In the post discussing the devolution of adoption [ link ], at the heart of what was either seen as horrifying or else a cause for viral reposting was the mediation of an adopted child for public consumption.
I am intrigued here because I have often been threatened by adoptive parents either directly or via my Internet service provider to take down pictures from my web site that I have “borrowed” from their own mediation on their own web sites. I argue that this is editorial-based “fair use”. The original mediation is often what I refer to as “super-mediated”, meaning, many steps away from reality, for example, a photo shoot that brings together pre-matched adoptive parents with the mother whose child is “theirs”; a kind of extended “family portrait”.
There are degrees here of privacy, an allowed circle of viewers, the potential for “going viral”, as well as this distance or remove from “non-mediated” communication. I am curious to know how other adoptees view this, especially given the quite binary reaction to the photo session mentioned at the above link, where an adolescent is photographed as a “newborn” in order to “regain” a mediation that never took place, as if this was a vital lack in the child’s life.
I have three “food for thought” questions for adoptees here. First, to what degree do you yourselves mediate your own lives in the public sphere? Why or why not? Second, to what degree do you yourselves mediate your children’s lives in the public sphere? Why or why not? Second, can you imagine your adoptive parents mediating your life online in such a way? What would be your response to such mediation?