BIRTH ORDER AND ROLES

The Birth Order Theory, first proposed by Alfred Adler, a contemporary of Freud and Jung, is the familiar but unproven idea that a person’s order of birth in the family has profound impact on their psychological development. As a general overview, the theory is:
• First born children – Natural leader, ambitious, responsible
• Middle children – Social butterfly, peacekeeper, fairness-obsessed
• Youngest children – Free, risk-taker, charming
Obviously, this is simplistic and akin to horoscopes where 7.7 billion people on earth are crammed into 12 types based on which month they were born, or in the Chinese horoscope, 12 types based on their birth year. Birth order is even more generic since there are only three categories into which we are all squeezed (although the “only child” sub-category is a bit different).
The tricky thing is that the reasoning behind the theory makes general sense; oldest children get more individual attention and they often take responsibility for younger children; middle children can feel neglected and like they don’t get enough attention; youngest children have more freedom because parents have more experience, have more resources, or, are just worn out. However, the actual research conducted regarding this theory does not bear out these generalizations.
The whole birth order idea is dependent on each person’s view of their own place, not so much on what other people think they should do. Eldest kids, especially daughters, can be real bossy-pants. They like to run things and having built in underlings suits them just fine. The youngest often get privileges the older children didn’t get for various reasons. I remember reading an article that called the eldest children “practice children.” It said they are like waffles you should throw the first one out. Of course, now I hear people refer to childless couples’ dogs as practice children.
I do believe that children in a family take on different roles. If one is the super athlete, another might go in the direction of being the academic, or maybe the wild child. One article I read proposed that, when one child changes their role it can cause the other children to shift roles, as well. For example, if the athlete suffers an injury and becomes the troublemaker, the troublemaker might become more responsible, causing the responsible one to feel free to pursue their artistic pursuits. The idea is based on children striving to form and maintain their own identities within the family.
In my family there were only two children. Being the eldest I was expected to be more responsible. Given the dysfunction of my family, I think I was cast as the parent. My only brother had two things going for him; 1.) He was the youngest, and 2.) He was the only boy. I doubt he would see either of those things as advantages. It all depends on your perspective.
Gender is probably a more influential aspect of family role, especially in patriarchal cultures where males are more valued. In Afghanistan there is a cultural practice known as bacha posh (literally, “dressed up as a boy”). In the Afghan society women have few opportunities and are considered a burden to the family. If a family has no sons and needs help with the workload, or parents hope for better opportunities for their daughters, they might rename a daughter and raise her as a boy. They are raised with greater freedoms and privileges. When they reach puberty and the truth becomes known outside the family they are harassed, pressured to go back to the woman’s role, and they often don’t want to do that. It would not be an easy transition at that point. They end up in shelters or their families may have to relocate to avoid harassment.
Looking at my own childhood and family order I can identify circumstances that influenced my development, layered over my own basic personality and my observations of other people. It is not easy to decipher and reach back to childhood to try and determine what formed us, but it can be an enlightening exercise.
I would love to know what circumstances and roles defined you as you were growing up.