I think the key factors that should determine the rating of this book are 1) the correctness (and relevance) of the description of how Tann carried out adoptions, and trickier, 2) the correctness of the description of the effect that Tann had on the general practice of adoption, continuing decades after her death. This is hard for me to rate, since I actually had never even heard of (or didn't recall hearing of) Georgia Tann previously. Some of the primary allegations that Raymond makes against the way Tann was directly involved in adoption is that she:
- Pressured poor and/or single, white mothers to relinquish their children, or actually stole them (in many cases taking newborns from the hospital and telling the mother the child had died),
- Maltreated children while they were in her care,
- Charged adoptive parents exorbitant and unjustified fees for adoptive placements,
- Did not review the qualifications of prospective adoptive parents (sometimes leading to children's placement with abusive adoptive parents), and
- Falsified birth certificates so that adoptive parents were recorded as the biological parents, and prevented anyone access from the original records.
Raymond's interpretation is that Tann was responsible for the modern practice of closed adoption. This includes:
- The prevention of contact of the birth parents with the child and adoptive parents, and
- Altering adoptees' original birth certificates such that the adoptive parents are listed as the birth parents and locking up the original records.
Additionally, she posits that Tann was responsible for:
- Swaying public opinion to believe that the biological children of single and/or poor white mothers would be better raised by wealthy white couples,
- Swaying attitudes among infertile couples that adoption is a viable option for becoming parents,
- Popularizing the idea that adopted children are "blank slates" who can be just like biological children to adoptive parents and who have no need or interest in knowing about their roots, and
- Developing a market (national and international) for adoption "brokers" who find vulnerable mothers, get (through hook or by crook) their children, place them with adoptive parents, and make a lot of money.
Now, I was well familiar with all the points noted immediately above about closed adoption, but it's impossible for me to say whether Tann is really responsible for them. It seems clear that Tann either followed or originated these practices, however.
I was a bit confused by Raymond's repeated reference to "ethical social workers" who followed some of Tann's practices. For example, she notes that "Georgia's influence was so great that even ethical social workers, by the 1940s, place for adoption many more children than they should have. (p. 117)" Yet, it seems to me that NONE of the aspects of adoption, as Tann carried it out, are "ethical" (except perhaps the more accepting public attitude toward adoption). More examples... "Ethical professionals could conceive of only one way of competing with baby sellers: by imitating them (p. 215)." And on p. 216: "And to mollify adoptive parents 'fearful' of losing their children, social workers began refusing to give adult adoptees information about their roots. To save children, ethical social workers denied them their past."
Raymond's statement that "...American adoptees are legally forbidden from knowledge of their birth parents' names (p. 201)" is a bit of a stretch. Yes, adoptees with closed adoptions in many states have no access to their original birth records. (And I personally agree this lack of access is unethical.) But in some states (as Raymond herself acknowledges) this is not the case. Further, open adoptions (where there is some degree of contact between the birth and adoptive family) are not, to my knowledge, illegal, if all parties consent.
I also agree with some other reviewers that the information in the book could have been presented more succinctly. Also, I'm a little ambivalent about whether the extensive information at the beginning of the book was necessary (about the way the yellow fever plague decades earlier made Memphians more vulnerable to exploitations), but it was interesting.
In any case, if Tann really WAS even partially responsible for changing adoption practices in the ways Raymond alleges, this is an extremely important book. And even if she wasn't responsible for closed adoption, the book is still important because of the direct effect on the 5,000 to 6,000 children Tann placed for adoption. I think the reason that, overall, I believed Raymond's assertions about Tann is that, even today, adoptive parents frequently pay tens of thousands of dollars. It almost seems inevitable, when most prospective adoptive parents have so much more economic power than most birth parents, the "adoption market" would be corrupted.