What do you frequently hear when someone has claimed
that something is true, but then the evidence shows one or more cases where it
is not? What I hear is the claimant (often with a self-satisfied expression)
declaring, “that’s the exception that
proves the rule”.
Now, it does happen to be true that exceptions “prove
rules”, but not in the sense of “prove” that is often intended. Exceptions don’t
“prove rules” in the sense of showing that the rules are correct. Exceptions do
test rules and show that at least
under some circumstances they do not hold true. This is like the way we refer
to the proof of whiskey, meaning the proportion of alcohol shown when it is
tested. Because exceptions test rules, it’s important to pay attention to them,
especially when unusual claims or ones that are difficult to test otherwise are
made.
Proponents of the Primal Wound theory, as it has
been stated by Nancy Verrier, claim that baies have become emotionally attached
to their mothers before they are born and are traumatized by being separated
from their birth mothers and adopted or fostered by other people. This trauma,
according to the Primal Wound belief system, stays with an individual
indefinitely, causing lasting sadness and discomfort and interfering with all
relationships.
Aren’t there already known exceptions to this
claimed rule? Yes, occasionally people point out that they do not feel that way
in spite of their family history, but on the whole those who are not committed
to the Primal Wound view simply go about their normal business without taking
time out to comment. In addition, when people speak up either about their sense
that the Primal Wound belief is true or about their conviction that it is nonsense,
it’s rare that we have any real records of what happened in the adoptee’s life,
or about the thoughts of the birth parents or adopted parents (I should just
say the mothers, because that’s what the Primal Wound theory focuses on, but
let’s keep in mind that there are fathers as well.)
An unusual case in France provides an exception that
really does test the rule, however. In this case (www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/in-france-a-baby-switch-and-a-test-of-a-mothers-love.html?r=0),
there are records of what happened and when it happened, as well as information
from both birth and adoptive parents. Here’s the story. About 20 years ago, in
Cannes, the baby girls of Sophie Serrano and another mother (who wants to
remain anonymous), were given to each other’s mothers. Both babies had neonatal
jaundice and were receiving light therapy, but because of a shortage of
bassinets, they were placed nude in the same bassinet. Both babies had been
given identity bracelets, but one had apparently fallen off, and the nurses
accidentally gave the babies to the wrong mothers (both 18 years old at the
time).
Ms. Serrano noticed that the baby she was given had
more hair than she remembered her baby having had, and she questioned the
nurse, who told her that phototherapy could do that. The other mother asked why
her baby seemed to have less hair, and she was told that phototherapy could do
that, too. Both young women accepted this explanation.
As Ms. Serrano’s baby, whom she named Manon, grew
older, the mother’s partner became suspicious about his paternity. Manon’s skin
color was darker than the parents’, and her hair was frizzier. By the time
Manon was 10, Ms. Serrano’s partner had left--
then he demanded a paternity test because he did not want to pay child
support for someone else’s child. To the astonishment of all, the results
showed that Manon was biologically related to neither her putative mother or father, Ms. Serrano then remembered
her questions about the baby’s hair, and she sought an investigation, which
eventually revealed that Manon’s “real”
parents were living not far away, with their daughter, who of course was the
biological child of Ms. Serrano and her former partner. (Too bad Gilbert and
Sullivan aren’t alive to do something with this!)
Now, of course, comes the part that’s relevant to
the Primal Wound. The two families met and tried to get to know each other.
Manon commented, “When I first met them, I noticed how much I looked like them…But
I was sitting in front of complete strangers, and I didn’t know how to position
myself ”. The Times article goes on
to say, “The families saw each other several times, during which Manon explored
her Creole origins [her biological parents came from the island of Reunion].
But the parents and daughters had trouble building any rapport, and they
eventually stopped seeing each other. In the end, after some discussion, both
families preferred to keep the child they had raised, rather than taking their
biological one. Ms.Serrano said, “My biological daughter looked like me, but I
suddenly realized that I had given birth to a person I didn’t know, and I was
no longer the mother of that child.” Ms. Serrano went on to say, “It is not the
blood that makes a family…What makes a family is what we build together, what
we tell each other. And I have created a wonderful bond with my nonbiological
daughter”. (The young women’s attitudes were not reported in this article, but
it seems unlikely that the parents could have reached these decisions without
the agreement of their 20-year-old daughters. Manon commented, “The story of my
birth has made me stronger”.)
Here we have a most unusual, but definitive, “test”
of the Primal Wound rule. We have the responses of people who were
simultaneously birth and adoptive parents, and what we see is that the
relationship built through adoption was much more powerful than the
relationship based on birth and genetic relationship.
Please note that none of this, or any other
arguments against the existence of a Primal Wound, means that all adopted
children and their parents are happy and satisfied with life. What it does mean
is that where there is unhappiness, its causes need to be sought somewhere
other than in early separation from the birth mother.
[By the way, the two birth mothers are suing that
clinic for plenty of euros. ]
"What it does mean is that where there is unhappiness, its causes need to be sought somewhere other than in early separation from the birth mother."
ReplyDeleteYup, exactly that. As always Jean, thank you for all you do to try and help children.
Thanks for your work too!
DeletePW Proponents just need to say they would be even better off if they hadn't been separated. Their position is too bullshit to test.
ReplyDelete