I am an only child. When I tell this to people, I can expect a stock standard response. Surprise, even shock. The less couth of my fellow citizens will even say, what is, I fear, on many other’s minds: ‘So you must have been spoilt as a kid?’
I grew up with – and have remained aware of – the list of negative personality traits associated with only children. Selfish. Spoilt. Unable to interact with others, or take jokes. Lonely. Isolated. Difficult. Stubborn. Always expecting everything to go their way, and having great difficulty sharing!
The only child grew up without siblings coming into their room and taking their toys. They never had to share their food with anyone, or vie for their parents love and affection. As such they grew up twisted, tormented, unable to integrate themselves into society. Doomed to live as outcasts and social misfits, with bad manners and unpredictable tempers!
So when asked the question ‘Oh, so you must have been spoilt then?’ – and taking it to imply all the other negative perceptions of the only child – I would always answer, ‘No, I don’t think so.’
I have never found myself in constant conflict with others. I am able to take a harsh joke (perhaps this has to do with the fact that I was dealt the double as a kid: an only child and a ginger!) I can see the need for compromise. And sometimes I will even share things with people!
So then, what could possibly explain my condition? Had I cheated the odds? Had my parents somehow managed to sail me clear of this devastating coast? Had the universe preserved me as a counter example? Whatever it was, I was relieved I had been spared a fate so harsh that it had been labeled a syndrome!
As I had always placed myself outside of the norm, I had never given too much consideration to the norm itself, and as such had never seen it for what it quite clearly is: a blatant prejudice. In an age in which we are so sensitized to discrimination and ethnic prejudice it is startling to take note of the variety of other – more subtle prejudices - which are allowed to flourish.
Imagine a civilized gathering. A mutual friend introduces a black man to a white man, and the white man says to the black man, ‘Oh, so does that mean you steal?’ He would – quite rightly – be ostracized for being an ignorant, racist, moron. But, if this same person was introduced to someone who turned out to be an only child and he said, ‘Oh, so does that mean you were spoilt?’ no one would bat an eyelid.
In civilized society we need to be vigilant against racial and ethnic stereotyping because of the untold and unnecessary suffering it has caused the human race. Only children have never been singled out for the kind of treatment that certain races and ethnicities have been subjected to. However, as the human consciousness develops – which I believe it is – we must become aware of these more subtle prejudices which are still considered fair game, and do what we can to address them.
Interestingly, this prejudice against only children has its roots in similar places to those more deadly prejudices mentioned above. That being outdated philosophies, academia, and general thinking. In the not so distant past, it was considered self-evidenced that certain races were superior to others. Anthropologists measured skulls, and drew diagrams explaining the superior workings of certain races brains. Visionary nitwits like Hendrik Verwoerd wrote the pioneering work, ‘Verwoerd aan die Woord’ Verwoerd on the Word in which he gave biblical justification for racial separation and helped lay the frameworks for the apartheid state. Adolf Hitler whilst having a bit of me time in prison wrote the infamous ‘Mein Kampf’ in which he argued for racial eugenics, an idea that ultimately lead to the holocaust.
Another man interested in racial eugenics – the breeding in and out of certain racial qualities – was a psychologist named G. Stanley Hall (1844-1924). Have a read up on only children and his name is bound to emerge. He described the only child’s situation as being ‘a disease in itself’, and believed that the only child possessed most of the undesirable traits listed above. A contemporary of his, Alfred Adler, held similar views. These two men were pioneering psychologists. But they were pioneering for their day, and much of what they believed would today be considered highly inaccurate. Some of this thinking (the idea of racial eugenics for instance) has been subjected to heavy criticism because of the evident damage it has caused society. Other ideas (although equally as outdated – like the thinking on only children) has never been subjected to continuous public scrutiny, and so continues to hang out in the collective mindset.
During this abovementioned time, the era of Victorian hangover, when sparing the rod was thought to spoil the child, human contact between mother and baby and mother and child was believed to be undesirable. A child who received too much attention from their parents, and particularly their mother would grow up to be weak. Later experiments – famously Harlow’s Rhesus monkey experiments – began to pave the way for a different view on child rearing. A child who grew up with the support of their parents would feel more confident to explore the world around them, knowing that they had a safe base to which they could return. One on one parent and child time is today considered essential for childhood development, and children who’s parents afford them this often grow into successful adults.
Modern psychological findings have in fact shown that only children are not uniformly different from their peers. Where there are notable differences – achievement motivation and verbal skills – the only child scores higher than his sibling endowed counterparts. These advantages are quite clearly as a direct result of the extra time and energy that an only child’s parents are able to afford them.
And what if it is not the parental issue, but the actual absence of siblings that is the problem? What aspect would cause deficiency? Human beings are super social species. I cannot remember a day as a child when I did not interact with other members of my species: at school, in sports practices, playing at friends’ houses (I’ve never had any difficulty making friends). As an adult – unless you live somewhere in deliverance country – it is unlikely that you will only be interacting with members of your family. Hence this outside interaction is ample preparation for the adult world. But what of the sibling rivalry, the chance to bully or be bullied? Again, this is another outdated, semi-Neanderthal form of thinking. The idea that a child should suffer any sort of physical pain, and in turn inflict it on others (because the world is like that).
And again, for hardened cynics, the only child will be confronted with enough hardships at school – doubled by the fact that he has no siblings to turn to for support. He will also have to deal with the fact that he is different in this regard (rest assured it will be pointed out on numerous occasions).
So, in the end, what is really lost? I think that all only children grow up acutely aware of some absence. In a sense each only child must overcome a death of someone who never existed. But this loss is theirs alone, and is not a burden that society must or can share. And what is gained? Increased contact with parents. A strong sense of self. The ability to be alone and emotionally self reliant. A well developed imagination. And a deep respect for non familial relationships that are formed.
So, is there any sense in asking an only child if they were spoilt? It probably won’t lead to a holocaust. But, prejudices tend to hang out in packs. Allow one refuge in your mind, and others will soon take residence. Ban one, and ban them all! Amandla!
