The original Korean version of this update was posted on December 25, 2024. (Click here to view.) 
In December 21, 2023, the Unwed Mothers Initiative for Archiving and Advocacy (UMI4AA) held the third session of the 1st seminar series. This session centered on discussing Eunkyung Kim's 2024 paper, "Doing Family, Undoing Family: Mixed-Race Migration to the United States as a Cold War Event, Transnational Family Formation, and Performative 'Family Practice.'" In each session, the session leader presents the paper’s content and shares their reflections. Below is the summary of the presentation offered by the session leader. ■ Presenter's Book Review
1) The insight that international adoption of mixed-race children must be understood within the historical context of the Cold War is particularly compelling. Korean studies scholars abroad, such as Yuri Doolan and Arissa Oh, have pioneered this approach by analyzing the adoption of mixed-race children with a focus on the United States as a Cold War architect in the aftermath of World War II. This paper reaffirms the necessity of moving beyond a strictly national (or domestic) perspective when studying mixed-race adoptees, emphasizing the transnational scope of such phenomena. 2) As a researcher of Korean literature, I found numerous points of resonance while reading this paper. The fact that women in U.S. military camptowns raised mixed-race children with their families and sex workers is depicted in several works of Korean literature. These narratives provide evidence that international adoptions of Korean mixed-race children can be understood as instances of forced separation and displacement. For example, Jung-hee Choi’s fiction features a Korean woman married to a U.S. soldier who, after he is reassigned to the U.S., remains in Korea, abandons her child (Tony) at an orphanage, and ultimately commits suicide. Through this paper, I felt I gained historical insights into the specific circumstances that may have contributed to such suicides. It is plausible to infer that the U.S. military husband may have desired to bring his Korean wife to America, but bureaucratic restrictions of the American government denied her immigration, delaying her departure and creating a cascade of consequences. 3) One shortcoming of the paper is its lack of a comprehensive overview of American society during the international adoption boom. Why did Americans seek international adoptions in the first place? While the motivations of religious figures like Harry Holt are significant, it is important to contextualize these within the broader societal landscape that saw a shift in attitudes—from opposing to endorsing the adoption of mixed-race children. For instance, I am curious about how media outlets like Life magazine shaped public perceptions of adopting mixed-race children from Asia, and how figures like Pearl S. Buck influenced these narratives. Situating international adoption within the broader patriarchal structures of the Cold War era is essential for a deeper understanding of these dynamics. 4) The political dimensions of “doing family” and “undoing family” as enacted by oral history narrators are not as vividly articulated as they could be. The paper’s interpretation of adoptees’ family searches as ‘parodic performances without an original’ and as processes of constructing new familial forms is both novel and intriguing. However, it feels as though the theoretical framework occasionally overshadows the narrators’ voices and specific case studies, which could have enriched the analysis. 5) The paper would benefit from deeper exploration of the pain, wounds, and suffering surrounding adoption. There is a need to focus more on the mixed-race adoptees’ lived experiences of trauma. Additionally, efforts to recover the voices of Korean mothers who lost their children are essential. Only then can we fully understand mixed-race adoption as a dual site of harm—one that disrupted and damaged the lives of both the child and the mother under the patriarchal imperatives of Cold War ideology. ■ Participants’ Reflections - While I agree with the importance of examining the adoption of mixed-race children within the historical context of the Cold War, it is worth noting that the Cold War spanned nearly 50 years, from roughly 1945 to 1991. Treating this period as a singular, undifferentiated period does not adequately explain the shift in international adoption from mixed-race children to children of unwed mothers. Furthermore, the paper’s emphasis on the Cold War context seems to have overshadowed other significant factors, such as the postwar ethos of child rescue in the United States and the intersection of gendered nationalism and patriarchy in Korea, which appear somewhat underexplored.
- Explaining the international adoption of mixed-race children through frameworks like "transnational family" or "multiculturalism" feels insufficient. These children were severed from the life and culture of their home country, denied matrilineal lineage, and transplanted into paternal racial societies. Describing their experiences as "transnational family formation" or products of "multiculturalism" risks obscuring the class and racial discrimination that shaped these processes. Instead, I found myself drawn to the author’s focus on "pain" as an affective factor and would have appreciated a deeper exploration of this dimension.
- I question whether it is appropriate to analyze mixed-race children adopted as infants in the 1950s, without agency over their migration, alongside mixed-race adults who maintained relationships with their biological families until their migration through marriage in the 1970s. The vastly different contexts of these individuals’ experiences merit closer scrutiny.
- I appreciated the inclusion of oral history interviews, which gave voice to older adoptees from the 1950s and 1960s, a demographic whose perspectives I had not previously had the opportunity to hear.
- The paper’s arguments were clear and concise, which was commendable. However, this clarity occasionally flattened the discussion, limiting the potential for a more nuanced and multidimensional understanding of the topic.
- It is well-documented that adoptees experience high rates of suicide, and I wondered whether the paper, by focusing solely on the voices of those who survived. Survivors, by their very ability to endure, may have a tendency to view their histories in a slightly more positive light than reality might suggest. This is an area that could benefit from further critical engagement.
Finally, the discussion concluded with several questions, including one on how to interpret adoptees’ searches for their roots. The conversation unfolded as follows: Participant 1: “The search for roots among adoptees does not seem to be about reconstructing a lineage that traces paternal ancestry. Rather, it is a narrative about the story of how ‘I’ came to exist and the surrounding context that shapes me. This process is an essential element of constructing identity. When I hear adoptees’ stories, it often strikes me that while what they’ve lost is their parents, what they are searching for is themselves. Ultimately, the question of roots is less about who one’s parents or ancestors are and more about understanding, ‘Who am I?’” Participant 2: “I once witnessed a program being filmed near my house about adoptive parents and adoptees. In it, psychologists analyzed a drawing made by an adopted child and noted that the child seemed to feel as if they hadn’t been born from their parents but had been ‘pulled out of a drawer.’ When information and stories about one’s origins are missing, it seems to create a sense of deficiency in the self. It leaves one feeling as if they’ve been dropped into existence from nowhere, disconnected from the process of birth.”
The paper provided us with a wealth of insights and sparked engaging discussions, offering plenty of inspiration for imagining future research directions. Feeling accomplished from a productive session, we wrapped up the day with a cozy year-end gathering over a meal at a nearby restaurant. Wishing everyone a restful holiday season and a Happy New Year! With that, we’ll be taking a break in January 2025 and will resume our seminars in February. See you then! ■ February Seminar Announcement - Date and Time: Saturday, February 22, 11:00 a.m.
- Location: Lucky Soho (Euljiro 3(sam)-ga Station, Exit 12) [Directions: https://naver.me/xoH8cng0]
Reading for Discussion:
Our seminar series will continue monthly through April 2025. Participants are welcome to join for any single session on a topic of interest. This seminar is open to everyone! After signing up, please read the selected article/book in advance. Come prepared to share your insights, engage with the author’s arguments, and pose any questions for discussion. ▶ UMI4AA 1st Seminar Series Sign Up: Click HERE to register for the next session. * Registration Fee: KRW 5,000 per session (Payment Info: Hana Bank 563-910001-36804 | Unwed Mothers Initiative for Archiving and Advocacy) Thank you for dedicating your time and energy to this seminar series. We look forward to seeing you in December for what promises to be another enriching discussion! 
|
