The Privilege of Not Being Adopted: Survival, Trauma, and the Closed Circuit of Ego Unconsciousness
“Why Non-Adoptees Are Ignoring Adoptee Trauma – And It’s Hurting Everyone”
In conversations about adoption, particularly international adoption, there is a recurring theme: the voices that are often the loudest tend to belong to those least affected by the process. These discussions often overlook the perspectives of adoptees, whose lived experiences are marginalized in favor of a narrative that simplifies adoption as an unequivocal good. The deeper issues of identity loss, dislocation, and trauma are pushed to the periphery, drowned out by the opinions of those who benefit from the privilege of never having been adopted. But why is this the case? Why is it that the dominant voices in adoption debates seem reluctant to acknowledge the complexities and traumas that adoptees experience?
At the heart of this reluctance is a psychological mechanism tied to privilege and survival. Those who have not been adopted live with the privilege of belonging to a biological family and the continuity of identity and culture that comes with it. For them, the family structure is intact and reinforces their sense of self. Adoption, on the other hand, often represents a profound disruption in these areas. It forces those who have been adopted to navigate the complex terrain of divided identities, cultural disconnection, and in some cases, the trauma of being separated from one’s birth family.
The Privilege of Biological Continuity
People who are not adopted rarely have to grapple with the identity fractures and existential questions that adoptees do. Their sense of belonging is seamless; they know their origins, their biological parents, and their cultural heritage. This privilege can create a psychological barrier that makes it difficult for non-adoptees to empathize with the emotional complexities that adoptees face. The privileges of knowing one’s family history, of feeling anchored in a biological lineage, and of not having to wrestle with questions about identity form a type of psychological safety net – a privilege that is often invisible to those who benefit from it.
For non-adoptees, this continuity is central to their survival, both emotionally and existentially. The idea of questioning the adoption system, which often serves as a lifeline for many children, can feel destabilizing. To acknowledge the trauma of adoption is to acknowledge the fragility of one’s own identity structure. This can lead to a defense mechanism that stifles empathy and open dialogue.
Avoiding Adoptee Trauma:
The Closed Circuit of Consciousness
Many people subconsciously avoid engaging with adoptees’ feelings of trauma because doing so forces them to confront uncomfortable truths. This avoidance is not necessarily malicious, but rather a form of psychological self-preservation. It is easier for people to maintain the status quo by keeping adoption framed as a heroic or benevolent act, rather than acknowledging the ways in which it can be predatory or harmful.
When adoptees share their stories of dislocation, identity loss, and trauma, they disrupt this comfortable narrative. They challenge the notion that adoption is always a “rescue” or a “blessing.” For those who are not adopted, it can be difficult to allow themselves to truly feel the depth of adoptees’ pain because doing so forces them to question the system that has always appeared, from their vantage point, to be a net positive.
This dynamic creates what might be called a “closed circuit of consciousness.” Also known as “Ego Unconsciousness”. Those who are outside the adoptee experience, often unable or unwilling to understand the depth of adoptee trauma, remain in a feedback loop that reinforces their belief in the system. Their privilege protects them from having to engage with the darker sides of adoption – such as the loss of cultural heritage, the disconnection from birth families, and the internalized trauma of being displaced.
It’s worth noting that this also comes from adopted people with so called “good experiences” overshadowing the majority with the reality of a “bad experience”. I’m This light, it’s all bad!
Ego-Driven Survival Instinct
The reluctance to engage with adoptee trauma can also be tied to an ego-driven survival instinct. Human beings are wired to protect themselves emotionally and psychologically. Part of this protection mechanism involves maintaining a narrative that aligns with one’s ego – one’s sense of self and morality. For many, the idea of supporting a system that could be causing harm to children runs counter to their self-image as compassionate and ethical individuals. To preserve this self-image, they may resist engaging with the realities of adoptee trauma because doing so would force a reevaluation of their beliefs and values.
This survival instinct is ego-driven because it prioritizes the comfort and emotional security of non-adoptees over the lived experiences of adoptees. It keeps the focus on the adoptive parents or the larger society’s needs, rather than the adoptees themselves. In this way, the broader consciousness around adoption remains stifled, with little room for genuine empathy or understanding.
The Need for a Shift in Consciousness
The closed circuit of consciousness that surrounds adoption must be broken if adoptees are to be truly heard and validated. This requires a collective shift in how we view adoption – not as a simplistic solution to complex issues of child welfare, but as a multifaceted system that needs reform. We must be willing to listen to adoptees, to allow their voices to guide the conversation, and to recognize that their trauma is real and valid.
Breaking this cycle involves a willingness to move beyond the ego-driven need to maintain a certain narrative and to confront the uncomfortable truths that adoptees bring to light. Only by doing so can we begin to create a more just and compassionate adoption system – one that centers the needs and experiences of adoptees rather than the comfort of those who have the privilege of not being adopted.
In conclusion, the privilege of not being adopted creates a psychological and emotional buffer for many people, allowing them to remain distant from the trauma that adoptees often experience. This closed circuit of consciousness is driven by an ego-driven survival instinct that resists engagement with adoptee trauma. To break this cycle, we must shift the focus of adoption conversations toward the voices of adoptees, embracing the discomfort that comes with truly listening to their stories. Only then can we begin to address the deep-rooted issues within the adoption system and work toward a more inclusive and empathetic understanding of what it means to be adopted.
Oh come on!
People wouldn’t say these types things to other established marginalised groups such as the LGBTQ community in regards to identity and similar related issues. Why do people think it’s okay to say things like this to adoptees?
