Pearl S. Buck Uses the Term Birth Mother in 1956

The first known use of the word “birth” as a descriptive and identifiable adjective for a woman who has lost her child to adoption is attributed to Pearl S. Buck in 1956. In the June issue of Women’s Home Companion, Buck wrote a piece called “We Can Free the Children”. Buck, clearly talking about unwed mothers and the feelings of society uses “birth” as a separate word, but as a designating factor.

What chance has the child born out of wedlock to find a wholesome family and community life if his mother keeps him? The California citizens noted shrewdly that, while persons are eager to adopt children, though born out of wedlock, yet society as a whole condemns the unwed mother. If it is better for the child born out of wedlock to stay with his birth mother, what
can be done to change social attitudes toward her and her child?” p. 63

Later on, in 1972, again Pearl S. Buck employs “birth” to make the distinction between the natural mother of a perspective child and the future adoptive parents, in this case herself. “I Am the Better Woman for Having My Two Black Children,” was published in Today’s Health, January 1972, 21-22, 64

“My husband and I thought our family of five adopted children was complete when she first came to us. Her birth mother was a girl in a small town in Germany. Her father was an American soldier who was killed. He was black. The German mother said his black child was despised in her town and had no future there. She begged his university president in Washington to find the father’s family.

I was a trustee of the university. We tried to find the family, but they had disappeared without trace. What then should we do with the child? From experience we knew that the little black children from Germany had difficulty adjusting to black mothers.

The president looked at me. “Would you. . .”

“Of course I will,” I said. “We’d love to have another child.”

Pearl S. Buck was a great proponent of adoption, being an repeat adoptive parent herself. While she does seemingly have some compassion towards natural mothers, and did adopt children that were considered “unadoptable”, the fact stands that the use of the word “birth” was coined for mothers of adoption loss by an adoptive parent, not taken and made self identifiable until later on.

Marietta Spencer: Social Worker Coins Positive Adoption Language

Minneapolis social worker Marietta Spencer is attributed to beginning the trend of “positive adoption language” (PAL) which completely endorsed the use of the word “birth mother” as the “proper” and correct way to address a mother who had lost her child to adoption. Positive Adoption Language (P.A.L.) is a concept pioneered thirty years ago by Spencer who was a social worker at the Children’s Home Society of Minnesota, not a mother of adoption loss. The actual date of publication of PAL is not yet defined, but it is thought that while the public exposure to PAL might be after the birth of CUB, the ideals and concept of PAL and the widespread usage of “birth” terms was talk about and molded behind the scenes before in the late 60‘s or early 70‘s.

It was refined in the last decade by many pro-adoption advocates.

“P.A.L acknowledges the thoughtfulness and responsibility of birthparents who make an adoption choice. Negative adoption language tends to judge birthparents harshly or portrays them as victims. ”

Now it sounds all very nice until one actually looks at the list. Adoptive parents become the one and only “Parents”. Real parents are “birthparents”, as are natural parents only “birthparents”. PAL was made to allow adoptive parents to talk out any and all negativity to the process of adoption with their needs in mind. If term usage might honestly convey mothers of adoption loss as victims, as many were and still are, then people might have to think twice about their feelings or about the very foundation of adoption. As so clearly stated “Birthmothers are just that and no more or less. They are not the “NATURAL” or “REAL” mother. If they were it would make the adoptive parents “UNNATURAL” and “UNREAL” parent. Think about that for a moment.” Of course, if one wants to follow that line of thinking, the opposite of “birth” is “death”, but no adoptive parent walks around thinking themselves as “death parents”. That doesn’t sound nearly as pretty.

PAL has become Respectful Adoption Language ( RAL). As quoted by Patricia Irwin Johnston, an infertility and adoption educator:

“those of us who feel that adoption is a beautiful and healthy way to form a family and a responsible and respectable alternative to other forms of family planning, ask that you consider the language you use very carefully when speaking about those of us who are touched by adoption”

In other words, the people for whom adoption is “beautiful” want to use terminology that makes it sound nice and pretty. To note, PAL and RAL are endorsed by agencies, social workers, facilitators, lawyers, and other adoption professionals, plus adoptive parents.

CUB: The Adoption Industry Lays Down the Language Law

Often attributed to the invention of the name “birthmother” is Lee Campbell at the beginnings of Concerned United Birthmothers ( CUB) and here is where the true bone of contention begins. Documented by Rickie Solinger in “Beggars and Choosers”, the Cub story goes down in history like this:

“According to Lee, in the summer of 1976 “we agreed on ‘birth parent’ and birthparenthood.’ We didn’t want to upset adoptive parents with ‘natural.’ And ‘biological’ now made us gag. ‘Biological,’ we felt, was descriptive of a mechanical incubator or unfeeling baby machine. ‘Birth’ was the key. With ‘birth parents’ as one word….. we were like other one-word progenitors, like grandparents.”

Which would almost be fine if it was a true self indefinable decision, but it was a compromise at best. Stating herself that “We didn’t want to upset adoptive parents with ‘natural.’”, means again, that this naming was based on the feelings of others who had more power. And more power they did, indeed, have.

As remembered by Betty Jean Lifton in an open letter to Joe Soll on CUB boards in 9/06,

” …. The reform movement tangled with the issue of language as early as the seventies. Lee Campbell, the founder of CUB, just reminded me that I argued for the term ‘natural mother’ because it was the one used in all the historical texts. It was the term I used in my memoir Twice Born, which came out in 1975. And I still prefer it. But somehow the struggle with the agencies and adoptive parent groups narrowed down to ‘birth mother’ and ‘biological mother.'” ….

The industry said CUB could only use the terms “birth” and “biological”. CUB chose “birth.” as a lesser of two evils. Most people preferred Natural, since that was the term used historically and on most of the legal records, including relinquishment papers, but adopters didn’t like it, so it was dropped. Natural moms rendered powerless to even chose a collective name for themselves based on the feelings of those who benefited from them to begin with. This is why the “birth terms” represent powerlessness, silence, and polite obedience to the system — shutting up and being good little breeders who won’t make waves, don’t make trouble, and don’t have a voice. The aims of CUB at that time was to not be threatening, to gain a measure of respect, and gather the support of adoptive parents and professionals to fight for open records and know one’s adopted children. Thirty years later, these battles are still not resolved and still very much an issue with member of the adoption arena.

Honoring the Birth Compromise?

Now the argument can be made that “birthmother” is now an accepted and recognized part of our society and also that one should “honor” the fight of the early pioneers who fought to get any recognition to the plight of mothers of loss. While the concepts are noble, the actuality of it is not. “Birthmother” was not only chosen as a compromise. Buck used “birth” as a descriptive adjective, while CUB made it a name for mothers of loss because it made a nice acronym.

As reported by an adoptee after speaking to Lee Campbell herself at the 2006 CUB retreat in Florida . “Basically, she ( Campbell) says that the name was biological parents but she didn’t like it. She was on the phone with another and talked about it and came up with birth parent. As they discussed it they bean to name CUB and came up with “Birth Parents United in Concern” but the acronym was BPUIC, so she decided to join the first two into one word so that it had the same feel as grandparents and tied it to the family name. The problem with that was the acronym became BUIC and she didn’t want it to be associated with a car so the redid the order and came up with Concerned United Birthparents…… Okay, she clarified that she believes she was the first one to put it together as one word birthparent so as to make it similar to grandparent and give it the same style of family tie.”

While the respect of one word, like grandparent, might have been hoped for, the real reason for dropping the space between the word had to due with advertising and name recognizably. Again, it sounded better.

Know the Truth About What Words You Use

As Rickie Solinger said in her keynote address at the Shedding Light In Adoption 2006 conference in NY,

“Language is a way for a powerless group to reclaim power and fight exploitation and oppression.”

Part of that fight is knowing the truth. Know the roots and meanings of a word before you take on that mantle. Know what the history really is and why it is accepted, and then decide if you want to wear the label.