The Immigration and International Adoption Boom in Spain: Temporary Convergence and Disciplinary Intersections

In the 80s of the last century, ^{Weil (1984)} presented in a specialized magazine on migration the international adoption of children as “quiet migration.” In his article, he denounced that the study of international migration focused on the movements of adults, omitting transnational migrations of girls and boys adopted in countries other than those of their birth. At the dawn of the 21st century, the phenomenon of international adoptions finds itself in an unprecedented geographical and numerical scenario, causing its initial consideration as quiet migration to be profoundly altered. Peter Selman estimated that at the beginning of the 21^st century more than 32 000 girls and boys were moving between more than a hundred countries through international adoption (2002, p. 206); international adoption increased by 42% between 1998-2004 ( ^{Selman, 2006, p. 185} ),² declining thereafter, except in Italy ( ^{Selman, 2012} ).

Since the 1980s, demographic studies show the dissimilar role that countries play on the map of international adoptions, either as issuers or receivers of children. Particularly, in Spain the extension of international adoptions takes place in a very unique context. In 2004, without an established culture for adoption abroad and with a rate of 13 adoptions per thousand inhabitants, Spain became the second country in the world in international adoption ( ^{Selman, 2006, p. 189} ). Additionally, its statistical presence and social notoriety occurs in the so-called “prodigious decade” of immigration in Spain ( ^{Aja, Arango & Oliver, 2011, p. 13} ). From 1997 to 2008, Spain was the European Union country that received the more immigrants, with a positive migratory balance of more than five million people ( ^{Arango, 2010, p. 56} ). Thus, the international adoption boom ( ^{Rodríguez & Jareño, 2015} ) temporarily converges with the immigration boom in Spain ( ^{Arango, 2010} ).

Studies on international adoption made from demography anticipated the potential held for social sciences in studying with an interdisciplinary approach the connections between this phenomenon and that of international migration. Overcoming the traditional limits in the study of the two phenomena, two hybrid lines of research have been inaugurated. The first has incorporated the theoretical basis of migration into the analysis of international adoptions. The causal explanations offered are articulated around the classic model of push and pull factors applied to migrations from Ravenstein's studies (1885-1889).

Thus, international adoptions are another example of the migration of girls and boys from their countries of origin (due to war conflicts, hunger and diseases), to the rich countries that attract them, either for humanitarian and demographic reasons or because of new lifestyles ( ^{Howell & Marre, 2006} ; ^{Hübinette, 2004} ; ^{Rodríguez, 2015} ; ^{Rodríguez & Jareño, 2015} ; ^{Selman, 2002} & ²⁰⁰⁶ ).

Studies of international adoptions have endorsed the progress shown by migration scholars in other areas. ^{Hübinette (2004)} and ^{Hübbinette and Tigervall (2009)} have applied the transnational migration paradigm to the study of the diaspora of the Korean population adopted internationally. Another example is ^{Leinaweaver (2011)} , who picks up the concepts of regrouping and return to analyze the similarities and differences that occur between Peruvian migrations and adoptions in Spain.

The second hybrid line of research addresses the racial experiences shared by the adopted population and the immigrant. The works of ^{Hübinette and Tigervall (2009)} on adopted children of Korean origin residing in Sweden; ^{Leinawear’s work (2014)} on adopted Peruvian children living in Europe; ^{De Grave's work (2015)} on Ethiopian children adopted by Belgian families; and the international adoption studies in Spain of ^{Howell and Marre (2006)} , ^{Marre (2009)} , ^{San Román (2013)} and ^{San Román and Marre (2013)} show that although families and adopted children do not consider themselves as immigrants, they experience similar racial and social discrimination events. In this sense, such research in the field of European immigration indicates that racist and xenophobic attitudes based on phenotypic differences persist, which can lead to mistakenly identifying people as “immigrants,” despite being born in the country or having Spanish citizenship ( ^{Cea D’Ancona & Valles 2014} ; ^{Cea D’Ancona, Valles & Eseverri, 2014, p. 18-19} ).

This overlapping experience introduces the main objective of this article, which is none other than to contribute to the double theoretical-academic debate that each of the disciplines provides: on the one hand, the extension of what in the field of migration is called “new racism” and, on the other, the way in which this new racism is managed within the interracial adoptive families.

Our contribution is organized in three sections. First, the research questions and the theoretical framework are introduced. It is followed by a section in which the methodological strategy followed and the three social surveys analyzed are presented. The fourth section includes the analysis carried out, structured around the three components that, according to ^{Brigham (1971)} , determine the measurement of attitudes towards immigration, while bringing us closer to the context of racial and cultural socialization in interracial adoptive families. This paper ends with a discussion about the results obtained.

About the Survey “Adoptive Families and their Lifestyles”

The primary data used in the study come from the survey Adoptive families and their lifestyles (FAMADOP). This is the first and only survey conducted in Spain that explores adoptive families; a type of family for which the sociological approach is incipient. In 2012, FAMADOP surveyed 230 parents with a child adopted from abroad in their family unit. Its recruitment was carried out through a non-probabilistic sampling selected through the Internet; field work was done in the third quarter of 2012.

The sociodemographic profile of the sample does not differ from that identified in other countries ( ^{Rodríguez & González, 2014, p. 168-169} ; ^{Rodríguez & Jareño, 2015, p. 219- 222} ): mostly married population, with higher education and occupations of high social prestige, positioned on the political left, without religious identification and defenders of the postmodern family values system. Regarding the sociodemographic characteristics of adopted children, it should be noted that the median age was 7 years, 60% are girls, the average number of years of cohabitation is 5 years and adoptions came in 54% from Asia, 21% from Africa, 13% from Europe and 12% from South America.

Report on the Evolution of Racism, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Spain

The report on the Evolution of racism, xenophobia and related intolerance in Spain [2013 Report] is part of a series that begun in 2008. It was promoted and published by the Spanish Observatory of Racism and Xenophobia (OBERAXE by its Spanish initials).⁵ The 2013 report's main objective ( ^{Cea D’Ancona & Valles, 2014} ) is to analyze the VI survey of Attitudes towards immigration, which is also part of the second period of surveys on immigration and racism carried out by the Center for Sociological Research (CIS by its Spanish initials) in 2007.⁶

The VI survey of Attitudes towards Immigration (nº 2.967), which field work was carried out from October 30 to November 18, 2012, shares the sample design of the CIS studies, allowing longitudinal trend analysis: it is national, it is aimed at the Spanish population of both genders from the age of 18, it is carried out via personal interview (face to face) at the home of randomly selected people following a multi-stage sample design, stratified by conglomerates with selection of the last sampling units (individuals) by random routes, gender and age quotas, and with a sample size of 2,464 people.

“Study on Discrimination Based on Racial or Ethnic Origin: Perception of Potential Victims”

The Study on discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin: perception of potential victims has the main objective of analyzing sociologically the perception of different ethnic minorities in regards of the unequal treatment experienced. The study takes the results from the survey conducted in 2011 by the Council for the promotion of equal treatment and non-discrimination of people because of their racial or ethnic origin.

This survey includes Recommendation n°4 of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) that contains policy suggestions regarding national surveys on the experience and perception of discrimination and racism from the perspective of victims. The survey was first applied in 2010 as a pilot study. The study has a certain experimental nature for two reasons: first, the questionnaire applied is the only tool that measures levels of discrimination in Spain from the perspective of ethnic minorities; secondly, the 2011 sample had a greater scope in absolute and territorial terms, as well as in ethnic groups surveyed ( ^{Suso & González, 2012, p. 7-8} ).

he survey has the participation of a representative sample of people from the main ethnic minorities living in Spain (865 people). The sample is stratified into eight population groups according to their origin: Eastern Europe, Sub-Saharan, Maghreb, Asian, Andean, Gypsy, Spanish, Afro-Latin or Afro-Caribbean and the Indo-Pakistani.

The Analysis

In this article, we present the analysis of the ten indicators that are usually included in the demographic studies carried out in Spain to measure the attitude towards immigration, racism and xenophobia. On the one hand, the three components that ^{Brigham (1971)} determines in the measurement of attitudes are grouped by theoretical proximity and, on the other, there are three of the ten explanatory dimensions that ^{Cea D’Ancona (2004, p. 30-31)} identified as latent in the attitude towards immigration and that outline the context that triggers racial awareness among interracial adoptive parents.

The first component, the affective one, is installed in the “sociability with immigrants” dimension and measures the feelings or emotions generated by immigration from the three classic indicators of social distance. The analysis focuses on the approach to racial and ethnic prejudice. This is a classic topic in the social sciences, and which ^{Allport (1968, p. 24)} presented as “an antipathy that relies on an imperfect and inflexible generalization.” In turn, the indicators offer the opportunity to discover the value given to cultural diversity, which is an especially relevant dimension in the racial and ethnic socialization process faced by interracial adoptive families.

The second component, the cognitive one, is related to the “negative stereotypes of immigration” dimension, and it measures the stereotyped social representation that causes rejection of the foreign population. The three selected indicators examine the stereotypes that, according to ^{Brigham (1971, p. 31)} , are “generalizations about an ethnic group, regarding an attribution of features that are considered unjustified by an observer”. Their analysis is especially pertinent since they feed the racist speeches in circulation; they also act as externalization factors of racism and xenophobia and bring us closer to the level of awareness that adoptive parents have in relation to their racial and ethnic context.

Finally, the behavioral component is located in the “ethnic discrimination or otherness” dimension in school and work. The four selected indicators measure this subjective experience in situations of racial or ethnic discrimination. This brings us closer to the study of one of the theoretical dimensions of the racial and cultural socialization process in interracial adoptive families: the racial awareness or perception that people have about how race, ethnicity, language and racial status operates in their lives and in the lives of others ( ^{Vonk, 2001, p. 249} ).

Prejudices and Stereotypes of Adoptive Families Against Immigration

The opinions that Spanish adoptive families show regarding immigration in the affective (liking) and cognitive (beliefs) components are shown in Table 1 . On the one hand, they are organized around six classic indicators in the measurement of sociability with the immigrant population (prejudices) and, on the other, the symbolic representation of the immigrant population (stereotypes). The analysis of these indicators acquires additional relevance in the particular context of adoptive families, since it connects with two key concepts in the study of color-blind racism; that is, multicultural awareness and social and racial context awareness.

The first indicator measures the sociability or social distance between adoptive families and the immigrant population by means of the level of acceptance generated by sharing the school environment. When raised under a hypothetical assumption, it is necessary to investigate the subtle forms of prejudice towards immigrants or ethnic minorities. The data suggest a general acceptance towards the coexistence of a native-immigrant population in school, since 79.1% of the adoptive parents “will not mind” that their children share a classroom with those of immigrants.

As an interracial family, the families that adopted their children from abroad would be expected to maintain greater social closeness and, consequently, direct knowledge of the immigrant population. This has traditionally been considered as an explanatory factor of the rates of racism and xenophobia, since research has indicated that greater social proximity favors receptive contexts towards the immigrant population and contributes to reversing prejudiced attitudes towards this group ( ^{Cea D’Ancona & Valles, 2014, p. 260- 269} ).

The second indicator contemplates the imaginary of adoptive families in relation to the prejudices that determine the treatment of immigrants. Almost the majority of adoptive parents (48.7%) believe that the treatment given to the immigrant population is determined by their economic standing. This assessment illustrates how adoptive families are closer to the “economic immigrant” stereotype and connects with social discourses that establish a hierarchy depending on the country of origin. Thus, in the Spanish collective imaginary, the term “immigrant” is reserved for people from developing countries, while the term “foreigner” is linked to European citizens (with the exception of Eastern Europe) ( ^{Cea D’Ancona & Valles, 2014, p. 250} ).

It is necessary to highlight that the race stigma par excellence (skin color) was indicated only by 7.4% of adoptive families as one of the characteristics that conditions the treatment given to the immigrant population. This marginal assessment is particularly interesting in the context of the theoretical framework of “color-blind racism” among interracial adoptive families since, as noted, its non-consideration is interpreted as a sign of low “racial awareness”; that is, ignorance of how race and ethnicity operate in people's lives.

The response pattern of the third indicator, which generally seeks to assess acceptance of the cultural diversity model by proposing three strategies for managing culture and customs among the immigrant population, reinforces the social representation established in the preceding indicator. Thus, adoptive parents who do not consider the nationality (15.7%) or culture (14.3%) of the immigrant group as a cause of differential treatment are extremely receptive to cultural diversity. The fact that 83.5% of parents declare that their children from abroad should learn both the culture and customs of their home country and the Spanish ones, places them in the defense of cultural pluralism and multicultural integration models.

The stereotype of immigration (cognitive component) reflects the stereotyped social representation that adoptive families have regarding the immigrant population and that may be the origin of their social rejection. The fourth indicator specifically explores the impact that the collective imaginary assigns to immigration, either as a source of development or conflict. As shown in Table 1 , adoptive parents mostly attribute a positive impact to immigration, which is valued by 73.9%.

The fifth indicator includes a classic question in attitude surveys regarding the immigrant population. On the one hand, it is sought to project the stereotype that is had and that, according to its nuance, can lead to a racial and ethnic prejudice and, on the other, to base racist and xenophobic behaviors. Among the adoptive families the word “immigration” is associated with the need for work (25.7%), foreigners (23%), povertyinequality (17.4%) and feelings of empathy and solidarity (9.6%). Of the four mentions, only one (foreigners) has neutral connotations, which makes adoptive families mostly establish (52.7%) a positive symbolic image of immigration.

The sixth indicator brings us closer to the social representation of the way in which outgroups interact. Its result reflects that the opinion of the adoptive parents, regarding the treatment given by the Spanish population to the immigrant, is negative: more than half (53%) think that the attitude that regulates relations with the immigrant population is contempt and for almost a third (22.6%) it is distrust. This last indicator breaks the positive image that adoptive families offer regarding immigration in the previous indicators. It is possible that it reflects the distance that separates perceptions and opinions from behaviors in a topic associated with social desirability. This is due to the fact that in their capacity as interracial adoptive families, they may have greater experiential knowledge of the questioned aspect, since they have been able to live racist and xenophobic episodes.

Prejudices And Stereotypes Of The Spanish Population Against Immigration

Table 2 contains the set of indicators contemplated in the preceding section with the purpose of evaluating the prejudice (sociability) and stereotypes (social representations) that the Spanish population expresses on immigrants. Following ^{Moser and Kalton (1972, p. 43)} , in this section we analyze again the findings of the OBERAXE report from a different point of view than the original. That is, the data from the survey on racism and xenophobia in Spain (2012) can also be read as indicators of the level of perception that the population has on how race and ethnicity operate in society (racial awareness) and their attitude towards color-blind racism (multicultural awareness).

Regarding the level of tolerance (social distance) that the Spanish population expresses at the possibility of their children sharing classrooms with immigrant children, just over half (59.8%) would accept this assumption. It must be taken into account that in the Spanish survey this hypothetical situation is formulated in conjunction with eight other possible types of interactions. From this perspective, the reading of the data shown by the indicator assumes a new nuance, since the argument of agreeing to take their child to an educational center with a high presence of immigrant children is in the penultimate place among the eight types of relationships presented, just above “renting an apartment to an immigrant” ( ^{Cea D’Ancona & Valles, 2014, p. 259} ).

In the imaginary of the Spanish population (second indicator), culture (26.4%) and nationality (24%) are the elements that condition the way in which we interact with the immigrant population. These values are linked to the prejudices established in the last Eurobarometer on discrimination in Europe in which 63% of the Spanish population indicated that ethnic discrimination was the most widespread ( ^{TNS Opinion & Social, 2015, p. 1} ). Both studies abound in the idea of “racism without races” of contemporary societies. In new racism, racial prejudices are fueled by cultural differences and not by biological differences, as in traditional racism ( ^{Balibar, 1991} ). In fact, only 10.4% of the Spanish population considers that “skin color” influences the interaction with immigrants.

The third indicator, which analyzes the preference between different models of social integration, clarifies the meaning that Spanish society gives to “culture” and “nationality” in everyday interaction. The clear preference of the Spanish population for the immigrant collective to only conserve those foreign cultural aspects and customs that “do not disturb the rest of the Spaniards” (50.1%), emphasizes the negative meaning that these elements assume in the social imaginary. The Spanish population is committed to a model of assimilationist integration in which immigrants must adapt to the culture and customs of their host society and ignore the elements that make them “different.” In line with this and in a context in which cultural difference is not recognized, immigration is devalued (fourth indicator): 39.6% of the Spanish population recognizes the positive impact that immigration can have on the country.

The fifth indicator explores the social representations that the term immigration spontaneously generates among the Spanish population. Of the four most evoked associations, we can infer that the collective imaginary projects a positive image of immigration, given that three of them contain a positive value: need for work (19.4%), poverty-inequality (14.3%) and feeling of empathy and solidarity (10.3%). From the analysis of the trend shown by this indicator, ^{Cea D’Ancona and Valles (2014, p. 175-178)} have concluded that 2012 marked a turning point because, contrary to expectations, the positive demonstrative support exceeded the aggregate of the neutral and negative.

The sixth and final indicator brings us closer to the social representation of the way in which outgroups interact. In 2012 the Spanish population defined the treatment of the immigrant population in a dual way. Although 51.1% linked the relational component with negative feelings of distrust (34.9%), contempt (8.3%), indifference (7.3%) and aggressiveness (0.6%), 43.5% described the treatment given to the immigrant population in positive terms: according to 26.1% of the respondents, they are treated the same as the Spaniards, and 26.1% considered that the treatment was based on kindness. This indicator, like the previous one, has evolved positively since 2008, despite the context of the economic crisis in which the study was conducted and which does not usually contribute in the sense indicated ( ^{Cea D’Ancona & Valles, 2014, p. 249} ).

As the specialized literature has established, it is likely that this unexpected social representation around the treatment given by Spanish natives to immigrants is influenced by the social desirability bias in the responses. A new look at the data of the survey of attitudes of the Spanish population towards immigration (2012), from the framework of color-blind racism, would further explore this thesis, since the consideration of a treatment based on normality and kindness cannot be used when, in general, “cultural identity signs that may disturb other Spaniards are not tolerated.

Externalization and Perception of Racial and Ethnic Discrimination

This last section includes indicators of the behavioral component that measures subjective experience in situations of racial or ethnic discrimination. In turn, the indicators presented allow us to explore the concept of racial awareness in Spain. This is one of the theoretical dimensions of the racial and cultural socialization process of interracial families, which ^{Vonk (2001)} expresses itself as the perception that people have about how race, ethnicity, language and racial status operate in their lives and in the lives of others. Particularly, Table 3 connects with a central theme in the study of racism: the research of the factors that trigger discriminatory behaviors.

In the survey conducted on ethnic minorities living in Spain ( ^{Suso & González, 2012} ), 32.9% (285 of the respondents) said they had directly experienced or witnessed a discriminatory situation in the last 12 months. The factors that triggered a differential treatment indicate a tendency contrary to the perceptions that both adoptive parents and the general population employ (see Tables 1 and 2 ): while the groups that participate in the hegemonic racial and ethnic model did not contemplate “skin color” as a factor that influenced the treatment of the immigrant population, the ethnic minorities interviewed perceived it that way.

These results support the thesis that demographic surveys underestimate this factor due to their social disapproval ( ^{Cea D’Ancona, 2004} ; ^{Cea D’Ancona & Valles, 2014} ). As noted, from the academy it has been underlined that in advanced societies, in which equality is one of their core values, there has been a withdrawal from the traditional forms of racism and xenophobia, specifically from those that are framed in biological differences.

It is interesting to note that the results of the aforementioned report also confirm that the intensity in the perception of discrimination is reduced among groups with less marked phenotypic differences compared to the Spanish population ( ^{Suso & González, 2012, p. 47} ). This same assessment coincides with the gradient of preferences, affiliations and phobias that the Spanish population manifests towards immigrant groups, in terms of how much they approximate western ethnic traits ( ^{Cea D’Ancona & Valles, 2014, p. 143} ).

Table 4 presents the assessment that adoptive parents make about whether racial or ethnic differences of their adopted children would explain situations of discrimination. Their perception becomes relevant due to their equidistant social position to the group that represents the dominant race and culture (that they are part of) and the groups (to which their children will be socially ascribed) that will be racialized by their physical characteristics.

Demographic data shows that 26.1% of adoptive parents consider race or ethnicity to be the factor that triggers fights or anger in their children in contexts of interaction. Specifically, when inquiring about the possibility of having experienced discrimination in the school environment, 30.9% of the families surveyed assume it was so. The majority (84%) consider that discrimination is caused by the race or ethnicity of their children. These data approximate the impressions expressed by ethnic minorities: in general terms, one out of three people who are part of an ethnic minority or whose life experience is similar (interracial family) would have experienced racial or ethnic discrimination.

Finally, one would expect that adoptive parents would recognize the benefits and disadvantages of being part of the dominant race; that is, that they show a high racial conscience ( ^{Vonk, 2001, p. 249-250} ) because some of those who recognize that their children have been discriminated against at school attribute this situation to their race or ethnicity. However, despite the fact that 46.7% of ethnic minorities recognized that the work environment is the area in which they perceive discrimination the most, based on racial or ethnic origin ( ^{Suso & González, 2012, p. 113} ), only 27.4% of adoptive parents considered that “the skin color or characteristic features of another country or culture that is not Spanish” would be a problem for their child when accessing a job. Spanish adoptive families are the group that least perceives that their children will suffer discrimination when accessing a job. This may be because they consider such stage a distant one, but it can also be because they do not perceive the racialization that occurs in the workforce ( ^{Pajares, 1999, p. 244} ).