Adler's theory of lifestyle and birth order

Adlers Theory

Birth Order and Personality According to Alfred Adler

It is ironic to consider that Austria would be the seat of so much ignorance and hatred leading into the start of World War II. Indeed, for many years prior, this would be a fertile context for intellectual achievement. So is this noted by the work of Sigmund Freud and a colleague slightly lesser known but nearly as frequently referenced in popular psychology. Alfred Adler, initially a part of Freud's inner-circle and thereafter a scholastic outcast, would nonetheless experience great success in his lifetime, which endured from 1870 to 1937. (Boeree, 1)

It may be said that it was some good fortune that the Jewish born physician and psychotherapist died of a sudden heart attack during a lecture tour in Scotland, as the sensitivity and emphasis on social justice which distinguish his ideas would have been deeply affronted by the unfolding of horrors in World War II. In the years prior though, he extended a great influence throughout Europe and North America, where his ideas concerning personality and social equality were largely received with enthusiasm by scholarly audiences. Where Freud rejected his ideas as 'contrary,' Adler seemed to resonate with the field, even to the extent that many of his crucial theories are today a part of the popular lexicon. This is true in spite of the relative absence of scientific process or empiricism detectable in his work.

Some of his most oft-referenced theories lack any proven basis, but are considered important for the perspective employed to justify the research. Such is true in the case of Adler's 'birth order' theory. Adler's focus on the impact of power dynamics and equality on personality have a central place in many of his most important theories. With respect to his birth order theory, Adler attributes certain behavioral tendencies and even personality disorders to the proclivity of family dynamics to impose certain inherent developmental experiences upon children. Using a three child family as the model, Adler argues that certain sociological realities proceeding from the family dynamics will invoke certain developmental paths,

Of the oldest child, Adler argues, this experience is likely to be inherently traumatic. First born into a state of undivided attention, the oldest child is said to be the center of his or her parents' world. Receiving a love undiluted by attention to other children, the eldest will first experience life on the receiving end of all the emotional and material affection that his or her parents have to offer. (Boeree, 1)

However, when the second child is born, this sense of individual entitlement and importance is ripped away. In addition to the fact that parental love is now divided, it is likelier to be focused with some imbalance toward a newborn child. It is at this juncture that the oldest child, Adler contends, will begin to feel a sense of displacement and rejection. In later years, this is only compounded by the sense of responsibility felt by the oldest child to serve as a positive example to the other children, to provide some sense of authority to siblings and to meet parental expectations without difficulty. (Wikipedia, 1) These pressures, Adler suggest, make the oldest child inherently more vulnerable to such compensatory and destructive behaviors as substance abuse or emotional instability. This bleak outlook, Adler suggests, is the personality response to a sense of inequality within the family.

Moving on to a consideration of the youngest child in a family of three, Adler contends that though this child never knows what it is to be the only focal point of his or her parent's affections, he or she will come to experience parental attention and affection which is never displaced by the arrival of another child. This means that for the youngest child, the experience is often one of sustained emotional connection to the parents which may not otherwise be felt by the other two children. As Adler contends, this may have the consequence of actually retarding development of the youngest child, who may either be so emotionally or materially spoiled as to constantly lean on parental generosity as a crutch during adult life. (Boeree, 1)

Adler denotes that the middle child is thus the one likeliest to achieve personal success, emotional independence and social flourishing. This is because the middle child will never have experienced the singularity and subsequent sense of rejection felt by the oldest child, denoting that the middle child may not harbor the insecurities produced by this experience of rejection. Likewise, the middle child is less likely to have experienced the type of unending emotional connection achieved by the youngest child. The result is that the middle child will achieve a personality which is less comprised by the needs induced by his or her upbringing. Adler warns that as a consequence, this child may experience a sense of separation from the remainder of the family such that he or she behaves in a rebellious fashion or feels a sense of intentional exclusion from the emotional core of the family. (Boeree, 1)