Advertisement

Preserved Traces of Destroyed Sign Hierarchy: From Genetic Parenting to Adoptive Parenting

  • Tatiana ValérioEmail author
  • Nathaly M. Ferreira-Novaes
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Psychology book series (BRIEFSPSYCHOL)

Abstract

In this chapter we propose to discuss and illustrate the construction-destruction semiosis of hierarchical semiotic systems, emphasizing preserved traces of signs destroyed in the emergence of the transition toward the decision to adopt and the creation of a new sign. We will study the trajectory of a heterosexual couple, concentrating on their symbolic resignifications once facing (1) rupture with the desire to get pregnant after several unsuccessful attempts and (2) the perspective that adoption had become the only possibility for them to become parents. The analysis used the quadratic unit proposed by Valsiner (An invitation to cultural psychology, Sage, 2014; in this volume). Through the rupture experienced by the couple in the attempt to get pregnant, we explored the tension and ambivalence in the coordination of the two infinities (future < > past, inner < > outer) that promoted the change in point of view and the subsequent decision: to consider adoption as a way of becoming parents. The rupture and its subsequent confrontation took place during data construction, in real time, which, on the one hand, made it possible to widen the scope of findings in this experience but, on the other hand, limited the investigation about the transition experienced given the lack of personal distancing from it.

Keywords

Construction-destruction semiosis Preserved traces of signs Decision to adopt Becoming a parent 

References

  1. Andrade, R. P., Costa, N. R. A., & Rossetti-Ferreira, M. C. (2006). Significações de paternidade adotiva: um estudo de caso. Paideia, 16(34), 241–252 Recuperado em 17/09/11, de http://www.scielo.br/pdf/paideia/v16n34/v16n34a12.pdfGoogle Scholar
  2. Cabell, K., & Valsiner, J. (2014). The catalyzing mind: Beyond models of causality. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Levinzon, G. K. (2006). A adoção clínica psicanalítica: o trabalho com os pais adotivos. Mudanças: Psicologia da Saúde., 14(1), 24–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Marková, I. (2003). Dialogicality and social representations: The dynamics of mind. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Marsico, G. (2011). The ‘Non-cuttable’ space in between: Context, boundaries and their natural fluidity. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 45(2), 185–193.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-011-9164-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Modell, J. (1997). Where do we go next? Long-term reunion relationships between adoptees and birth parents. Marriage & family review., Kansas, 25(1), 43–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Nascimento, P. F. G. (2006) Paternidade e infertilidade: Reflexões sobre gênero, saúde e novas tecnologias reprodutivas. 30 Encontro Anual da ANPOCS. Caxambu, MG. http://www.anpocs.com/index.php/papers-30-encontro/gt-26/gt03-12/3209-pnascimento-paternidade/file
  8. Riley, N. E., & Van Vleet, K. E. (2012). Making families through adoption. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Sato, T., Yasuda, Y., Kido, A, Arakawa, A., Mizoguchi, H. & Valsiner, J (2007b). Sampling Reconsidered: Idiographic Science and the Analyses of Personal Life Trajectory. In Valsiner, J, Rosa, A. (2007). The Cambridge Handbook of Sociocultural Psychology. Cambridge University Press: CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Schettini Filho, L. (2008). Compreendendo os filhos adotivos. Recife: Bagaço.Google Scholar
  11. Schettini Filho, L. (1998). Compreendendo os pais adotivos. Recife: Bagaço.Google Scholar
  12. Valério, T.A.M. (2013). “O filho adotivo não vem de fora, vem de dentro”: um estudo sobre trajetórias de vidas e a construção de significados sobre a decisão de adotar na perspectiva da psicologia cultural semiótica”. Dissertação de mestrado não-publicada, Programa de Pós-graduação em Psicologia Cognitiva, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE.Google Scholar
  13. Valério, T. A. M., & Lyra, M. C. D. P. (2014). A construção cultural de significados sobre adoção: um processo semiótico. Psicologia & Sociedade, 26(3), 716–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Valsiner, J. (2018). Human psyche as inherently ambivalent: Semiosis of construction and destruction. In M. C. D. P. Lyra & M. A. Pinheiro (Eds.), Cultural psychology as basic science: Dialogues with Jaan Valsiner. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Valsiner, J. (2014). An invitation to cultural psychology. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Zittoun, T. (2013). Three dimensions of dialogical movement, New Ideas in Psychology. Acessado em 21/08/17. Disponível:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2013.05.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Zittoun, T. (2012). Life-course: a social-cultural perspective. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of culture and psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Zittoun, T. (2009). Dynamics of life-course transitions: A methodological reflection. In Dynamic Process Methodology in the Social and Developmental Sciences. Chapter 18 (pp. 405–429).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Zittoun, T. (2006). Transitions. Development through symbolic resources. Coll. Advances in Cultural Psychology: Constructing Development. Greenwich (CT): InfoAge.Google Scholar
  20. Zittoun, T. & Gillespie, A. (2014) Integrating experiences: Body and mind moving between contexts. Paper for the The Annual Niels Bohr Lecture in Cultural Psychology.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia de Pernambuco (IFPE), Campus Belo JardimBelo JardimBrazil
  2. 2.PPG de Psicologia Cognitiva, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE)RecifeBrazil

Personalised recommendations