Running head: SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 1 Symbolic Interactionism: Advancing Adoption Theory, Research, and Practice Bethany Willis Hepp, Ph.D. ([email protected]) Katie Hrapczynski, Ph.D. ([email protected]) Towson University Cheryl Fortner-Wood, Ph.D. ([email protected]) Winthrop University SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 2 Abstract This paper focuses on Symbolic Interactionism (SI) and its application to adoption-related family issues. First, we argue that a dearth of explicit application of SI in research has resulted in gaps in the interpretation of adoptive family dynamics sufficient to abate the impact of its use in practice. Theoretical concepts of self and generalized other are underutilized and can be particularly relevant to adoption work. A narrative case example describing adoptive parents’ perspectives is used to illustrate the impact of self as response to generalized other in the pre- and post-adoption phases of the transition to parenthood. Second, we advocate for extension of salience, a term often used in conjunction with identity and role development, to generalized other in an effort to better understand and reflect adoptive parent perspectives of and experiences with adoption. Finally, implications of explicit application of these theoretical constructs for research and for practice are discussed. SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 3 Symbolic Interactionism: Advancing Adoption Theory, Research, and Practice In the United States, adoption has a long and varied history as a method of family formation. Adoption is generally defined as the legal establishment of an adult as parent to a minor child who is not otherwise related to that adult by blood or marriage. Contemporary adoption policies have ebbed and flowed from expectations of connection with birth families, to secrecy and sealing of birth records, and back to openness. Over time, contemporary adoption practice has expanded dramatically, and now includes the adoption of children from both within the United States (US) and from more than 100 countries around the globe (US Department of State, n.d.). According to the 2010 Census (Kreider & Lofquist, 2014), of the nearly 65 million children under age 18 living in the United States, approximately 7% were adopted. Formation of a family via adoption often challenges expectations of family members being biologically related, of the same race, and from the same nation of origin. Therefore, it is not surprising that the experiences of adoptive family members may be complex and diverse, which resonates in the accounts from adoptive parents. It is of value then to have a theoretical framework through which we can better articulate and understand their experiences. The purpose of this paper is to identify utility in application of Symbolic Interactionism in research and human service work with families formed through adoption. Symbolic Interactionism (SI) is a theoretical perspective that, simply put, addresses the manner in which society is created and maintained through repeated, meaningful human interactions. It provides a micro-level framework for thinking about how exchanges made within and among various social groups are governed by communication of knowledge, attitudes, values, and norms that are constructed and reconstructed over time. SI affords family scientists the opportunity to ask questions related to the hows and whys of family life, including the process by which humans, SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 4 individually and via group membership, interpret, explain, and evaluate lived experiences. Therefore, SI can be an effective tool in examining the complexity of adoptive family life. A dearth of explicit application of SI has resulted in gaps in the interpretation of adoptive family dynamics sufficient to abate the impact of its use in practice. We assert that specific application of SI concepts of self , generalized other, and salience can help researchers better interpret data collected with parents, improving service provision and optimizing outcomes for families formed through adoption. Although SI can be applied to several aspects of adoptive family life, we have chosen to focus on the adoptive parents’ transition to parenthood to articulate its use. Symbolic Interactionism Theory The early writings of Darwin (1880), Cooley (1902), and pragmatists like James (1907) and Dewey (1925) greatly influenced Mead (1934, 1956), whose work is often regarded as the commencement of SI. According to LaRossa and Reitzes (1993), SI presents unique contributions to family studies, particularly in its identification of families as social groups, and its assertion that individuals develop concepts of self through interactions with others. SI’s long and rich history of application is due, in large part, to its broad applicability across time and context. While expansion of SI across disciplines and topics of study has served to broaden its empirical base, it has resulted in theoretical fragmentation (Fine, 1993). Over time, various schools of thought have arisen as scholars interpret and reinterpret early theoretical and methodological applications of SI. White, Klein, and Martin (2015) note that in its contemporary use, symbolic interactionism serves as an umbrella concept that houses a myriad of adjacent theories, like identity theory (see Stryker & Burke, 2000) and enhancement theory (see Marks, 1977); theoretical frameworks, like the structural approach (see Nye, 1976; Stryker, 1964, 1980; SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 5 & Turner, 1990), the interactional approach (see Turner, 1970), and the microinteractional approach (see Goffman, 1959); and methodological practices (Blumer, 1969; Kuhn, 1964; Turner, 1991). This paper draws heavily on the original pragmatic framework for thinking that drove early Symbolic Interactionism. Our theoretical return to Mead’s early work is an attempt to shed the diffuse nature of contemporary applications, and to intentionally focus on theoretical concepts that we contend can be useful if applied in their original form. Our theoretical focus lies chiefly in Mead’s (1934, 1956) conceptions of self and others, which are arguably his major contribution to symbolic interactionism. Mead (1934, 1956), and Cooley (1902) before him, conceptualized self as inextricably bound to others, particularly those with whom one has face- to-face, intimate regular contact, as is the case with family. Mead (1934) maintained that self develops via constant, recursive negotiation between the I and Me. I is the active, present component of self that responds in the moment to situations experienced in one’s environment; it interprets gestures and symbols from interactions with others and integrates them with components of Me. Me is the socialized, developed aspect of self that reflects other people’s responses to one’s behaviors, once internalized in the self; in that way, Me is the object of self-reflection. Multiple Mes may exist within a single individual; the Me that is drawn upon in a given situation depends upon the I that is active in that particular moment. Mead (1934, 1956) described another key aspect of the development of self: the generalized other. The generalized other is described as the ability to understand and interpret social cues, such that one can anticipate how others might react to specific gestures or interactions. Taking on the perspective of the generalized other affords people the opportunity to SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 6 anticipate how actions may be interpreted by significant individuals in their immediate environments and by society at large Mead (1934, 1956) asserted that one’s notion of self is further grounded in gestures and consciousness, or the mind. Gestures are acts that communicate something meaningful to another person; they can be can be verbal (like language) and non-verbal (like symbols), as long as they induce responses from others (Mead, 1934, 1956; Blumer, 1969). Consciousness develops from shared meaning of gestures communicated with others; in order for two or more people to interact effectively, the gestures and symbols used among them must have shared meaning, producing a common response (Mead, 1934, 1956). Mead (1934, 1956) believed that self- consciousness develops when one is able to anticipate how other people will respond to his or her gestures; in that way, development of self requires interactions with others in one’s environment. Stryker (1968; 1980; 2002) has extended early work with SI, writing extensively on the process by which shared meaning of social norms and expectations guide role-specific behaviors in different contexts. Stryker (1968; 1980; 2002) asserts that the roles that are most salient for an individual are those that are most likely to define one’s identity. According to Brackett (1982) and Bernard (1974), as cited by LaRossa and LaRossa (1993), social norms associated with the role of parent, for example, include expectations related to “what people should know about parenting; how skillful they should be in their performance as parents; how motivated or excited they should be about being parents; and the extent, direction, and duration of emotional work that people should give to parenting” (p. 147). Moreover, one will be more inclined to expend greater resources on activities that support their most salient characteristics of self. SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM 7 Application of Symbolic Interactionism in Adoption Research Adoptive family life serves as a distinctive context for application of SI. Its uniqueness stems from the formation of a family