FIFTEEN years ago a boy was born of prosperous New York parents. His arrival was exceptionally welcome, for his father and mother had been living in dread that theirs might prove a childless marriage. They had fervently promised themselves that if their fondest hopes were realised and a child granted to them, nothing that loving devotion could accomplish would be left undone to secure for the little one the best possible start in life. As a first step in the fulfilment of this promise, they decided soon after their son's birth to remove from New York to a pleasant residential suburb, where fresh air abounded, and where the adverse environmental influences of the crowded city streets were utterly unknown. [38]
Seemingly, no decision could have been wiser; seemingly, no child could have been brought up amid more favourable surroundings than their boy enjoyed in the splendid home they provided for him on a beautiful slope crested with pines. Yet, despite all the love lavished on him, despite the prodigious efforts to keep him well and strong, he did not thrive.
Before he was seven he displayed "nervous" symptoms that threw his parents into a panic. He suffered from "night terrors," he became excitable and irritable. The eminent physician to whom he was taken made the flattering diagnosis that the only trouble with the boy was an unusually sensitive nervous organisation; prescribed sedatives, advised outdoor exercise, warned against overstudy, and so forth. Unfortunately, he did not also emphasise the necessity for simplification of the child's environment as a preventive of nerve strain. Nor did he dwell on the supreme importance to physical, no less than moral, welfare of sedulously cultivating in the[39] little fellow the virtues of courage, self-control, and self-denial. Perhaps he did not think it needful to speak of these things to such evidently well-bred and well-intentioned parents; perhaps he did not think of these things at all.
In any event, while acting on his advice as to stimulating animal activity and retarding brain function, the father and mother continued to minister to their son's every whim, and eternally busied themselves devising amusements and distractions for him. In time the "night terrors" were no longer in evidence; but the excitability and irritability persisted, and presently other unpleasant traits appeared, notably a tendency to conceit and selfishness. Naturally, this did not make the poor youngster any too popular among the few playmates with whom his parents allowed him to associate, and naturally the parents blamed the playmates for not appreciating the "sensitiveness" of his disposition. Thus matters continued until his twelfth year, when his father suddenly awoke to the fact that, intellectually, the[40] naughty playmates were considerably ahead of the good little boy. For the first time common sense scored a distinct triumph over excessive and indiscreet parental love; the governess who had been unable to handle her self-willed pupil was dismissed, and the boy was sent to school.
There he has been painfully gaining the discipline—the lessons in self-mastery—that should have been given him in the nursery. But he still is lamentably arrogant and selfish; he still finds it difficult to get along with other boys. Whether his schoolmates will take the trouble to help him overcome the handicap of his early rearing is questionable; and however this may be, it is hardly likely that the character defects unnecessarily acquired during his childhood will be wholly rooted out.
It must regretfully be added that this boy's case is not an exceptional one. Rather, it is typical of the plight of most "only children," who, no matter what their advantages of birth, too often reach manhood and womanhood sadly handicapped and markedly[41] inferior to other children. In a vague way, to be sure, parents with only one child have long realised that they are confronted with special problems in child training; but there is abundant proof that in innumerable instances they signally fail to grasp these problems clearly and work them out satisfactorily.
Everyday observation supports this statement, and it is confirmed by the findings of modern medical, psychological, and sociological investigation. Statistically, its most important corroboration is forthcoming from the results of a census of "only children," undertaken some years ago by the psychological department of Clark University in consequence of certain suggestive indications noticed in the responses received to a questionnaire on peculiar and exceptional children.
Of the thousand children described in these responses it was observed that forty-six were specifically mentioned as being "only children," although none of the queries in the questionnaire asked directly[42] or indirectly about such children. The presumption was that a number of the remaining children described in the responses were also of the only-child class. But even if such were not the case, the total of forty-six was surprisingly high, since, according to reliable vital statistics, the average progeny of fertile marriages is six, with an only-child average of one out of every thirteen fertile marriages; that is, a proportion of one only child to every seventy-eight children, as contrasted with the proportion of one in fewer than every twenty-two of the "peculiar" children described in the questionnaire reports.
Moreover, on dividing these reports into three groups based on the "advantageous," "neutral," and "disadvantageous" character of the peculiarities mentioned, it was found that while considerably less than half of the total number of children fell into the disadvantageous group, two-thirds of the "only children" had to be put into it. Naturally this suggested the desirability of a special investigation with reference to the only child, and accordingly[43] a second questionnaire was issued, with queries relating to age, sex, nationality, health, amusements, intellectual ability, moral traits, and so forth. In this way, from school teachers and other disinterested observers, definite information was obtained concerning nearly four hundred "only children"—information which, as finally tabulated and analysed by the director of the investigation, Doctor E. W. Bohannon, is of great significance to the parents of every only child and to all interested in individual and racial improvement.
The age average of those whose ages were given—nearly three hundred—was twelve years, including about sixty ranging in age from seventeen to thirty-five. About four-fifths were of American parentage, while the proportion with regard to sex was, roughly speaking, one-third male and two-thirds female, a disparity doubtless attributable in part to the circumstances of the investigation. About one hundred were said not to be in good health, and another hundred to be in outright bad health. In one hundred[44] and thirty-three out of two hundred and fifty-eight cases the temperament was described as "nervous." Precocity was another often-mentioned trait; but on the average the beginning of school life was from a year and a half to two years later than is usual, and in the performance of school work the questionnaire responses also revealed a marked inferiority on the part of many "only children."
In their social relations only eighty were reported as "normal," while one hundred and thirty-four out of a total of two hundred and sixty-nine got along badly with other children, usually because they were unwilling or did not know how to make concessions, or were stubbornly set on having their own way. On this important point Doctor Bohannon says, in detail:
"When they disagree with other children it is usually because of a desire to rule. If they fail in this desire they are likely to refuse to associate with the children who cause the failure, and in a measure succeed in the wish to have their own way, either[45] by choosing younger companions whom they can control, or older ones who are willing to indulge them. Many do not care for a large number of companions, and select one or two for friends, with whom they prefer to spend most of their time.... In numerous instances ... a marked preference for the company of older people is manifest, even when opportunity for younger company is present. But this is no doubt due less to a dislike of suitable companionship than to their inability to understand and be understood by children of near their own age. It is plainly evident that they have as deep longings for society as the children of other families, but their isolated home life has failed to give them equal skill and ability in social matters. They do not so well understand how to make approaches, to concede this thing and that."
Of two hundred and forty-five in attendance at school, more than one hundred "only children" were recorded as not being normally interested in active games, sixty-two of these scarcely playing at[46] all. "If left to their own devices," Doctor Bohannon infers from the reports which he received concerning the inactive sixty-two, "they are pretty sure to be found in the schoolroom with their teachers at intermission. A number of the boys prefer to play with the girls at strictly girls' games, such as keeping house with dolls, and generally come to be called girl-boys."
Effeminacy, in fact, is an unpleasantly frequent characteristic of the male only child, and was noted in case after case described in the replies to the questionnaire. Selfishness was set down as the dominant trait in ninety-four "only children" of both sexes, and many others were described as being unusually bad-tempered, vain, naughty, or untruthful.[3]
These depressing findings have since been confirmed by other investigators, some of whom have contributed specially to our knowledge of the state[47] of the only child in adult life. For instance, the well-known English psychologist, Havelock Ellis, studying the life histories of four hundred eminent men and women, found the low percentage of 6.9 for "only children," indicating unmistakably the persistence of the intellectual inferiority brought out by the answers to the Bohannon questionnaire. There would also seem to be no doubt that egotism and social inadaptability characterise, the adult only child no less than the immature one.
"In later life," affirms the American psychopathologist, A. A. Brill, who has made a special study of the only child from both a medical and psychological point of view, "he is extremely conceited, jealous, and envious. He begrudges the happiness of friends and acquaintances, and he is therefore shunned and disliked." Besides which, speaking from wide experience as a practising specialist in New York City, Doctor Brill insists that the only child, at any age of life, is peculiarly liable to fall a victim to hysteria, neurasthenia, and other serious functional nervous[48] and mental maladies; and his belief, as I happen to know from their personal statements to me, is shared by other observant neurologists and psychopathologists, such as Doctors James J. Putnam and I. H. Coriat, of Boston.
This is a point of special interest, for the reason that recent medical research has made it certain that the maladies in question are one and all rooted in faulty habits of thought, usually resultant from errors of training in childhood. Chief among these errors, according to all modern neurologists, is an upbringing which tends to develop excessive occupation with thoughts of self. But this is precisely the kind of upbringing given the majority of "only children." Here again the Bohannon investigation affords impressive evidence. One of the queries included in the questionnaire bore on the treatment accorded the only child when at home, and it is indeed significant that in about 75 per cent. of the replies received it was stated that the policy of the parents was one of extreme indulgence.
[49]
"Had her own way in everything," "Her parents gratify her every whim," "She is surrounded by adults who indulge her too much," "Humoured," "Petted," "Coddled," are some of the expressions frequently employed to describe the parental treatment. Many of the answers sent to Doctor Bohannon also testify to an over-anxiety with respect to the child's welfare that might easily give rise to undue feelings of self-importance or to an unhealthy habit of introspection. "His mother was always unduly anxious about him when he was out of her sight," "She is thought to be quite delicate, and great care is taken of her; she is kept in a warm room and seldom allowed to go out," "His home treatment has made a baby of him," may fairly be cited as typical statements returned by Doctor Bohannon's respondents.
Is it any wonder that the average only child grows up deficient in initiative and self-reliance? Is it any wonder that, under the stress of some sudden shock, he reacts badly, allowing himself to be overwhelmed[50] by it, even to the extent of perhaps becoming a neurasthenic wreck? In short, can it be doubted that the handicap under which he too often has to struggle painfully through life is not a handicap imposed by Nature but is solely of his parents' making?
Sometimes this is all too clearly appreciated in later life by the child himself, and the parental error is bitterly resented; or, if the sense of filial piety be sufficiently strong, is splendidly excused. As in this fragment from an autobiographical statement by an only child:
"Of the selfishness of which a frank woman accused me, my parents were, up to that time, quite as unconscious as I. She had asked my mother to drive with her to the home of a friend in a neighbouring town, where the two were invited to spend the night. My mother declined, on the ground that I, at that time about nine, could not comb my hair and pin my collar properly for school in the morning; and as we then had no maid and my father could at best[51] only have buttoned my frock, the objection seemed insurmountable. But the family friend called me by the ugly title of naughty, selfish little girl, and chided mother for allowing me to monopolise her time, contending that she was making me selfish and dependent.
"Perhaps she was. But I protest that it could hardly have been otherwise, considering that she had in full measure the world-old desire of mothers to spend themselves for their children, and only one child to spend herself on. It had not occurred to my mother, I am confident, that her habit of ministering to me constantly was pampering; nor had I, in going to her for services that I might easily have learned to perform for myself, made demands in the manner of the arrogant spoiled child."[4]
The compelling power of mother-love and father-love must, of a truth, be recognised in extenuation of the spoiling of the only child. But the fact of the spoiling remains, and the fact also that when the[52] spoiling is achieved the parental pride and joy will be turned to grief and bitter lamentation. The pity of it is that the only child, simply because he is the only child, ought to be able to grow up healthier, wiser, and more efficient than other children.
For, as psychologists are insisting more and more emphatically, the health, happiness, and efficiency of adult life depend preponderantly on the home influences of early childhood; and, obviously, in a home where the parental attention can be concentrated on a single child, better results should be attained than when the work of training involves a division of the attention among several children. Unhappily, when it is a question of training an only child, too many parents seem to take it for granted that training is entirely unnecessary, that their child is innately so good that he will develop of his own accord into one of the best of men.
In reality, as modern psychology has made very clear, every child at the outset of his life is much like every other child, a plastic, unmoral little creature,[53] exceedingly impulsive and exceedingly receptive, readily impressed for good or evil by the influences that surround him. Childhood, to repeat a truism hackneyed to psychologists, but seemingly unappreciated by most people, is pre-eminently the suggestible period of life. It is then, when the critical faculty still is undeveloped, that whatever ideas are presented to the mind are most surely absorbed by it, to sink into its subconscious depths, and there form the nucleus for whole systems of thought afterward manifesting as habits. Herein lurks the special peril to the only child afflicted with over-loving, over-anxious parents.
Their perpetual solicitude for him, acting as a suggestion of irresistible force, tends to engender in him a mental attitude out of which may afterward spring, according to the subsequent circumstances of his life, a cold, heartless, calculating selfishness, or a morbid self-anxiety, perhaps eventuating in all sorts of neurotic symptoms. If, as a boy, he is too closely and constantly associated with his mother,[54] the force of suggestion again, acting largely through the imitative instinct, may lead to a development of those feminine traits frequently characteristic of male only children, and often involving pathological conditions of dire social as well as individual significance. Further still, by restricting unduly the intercourse of only children with playmates of their own age, as is often done, one of the finest agencies in development through the power of suggestion is left unutilised. There is a world of truth in the lament of the only child from whose autobiography I have already quoted:
"All this carefulness kept me uncontaminated by the naughtiness of little street Arabs, but it also limited my opportunity to imitate where imitation is easiest—among those of my own age; it stunted the initiativeness and inventiveness that might, in normal conditions, have developed in me; and it left me lacking in adaptability. I sometimes disloyally wonder if my chances of being a tolerable citizen might not have been as good if I had been permitted to[55] 'run wild,' and thus secure for myself the companionship I could not have at home."
Of course, association with other children means at least an occasional hard knock, and hard knocks are, above all else, what the doting mother wishes to avoid for her darling boy. She forgets that they are certain to be experienced, soon or late, and that the earlier her boy is fitted to withstand them the better they will be withstood. She forgets, too, that if the suggestions emanating from playmates are not invariably suggestions for good, they may easily be counteracted, without sacrificing the advantages to be gained from association with playmates, by proper training in the quiet of the home.
Always, let me repeat, it is the home training that counts for most. If the only child turns out well, the credit must go to the parents; if, alas! he turns out badly, if he becomes a monster of selfishness or a neurotic weakling, the blame must likewise be theirs.
And now it becomes necessary to add that, if in less degree, the "favourite child" in a family is exposed[56] to dangers similar to those menacing the unwisely brought up "only child." That parent of several children is making a sad mistake if he singles out any one of his children for special affection and solicitude. The consequences of such favouritism are twofold, affecting adversely, perhaps disastrously, both the child unduly favoured and the child or children comparatively slighted. So far as the former is concerned, the outcome, when the favouritism involves really excessive love and anxiety, is pretty sure to be much like that in the case of the average only child. That is to say, there is always more than a possibility that the favourite child, no matter how good his inherited qualities, will grow up arrogant, self-centred, and neurotic.
He is usually in less danger than the only child of growing up deficient in initiative and social adaptability. For, unless his parents constantly interfere in his behalf, daily intercourse with his brothers and sisters is bound to impress on him at an early age the necessity for developing self-reliance[57] and for making concessions to the rights and susceptibilities of others. On the other hand, because he is the favourite child and because his brothers and sisters instinctively resent this, his intercourse with them is likely to be attended with more than the usual amount of friction. Thereby an additional stress will be put on a nervous system already more or less strained by the fussing and fretting of indulgent, unthinking parents. During childhood, it is true, he may not give marked evidence of neural enfeeblement. But, soon or late, if a kindly fortune does not rescue him at an early age from the harmful home environment—as, for example, by his removal to a good boarding-school—one may count on his displaying striking eccentricities of character and conduct, if not positively pathological conditions.
Consequently, his whole prospects for adult life will be adversely affected. The selfishness fostered by his father's, or mother's, excessive devotion may become intensified rather than lessened by friction with envious brothers and sisters, with the result[58] that the favourite child passes into manhood abnormally deficient in altruistic qualities, and even abnormally misanthropic. "A favourite son, a bachelor of sixty-two years, who was a wealthy retired merchant," notes the psychopathologist Brill, "told me that whenever there was a rise in the market he suffered from severe depression and fits of envy, simply because he knew that some of his friends would make money. He himself had no interest in the market." And, speaking as an observer who has closely studied the subject, Doctor Brill unhesitatingly adds that, like so many "only children," almost all favourite children are in later years "selfish, unhappy, and morose."
It is true there are notable exceptions. Some favourite children are brought up so well that, aside perhaps from a tendency to nervous ailments, they display no peculiarities and pass through life creditably, possibly brilliantly. But such exceptions are conspicuous by their rarity, for the excellent reason that parents who are wise enough to rear favourite[59] children well are commonly wise enough not to show favouritism to any of their children.
For, no matter, how much the favourite child may benefit from the extra care bestowed on him, the mere fact that he is thus selected for special attention is sure to work to the detriment of the other children in the family. When, as often happens, there is only one other child, the effect on that child may be catastrophic. When the favourite child has several brothers and sisters there is less danger that any of these will be really disastrously affected. At best, however, they will chafe under the injustice of the favouritism shown by the parent or parents; and, besides instinctively drawing together for mutual consolation and defence, they may develop a spirit of rebellion destructive to the peace and well-being of the entire family.