DYNAMICS AND THE THIRD CHILD AS OUTSIDER
This essay on the behaviour of social groups is based
upon considering the family situation and the group dynamics impinging
upon the first three children. It arises partly from recently
contemplating the meaning of the phrase social identity and also
from considering my own family and childhood. It also derives from
observing the behaviour of my own children. Fundamentally, as a third
child myself, it springs from considering some elements of my own
personality, feelings and impulses and their possible origins.
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 second 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.
From the perspective of self-image and social identity,
the third child 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 third 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 first child merely clicks their fingers and people
come running to heed their call. The second child gets their way through
exclusive one-to-one contacts, forming a team of two, excluding all
others. But the third 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 others 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 first 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 third
(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.