A huge part of the Orphan Summit’s work relates to the “Global Orphan Crisis.” I know that UK readers might have a slight hesitation (ok some of us might have a major hesitation) with the term orphan. I am trying to work out why we don’t like orphan so much.
1. Is it that it sounds Dickensian – a kind of paternalistic Oliver Twist type image comes up in our minds?
2. Is is that it is not a technical term in the care system in the UK – we talk more about at risk children or children in care?
3. Is it that it sounds like the children are completely bereaved at bereft of family members – when actually many of the children needing adoptive parents or foster placements may actually have living parents who are just not able or not willing to care for them?
Would love your input on that – there feels no way we can use the word Orphan in the UK for the kind of work we are seeking to do. But nevertheless it is a strongly biblical word – 40 times in the scriptures if I am not mistaken.
So help friends – why don’t we like the term orphan ?
Author Description
There are 4 comments. Add yours
Hi Krish,
From my perspective I think option 1 is a major factor. Too many connotations of street urchins and the kind of poverty and misfortune we'd like to think no longer features in our society. Generally speaking, orphans are now not in public view in the same way. Out of sight, out of mind? I think perhaps it is a mainly about a failure to contextualise. 'Orphan' feels like it is all about grief and doesn't connote enough of the many other issues connected with kids in care.
In Russia, it is common for an 'orphan' to have at least one living parent, but they are called the term because the parent(s) have chosen or are deemed unfit to provide appropriate care.
On the question of biblical terminology, I've done a fair bit of work on the Old Testament material. The Hebrew term 'yatom' occurs 42x in the Bible. Technically it refers to a fatherless child as the pressing matters associated with the yatom were that they lacked the economic, legal and social protection that only a living, adult, male would provide. There isn't a specific Hebrew term for a child who has lost both parents. Scholars differ as to whether it should be translated as 'orphan' or 'fatherless'. I prefer to use 'orphan', assuming a broader definition in modern contexts.
One thing to note on finding parallels between biblical concepts and contemporary ones. We need to be careful not to jump too quickly from 'orphans' in OT or NT times and 'orphans' in C21 UK (or elsewhere). There will be ways in which they are similar but also ways in which they are different. To apply what the Bible says about them requires us to do careful interpretive work. However, if we do this I am convinced that we can unlock EVEN MORE of the heart of God for getting stuck in to these pressing issues.
Keep up the great work, Krish
My first thought was your reason 1. I don't think I've heard the word used at all during our fostering training and now as foster carers.
I think using 'orphans' in respect to children from the care system can romanticise things a bit. You can have a picture of poor little angelic faced children who need a wonderful philanthropist to come and rescue them. As an adopter I know before you get into the system of preparation it is quite easy to forget these children have birth family, mums , dads, siblings, grandparents, cousins etc and are often have quite complex needs. You may also need to maintain contact with a host of these family members whilst making sure the child knows where they're from and that they were generally loved even if their parents sometimes struggled to show it.
It would obviously be easier if you long for a child of your own for the child to be an orphan then you could be the only and complete parent and family for the child especially if a baby (am I allowed to say that? I know a lot of adopters probably secretly feel that way!)
I guess what I'm saying is using the word 'orphan' in this day and age in the British care system would not be right as the majority of children are not orphans.
In biblical times would the 'caring for widows and orphans' be encouraged as the church needed to be the social services where there was none. There was no safety net except for caring individuals and these vulnerable people could be at risk of starvation and death.
I think we need to take on the early church principles that of protecting the vulnerable which I believe can partly be done through adoption and fostering!
I think orphan has come to mean a child without either living parent in the UK in this century. I was struck how many of the children placed in Victorian orphanages did actually have at least one living parent - but were placed in the orphanage because his or her parent or parents could not provide a safe environment for the child. I saw some statistics somewhere and I think it was of the order of a half. These would include the children who these days end up in care.
There are a number of well known literary examples of orphans from Victorian times which influence our views. eg Pip in Great Expectations. Anne of Green Gables (who is Canadian) was an orphan who went through a variety of care placements and an orphanage before being adopted.