You make a great point about adoption, Whiteness, and wealth. I also want to add that being an adoptive parent wouldn't have legally obligated the Tuohys to share any of their wealth with Oher. There are definitely adopted folks who are excluded from wills and even disinherited or disowned by their adoptive families. All the same, I thin…
You make a great point about adoption, Whiteness, and wealth. I also want to add that being an adoptive parent wouldn't have legally obligated the Tuohys to share any of their wealth with Oher. There are definitely adopted folks who are excluded from wills and even disinherited or disowned by their adoptive families. All the same, I think it's absolutely right that by appropriating the title of adoptive parents without actually adopting Oher, the Tuohys claimed for themselves all of the social benefits that accrue to adoptive parents in a society dominated by positive adoption narratives about "rescuing" children and the "good" people who do it.
These are all such good points (and I thought a lot about whether to play with some of this in the piece, but ended up leaning away as somebody who has adopted siblings but hasn't been an adoptee or an adoptive parent himself). Obviously, Michael Oher is angry that he was never actually adopted and that duplicity on the Tuohys part is maddening and that doesn't mean that, had he been legally adopted, that the power dynamics in a transracial adoption family wouldn't still be messed up. Really appreciate that point, and the broader zoom out to the cultural capital the Tuohys gained bc of the narratives around White adoptive parents. Yes, it's very clear they gained financially from this situation, but that's not the only thing they gained.
Although I took way too long to write it, I posted another comment about this before I read yours here. Lol. Anyhow, to respond specifically to your decision not to address the adoption piece more directly: I actually really appreciated that. There are lots of adopted folks talking about this case and I think your essay offers a different angle with many of the same goals.
You make a great point about adoption, Whiteness, and wealth. I also want to add that being an adoptive parent wouldn't have legally obligated the Tuohys to share any of their wealth with Oher. There are definitely adopted folks who are excluded from wills and even disinherited or disowned by their adoptive families. All the same, I think it's absolutely right that by appropriating the title of adoptive parents without actually adopting Oher, the Tuohys claimed for themselves all of the social benefits that accrue to adoptive parents in a society dominated by positive adoption narratives about "rescuing" children and the "good" people who do it.
These are all such good points (and I thought a lot about whether to play with some of this in the piece, but ended up leaning away as somebody who has adopted siblings but hasn't been an adoptee or an adoptive parent himself). Obviously, Michael Oher is angry that he was never actually adopted and that duplicity on the Tuohys part is maddening and that doesn't mean that, had he been legally adopted, that the power dynamics in a transracial adoption family wouldn't still be messed up. Really appreciate that point, and the broader zoom out to the cultural capital the Tuohys gained bc of the narratives around White adoptive parents. Yes, it's very clear they gained financially from this situation, but that's not the only thing they gained.
Although I took way too long to write it, I posted another comment about this before I read yours here. Lol. Anyhow, to respond specifically to your decision not to address the adoption piece more directly: I actually really appreciated that. There are lots of adopted folks talking about this case and I think your essay offers a different angle with many of the same goals.