Lineage

I have been conducting a secret experiment this week, cunning I know. It stems from my (and the rest if civilization's) quest for why the world is the way it is. Nature v. Nuture- the conundrum that plagues society's infrastructure. Are we made or are we born? This question is asked in millions of contexts as I write and you read. Whenever an event occurs that shakes our faith in humanity and our predisposition towards evil, we focus on the individuals involved and rationalise why they behaved the way they did.
An exercise in futility? It can be if you are looking for an answer you have already decided upon. When pursuing this problem, we err on the side of nurture. We prefer to come to the comfy conviction that people behave the way they do because of what has been done to them. Evil has become an infectious disease that is passed on or, more pertinently, caught. The idea that it is just simply there, with no purpose or motivation, ready to pounce, is something we ironically push under the proverbial carpet.
As any good investigator who is having issues with tackling a case, I decided to narrow the field, reduce the variables if you will. I cannot answer the wide-ranging enigma; therefore, a focus on a more simplistic, tangible elementmay prove more fruitful.
Lineage, a.k.a the pecking order- my hypothesis was that your position in the family has an influence over how you turn out. My research interested me because I come over all David Attenboroughish when observing siblings. I am an only child and have grown up watching the interaction of brothers and sisters with a mixture of both jealousy and horror. I learnt very quickly that whatever friends said about their siblings, however damning they were, it was never acceptable for me to attempt to be complicit in their character assassination. I initially found this level of hypocrisy hard to stomach but I now see it as part of the warped loyalty ethos surrounding siblinghood.
How far is your personality shaped by whether you are eldest, middle or youngest? It cannot be denied that it will have some bearing on your entire upbringing. In true documentary style, let us examine the current stereotypes that exist within our society and decide if we can endorse such vast generalisations.
If you are first past the post in your own house, would that not mean that you are naturally expected to be so in all walks of life? Friends who are the eldest seem to naturally accept responsibility rather than shirking it off at any given opportunity. Typically, the eldest is seen as a surrogate pat/matriarch for the family, a deputy parent. They are allowed to have the first taste of the apple but they are also expected to test the bath water to check it is cool enough for their siblings to plunge into.
Middle children are apparently very likely to have an uncomfortable chip on their shoulder; a burning need to be recognised in their own right. To be defined/labelled in some other way than the one in-between: the pretty, clever, funny one. Their need for attention can have a negative effect as well. Their "cry for help" can manifest itself in many different ways. Another common trait is for them is to evolve as the contrary antithesis of their elder sibling. Rather than exploring what they would naturally like to do, they purposely gravitate towards fields that have not been explored or, even better, have been unsuccessful.
The youngest- the baby. There is a tendency to view this sibling as the eternal Peter Pan. Families indulge them and consequently they dwell uncomfortably in studentville until their late 20s and beyond. Why? Because when the rest of the family allow the youngest to grow up, they have to admit their own stage of development (or lack of it).
Finally my own case, the einzelkind. This breed shares flaws from all of the above: innately selfish, unable to see anyone's opinions, needs, desires apart from their own; they are insufferably spoilt and mollycoddled with no understanding of what constitutes real life and "hard graft". It is believed that they expect everyone to rally round them and naturally assume that all and sundry are interested in their current circumstances but have no inclination to exhibit even a staged mild enthusiasm for anyone else's news.
These were my case studies as I embarked on surveying friends, families and acquaintances. Like any scientist, I was hoping that I would hold these prototypes up and my subjects would all comfortably fit into my pre-established perception and thus prove my hypothesis. What I found out was more complex.
Structurally, an experiment must end with a conclusion and I am loathe to deviate from accepted practice. My findings prove my hypothesis, but only in a lateral manner. When I spoke to individuals, they were very quick to agree that their position within the family was an important factor. I became the recipient of many tales of woe and longstanding resentment. I listened to accounts of entrenched, bitter struggles and prejudices that many of the divulgers felt powerless against. Ultimately, I decided this: whether you are the youngest, middle or eldest child, it affects your life as much as you allow it to. If you accept the label, then you will inevitably perpetuate it. In turn, if you allow your family to heap the stereotype upon you, then eventually you will become that person.
To arrive back at n v n, we feel comfortable with labels that we share with others. If we can find outside justification for our eccentricties and failures then we can casually shuffle away from accepting direct responsibility for our actions. It allows us to empathise with others and form some kind of affiliation. We would much rather blame our inadequacies on the the past, on something we had no control over, than on a clear decision we independently made in the present.
Out of interest and to consolidate my experiment, I looked up the lineage of Hitler, Madonna and Ghandi. I'll let you work out why I felt them to be relevant to my research. I was surprised to discover that none of them were the eldest or indeed the youngest child. Hitler was 4/6, but only his younger sister survived childhood; Madonna is 3/7 and Ghandi was 3/4. There purposely isn't a conclusion to draw from this information. That is because, for better or worse, neither Hitler, Madonna or Ghandi are/were defined by the position they held within their family. They were, and still are, defined by themselves.