Kirsti Ference

Mrs. Robinson

AP Language and Composition

14 April 2008

Over-Indulged Egocentrics

            The typical bout of small-talk tends to bring about the question, “So, how many siblings do you have?”  I know the questioner is just being friendly, so I pause to take a breath (just breathe—deep enough to relax, but make sure you’re not noticed) and try to push out thoughts of what response the other will have when I say,

            “Oh, I’m an only child.”

            I watch the face of the person across from me.  Sure enough, that did it.  “That must be nice.  I bet your parents really spoil you.”  Not again. What do I say to that?  I go with the usual,

            “Not really.”  My companion gives me a knowing smile, like I’ve just let her in on some extraordinary secret that just we’re to share.

            She lets out a dismissive, “Ah, I bet you are.”  Have I gone from being spoiled to being a spoiled liar?

People have coined the phrase “only child syndrome” as if being without siblings is some type of disease.  Though the number of American women choosing to have only one child climbed from 10 to 23% between 1980 and 2000 and evidence has been compiled countless times disproving only-child stereotypes, many in our culture still hold the view first stated by psychologist G. Stanley Hall in 1898:  “being an only child is a disease in itself” (Randall).  In fact, ABC News reported that only 3% of Americans believe that one is the ideal number of children to have (Chang).  Typical “symptoms” are the negative stereotypes applied to only children—lonely, maladjusted, self-centered, and spoiled (Mancillas).  Touching all of these could be ad infinitum, so we will examine the latter two presumptions:  only children are spoiled and selfish.

Though almost all recent evidence favors the contrary, those who agree with the common only child stereotype have seemingly logical reasons to support them.  After all, only children do get more attention from their parents than most children who have siblings.  This special attention, combined with not having to share physical possessions with brothers or sisters, often leads people to stamp the label of “selfish” onto only children.  Though only children aren’t selfless saints, they do not over represent themselves in the group of egocentrics.  When it comes to being willing to share, only children can be in fact more so, as they haven’t grown up having to fight other children for what they want.  According to the Only Child Project, an only child is more willing to share because “he hasn’t had to fight for the things that are shared, and he feels secure in sharing because he know it is all his in the end—to him, sharing does not mean giving away” (“Only Child Stereotypes”).  Looking back on my childhood, I know that any social skills I didn’t learn from siblings, I learned from other children.  Being an only child doesn’t mean being isolated.  Through sports teams, preschools, Sunday school, friends, dance classes—the list goes on—I learned about sharing possessions and sharing the limelight with other children who had the same needs as I did—who were just as important as me.  Furthermore, since I was an only child, my parents had more patience to teach me how to treat others kindly than they would have had there been more children in our household.  Though my parents took advantage of this extra time, I know there are some who don’t.  This shows how traits in children such as being selfish or spoiled are dependent not on their position in the family, but on the way they are raised (“Only Child Stereotypes”).  

When parents put all their energy into one child, they expect higher achievements in return.  A result can be seen in the fact that, rather than being spoiled, many only children find themselves pushed to do better than if there was another child on whom the parents could lay energy and hope (Randall).  Combined attentions and expectations lead to, on average, higher achievements and motivation in only children—higher standardized test scores, higher IQs, higher education levels, and even more success in adult life—that prove they are not any more spoiled than their peers (Chang; Mancillas).  Here we see a reverse from the “disease” of being an only child to the benefit.  

            In studies comparing anything from personality traits to achievements of children, it is economic background, parent’s values, genetic predisposition, methods of parenting, etc., not birth order, that seems to be the determining factors in the development of children (Randall).  Actually, the stereotype of the only child “disease” may be what motivates parents of only children to ensure their offspring are successful, exceeding their peers with siblings and thus breaking through the stereotype that has persisted for more than a century.  Perhaps the growing number of only children will help break the perpetuating stereotypes of birth order for and show the world that your position in the family does not rule your personality.

Works Cited

Chang, Juju and Sara Holmberg.  “The Only Child Myth.”  20/20.  17 Aug. 2007.  ABC News.  14 April 2008 <http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=3488411&page=1>.

Mancillas, Adriean.  “Challenging the Stereotypes about Only Children.”  Journal of Counseling and Development.  22 June 2006.  The Gale Group:  Access My Library.  10 April 2008 <http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-16297731_ITM>.

“Only Child Stereotypes.”  Only Child Project. 2007.  14 April 2008 <http://onlychildproject.com/index.php/2008/02/06/only-child-stereotypes/>.

Randall, Kay.  “Your One and Only.”  The University of Texas at Austin.  7 January 2008.  10 April 2008 <http://www.utexas.edu/features/archive/2004/single.html>.

In his Inaugural Address, John F. Kennedy is attempting to reach Americans and the rest of the world and motivate them to fight for liberty, progress, and the ending of the Cold War.  Kennedy uses strong rhetorical techniques through interpersonal and directive diction to connect his audience to himself (the speaker) and his goals for the nation and world (the subject).  

            To connect with his audience, Kennedy uses interpersonal diction in the form of presenting himself as an equal, using inclusive pronouns, and implying a common ground with the majority.  Kennedy has only recently been elected to office and it is crucial that he connects with his audience by ensuring them he is both a “fellow American” and a “fellow citizen of the world.”  Several times throughout the text, especially when introducing a new point or emphasizing a point, Kennedy uses the inclusive pronouns “we” and “us.”  Such interpersonal diction challenges not only on the world but also himself.  In order to relate the Christian majority to America, Kennedy makes references to the “Almighty God.”  Including God in both the introduction and conclusion heightens his point of God’s importance.  This reference can be contrasted to Bush’s speech, in which the god referenced is not solely the Christian God.  Such a difference is based on the different audiences, as modern America has a greater religious diversity.  Kennedy also uses an age-old technique, which can be found in speeches from revolutionary hero Patrick Henry to modern President Bush, of complimenting the audience so they are more willing to dedicate themselves to the speaker’s cause.  Specifically Kennedy says, “only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom” to positively set the audience aside from the rest of mankind. 

            Kennedy utilizes directive diction to connect the audience with the subject by delivering a clear choice, using emotive diction and connotations, and presenting a personal challenge.  Similar to Bush and Patrick Henry, Kennedy leaves the audience with no neutral ground between the speaker’s cause and the “enemy.”  The choices in Kennedy’s speech are to “abolish all forms of human poverty” or “all forms of human life” and “the wonders of science” or “its terrors.”  Not only is it clear to the audience that they must make a choice, but they are also shown the right choice, which consequently is Kennedy’s cause.  Kennedy further connects the audience to the subject by using words with strong connotations, such as in “break the bonds of mass misery” and “casting off the chains of poverty.”  These words, both of which relate to slavery, cause the audience to have strong emotions against misery and poverty, and, therefore have a desire to take action.  In his Speech to the Virginia Convention, Patrick Henry also uses connotations relating to the negative aspects of slavery.  Breaks in parallelism are used in this Inaugural Address, as in Bush’s speech, to emphasize points such as “push[ing] back the jungle of suspicion.”  To directly connect the audience to the subject, Kennedy presents them with the challenge of changing the world by using phrases such as “in your hands” and “now the trumpet summons us again.” 

           Kennedy’s word choice and rhetorical techniques are successful, as they leave the reader or listener with an understanding of Kennedy and his cause and a desire to face the challenges presented.  His use of directive and interpersonal diction forms a sense of global unity.  As Kennedy says, “ask…what together we can do for the freedom of man.”