Hi Karrie
I had time this morning to go rummaging around for an old submission I had stored....it has to do with middle children as the author writes she is one... thought you would see some things in there you would enjoy reading.
I have her permission to use any or all of her essays as I wish.
Here is her article:
The concept of birth order intrigues me, perhaps because I come from a big family. When I was growing up, there was a pecking order not only among my siblings, but among my 22 cousins. I always knew who was the boss, and it was not I.
The birth order theory, presented in 1923 by the Austrian psychologist Alfred Adler, asserts that the order in which you are born into your family has a measurable effect on who you turn out to be.
If you are the oldest, for example, you are likely to be very responsible, and to take charge of situations. If you are the baby, you may behave like a baby, no matter how many birthdays have passed. If you are an only child, you may be self-involved and prefer adult company. If you are adopted, you may be spoiled by your parents' gratitude for having you. If you are a twin, you may have identity problems. These are, of course, huge, and possibly offensive, generalizations.
If you are a middle child, as I am, you tend to be a peacemaker. You may grow up to be a fighter of injustice. You are a negotiator, a conciliator. That's because, all your life, your survival has depended on your ability to see both sides of an argument, and to reconcile disparate parties: If you do not, you may be squashed by warring factions. We middle children also agonize over whether to associate with the older or the younger sibling at any given moment. We feel both comfortable and uncomfortable doing either, but we keep it all inside. People think we are low-maintenance and well-adjusted, but we just know how to appear that way. Inside, we are complete basket cases.
It might seem that as the second of six, and as the oldest girl, I am not a true middle child. But the circumstances of my childhood were that there were, for many years, only three of us. Then, when I was 12, my parents had three more children in quick succession. My mother likes to say that she had three babies late in life as a direct result of the hundreds of candles that she had us light every Sunday after Mass, as, for eight years, we prayed for a new baby. All along, we thought our prayers were going unanswered, but suddenly, boy, were they answered.
By then, I was more the age of a baby sitter than a sister: you don't, as a teenager, engage in much sibling rivalry with a 2-year-old. So for the better part of my formative years, I was the kid between my older brother (the boss, the heir, the promised one) and my younger sister (the baby, the cherub, the bratty princess). I was Lisa Simpson, the largely unnoticed overachiever sandwiched between the firstborn, attention-grabbing son and the adorable, bottle-sucking baby girl.
When we went on the long car rides of our summer vacations as we traveled with my father on his business trips, I got the middle of the back seat; the one with the hump where your feet should go. In our Howard Johnson motel rooms, I got the middle of the double bed that was for the kids; otherwise, my brother and sister would fight. I was a human buffer.
It occurred to me that the ones who were misbehaving were being rewarded with the desirable positions in the back seat and the bed. This was definitely not fair, the two words that constitute the harshest possible indictment in the court of kids. Middle children believe passionately in fairness.
Not only was I born a middle child, I was born to parents who were themselves middle children. My mother was the middle child of seven; my father of three. Both of my parents knew what being a middle child was like, so you'd think they might have taken care to avoid creating one.
Instead, they came up with two: one for each set of three. My sister, the fifth-born, and I have a lot in common, although we are almost a generation apart. But I cannot chide my parents, as my husband and I, who thought we had been careful by having an even number of children (four), somehow also gave birth to two classic, yet different, middle children. Our oldest daughter was born to the high expectations of first-time parents, and our youngest definitely functions as the youngest, which leaves our second and third daughters in the middle.
Our second-born daughter behaves like her mother's example of the middle child: she is often the peacemaker, the cooler head that prevails in times of unrest, but who keeps it all inside. Our third born daughter exhibits the alternate qualities of the middle child: she is the rebel. She lives dangerously. Perhaps feeling she will never measure up to the oldest nor attract the unearned adoration that the baby does, she strikes out for parts unknown. She figures she's got nothing to lose, so she might as well live life on the sharpest, most precarious edge.
Some experts hold that birth order is no more relevant to one's personality than one's zodiac sign; that being mindful of birth order is about as illuminating as reading one's daily horoscope.
Adler himself speculated that birth order differences would be negligible as families evolved and became more democratic and cooperative. Socioeconomic and genetic factors, as well as parental attitudes and gender roles, most likely contribute more to determining our unique characters than birth order.
Still, I'm fascinated. And I know that, even though I am all grown up, the middle-child shoes sure fit my feet comfortably. I suspect they will continue to fit the feet of my two middle daughters as they travel the long road.