I’ve always hated the alpha v’s beta personality categorization. It seems so absurdly reductive. People normally have many different strands to their personality. Which ones emerge at any given time depends a lot on context, history and the specifics on a situation. It also leads to ridiculous generalizations where alpha or beta status is equated to things like financial success, education level or social skills.
A good example of that last kind of stupidity can be found in this article arguing that alpha women should marry beta men. It correctly states that the labels can be problematically stereotyped, and then a paragraph later equates alpha status to getting a graduate degree. It also suggests that to marry a beta is to marry beneath an alpha, and finishes by suggesting Meryl Streep and Don Gummer are an example alpha/beta pair. Presumably being a talented actress somehow makes you an alpha while being a successful sculpture is only beta material. I hadn’t realized artistic fields were also categorized this way.
The labels often pop up in D/s discussions, either to conform to the stereotype (alpha as dominant), or to contrast to it. Stabbity has a post talking about that latter type – the submissives who assert their alpha status. I’ve some follow-up thoughts on her post, but I’ll save them for tomorrow. Until then I’ll leave you with an image of a happy couple. Is this an alpha woman with her perfect beta mate? Or is this an alpha submissive taking care of his mistress before heading off to shout at minions while managing his hedge fund? Or is the whole labeling concept a bunch of crap?
I found this via the On My Knees tumblr. I’m not sure where it’s from originally. It looks like a mainstream photograph rather than something explicitly kinky, but I’ve not tracked down a source.
The whole “alpha” thing is really misapplied, and came out of the study of pack animals (timber wolves, IIRC) in which one particular animal was the pack head. It was also applied to hierarchical social animals (gorillas, maybe? I’m too lazy to look it up), and now has become simply synonymous with “men/women who do a lot of shouting or scowling when they are in charge.”
We tend to label things because it makes it easier for our little brains to process, but we need to remember that it’s only a shortcut, and not necessarily applicable to all of our social interactions.
You must have read my mind on the bit about shortcuts and labels :). That was exactly what I had in mind for my follow-up post. As I wrote there, I think there’s a clear message submissive guys are trying to send by using it, but the label is so vague and comes with so much baggage it doesn’t work.
It’s also particularly bad, because (as you say) it’s horribly misapplied, and also seen as a very positive thing. I think if you point blank asked guys if they were alpha or not, you’d get the vast majority saying yes. Which clearly doesn’t line up with the original hierarchical definition – which in turn is equally stupid to apply to humans who don’t live or operate in packs.
-paltego
I think if you point blank asked guys if they were alpha or not, you’d get the vast majority saying yes.
They must be from Lake Woebegone, where all of the children are above average.
🙂
From what my friends say, I think all children must be above average at everything. At least I’ve never yet heard one of my friends with children claim a below average child in any dimension!
-paltego