On Article 1 Kwon, Heejung (2014), The History of Unwed Motherhood in the Modern Era through the Experiences of Unwed Mothers.
Discussion 1-1 Question (General): Why is it important to critically examine the social welfare approach toward unwed mothers?
Response (Author): During the 1960s and 1970s, the nuclear family was idealized within social work, leading to the stigmatization and categorization of unwed mothers and the promotion of adoption of their babies as a solution. By the 1970s, this idealization of the nuclear family, supported by the rise of evolutionary and functionalist theories, expanded beyond social work to academia, including fields such as women’s studies and sociology, where it was widely embraced as a progressive social value. A significant issue, however, lies in the systematic exclusion of the voices of those directly impacted by these policies from the policy-making process. This trend persists, as evidenced in the recent passage of the Protected Birth Bill, which conceals biological parent information. Despite objections from adoptees, unwed mothers, and abandoned children—the very individuals facing challenges in tracing their birth families due to lost or poorly managed records—their perspectives were largely ignored.
Discussion 1-2 Question (Participant 1): What are the differences between functionalism and diagnostic approaches?
Response (Participant 2): The diagnostic approach seeks to analyze, pathologize, and treat groups of individuals who diverge from social norms, such as those associated with alcoholism or pregnancies out of wedlock, through a Freudian psychiatric lens, aiming to reintegrate them into society via case management.
Response (Author): The diagnostic approach frames unwed mothers as individuals with psychological issues requiring treatment, whereas functionalism conceptualizes them as abnormal social deviants. From the functionalist perspective, unwed mothers are viewed collectively as a group that disrupts the normal functioning of society and is responsible for generating social problems.
Discussion 1-3 Question (Participant 2): While it is undeniably problematic to exclude unwed mothers’ voices from these decisions, is it entirely unjustifiable to assess their circumstances and place their babies for adoption, especially considering that these mothers are often still undergoing stages of growth and may struggle significantly due to the unwelcoming environment and lack of support?
Response (Author): Unwed mothers are often stereotyped as being young and in a stage of growth, despite only a small percentage being teenagers. Unwed mothers span all age groups, yet policies remain teen-centered, focusing on institutional housing and GED support, which marginalizes older unwed mothers. The question must shift from “Isn’t it hard for unwed mothers to raise children in unfavorable circumstances?” to “Why do their circumstances make it so difficult for them to keep their babies?”
Discussion 1-4 Question (Participant 4): The anonymous birth policy was introduced with the argument that anonymity would encourage women to give birth by easing the burdens of unwed motherhood. While practical constraints complicate efforts to prioritize raising children within biological families, a critical question remains: how can society eradicate social discrimination against unwed mothers? Furthermore, what should be the social position on the "full adoption system," which permanently severs children from their birth families? Is this system outdated?
Response (Author): The full adoption system plays a crucial role in ensuring that adoptive families and adopted children are legally recognized as complete families. However, significant injustices often arise before adopted children can fully integrate into these families. It is imperative to guarantee children’s rights—to know their birth information and origins, to be raised by their birth families, if possible, and to access this information as they mature. Without such guarantees, the fairness and validity of the full adoption system come into serious question.
Response (Participant 1): I have encountered frequent reports of adoption "dissolutions." Organizations advocating for care leavers have argued against allowing such dissolutions. Should there be legal revisions to restrict the ease of dissolving adoptions?
Response (Participant 4): Under the Korean Civil Act, adoptive parents may seek to dissolve an adoption only in two cases: (1) if they have abused, deserted, or otherwise severely harmed the adoptee's welfare, or (2) if the adoptee has engaged in behavior constituting immoral conduct that makes continuing the relationship impracticable. While general adoption permits dissolution by mutual agreement, the legal framework for full adoption is more narrowly defined. Criticism has arisen over the unrestricted applicability of special adoption dissolution, regardless of a child’s age, in child protection facilities. This criticism suggests that the vague definition of "immoral conduct" could unfairly disadvantage children or create issues when applied as a basis for administrative decisions.
Additional Perspectives from Open Discussion Opinion (Participant 3): There is an urgent need for systemic and social care frameworks to support individuals navigating pregnancy, childbirth, and childcare, particularly those marginalized from conventional structures.
Opinion (Author): I believe the movement advocating for unwed mothers should broaden its scope by incorporating and disseminating more information and knowledge about unwed motherhood. I hope the UMI4AA seminar serves as a meaningful starting point where knowledge and activism converge.
On Article 2 Kwon, Heejung (2015), Orphaning Babies of Unwed Mothers in Adoption Practices: Discourses on the ‘Normal Family.’
Discussion 2-1 Question (Facilitator): What is the meaning of 'motherhood in the paper, and why did you choose to focus on 'motherhood? Could unwed mothers have been interpreted as deprived of agency or self-determination?
Response (Author): While the definition of motherhood was thoroughly addressed in the first paper, it was not included in this one, which I acknowledge as a limitation. In engaging with the issue of custody for unwed mothers without first establishing a precise definition of motherhood, I have frequently encountered critiques such as, “Are you suggesting that mothers must raise children?" or "Are you perpetuating the myth of motherhood?” Motherhood involves the process of becoming a mother through the embodied experiences of pregnancy and childbirth. Feminist theory has long interrogated and critiqued the sacralization of this biological process and the resultant oppression of women within the marital institution, which perpetuates the myth of motherhood. However, less scholarly attention has been directed towards the lived experiences of motherhood outside the bounds of marriage. This paper does not seek to reinforce the myth of motherhood, which assumes that children must be exclusively raised by their mothers. Rather, it aims to highlight the lack of critical examination surrounding motherhood outside of marriage.
Discussion 2-2 Question (Facilitator): Who is the subject in the adoption 'practice'?
Response (Author): Drawing on Bourdieu’s theory of practice, this paper considers practice as a mechanism through which social inequalities are reproduced. For Bourdieu, practice encompasses a spectrum that spans from macro-level institutional and social processes to micro-level individual practices, shaped by and embedded within institutional structures as members of society. The concept of practice in this paper highlights how family and adoption systems influence non-marital pregnancies and childbirth, as well as the decision-making processes and actions of individuals navigating these experiences within the structural confines of such systems.
Discussion 2-3 Question (Participant 5): The paper argues that the idealization of the capitalist nuclear family has resulted in the pathologization of unwed mothers and a significant rise in the adoption of their children. What factors, if altered, might have led to a different outcome than adoption?
Response (Author): Capitalism exerts a pervasive and often inescapable influence on societies. However, even within capitalist frameworks, outcomes may differ when examined from the perspectives of marginalized groups and victims. The experiences of unwed mothers, for instance, are profoundly shaped by the social climate and differ across cultural contexts. In Half a Million Women: Mothers Who Lose Their Children by Adoption (1992) (soon to be available in Korean), the UK's shift from adoption-centric policies to providing child support for unwed mothers demonstrates how social changes can transform the experience of pregnancy and childbirth. This shift reconfigures these experiences from being a painful ordeal to a less challenging process. Japan presents another example of a capitalist society with a distinct adoption system and cultural context. The film True Mothers (based on Mizuki Tsujimura’s novel Morning Comes [朝が来る, Asa ga Kuru]) offers insight into Japan’s approach to adoption. Japanese adoption policies prioritize the child’s right to know their adoptive status before entering elementary school. A notable number of adoptive mothers reportedly consider the birth mother part of their family, recognizing her role in making the adoption possible. In this context, adoption is framed through the experiences of those most directly impacted—the birth parents relinquishing their child and the child experiencing separation. This approach foregrounds the experiences of the vulnerable parties who bear the weight of loss and separation, rather than those of adoptive parents. |
