or foster care – they are the last resorts’.

Intercountry adoption is a long and costly process dogged by inexplicable delays, a high level of intrusions and emotional trauma. On average, it takes about 2 years from a first expression of interest to picking up the child from his or her country of origin, but in some states where administrative bottleneck is particularly bad (Qld and WA are notorious for dragging the chain) it can stretch to four years.

There are set fees. In SA, $5100. But that’s not where it ends. Depending on the country and the travel involved (parents nearly always collect the child from the orphanage) the tab may run higher. Queensland adoption service advises that cost may vary between $7000 to $30,000.

Kathy Blanter, an office administrator from Pennant Hills, in Sydney’s West, estimates she and her husband Jason Curtis, a telephone technician, spent about $40,000 to adopt their son Will from Guatemala. That included trvel to pick Will up and fees charged by the Vida Nueva orphanage in Guatemala City.

But what prospective adoptive parents talk about most is not the financial but the personal cost. They burn with anger at state bureaucracies that guard every gate, pull every lever, (e.g. parents are not at any stage allow to directly contact orphanages or donor country) and yet appear to find adoption a dirty business. ‘I end up thinking, why is a service being provided, that we pay for and yet there seems to be an enormous amount of guilt so that subconsciously it doesn’t feel like a good thing? Says Dina Panozzo who adopted her daughter from Guatemala 2 years age. They wait and they wait. Often twice as long as they were led to expect. They grow older (some past the cut off age which some states apply) and the child grows older in the orphanage. Bureaucrats for their part fulminate about applicants who have no concept of the dynamics involved in working in three different legislations – Australian law, international law and the law of the donor country.

Moore has 37 files of families with Chinese government’s central authority, pending approval and allocation. Some of these files have been there 12 months, ‘We can’t tell china to give us your babies’. He adds pointedly ‘we are not here to find children for infertile couples. We are here to find families for children who need them. Parents have an agenda. They are desperate people and they believe it is their right to be able to do this, and it is not. No one has the right to adopt a child. You can have an altruistic view that we are a global society and we should be looking after our children, and that’s great. And we do it (adoption) successfully, but we also make sure we can do it damned right.

And then there are the voices of the adoptees themselves which are only just beginning to be heard, largely as a result of the …Colour of Difference…in which 27 young people adopted from overseas by Australian families tell their stories. Even the happy ones have a dark side.

Ungh Thanh (a pseudonym) was 6 months old when she was brought from Vietnam in 1973. She grew up on a farm in a big family with fresh air, animals, good food and an excellent education, as she describes it. Yet she felt angry and powerless at being expected to be grateful. ‘I’d never asked to be adopted. Why is it that people only perceive that the adopted child is lucky? Why isn’t it that the adopted family is lucky? I would agree that I have far more than I could possibly have had in the third world country, but that doesn’t mean I am psychologically and spiritually better off.

Intercountry adoption is premised on the belief that, when all other options are closed, it will always be better for a child; to be adopted by a family in another country. But Sarah Armstrong questions that – we are only now knowing what it has been like for the kids – what struck her when she was compiling the interview for the book was how even the so –called good adoption, where children were loved and cared for, there was a shade of grey, where love wasn’t enough. This is difficult stuff for [prospective adoptive parent to hear. But Armstrong says it’s a simplistic view has been maintained much longer in the ICA programs than locally. Priest agrees she quickly made the Colour of Difference mandatory reading for all applicants. She is working with overseas countries to get a more honest picture of the children. It is no good matching a child that is going to be very slow to attach with parents who think that love can cure all. A couple who have never dealt well with grief and loss of fertility would be devastated if a child could not attach. One of the beautiful things about children is teaching them to love and to return that love if a child doesn’t respond to you, that can be hard, and you might push the child further away because you don’t want to be hurt anymore.

271

Adoptive parent Blanter has no doubts about the benefit of what she and her husband – himself an adopted child- are doing for their son. We have all this issue stuff put on us, but they are wealthy western issues that we can afford to have she says. We saw five year old kids on the street shining shoes. Our kids would have had that life.

Panazzo agrees – when I went to pick Luis up, I was embarrassed about taking a child from their country. But when I stood in the orphanage I would have taken 6 children if I could have. I took him away from the orphanage culture.

My parents had never denied that they adopted me for selfish reasons, to fill the void they felt by a childless couple. AT the same time, I believe they are sincere when they say that, since they were going to adopt, they might as well in so doing remove one drop from the ocean of misery in the world, wrote Korean adoptee Ji Sun Sjoren of her Swedish parents in the journal adoption and fostering

The shades of grey that Armstrong talks of hang heavily in her words. As they do in Panzanno’s.’ I wish he could have had his mother, and his country, and I wish my biological children had been born. We both have out grief.

Source: Electronic Discussion Group, 2002.

272