top of page

Born to Rebel

Writer's picture: Madeleina KayMadeleina Kay

I discovered this book after watching a clip from a podcast interview on TikTok. It was a really fascinating read, although quite out of my typical field of reading... It was highly academic, particularly heavy on history and science which are absolutely not my usual interests. I found it quite challenging to get through, especially the discussion of statistical methods which largely went over my head - but I was glad I got through the 375 pages. It revealed a really interesting relationship between character, the propensity to be open minded and rebellious and birth order. I wanted to read it because I am interested in psychology and the impact of family systems on character - I wasn't expecting to notice any relationship to my research into identity. But the book made me reflect on the extent to which our life choices, interests and decisions are self-determined or influenced by our upbringing. As a middle child myself, I identify heavily with the typical character traits of being the "conflict mediator" and using compromise as a strategy and being highly empathic. However, I would consider myself to be the most rebellious child amongst my siblings - a trait typically attributed to the youngest sibling - however, the book explained how "developmental glitches" such as, parental conflict, familial losses or abuse can disrupt the typically expected pattern. Overall, it was a very interesting read and an interesting framework to view conservative/revolutionary characters, as well as for parents to reflect on how they are bringing up/influencing their own children.

Key Quotes

‘The question of why some people rebel, including why a few particularly far-sighted individuals initiate radical revolutions, is synonymous with the question of why siblings are so different... The crux of my argument stems from a remarkable discovery. Siblings raised together are almost as different in their personalities as people from different families.’ (xiii)

 

‘To accept or reject the status quo is a fundamental decision that we must all sometimes make. We first learn to make such decisions within the family. As the great forge of individual tendencies toward revolution and counterrevolution, the family is one of the foremost engines of historical change. In ways that I did not suspect when I began, the causes of rebellion reside within every family.’ Page xviii)

 

‘The diverse reaction to Darwin’s evidence for evolution underscore an important principle about science. “Facts” in science do not speak for themselves but assume their meaning based on theoretical and ideological commitments. The practice and the beliefs of the scientists are embedded in a greater social context.’ (page 16)

 

‘Like artistic creativity, scientific innovation is not well understood at the level of the individual. The Darwinian revolution reveals the full magnitude of the problem. Some people, it would appear are inclined to challenge established truths. The question is why.’ (page 19)

 

‘Siblings compete with one another in an effort to secure physical, emotional, and intellectual resources from parents. Depending on differences in birth order, gender, physical trait, and aspects of temperament, siblings create differing roles for themselves within the family system… Differences in personality have been reported by birth order for a wide variety of traits. These differences are sufficiently large that first-borns appear to more similar in their personalities to other firstborns than they are to their own younger siblings. In particular, eldest children tend to identify more closely with parents and authority.’ (page 21)

 

‘firstborns whose closest siblings are six or more years younger are functionally similar to only children. Singletons represent a kind of “controlled experiment” – what it is like to grow up unaffected by birth order or sibling rivalry. Although singletons tend to score somewhere between firstborns and laterborns on most personality measures, they are typically closer to firstborns on openness to experience. The reason is that only children, like other firstborns, tend to identify with parents and authority.’ (page 23)

 

‘During the early stages of radical revolutions, laterborns are 5 to 15 times more likely than firstborns to lend their support. For their own part, firstborns are drawn to reactionary innovations, a domain in which they are also the principle pioneers. Firstborns typically welcome conservative doctrines as potential bulwarks against radical change, supporting them 2 to 1 over laterborns.’ (page 53)

 

‘Firstborns are reported to be more responsible and achievement orientated than laterborns, who are in turn reported to be more socially successful than their older siblings… A secondborn himself [Alfred] Adler considered individuals from this birth rank to be more cooperative than firstborns… secondborns are “rarely able to endure the strict leadership of others” … Youngest children are not subject to dethronement ans are said to become lazy and spoiled… Those lastborns who feel particularly overshadowed by their older siblings may experience a sense of inferiority.’ (page 55)

 

‘Only through evolutionary diversification is coexistence possible. As children grown up, they undergo adaptive radiation in their efforts to establish their own individual niches within the family. By pursuing disparate interests and abiltiies, siblings minimise direct competition.’ (page 86)

 

‘Children may not know if they are loved less than the children of other parents, but they are painfully aware when they are loved less than a sibling. Children are especially sensitive to injustices within their own families because the psychological mechanisms for detecting these inequities have evolved within this social context. This is why social class is a surprisingly poor predictor of social radicalism. The motives for rebellion generally arise within families, not between them.’ (page 93)

 

‘Siblings differed systematically in their identification with parents. If one sibling identified strongly with one parent, the adjacent sibling identified strongly with the other parent. Within each family, “split-parent” identifications were particularly pronounced for the first sibling pair.’ (page 96)

 

‘Developmental glitches affect family members differently. For example, parental loss rarely has the same impact on siblings because they are at different ages. Parental loss may induce an eldest child to forgo further education in order to help support younger siblings, whose likelihood of attending college might actually increase. In closing a window of opportunity for one offspring, misfortune may open a window for another.’ (page 118)

 


‘Compared with laterborns, firstborns are generally better educated and hence more likely to become scientists. Firstborns are especially overrepresented among the members of establishment science… Marx’s theory of class struggle sheds almost no light on individual differences in personality, including openness to radical ideas.’ (page 254)

 

‘It is noteworthy that Henry VIII, who began by marrying a lastborn, subsequently married women who were earlier in relative birth rank, until he finally ended up with a firstborn. Henry seems to have learned a lesson from his various matrimonial experiences. As far as opinionated kings are concerned, laterborns might be fun to court, but they tend to make rebellious wives.’ (page 282)

 

‘Moderate revolutionaries, including firstborns, have typically led protests that were precipitated by a political or economic “crisis”. By turning minority protests into popular causes, crises make revolutionary change acceptable to the majority of the population. ‘ (page 297) 



‘For many years, I believed that middleborns were little different from lastborns, except in being somewhat less liberal.. I have … changed my mind. Variations in family niches induce adaptive responses in personality, including the propensity for aggression. The most tough-minded individuals are firstborns, Lastborns are militant, too, but for different reasons. Their militancy arises because they are daring, zealous, and liberal, not because they are particularly dominant or punitive (firstborn traits). Compared with other siblings, middle children are more flexible and favour compromise. When they rebel, they do so largely out of frustration, or compassion for others, rather than hatred or ideological fanaticism. Middle children make the most “romantic” revolutionaries.’  (pages 302-303)

 

‘In altercations with their siblings, youngest children can better afford to hold their ground because parents, and sometimes other siblings, intervene on their behalf. As a result of such tactical constraints, middle children do well to develop diplomatic skills and to cultivate coalitions with their siblings.’ (page 303)

 


‘When parents are no longer able to have additional children, it is sensible for them to concentrate investment on those children who are the most vulnerable to death and disease. The losers in this Darwinian calculation are often middle children. Lastborns fare better because they are the only member of the family to receive parental investment undiluted by the needs of a younger rival.’ (page 305)

 

‘Social attitudes reflect long-established values and beliefs, mostly learned during youth. It is much easier for people to change their views about factual issues than it is for them to change their political and religious convictions. (page 341)

 

‘Families are best seen as containing an array of diverse niches, each occupied by a different individual and presenting differing vantage points on life. From these differing perspectives, family members experience the same events differently.’ (page 352)

0 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


© 2023 by Artist Corner. Proudly created with Wix.com

bottom of page