religious and cultural groups in a way that provides equal opportunity, civic status, individual freedom, and group recognition (Barn 2012). Thus notions of human rights, democracy, equality and social justice are the foundation stones of such a policy framework. Crucially, the notion of multiculturalism is open to competing interpretations with respect to the nature of the groupings involved and their interaction, with for instance different weighting attached to power dynamics (Modood, 2007; Parekh, 2008). Its relationship with adoption is similarly complex, requiring resolution of tensions between and identity and forms of ‘personal’ ‘social’ individual and collective belonging (Hearst, 2002). Particularly for its advocates, transracial adoption is often taken to be synonomous with the (Quiroz, ‘multicultural’ 2008). This may simply entail some notion of transcending ethnic barriers, but implicitly the family’ recognises the minority ethnic child as the ‘multicultural of a culture, with varying degrees of effort made by adopters to generate or ‘bearer’ maintain connections. Yet such efforts have often been fraught, whether due to diminishing enthusiasm on the part of adopters and/or children, tensions between and culture, or fears that differences may work against ‘lived’ ‘museum’ feelings of belonging within the family. There are also those who question the value and basis of any link with This is sometimes articulated in a proposed ‘culture’. restriction of such concerns only to those with identities’ (Brooks et al, 1999; ‘formed Narey, 2011). The difficulty with such arguments is their neglect of social identities and the challenges that arise for minority ethnic young people (and adults) as they interact in a multiethnic society. This key proposition is regularly overlooked, not least when it is assumed that the purpose of ethnic matching is to the birth ‘replicate’ family. Martin Narey writes:
religious and cultural groups in a way that provides equal opportunity, civic status, individual freedom, and group recognition (Barn 2012). Thus notions of human rights, democracy, equality and social justice are the foundation stones of such a policy framework. Crucially, the notion of multiculturalism is open to competing interpretations with respect to the nature of the groupings involved and their interaction, with for instance different weighting attached to power dynamics (Modood, 2007; Parekh, 2008). Its relationship with adoption is similarly complex, requiring resolution of tensions between ‘personal’ and ‘social’ identity and forms of individual and collective belonging (Hearst, 2002). Particularly for its advocates, transracial adoption is often taken to be synonomous with the ‘multicultural’ (Quiroz, 2008). This may simply entail some notion of transcending ethnic barriers, but implicitly the ‘multicultural family’ recognises the minority ethnic child as the ‘bearer’ of a culture, with varying degrees of effort made by adopters to generate or maintain connections. Yet such efforts have often been fraught, whether due to diminishing enthusiasm on the part of adopters and/or children, tensions between ‘lived’ and ‘museum’ culture, or fears that differences may work against feelings of belonging within the family. There are also those who question the value and basis of any link with ‘culture’. This is sometimes articulated in a proposed restriction of such concerns only to those with ‘formed identities’ (Brooks et al, 1999; Narey, 2011). The difficulty with such arguments is their neglect of social identities and the challenges that arise for minority ethnic young people (and adults) as they interact in a multiethnic society. This key proposition is regularly overlooked, not least when it is assumed that the purpose of ethnic matching is to ‘replicate’ the birth family. Martin Narey writes:
Transracial%20Adoption%20in%20Britain%20Oct2012.docx