Birth Order and Political Choice - Report Example

Birth Order and Political Choice The idea that the birth order of children within a family influences their social and political behaviors is far-fetched and continues to persist in the modern world. The notion that exists is that besides the genetic influence of behavior, the environment shapes the way a person behaves and the decisions they make in their future. Different studies show that there is a close relationship between the birth position of a child and their future habits. Authors such as Sulloway indicate that first-born children within split families are more assertive, determined, and loyal during their life time, while the late-born children are rebellious. While this idea has received a lot of support within contemporary literature, there is evidence that there are other factors that influence how children, irrespective of their birth order, behave. In the political sphere, the implication is that first born children will support conservative political ideologies while the late born will defy and seek more assertive political structures. This analysis paper evaluates the birth order composition within the Chinese Communist parties and nationalist parties in China in 1930s. A close analysis of the findings will help shed light on the idea that birth order influences political choices. Sulloway (191) makes a reflection on the past theories of psychology that have investigated the impact of birth order on the personality. Earlier psychologists identified that the elder children within a family tend to be loyal while the last born children tend to form the rebellious society. Earlier scholars such as Adler termed first born as “power-hungry conservatives” to refer to their tendency to be royal. By power hunger, the author intends to express motivation to be leaders and succeed in life. The idea that they are conservative means that they flow by the current and are less likely to oppose the systems. From this basis, first born leaders are more likely to play by the political rules and support the existing systems. On the other hand, the youngborns are lazy and more rebellious to existing systems. As a result, when they grow old, they are more likely to change the system rather than support them. This idea implies that an analysis of any political structure would express the behavioral gap that exists between children due to the position they have within their families. In China, the political structure comprises of the communists and nationalists who pose on different sides of the government. An analysis of the Chinese political structure and the representation by birth order would be essential in evaluating the political landscape and the extent to which birth order influences political choices. In China, the Kuomintang or nationalist party represents the loyal party in the government. This party advocates for a state controlled society and supports the elimination of the colonial rule. In the year 1930s, the concept of leadership was punctuated by political upheavals with great government opposition. Evidently, this was the birth of the communist party which was formed by those who opposed the stand of the government (Zweigenhaft and Ammon 624-627). The party pursues democracy which implies upholding the rights of the citizens and allowing active participation of every person in policy development. The research investigated the committee composition of the parties according to birth order. The main was to identify the proportions of the firstborns and lateborns within both parties, and how this relates to the political decisions made by each person (Johnson 24). By focusing on the period between 1930 and 1945, it is possible to understand the bipolar politics that existed before the election of the communist party as the ruling party in China. In the research, it was identified that there were 7 first born children in the communist party and 14 firstborns in the nationalist party. On the other hand, there were 0 and 2 last born children within the communist and nationalist committees respectively. In terms of proportion, the research findings indicated that the proportion of the first born children in the communist party stood at 63.6% while that of the nationalist party was at 38.9%. From the results, there is evidence that the largest proportion of the communist comprised of Firstborn children rather than last born children (Shambaugh 24-45). These results point out that the first born children are take up more rebellious positions within the political arena while the first born children take up the loyalist position. These finding contradicts the proposition of Sulloway that first born children are more likely to be loyal while the last born child is rebellious. However, there is evidence that the last born are underrepresented in leadership while the first born are more successful leaders. From the results, there were only 2 lastborns in leadership while there were about 21 firstborns within leadership in the 1930s. The results of the findings agree with the idea developed by Ketchum (121) that Firstborn children are more likely to succeed than last born children. This is borrowed from Conley’s proposition that the first born children tend to succeed more at the expense of the lastborn children. Conley argued that since last born grow independently, they tend to have inner motivation that drives them to success. They are ambitious are more willing to cooperate with the systems to elevate their lives. As a result, they learn more ambitiously and attain the best positions in the world. However, the last born children learn to be dependent and hence are less likely to become ambitious person in future. Within split families, last born children are less aggressive and they are more affected by the parental status. Consequently, they fail to achieve success and they find it rather hard to cope with life. The same way, in the research, since leadership is a position associated with success it would be expected that more first born children would become future leaders while the last born would are less likely to be in leadership. This is the probable explanation why the research indicated a high proportion of firstborns within both parties. However, the findings in this research defy Sulloway’s argument on the influence of birth order on political inclinations. If the idea of Sulloway is something to put into consideration in this research, it would be expected that the proportion of the lastborns in the communist party would be higher than the proportion in the nationalist party. According to Sulloway, the family is a true reflection of the political landscape as the same issues that appear at home are manifested in the political landscape. Sulloway appeals to the psychological theories that explain the possible reasons why Last born children end up being rebellious in the family as well as when they grow old. According to the five personality model analysis, the last born children are more prone to fantasy are ready to welcome new ideas unlike the first born children who are trusting and less open to new ideas (Somit, Alan and Steven 12-23). As a result, first born children will trust the political systems and a less likely to oppose an existing political structure. On the other hand, the first born will rebel from the systems and will attract new political ideas that persist within the society. Therefore, the younger children in the family are more likely to support the government antagonists. Grose (11-15) is another scholar who conformed to the birth order theory that was developed by Sulloway. In his research, he identified that the firstborns are rulers while the laterborns are rebellious and seek to change the world. In his study, he identified that the first born children were better in accounting and law job positions and majority were skewed in this direction. On the other hand, the youngerborns were more attracted to sales jobs rather than such jobs. Additionally, he identified that organizations that put laterborns in sales position were more likely to perform better in this department. However, he was keen to admit that there are exceptions in every theory and that there are times when the birth order fails to explain the behavior of individuals in society (Fortes 81-84). The proposition of Grose that firstborns are likely to take up leadership position may be in tandem with the findings of this research. Evidently, the first born comprise the majority in leadership position. The findings may indicate that the rebellious firstborns form the large community that is neither in leadership but always objects the government structure. From the research, there are two possible conclusions that can be developed from the collected data. First, the fact that the proportion of firstborns in the communist party is much than that in the nationalist party may be disapproval for the theories that suggest that firstborn children are loyalist while lastborns are rebels. This would bring a new concept in the birth order theory and a new way of interpreting the influence of family to the behavior of children in society. From another perspective, these results imply the under-representation of young-borns in the leadership position. Therefore, the low number of last and middle born leaders is a manifestation of the fact that these category of children do not succeed are hence do not make up in leadership position. Grose (34) provides a more reasonable argument by establishing that although the birth theory often applies in the society, there are occasions in which it may not be manifested in the society. Therefore, this particular research shows an exceptional case and more research may be essential to come up with a more conclusive confirmation of this theory. On this ground, further research to verify the applicability of the birth order theory would be essential. In conclusion, the research findings contradict the birth order theories which suggest that firstborns are loyal while the lastborns are more rebels. While there is evidence that the position of the child in the family influences their social and political behavior, it is acceptable there are exceptions to this theory. In the survey, it was established that in China, more firstborn children supported the rebellious, communist, party than those who supported the nationalist party. This defies the theories that suggest that first borns should be loyal to the political systems rather than rebellious. However, the findings support the idea that firstborns are more likely to succeed in life than the laterborns in society. From a close of evaluation, more research is essential to confirm the idea proposed by the birth order theory and to identify other factors that may impose the political choice of children when they grow old. Works Cited Fortes, Meyer. "The first born." Journal of Child psychology and psychiatry 15.2 (1974): 81-104. Grose, Michael. Why the First-borns Rule the World and Last-Born Want to Change it. Australia :Random House Australia. 2008. Print. Johnson, Chalmers A. Peasant nationalism and communist power: the emergence of revolutionary China, 1937-1945. Stanford University Press, 2000. Print. Ketchum, Ben. "The Pecking Order: Which Siblings Succeed and Why, by Dalton Conley." Journal of Catholic Education 10.1 (2006): 14. Shambaugh, David L. Chinas communist party: atrophy and adaptation. Univ of California Press, 2008. Print Somit, Albert, Alan Arwine, and Steven A. Peterson. Birth Order and Political Behavior. Lanham, Md: University Press of America, 1996. Print. Sulloway, Frank J. Born to rebel: Birth order, family dynamics, and creative lives. Pantheon Books, 1996. Print. Zweigenhaft, Richard L., and Jessica Von Ammon. "Birth order and civil disobedience: A test of Sulloways “born to rebel” hypothesis." The Journal of social psychology 140.5 (2000): 624-627. Read More