Tags: 1960s, adoption, mothers, teenage pregnancy, trauma, unconditional love
A mother’s unconditional love for her child, denied systemically, but springing forth in all its glory despite numerous institutional/institutionalized attempts to quell it – this is the story told over and over in The Girls Who Went Away: The hidden history of women who surrendered children for adoption in the decades before Roe v. Wade.*
And it has moved me deeply.
The book is about pregnant teens from the 60s who were sent to institutional homes for unwed mothers to have their babies quietly, and then pressured (or downright forced) to put them up for adoption. At this time, out of wedlock, teenage pregnancies were an unspeakable shame to the family and simply anathema to the social order (though in another decade that would change completely) – and this was seen as the only possible course of action: go far away, have the baby, and then forget it ever happened, move on. When the mother returned home, the subjects of her pregnancy and the birth were so taboo that many were not allowed to speak of it (or their feelings about the experience) ever again.
Until now. This book is about these mothers, and what’s more – it is told by them. The author (Ann Fessler) interviewed over 100 birth mothers, and includes many of their first person retellings of the pregnancy, birth, and the lifelong impact these events had for them. Fessler also shares her own personal story – she is one of the children that was “given up” during this time period, and it is breathtaking to follow her questioning of the dominant adoption story, ultimately finding deeper meaning and her own biological mother’s love.
The dominant frame story in our culture about teen birth mothers being that they:
- Aren’t prepared/ready for their babies and don’t have the capacity to take care of them
- Don’t want their babies
But this doesn’t begin to express the complicated emotions and stories of birth mothers. It is truly powerful to hear their retellings of the unbreakable bond, the love, they carried for their surrendered children throughout their lives – children they carried for nine months and then perhaps never even saw again. Nearly every woman reports being told that she would “forget,” move on with her life to have other children and not remember the relinquished child. But they could not forget. Take this letter, which Fessler received after the publication of the first edition, for example:
I went out today at lunch to buy your book, hoping it will give me some insight as to what my mother went through. She died a few years ago on her 70th birthday. When she was in the hospital, delirious and hallucinating from a serious infection, I learned that my mother was one of the women you write about. She spent hours crying and begging, “Bring me my baby.” When she regained consciousness she did not recall telling anything but I spoke with her about it and she did—in very few words – confirm her ordeal. She was weak and very sick. I was never able to get more information before she passed.
In that moment at the hospital, her entire life made sense to me. She was a woman who had a sense of sadness and longing her whole life. It burdens me beyond comprehension to think of her sadness and despair and of her never being able to speak of it or share it with anyone.
Many years later, on her deathbed, this woman was calling for that long lost child, who she had not even spoken of to her family! Ah, love is amazing.
A few excerpts
The love the new mother felt for the child, despite her best efforts to follow the social worker’s advice and not form an attachment:
It’s funny. The whole time I was carrying my daughter, I told myself that I wasn’t her real mother. I really believed that. I knew that I was carrying her but, you know, that was the party line, that’s what they told you. The social workers said that you were carrying the child for someone else. And I really went along with that in my head. I guess in a way I was less tormented because most birth mothers didn’t have that kind of detachment. They knew that they were their child’s mother. They knew what they were losing, and I was just totally out to lunch in that department. Until my daughter was born. I realized at that moment, that’s not the way it works. She was my daughter. I realized that fully, in every way, she was my daughter.
A young mother questions the trope that the child is given away to someone who can care for him better:
I want to make the point that he was taken from me. I never gave him away. He was never meant to be a gift. If anything, the gift was that I thought I gave him the parents he needed. They were the gift. They were the gift to him. My son was not a gift.
Mothers reflect on the role of trained professionals and institutions in their stories:
I wasn’t supposed to see him [my son] at all. They said, “You shouldn’t see him, because you’re going to forget and have other children.” They said, “Write down on this side of the paper what you can give your baby. Write down on the other side what the adoptive parents have to offer.” … They said, “Well, just picture what he’s going to look like. You know, he’ll not have the nice clothes that the other children are going to have and on the playground, they’ll call him a bastard.” And I believed that. I remember writing down they had money, they had a father, they had a house, and they had clothes and food. And on my side I only put down love. That’s all I did have.
What’s shocking to me is sitting with other birth mothers and hearing them tell the same story. I thought, “My God, there must have been a textbook.” You looked up how to get babies away from their mother, and this is how to do it. There must have been, because we were all told the same thing. Even the story about the playground. I’ve heard it from other people and I’m thinking, “Oh my God. It was a script. It affected me so much, and here it was just a script.”
I feel as though I was preyed upon by this system, by these people that I was surrounded by. Not some nebulous thing but real human beings, real people had a hand in taking my son away… I was not able to ever mourn my loss of him or be able to express how sad I was. Nobody ever said, “Oh, I’m sorry…”
All of that came to a head when I realized that this wasn’t a good thing. It was in everyone else’s best interests. It was the convenient, expedient thing to do at the time, but it wasn’t really in our best interests. It was not a win-win situation. In my opinion, it was a loss for him, too. He didn’t get to know his mother and father. We didn’t get to know our son, and be with our son, which we should rightfully have been able to do. The winners were the … social workers who got to do their job in the way that they thought they should do it. We lost and we lost big. I mean, we lost the most precious thing in our lives that ever was or ever will be – our baby. Nothing can ever make up for that.
The feeling of worthlessness instilled traumatically in the mother via this experience:
Then they [caseworkers] would say things about the baby. It’s always “the baby,” never “your baby.” And they were not talking about adoption except to say, “This experience will end. You will forget that you were here. You will forget that you went through this. It will all be in the past. Given time, it will fade. You will get over it. You know what you did was wrong? You know that you are not really worthy of keeping your child? You can’t provide a home for that child. You can’t provide anything that child needs. That child needs a mother and a father, and the things that they can give that child.”
I remember feeling almost not deserving of having or keeping my child, but also feeling I don’t have the right to be a mom. I don’t have the right to be a mother. So we really heard that on almost a daily basis [at the group home]…
And on the indescribable joy of finding the relinquished child again, after all those years:
I got to the agency and they put me in this little room, an interview room, and the social worker said, “It will probably be about ten minutes and then I’ll come to the door and I’ll knock and I’ll let her [your daughter] in.” So I sat there waiting. And I was totally shut down. I mean, devoid of any worry, of any fear, of anything. And I remember thinking to myself, “You know what, this is it. This is it. You get one shot at feeling this feeling. You can put it away, you can shut it down, but you know what, this moment will never come again and if you stay shut down you’re not going to show your daughter who you really are and what you’re really about.” It was a physical thing I had to do. I mean, I physically had to get in the moment. And I did. I mean, when the knock on the door came my daughter got to see who I really am. Not a fake, not a phony, but somebody who really was in that moment for her. The social worker opened the door and she said, “I want you to meet your mom. This is Sue. Sue, this is your daughter.” And this beautiful young woman walked through the door.
We looked at each other. I mean, we were both stunned, because she looks just like me. We were totally stunned. We hugged each other, that wonderful sustaining hug, and then we leaned back and the tears were streaming and we started to laugh. I mean, how could you not laugh? It was like looking at yourself.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: there’s just no replacement for the not-of-this-world, truly unconditional love that a parent has for his/her children.
A few more goodies:
Ann Fessler, the author, is interviewed by Diane Rehm, along with two birth mothers who contributed their stories to the book.
An excerpt (one woman’s story, from beginning to end) from the book.
* The mention of “Roe vs. Wade” in the title is more to imply that abortion was illegal and therefore not an option during this time period, than to indicate an ideological stance. The author expresses no opinion about the abortion issue, which I greatly appreciate. This book is not about proving a point politically; it is about letting these women – who have been silenced for so long – tell their stories. Hurrah for survivor voices!
THE GREAT PUSH FOR MENTAL HEALTH? 06/16/2011Posted by ALT in Mental Health Policy and Inititatives, Patient Rights and Advocacy.
Tags: Eduardo Duran, human rights, mental health diagnosis, psychiatrization, traditional cultures, World Federation of Mental Health
The World Federation for Mental Health has just announced its 2011 World Mental Health Day Campaign: THE GREAT PUSH FOR MENTAL HEALTH. The campaign has four stated ideological themes – unity, visibility, rights, and recovery – but what exactly is meant by this language? What will this organization be “pushing” for on October 10, 2011?
The World Federation for Mental Health [WFMH] is one of many “world” organizations to spring up in the immediate aftermath of WWII.
It was intended by its founders to form a non-governmental link between the World Health Organization [WHO], United Nations agencies, and grassroots mental health organizations the world over. More practically, the organization is responsible for mobilizing, generating, or (when all else fails) creating the appearance of grassroots support for global mental health policy initiatives adopted or soon-to-be-adopted by the UN, WHO, and other world governmental bodies.
In the case of the Great Push, the WFMH is quite forthcoming about this desire to create grassroots support. They state, “We shall succeed through People Power… We need to show our UNITY! By creating a global network of people in support of these changes we will show our unity, our power, our commitment to change.”
[There is, of course, a key difference between lending institutional support to an existing movement and creating a “movement” to legitimate an institution’s pre-existing goals or initiatives.]
According to the WFMH Great Push campaign literature, “Perceptions of disunity in the mental health world… need to be dispelled. The first round of the WMFH Great Global Consensus has demonstrated substantial agreement on fundamental issues with over 530 replies from organizations and individuals demonstrating over 95% agreement on the 10 principles of the World Federation.” It therefore seems clear that for the WFMH the theme of “unity” translates to “universal agreement with WFMH principles.”
They aim for a hegemonic control of mental health rights activism, and are creating a “grassroots” campaign to achieve it.
The WFMH principles (full list available here) span a broad ideological territory. However, a common thread through them all is the emphasis on a universal, objective definition of what “mental health” and “mental illness” are. This knowledge is apparently not self-evident; some possess it and some do not. And according to WFMH principle #8: “There will be an efficient means of communicating and disseminating policy, educational, technological, and scientific information on mental health from those who have it to those who do not.”
The “educational, technological, and scientific information” referred to by the WFMH almost certainly includes such mainstays of Western psychiatric practice as the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual [DSM], “evidence-based practices”/standardized therapies like Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy [CBT], and psychotropic medication.*
This brings us to the true ideological heart of this campaign: what the WFMH is calling for is the universal, global right of all people to be psychiatrized, in a Westernized fashion. The right to be labeled according to the DSM, and to be treated according to Western “professional standards” – with or without consent. It’s stated explicitly in the 1989 WFMH Declaration of Human Rights and Mental Health:
The fundamental rights of persons who are labeled, or diagnosed, treated or defined as mentally or emotionally ill or distressed… include the right to coercion-free,** dignified, human, and qualified treatment with access to medically psychologically and socially indicated technology.
(from the 1989 WFMH Declaration of Human Rights and Mental Health)
As this quote makes clear, a “mentally ill” person is labeled, diagnosed or defined – by someone else. The person has no say in the matter, no right to determine for him or herself whether that label seems to adequately reflect the challenges he/she currently faces.
The mentally ill person must be treated by someone “qualified,” a professional trained in Western psychiatric “technology.” This is also echoed in Great Push campaign literature, where the WFMH states:
Thousands, perhaps millions receive no mental health care because of the absence of professionals to assess and diagnose their illnesses… We now have methods using computer technology able to empower nurses and health assistants, aimed at improving the detection, diagnosis and treatment of mental illness. We recognize that these are only the first steps to true recovery; nevertheless they are an essential starting point.
(from the WFMH Great Push Campaign literature)
According to the WFMH “true recovery” can only be achieved via Western technology.
But the experiences of numerous psychiatric survivors, therapists, and caregivers from many cultures (including the “Western” cultures these technologies are supposedly best suited to treat) belie this assumption.
Scientific evidence, too, seems to point a different direction: that traditional healing practices carried about by laypeople in the lower income countries the WFMH is so concerned about are actually more effective at treating mental illness than Western psychiatric technology.
In 1969, the WHO launched a study looking at outcomes for people diagnosed with schizophrenia in multiple countries. What WHO found was that patients in poorer countries (India, Nigeria, and Columbia), were doing much better than their Western counterparts at both 2 and 5 year follow-ups. They were more likely to be “fully recovered and faring well in society;” at 5 years 64% of these patients had no symptoms and were functioning well. Only about 24% were “doing poorly.” Compare this to Western schizophrenics: at 5 years, only 18% had no symptoms and were doing well, while 65% had poor outcomes (were suffering chronically). One of the biggest differences in treatment was the use of psychotropic medications in the richer, Western countries, but not in the poorer countries. (Another big difference was the existence of more informal/community supports in the poorer countries).
This study was replicated, with some stricter criteria to facilitate better comparison, in 1992 (studying only 2 year outcomes this time, however) – with almost the same results. In poorer countries where lay counselors, societal supports, and low usage of antipsychotics are the norm, outcomes are better and schizophrenia isn’t chronic (ie recurrent and lasting over time) for over 2/3 of those who have an initial episode.***
The WFMH asks all mental health advocates to “UNITE!” in support of a hegemonic, global psychiatrization of the peoples of the world according to Western standards of psychiatric care as a basic human right, when that model’s effectiveness (let alone superiority!) has yet to be proven in any culture or sub-population. They wish to create a semblance of grassroots support for this agenda in order to “push” it into the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals, and other major policy initiatives of the global governmental bodies.
For those who embrace an alternative vision of mental health rights, one which includes free and voluntary choice of treatment, it may indeed be time to “PUSH BACK,” as David Oaks (founder and executive director of MindFreedom International) recommends. It may be time to proclaim loudly, and proudly, a different “Declaration of Human Rights and Mental Health:”
That all human beings are created different.
That every human being has the right to be mentally free and independent.
That every human being has the right to feel, see, hear, sense, imagine, believe, or experience anything at all, in any way, at any time.
That every human being has the right to behave in any way that does not harm others or break fair and just laws.
That no human being shall be subjected without consent to incarceration, restraint, punishment, or psychological or medical intervention in an attempt to control, repress, or alter the individual’s thoughts, feelings, or experiences.
* These tools’ effectiveness in promoting wellness and recovery, in any culture, is a matter of serious debate. But there is no question that they were designed by Westerners for a uniquely Western definition of “health,” and their applications to other cultural groups, which have fundamentally different ways of looking at health and wellness, are dubious at best. To cite just one example, as Eduardo Duran, Native American mental health activist and therapist writes in Healing the Soul Wound, “Traditional Healing in most Aboriginal cultures is based on the belief that illness itself has a consciousness that relates to the psyche and the body of the individual. Belief that illness is conscious leads to the idea that all illness has a distinct purpose that eventually will teach and bring wholeness to the individual… The mind-set and psychology that the Traditional Healer utilizes as part of the naming of the illness in order to extract or balance the energy creating the problem for the patient is very different from the Western medical model approach.”]
** One might assume that the phrase “coercion-free” indicates the WFMH’s opposition to involuntary treatment. Not so. The Declaration later goes on to define some of the rights of involuntarily committed patients, which include the right to “impartial representation, review, and appeal,” but certainly not the right to refuse treatment in the first place.
*** J. Leff, “The International Pilot Study of Schizophrenia; Five-Year Follow-Up Findings,” Psychological Medicine 22(1992): 131-145. For information on the treatment of schizophrenia with societal supports provided by lay people (and without medication) in a Western context, see the work of Dr. Loren Mosher.