Words Matter: Understanding Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP) and How it Relates to Positive Adoption Language (PAL)

In the realm of adoption, the language we use holds immense power. It shapes perceptions, influences decisions, and can even perpetuate harmful narratives. However, many fail to realize the subtle yet profound impact of neurolinguistic programming (NLP) within adoption terminology. In this blog, we delve into the depths of NLP and how it can sway individuals, from prospective parents to adopted individuals themselves, often with detrimental consequences.

What is Neurolinguistic Programming?

Neurolinguistic programming is the art and science of understanding how language patterns and communication affect the human mind. It explores the relationship between language, behavior, and neurological processes, aiming to uncover the mechanisms behind persuasion and influence.

The Perils of NLP in Adoption Terminology

1. Manipulating Prospective Parents: Adoption agencies and proponents of adoption often employ NLP techniques to sway prospective parents into believing they are “saving” a child or fulfilling their dream of a perfect family. Phrases like “Every child deserves a home” subtly imply that the child lacks something essential without adoption, placing the power firmly in the hands of adoptive families.
2. Gaslighting Adopted Individuals: Adoption language can also gaslight adopted individuals, making them feel ashamed or inadequate for experiencing natural feelings of difference or detachment. Terms like “forever family” imply a sense of permanence and belonging, potentially invalidating the complex emotions adopted individuals may navigate throughout their lives.
3. Coercion and Commodification: Words such as “giving up a child” or “relinquishment” obscure the coercive realities that many birth parents face, often being pressured or manipulated into relinquishing their parental rights. Adoption language, steeped in positivity, serves the interests of adoption profiteers who benefit from the commodification of children and the perpetuation of an idealized adoption narrative.

Deconstructing Damaging Adoption Terminology

1. “Birthparents” vs. “Real Parents”: The use of terms like “birth parents” implicitly suggests that parents are somehow lesser or not authentic, disregarding the profound bond that exists between the parent and their child. The industry often labels prospective adoptive parents as the ‘real parents.’ Adoption agencies seeking to streamline processes and categorize individuals coined this term to differentiate between biological and adoptive mothers.
2. “Waiting Adoptive Families” places undue emphasis on the desires and needs of prospective adoptive parents, overlooking the rights and experiences of the children at the center of the adoption process.
3. “Bringing My Waiting Child Home” implies that the adoptive parent sees the child as eagerly anticipated and eagerly awaited, ready to be welcomed into their family with love and care.
4. “Gotcha Day” minimizes the complexity of adoption by reducing the significance of a child’s transition into a new family to a single, simplistic event. This approach potentially overlooks the child’s past experiences, emotions, and the ongoing struggle of adjustment and coping.
5. “Forever Family” perpetuates a sense of permanence and exclusivity within adoptive relationships, disregarding the nuanced dynamics of family structures and failing to acknowledge the complexities of adoption, including the child’s biological origins and the importance of honoring their entire identity.
6. “Safe and Loving Family” implies the adoptive family is safe and loving.

Promoting Positive Adoption Language is Harmful to Adopted People and Families Separated by Adoption.

The bottom line is that PAL aims to increase adoptions; note its implications and dangers. Rather than perpetuating damaging narratives, adoption discourse should prioritize honesty, transparency, and recognition of the inherent complexities of the adoption experience, which include feelings of pain, grieving, and trauma for the adopted person and families of loss.

Conclusion

Neurolinguistic programming within adoption terminology can obscure realities, perpetuate harmful narratives, and ultimately undermine the well-being of all parties involved. By critically examining the language we use and its underlying implications, we can strive for a more realistic look at adoption that honors the truths, challenges, and complexities of the adoption experience. Let’s harness the power of language to uplift and empower mothers and fathers, with the goal of avoiding unnecessary separations rather than coercing or diminishing vulnerable parents and stigmatizing adult adoptees.

Words Matter.