On siblings and psychology
Nov. 23rd, 2006 04:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
danaerisI had a revelation the other day. It may turn out to be the explosion of neurons dying as I get older, but that remains to be seen.
People have long accepted that being an only child is not good for the child. It makes the child selfish, self-absorbed, and likely to be lonely. Right? Never mind that I know only children who have the oppossite problem (except for the loneliness).
But if that's the case, what about children who grow up with just one single sibling? If both children are of similar temperaments, and receive equal treatment from their parents, that's one thing. But what if not? Like in my case. I was a good little codependent perfectionist overachiever. I received a great deal of positive attention and only the occassional negative attention. My brother, on the other hand, was rebellious, and bored by the work he was assigned in school, and misbehaved a great deal. He had behavioural problems which probably stemmed from the way my parents handled his upbringing, and the fact that society was forcing him into a mold that was not working for him. Since he has left the structure of child and teenhood, he has flourished and grown without looking back.
Anyhow, doesn't this set up a dyadic paradigm? A black and white psychology, wherein children feel that they can either be the good child, or the bad child, and relentlessly fear being the bad child while at the same time feeling wretched on their siblings' behalf?
Although my parents loved us both equally, I got far more attention and rewards, because of my skating, and my achievements. I was driven places and was able to spend a great deal of time with my mother. Children will often equate attention with love, so although intellectually I know that we were loved equally, I can't help but feel like I was loved more. And so begins the struggle against perfectionism: if I fall off my pedestal, the only place to go is to the bottom. (I should note that my parents tried to get my brother involved with activities, but he never stuck with any of them)
Of course, this could happen in multi-child families as well, if all children are either treated like gold or like dirt. Even if the children are treated uniquely, there will be a spectrum present, and a certain amount of fear at losing 'status' within the 'pack.' But, there is not so much being gambled. We may slip down a rung, but there isn't a feeling that you're either good, or bad.
The more I think about it, the more it seems that it would be healthiest to have either one single child, or three. An only child can relieve loneliness and selfish tendencies by having regular playmates, and by careful parenting. But with two children, when you get two very different children (in terms of achievements, interest in activities, and obedience), you're fucked. It may be that there was a way that they could have gotten my brother engaged. I don't know. But would I want to risk it?
People have long accepted that being an only child is not good for the child. It makes the child selfish, self-absorbed, and likely to be lonely. Right? Never mind that I know only children who have the oppossite problem (except for the loneliness).
But if that's the case, what about children who grow up with just one single sibling? If both children are of similar temperaments, and receive equal treatment from their parents, that's one thing. But what if not? Like in my case. I was a good little codependent perfectionist overachiever. I received a great deal of positive attention and only the occassional negative attention. My brother, on the other hand, was rebellious, and bored by the work he was assigned in school, and misbehaved a great deal. He had behavioural problems which probably stemmed from the way my parents handled his upbringing, and the fact that society was forcing him into a mold that was not working for him. Since he has left the structure of child and teenhood, he has flourished and grown without looking back.
Anyhow, doesn't this set up a dyadic paradigm? A black and white psychology, wherein children feel that they can either be the good child, or the bad child, and relentlessly fear being the bad child while at the same time feeling wretched on their siblings' behalf?
Although my parents loved us both equally, I got far more attention and rewards, because of my skating, and my achievements. I was driven places and was able to spend a great deal of time with my mother. Children will often equate attention with love, so although intellectually I know that we were loved equally, I can't help but feel like I was loved more. And so begins the struggle against perfectionism: if I fall off my pedestal, the only place to go is to the bottom. (I should note that my parents tried to get my brother involved with activities, but he never stuck with any of them)
Of course, this could happen in multi-child families as well, if all children are either treated like gold or like dirt. Even if the children are treated uniquely, there will be a spectrum present, and a certain amount of fear at losing 'status' within the 'pack.' But, there is not so much being gambled. We may slip down a rung, but there isn't a feeling that you're either good, or bad.
The more I think about it, the more it seems that it would be healthiest to have either one single child, or three. An only child can relieve loneliness and selfish tendencies by having regular playmates, and by careful parenting. But with two children, when you get two very different children (in terms of achievements, interest in activities, and obedience), you're fucked. It may be that there was a way that they could have gotten my brother engaged. I don't know. But would I want to risk it?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-11-23 10:18 pm (UTC)There's a tendency in our culture to treat parenting as a scientific pursuit: if I do A, B, and C, I'll get a well-adjusted child. If I don't do them, I won't. The fact is, every kid is different. Birth order plays a role. So does parenting style. But there's also the role of genetic makeup and brain chemistry, health, nutrition, peers, teachers, and a host of other factors that are outside a parent's control. I believe these things make a difference, but not as much of a difference as you're suggesting. Case in point - there are four of us, but my brother and I played similar roles in our family to the ones you just described. I've heard plenty of parents say they don't want a third child because they don't want middle-child syndrome.
The fact is, no child is going to be perfect. No parenting situation is perfect. No parent makes perfect choices for their child. All of this is for one reason: humans aren't perfect. We are all the products of our parents' choices for us and our choices for ourselves, along with all those other factors. We can obsess about it, or we can accept that we're doing our best and get on with lovingly raising our kids.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-24 12:28 am (UTC)However, I'd say parenting makes far more of a difference than number of children. While I think more than one is probably ideal, it likely all depends on what suits the parenting skills of the mother and father.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-24 05:39 am (UTC)Wrong.
People do well in lots of different family configurations, depending on how it's handled.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-25 05:49 pm (UTC)Anyone poly should understand, btw, that kids can be loved equally in different ways.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-02 02:58 am (UTC)With more than one sibling they can get attention from each other and not be the center of attention.