In defence of the selfish cow

by Sharan SaikumarThis is a day in the life of a mother of one:Wake up in the morning.Pack kid off to school.Explain to mother-in-law over coffee why she won't consider a second child.Leave for work.Explain to colleague that she's actually happy with one.Come home to work.Explain to her doorman that her only child is not necessarily lonely/selfish/ maladjusted.She's now used to it. As are other Parents of Singletons (POS). On good days, they will sit down and explain, defend their choice, tell them they are not selfish or lazy. On bad days, they will simply say they're trying for a second but it's taking time. That answer satisfies everyone. At least for a day. Tomorrow the questions will roll again. The colleague may be replaced by the neighbour and the doorman by the best friend but the questions keep coming and the universe continues to judge them for the wanton act of stopping at one.We have G Stanley Hall, founder of child psychology in the late 1800s, to thank for this rabid prejudice against the single child. When he famously called being an only child "a disease in itself", he gave birth to the 'Only is Lonely' slogan that spread like a rash in the western world. The label "peculiar" got picked up on the way as did other labels, like "over-privileged, asocial, royally autonomous ... self-centered, aloof and overly intellectual". This eventually found its way into pop culture, from the demon child in horror films (The Omen, The Bad Seed) to the oddball sidekicks in the '80s sitcoms (Growing Pains, Family Ties). And voila! The stereotype was born.In India, this stereotype got pumped with steroids. As a deeply collectivist culture, Indians are engineered to look upon 'single' with deep distrust — the single man in a restaurant, the divorcee, unmarried woman living alone. We draw strength from numbers, gang-bangs, large families and 'single' doesn't fit into our society's perception of what's normal. Added to that are complicated values like family lineage, clan perpetuity, and religiosity (the last one goes really well with fertility according the World Values Survey). So all in all, to have a single child in India is not just selfish — it's downright blasphemous.[caption id="attachment_151753" align="alignleft" width="380"] A study says the fewer siblings children have, the happier they are. Reuters[/caption]In spite of this, the POS in India are a growing breed. They stand bravely at 10 percent of Indian parenthood and intend to grow further. They won't have a second child to please their in-laws or to ensure that their firstborns don't mutate into bratty Little Emperors. And they certainly don't want a second child to complete the Hum Do Hamare Do family picture, which seems to have been imprinted on India's prefrontal cortex as part of some mass lobotomy by Indira Gandhi.The POS have it all. They have the wonder of the toothless grin, the joy of pint-sized clothing, the challenges of bath and bedtime but they also have energy leftover for conversation, wine, sex and a good book. It's a good life!Hans-Peter Kohler, a population sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania stated as the result of his extensive work with twins that women with one child are more satisfied with their lives than women with two. He told Time magazine: "at face value, you should say that you'll stop at one child to maximise your subjective well being."I know by this time the anti POS reader will be cracking a twisted smile: 'of course it's good for the parents, you twit. But what about the child?' Yes indeed, what about the child? Hang on because this is where the argument gets really interesting.In 1986, an educational psychologist Toni Falbo — an only child and a mother of one — and Denise Polit began investigating the only-child experience in the US and China (where the one-child policy took effect in 1979). They conducted a meta-analysis of 115 studies of only children from 1925 onward that considered developmental outcomes of adjustment, character, sociability, achievement and intelligence. The core finding was this: singletons aren't measurably different from other kids, except that they along with firstborns score higher in measures of intelligence and achievement. This and several other studies went on to reconfirm that not only are these kids as socially adaptable as ones with siblings but they're also brighter, have better verbal skills (because they're read to more frequently) and tend to have closer and more affectionate relationships with their parents.Continues on the next pageThe cherry on the cake came last year in the results of one of the widest ranging studies conducted in Britan, a study tracking the lives of 100,000 people in 40,000 British households which said: the fewer siblings children have, the happier they are – and that only children are the most contented. Slam and dunk!The reason for these results is painfully simple as Judith Blake wrote in her 1989 book Family Size & Achievement — there is no dilution of resources. POS have more time, energy and money to invest in their kid who gets all the dance classes, piano lessons and prep courses as well as their undivided attention. Like Natalie Portman once said: "I would never have been an actress if I weren't an only child, because my parents would never have let me be the star of the family at the expense of another child."So, are siblings a bad thing? Not by far. I say this not because I'm scared my sister will beat me blue but because I've had a wonderful childhood with her around. As Baz Lurhman put it: "she is the best link to my past and the most likely to stick with me in the future. But for me, one is enough. If you still think I'm a selfish cow let me remind you that least I'm a selfish cow with one very bright, loving and verbally gifted calf!"As a blogger, ex-marketer, evangelist of socialfootprint.in and would-be novelist, Sharan Saikumar wears many hats, none of which really fit.