Platz des Kindes
in der Familie
[Peter Morell]
Family dynamics and the 3rd child as outsider.
Relationships begin at home. It is in the family where we are first tested
and where we receive the first rude elements of our own identity. Or at least
of our social identity, upon which so much of our later, more mature ‘sense of
self’ depends.
The eldest or only child has only his/her parents to please and apart
from that can please him or herself. Their identity therefore stems from only
one, narrow, relatively guaranteed and usually uncomplicated relationship. As a
result, a rather headstrong, self-centred, determined, assertive and
uncompromising, possibly arrogant sense of self [personality] tends to
characterise the eldest or only child. Natural leaders by virtue of birth, and
unused to compromise, they are rarely challenged.
With the arrival of the 2nd child a new power dynamic is established:
they must not only please their parents, whose affection they crave, but they
must also deal with their elder sibling; inevitably this means some compromise.
They fight a lot and vie with each other for the affection of their parents.
They are rivals much of the time and fight playfully, falling in and out of
love constantly like small kittens. While the first child was born into a
completely new situation requiring few demands or compromise and more or less
guaranteeing a continuous supply of undivided affection, all the later children
have a diluted sense of worth and gradually command reducing amounts of
attention and affection from their parents. Both are also divided to some
degree between them all.
3rd Child from the perspective of self-image and social
identity is born into an even more complex and compromising environment. He or
she arrives into a ready-made family with pre-formed complex relationships and
power dynamics, about none of which he/she was consulted or involved. He or she
not only wishes to gain affection of the parents (upon whom sanity depends) but
must also negotiate with the other siblings and establish tolerably harmonious
relationships with them. They stand in his/her way and between the third child
and the parents whose affection and approval they crave. Thus there is a
potntial ‘zone of discomfort’ standing between the third child and their
parents, occupied by the two older siblings. They feel more distant, a stranger
almost, coming into this cosy environment with its own power structures already
formed, and in which they feel excluded very easily and any little upset or
challenge to their identity is upsetting and lonely. In any rivalry with the
two older children, the third child feels especially threatened and insecure;
nervous to some degree and at times even paranoid. The older siblings can
appear to the third child like enemies blocking his/her access
to and contact with the parents. They potentially threaten his/her
supply of affection.
To the third child, the older siblings can at times seem like an
uncomfortable barrier which cuts him her off from natural affection. Thus they
may feel cooler towards their parents and more sensitive of any threat to their
natural affection, to which they feel entitled by birthright. The parents at
times also seem at times to be colluding with the older siblings and acting
against the interests of the third child.
This gives the impression of being 'ganged up against', cut-off and
excluded. Of an unfair three-against-one situation. Thus they can often feel
lonely, excluded and left out. Feeling so marginalised can affect their
identity. They tend to feel more distant and aloof, detached even and
emotionally neutral to most of what happens. At times they may seem hesitant,
confused, unsure and ambivalent.
They cannot ‘take sides’, for to do so threatens some power relationship
on one side or the other, which amounts to a non-option which will leave them
all alone and excluded. Probably nothing terrifies
the 3rd child more than being excluded, left-out and lonely.
They are constantly being forced to compromise, be diplomatic and to negotiate
for any territory. Thus they develop a new sense of identity based not upon
brash assertiveness but upon guile, quiet diplomacy and trying to please
everybody. To some extent they seek and take refuge in friendships formed
outside the home, as they have a little more control over them than those
existing within the family.
They are thus often the most intelligent, sociable and subtle members of
the family group. Rather than being innate, they probably develop these skills
out of a need to do so; its arises from the situation they are in. They acquire
subtle diplomatic and social skills in order to maintain their position in all
the conflicting power dynamics of the family group. Thus they feel impelled to
reason and communicate, plead with others and to operate shuttle diplomacy with
everyone. They shuttle between parents and older siblings and their own friends
and the friends of their elder siblings constantly moving around and maintaining
a neutral position. Needs must they work hard at this. In order to develop any
lasting and satisfying self-identity, they must labour hard and think up new
strategies to help everyone to get along harmoniously, for in doing that they
gain some personal comfort and security.
Experience teaches the third child that dogged assertiveness never gets
them what they want: that is a ‘trail of tears’ they become familiar with at a
very early stage. Essentially, they have entered a power structure completely
constructed by others; they must fit into it and are not really allowed to
dictate terms. They have an input, but cannot change things very much. That is
the essential nature of their situation. But through quiet diplomacy, sharing
things with others and long-reasoned schemes which please everyone, therein
lies their greatest strength. Their identity therefore, does not, like child
one, rest on any natural authority bestowed at birth, nor like child two, upon
a special, cosy, one-to-one relationship tacitly condoned by parents and which
excludes all newcomers. Thus the third child is forced to adapt to these grim
realities and to ‘find a place at the table’ which suits everyone. For, in
suiting everyone, they indirectly suit themselves. Like a pecking order. The
third child must develop their own distinctive identity, and sound and happy
self-image based mostly upon sharing things, accepting others as main
power-holders and thus negotiating, shuttle diplomacy and pleasing others first
before oneself. It is thus a life of service. Thus the third child must
eventually accept or choose a life of fitting-in, blending, subtle camouflage
and a realisation that much more can be attained by these techniques than by
sheer willpower alone. The unthinkable alternatives are friction, exclusion and
hence unhappiness and loneliness
The 1st child merely clicks their fingers and people come
running to heed their call. The 2nd child gets their way through
exclusive one-to-one contacts, forming a team of two, excluding all others.
But the 3rd child has to get by on the sidelines, by helping
everyone first before himself or herself. A very happy and successful identity
can thus be built up in this way. There is thus a huge contrast between the
selfish, arrogant pushiness and ‘natural authority’ of the first or only child
and the adaptive, subtle diplomacy of the third child. They are poles apart and
cannot really relate to each other very well. They have a very incomplete grasp
of each other’s situations. Problem is how they fare later in life, and it is
my hunch that the third child fares much better as he/she is pre-adapted to how
the rest of the world actually operates day by day. The world does not come
running when you click your fingers; you must get off your ass and do things
for yourself. Most people refuse to be treated like slaves and so the first
child has a big lesson to learn, mainly about a big ego and how to deal with
its shortcomings.
The 1st or only child is not used to giving way to others or
people refusing to do what they say. Such behaviour upsets them as they have
never dealt with it that often. Challenges to their power position are very
upsetting to them. Their whole identity, since birth, has been based upon
holding power, getting others to do what they say and of being in charge. Any
other type of situation is alien to them, which they avoid and find distinctly
uncomfortable. They also like to be the centre of attention soaking up all the
praise going. They operate through sheer willpower and coercing or intimidating
others to carry out their wishes. Thus they tend to become ‘control freaks’
unwilling to delegate power to anyone else. This creates enormous frictions in
their work and personal lives. They are incapable of the subtle give-and-take
realities of social interactions. They can thus be expected to give up or throw
a tantrum rather than work at a situation and find a compromise. They are thus
pre-adapted to falling out with people, to massive disputes with others, to
stand-offs and warfare of one form or another, and to marriage and relationship
upsets of every description. Frequent divorce, few true friendships and general
unhappiness await them in their future life. Maybe that is the true birthright
of being born an only or first child?
By comparison, the third child is almost the exact opposite. Pre-adapted
for many diverse friendships, a happy family life and with experience in
working hard at difficult relationship problems, they come sort-of ready-made
to deal with all sorts of diplomatic issues and relationship hassles. Thus they
make good parents, counsellors, marriage guidance persons, diplomats, social
workers, anthropologists and psychologists. They understand how people operate
in social groups fairly intuitively because that is pretty well what they have
been forced into doing since birth. They have sound intuition, understand
clearly how groups operate, fit in well in teams and work well with others.
They are also good neutral observers and sensitive and diplomatic in how they
handle the problems of others. What we have been saying about the third child
also applies to all subsequent children in a family.
Much of what I have written above assumes that the 3rd (and
subsequent) child will in general terms be compliant, docile, well-balanced and
wishing to live in harmony with the group norms of the elder siblings. This is
by no means always the case. It is merely the portrait of an idealised common
type. Of course, there do exist ebullient, headstrong and assertive third and
fourth children in families and
I would be a fool to claim otherwise! But in my opinion they are likely
to be far less numerous than ebullient, headstrong and selfish first and only
children. And even if some third and fourth children
are like that for some of the time, yet they will also be thoroughly
familiar with the ‘rules of social engagement’ I have depicted, even if they
choose to apply them only some of the time.
We have considered the social advantages of being a third child. Now we must
also examine some of the negative aspects. The chief disadvantage of being a
third or fourth child is a possible over-willingness to surrender their own
needs and identity in order to cater for the needs of others. Developing social
camouflage and operating always with group norms are fine social strategies,
but this can lead to a slavish mentality and to being too easily duped,
put-upon or dominated by others. So the positive, the unique and the beneficial
social aspects of being the third child, which we have explored in detail,
should also be carefully balanced against a possible tendency to become
ambivalent, ambiguous, hesitant, indecisive and easily enslaved by others. But
if they are happy with themselves and well-balanced, good-natured and creative
people, does this really matter?
Based upon considerations given here I would expect first and only
children to excel in the higher echelons of the business world, in the military
and police, in medicine and in sports much more than in service professions. I
would also expect third and fourth children to excel more in the arts, theatre,
social sciences, teaching, research, office work and general unskilled trades.
There seems to be a good match between the characteristics of the first child
and those careers indicated above, just as the features typical of the third
child more closely match the careers in the second category. It is therefore
very enriching to know that the subtle dynamics inherent in family life, and
how they impinge upon the children, have real and lasting impacts upon the
personality, social skills and ultimate career success of people as they grow
up and go out into the world. And back to those dynamics can be traced many of
the features of personality and disposition which distinguish one person from
another.
Another view:
1st Child almost always wanted and therefore spoiled.
Physical strong, used to get their way.
2nd Child: cramped between 1st and 3rd child, must
subdue/physical weaker
3rd Child spoiled/protected/still less strong physical.
Vorwort/Suchen Zeichen/Abkürzungen Impressum