Why should the first born child get to choose – lion share – before other siblings and the last born get the bottom-pot? Is a first born male or female child any different from a last born male or female child?

So much uncertainty beclouds the expectations of the first-time parents. What set do they wish for? Singleton, twins or triplets? To this question the progenitors possess no fool-proof formula to achieve their preferred result, but heavily rely on nature to bestow the best fit. Then is the paramount question in some climes, what is the sex of the baby? This is the foremost retort that heralds the breaking of news of a new birth.

So with hope for the best do the progenitors roll the dice for the conception and the eventual delivery of a lucky baby. Lucky, beacause the familial and societal status of the child that opens the womb is an enviable and unenviable one.

Of course, a baby is a baby. But of factors that can make a baby special in a family, the gender, position in birth order and set in which it arrives count the most. All lot has been said of the gender divide, from birth through the early stages of growth and development, into the organised chaos of adolescence and then the unending tussle for superiority by both sexes in career, politics and most significantly, marriage. Most of which I consider as academic quibble.

Of fresh interest is the covert psychology of siblinghood - brotherhood and sisterhood. It is seldom noticed, how much more talked about. Albeit, a closer look suggests there is a lot to notice – see, talk and write about – in even the smallest of nuclear families. The gaping narrative currently available, however elaborate, has shortfalls in universal compliance, due to the distinct cultures of the peoples of the world.

Every family get mad man - Anonymous

Nevertheless, there is a role for each position in the sibling standings. This stems from the need for pegs in all holes of a family structure, and may be regarded as a biological response to sociological needs. All personality traits found in the larger society are bound to be found in the smallest unit. But the puzzling to the keen observer is the fact that, these personality traits appear as tags associated with the position of birth. Hence, the child grows – into personality traits – to exhibit behaviours associated with a particular birth position. This is my adaptation of the Alfredian Theory of Birth Order.

So often then, does a personality get tagged to a birth position. For instance, the importune is easily labelled a last-born, while the first-born is seen as a natural leader. Along gender lines, the hues get thicker. A first-born female will certainly be a worker ant, while the male first-born fits the soldier ant label. Most demanding of all unavoidable first-born roles is the exemplary life they must lead, to serve as touchstones for moral, academic, familial and even marital comparisons. And in that bounden duty lies pressure that decorates the first-born status as an unenviable one.

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. - Animal Farm (George Orwell 1984)

On the other hand, middle-born children are most often set on the heels of their older ones – by parents, – inadvertently creating rivalries that set life paths apart. Or, first-born children shelter younger ones – intermediates and last-born children alike – for bonding that transcends even marital lives. Yet, topmost on middle-born early challenges, is getting as much attention as the polers – first-born or last-born children. Man typically draws binary conclusions, even after multi-dimensional thinking. Hence, positions too could easily be given dualistic acts. Even towards one’s children.

If there should be a unanimous favourite in most family setting, the last-born children walk it. For more sociological reasons than biological, sediments of the family – best and or worst – traits settle at this birth position. Ultimately, there is a usually room for a better or worse version. This is, at least, what last-born children show well.

So will there be a different modus operando in the subtle politics of gifting and sharing among siblings? Will the first or last always matter?