Adoption from a Cross-Cultural Perspective Author(s): Janette Davies Source: Anthropology Today, Vol. 10, No. 6 (Dec.

, 1994), p. 23 Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2783161 Accessed: 23/02/2010 15:16
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rai. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Anthropology Today.

http://www.jstor.org

Ushered into the main room by Dr Judith Ennew, who did an excellent job at relentlessly pushing us throughthe day, we were introducedto the first speaker:David Poyser, a freelancetelevision documentarist with the majorUK companies. Poyser painteda bleak pictureof his field,which had been batteredfor some years by recession. The independentcompanies that mushroomedin the Thatcherera are now fewer in numberand have become more specialized. They supply tailor-made programmesto the all-powerfulTV companies where everyone is addressedby their first names but only a tiny numberof elusive controllersdecide what goes on air. After Poyser's brief talk, we were divided into groups of five or six and were asked to producethe first evidence of our homework: an outline of a TV documentary.To my horrorI was the only one in my group to have done it, and Poyser was joining us! I had no choice but to read out the sketch 'A day in the life of SOAS' (London's School of Orientaland African Studies) in which I imagined a visit to the exotic school introducedby a learnedhost and followed by interviews with some of the locals. My co-workshopperstore it to bits. The first loud complaintwas: Why? Why should this Then came: Is it place be in a documentary? celebratingits centenary?Has anything interestinghappenedlately? In other words: what story do you want to tell - and how do you want to tell it in images? I had been thinkingin static, almost functionalistterms
- SOAS as a stable global village - when

my prospectiveproducerwould expect a dynamic narrativewith some kind of 'message'. Poyser suggested using as a host an old colonial hand and contrastinghis youthful memories of the School with the lives of three or four currentstudentsfrom differentcornersof the world. The lesson was valid for other groups too: say it in partedon a images. Our documentarist happiernote, announcingthat, despite the severe constraintsof a medium which is 'terraincognita' for most anthropologists, there is also good news: 'Anythingcan be

television. There are no rules, but you must have a story to tell'. After a shortbreak,Trish Williams, a radiojournalistwith the BBC World Service, lifted our spirits.In the radio milieu, there's little time to labourpoints. You have to know what you want to say before going on air. That's why it is and essential that would-be broadcasters their guests be clear about the content and durationof the interviewbeforehand. Otherwisethey could be in for a nasty surprise,likethe sociologist who was asked to talk about his researchinto schizophrenia. Only at the station did he enquireabout the length of the interview. 'Threeminutes', was the reply. He said no more. Asked to squeeze three years into three minutes, the social scientist had gone into a state of speaker'sblock. In discussion, some of the more veteran anthropologistsmentionedproblemsof mike-fright,lack of time and informationto prepareadequately,and the general feeling of having little control over the airwaved end-product.Williams replied that it is in the interestsof both radiojournalistsand the interviewees to create a successful dialogue. Her tip was unambiguous:be assertive, negotiate your part,I was remindedof voice therapistPatsy Rosenberg,and her contentionthat we all need words, loads of words,butmost of us are afraidof our own voices. The radiophonicsubcultureseems to pose a threatto people coming from the writtenworld of academe. Were we all secretly relieved that the scheduled mock broadcastnever happened? After lunch, we venturedinto another media territory,that of the daily newspapers. Our sherpaon this occasion was Riva Klien, a freelancejournalistwith Britain's main 'quality' dailies. She told us about cut-throat rivalries,establishednetworks,dwindling staff numbers,freelance underdogs,and about her wilful strugglefor survival. In the far-too-briefworkshop,Klein asked us to dreamup a story and sell it to a broadsheet.My group decided to concentrate of a draft on writing the middle paragraph

letter to a commissioning editor. The style had to be direct, concise and convincing. We had a story;one of our team membershad researchin Russia and had a tale undertaken of ethnic turbulenceto tell. The second task was to take the same story and feed it into of either a feature the opening paragraph article or a news item. We weren't too sure about the difference, but still managedto producepassable first drafts.LaterKlein explained that there are no hardand fast rules but that while featurearticles are more 'colourful', news items have to be packed with information. In the last session, Anne-MarieSharman, discussed PR of Anti-SlaveryInternational, and media campaigning.Hers was a lucid, breath-taking delivery on do's and dont's. She emphasizedthe importanceof networkingand a well thought-outstrategy. Perhapsthe most interestingpoint she made was that, throughoutthe day, we'd been looking mainly at big, UK-based media at the expense of less obvious organisation. Sharmanfavours a scatter-shotapproach: targetingall kinds of media, nationaland foreign, big and small. Go for women's magazines, the religious press, your local radio station,The media's insatiable cannibalismwill, if you're lucky, feed on your story and triggeroff furtherinterest, One of Sharman'sreportson slavery in Brazil was picked up by a Norwegian newspaperand from there moved on to other media. nationaland international The day ended with a hurriedsumming up of what we thoughtwe had learnedfrom the exercise. As an anthropologyMA with studentand ex-stringerin Jakarta Spain's nationalnews agency, I had felt a bit uneasy at first about the workshop.Being neitherfish nor fowl, my loyalties are still divided, which is perhapswhy I often try to see journalismas a kind of ethnography,and visa versa. It was good to discover that others had broughtalong with them, if not writtenhome work, at least doubts (and dreams)of their own. EL John R. Postill

ADOPTION FROM A CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE

A Workshopon this topic was held at the Centrefor Cross-Cultural Researchon Women, Queen ElizabethHouse, University of Oxford on 27 September 1994, convened by JanetteDavies and Evi Constantinidou. The speakerspresentingthe paperslooked at pertinentand timely issues concerningadoption. Vangie Bergen from Toronto,one of the key international speakersat the workshop, presentedresearchresults from a study of women's responses as the birth-mother and the adoptive mother.She stressedthe desire for open placementsratherthan the surrendering of a child. She also suggested that her approachduringthe study was a phenomenologicalhermeneuticone (very different to the other speakerswho were presenting anthropologicalinsights). One presentationby an anthropologist also had a very personalaspect in that Paula Heinonen describedthe discovery of identities by her son and niece both adopted. She encapsulatedthe cross-cultural element by stating that as a person of Italian/Ethiopian parentagemarriedto a Finn she adopteda Peruvianboy while living in Switzerlandand subsequentlywent to live in Uganda. A lively, descriptivepaperresulted. Otherspeakersspoke of fieldwork in other cultures,namely Roger Goodmanon adoptionand fostering in Japan,Suzanne Hoelgaardon adoptionpolicy and practice in Columbia,and Hazel Summerfieldon the legal aspects of intra-country adoption regardingBangladeshiand Somali immigrantsin London. The final paper concernedthe findings of a study undertaken by Dr Maurice Greenbergof the experiences of post-adoptionincest, where reunionsof adoptedrelatives tracingsiblings or were said to result in 'powerful birth-parents erotic feelings' and incest. The contributionof participants as well as the speakersresultedin a stimulatingand challenging workshop,on a topic that has been highlightedin the media in recent weeks owing to the emphasis by the social services on placing adoptedchildrenwith families of like cultureand colour. O
Janette Davies

ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY Vol 10 No 6, December 1994

23