Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Buddhism versus alpha/beta/omega males
shadowleaver
Veteran
This one's for the guys...
It's not much of a secret that any male group typically ends up layered hierarchically. In high school, in the Army, in prison or at the work place you've got seemingly "higher" and "lower" men.
"Alphas" lead by setting the goals and priorities of the group, as well as taking sanctions against those who don't follow them. "Betas" are on the same page with "alphas" in that they support them in most ways. "Alphas" are few but "betas" are many and aren't a homogeneous group; some are assertive and may become "alphas" themselves while others just blindly do what "alphas" demand, they're servants of the group. Finally, there are the "omegas" who don't see themselves as part of the group at all and do not share the goals and priorities set by "alphas". "Omegas" are either such because they're not adapted to the particular group's realities (exceptionally weak) or are too different to fit in. Their life is hardest: at best, they're seen as weird and are ignored and isolated while at worst they are actively harrassed, especially if they attempt to express themselves in the group.
Obviously, the above is a gross simplification and you'll always have individuals that defy easy classification yet I believe the tendencies mentioned above are always present among any group of males to some extent. As I was observing a corporate meeting at work today, I sure saw a few parallels with my High School days! Except that in the latter being "alpha" meant being a mean thug while in the former it meant confidently stating what needs to be done to make the customers happy. As humiliating as it sounds, the alpha-beta-omega division is there and affects people in real ways. I, for instance, have often lingered in the omega category, not quite sure what everyone else is doing, not terribly enthusiastic about it yet having no strength to just strike out on my own. That has caused suffering.
Now Buddhism doesn't promote power and ambition so in any modern group of men (except maybe for Monks) a male Buddhist is likely a "beta" but much likelier an "omega". Since most modern pursuits are seen as vain a Buddhist is unlikely to embrace the pursuit of the group enough to assume a more or less high role in it. So those of you who are affected psychologically (hopefully not physically) by male hierarchy or were affected by it in the past...what think you about that as Buddhists?
It's not much of a secret that any male group typically ends up layered hierarchically. In high school, in the Army, in prison or at the work place you've got seemingly "higher" and "lower" men.
"Alphas" lead by setting the goals and priorities of the group, as well as taking sanctions against those who don't follow them. "Betas" are on the same page with "alphas" in that they support them in most ways. "Alphas" are few but "betas" are many and aren't a homogeneous group; some are assertive and may become "alphas" themselves while others just blindly do what "alphas" demand, they're servants of the group. Finally, there are the "omegas" who don't see themselves as part of the group at all and do not share the goals and priorities set by "alphas". "Omegas" are either such because they're not adapted to the particular group's realities (exceptionally weak) or are too different to fit in. Their life is hardest: at best, they're seen as weird and are ignored and isolated while at worst they are actively harrassed, especially if they attempt to express themselves in the group.
Obviously, the above is a gross simplification and you'll always have individuals that defy easy classification yet I believe the tendencies mentioned above are always present among any group of males to some extent. As I was observing a corporate meeting at work today, I sure saw a few parallels with my High School days! Except that in the latter being "alpha" meant being a mean thug while in the former it meant confidently stating what needs to be done to make the customers happy. As humiliating as it sounds, the alpha-beta-omega division is there and affects people in real ways. I, for instance, have often lingered in the omega category, not quite sure what everyone else is doing, not terribly enthusiastic about it yet having no strength to just strike out on my own. That has caused suffering.
Now Buddhism doesn't promote power and ambition so in any modern group of men (except maybe for Monks) a male Buddhist is likely a "beta" but much likelier an "omega". Since most modern pursuits are seen as vain a Buddhist is unlikely to embrace the pursuit of the group enough to assume a more or less high role in it. So those of you who are affected psychologically (hopefully not physically) by male hierarchy or were affected by it in the past...what think you about that as Buddhists?
0
Comments
I don't think its the group identity that causes your hesitation, but perhaps a confidence issue? Shaving away the generalizations and looking directly at the moment where the pattern is occurring is almost always the best way to see how to overcome our struggles.
Dropping our labels for other people (whether it is "Manager" "Omega" "Woman" "Black" "Alpha" or any other distinguishing archetype) lets us see the people direct. Alphas might dissolve into the most fearful, then the fearful label dissolves into the clinging, then the clinging into simple compassion for your brother. If you build from open compassion up, then you won't be moved by the other labels.
With warmth,
Matt
I will immediately state I'm not a guy, but could I add a comment or two here?
I know exactly what you're talking about because I'm a Canine Psychologist and I deal with this scenario all the time.
Briefly, it's a lot more cut and dried in the canine world, because frankly - Dogs know their place, and know where they fit.
Humans on the other hand, for all their so-supposed superior level of logic, intellect and reasoning (notice I did not say 'Intelligence'....) have a much harder time of it.
During Career talks at school, for example, students are always asked what they think they'd like to do as a profession, job, career.... I think it's extremely uncommon for students - of either gender - to say they want a career in Management, or to run their own company, or be head of a Business themselves.
So people become leaders largely by chance and circumstance, and many aren't cut out for it.
Some world leaders could do with replacing, no ifs ands or buts.
Gordon Brown was clearly one huge mistake, no matter what even he thought, and as for George Bush....let's not go there....!
Dogs, on the other hand, left to their own devices, get it right, every time.
It's just when they exist alongside humans that again, the dog's own extremely accurate perception goes ignored or forcibly altered.
All too often with disastrous results.
Maybe if we relied more on instinct, and less on our preconceived perceptions, the right people would occupy the right posts.
We really should look at it more like the animals. Being mammals ourselves, nature could teach us much - if we'd only pay attention.
*curtseys and goes back to her crocheting jackets for kittens*
I think at one point or another we have all been omegas.
Something that may be useful to consider is how each person achieves their status as such. Without the betas, who would the alphas lead? Without the alphas, how would the group know in which direction to move? Without the omegas, when would the group know to change its direction?
Yes, perplexingly, I still haven't quite taken off the alpha-beta-omega glasses. The intent of my thread was actually to ask, how does one take them off?
Thanks for the good answer!
Read the first chapter of the Dhammapada:
I don't get this. So Buddhism should teach us to "go back" and "re-learn" what was written on our tabula rasa when we where children/growing up - and thereby be more in tune with our natural instincts?
I really think that the problem is people relying too much on instinct, being easy to manipulate through glip rhetoric and media stunts. Going further away from the natural will evovle humans. Education wil enable us to look past the fancy-pancy politicians talk, make us able to analyze economic plans, realize the dangers to the environment, awaken our heart to human rights etc.
Through developing away from the nature-state and into culture, humans have (in many parts of the world) gradually raised societies of equality, happiness and security. Something which aren't present in a "state of nature", where you fight with wolves, diseases and the weather over meagre resources - not to mention fellow humans. A state in which our prejudice, aggressiveness and group-thinking are necessary for survival - better shoot a friendly, healthy wolf, than not shoot and get attacked and contract rabies (prejudice, aggressiveness - "looks = nature" in this case, and "shoot then ask")
This behavior is exactly what cannot be tolerated in a modern world...
shadowleaver OP:
I find ignoring the hierarchy, as well as weighting ones words is a fairly easy way to get by with anyone without becoming an "omega". I say what I want, when I want - and I do not bow to anyone.
Thus they have to accept me, and they will. This gives respect, which in turn gives influence.
I experience that this will make people look to me as leader, but I turn down their hopes. If I know I'm good at something, I will lead the team, if I don't I will let someone else do it. Sometimes a break is also needed. I find this makes for a dynamic and flexible group, where people will come to their right and use their skills better.
If the same can be applied in the US I'm not totally sure about, of course. I think hierarchies are withheld to another degree, than in my country.
As noted above, these distinctions only exist when we choose to let them. If we see everyone as equal, we're all equal. I experienced this in spades in the USAF. I was a lowly 2nd Lt when we had a 4-star general come to our unit on a visit. The Captain I worked for (prior enlisted guy) nearly peed his pants when anybody with a star on his shoulder showed up. I've always figured even generals put their pants on one leg at a time just like I do, so other than giving them the respect their official rank deserves, I was never particularly awed just because of the insignia on the shoulder. This particular general asked a very specific question, to which I happened to know the answer, and which answer I gave him. He then berated the Major (his aide) who was with him for being unable to deliver him that answer despite his having asked for six months. The next day my Captain called me on the carpet for embarrassing the Major "in public". This kind of thing is the reason I left the military as soon as possible!
Mtns
Now that is an incredible question! One could really finish the race, so to speak, if they took off the glasses
The first aspect of this is of course meditation, because it gives you the basic mindfulness it takes to work with the other stuff. There are lots of good advice nuggets in other threads, I'd suggest you follow some of the wisdom by poking around and seeing what's out there.
The other is to realize that people are not always one thing. They are a bunch of roles, and those roles come and go as situations demand them. For instance, many alpha males very quickly become a beta after a large failure. Not that we revel in the transitions, but simply recognizing that all of these roles are impermanent and subject to death, just as all other forms. Sitting and seeing that, for me at least, helped me to unbias my mind.
If you catch yourself calling someone any stereotype, let yourself see it, then work to open your eyes to what is really, actually in front of you. It might be difficult in a meeting, but not so difficult in smaller doses at first.
Hope this helps!
With warmth,
Matt
Of course, our normal response is to respond to others through our own prejudices and assumptions. This is where Buddhist practice, particularly mindfulness, is essential. Loving kindness meditation is also very helpful. As aMatt said, there is lots of info on this site and others.
fede, May I help you with crocheting bonnets for those chilly kittens?
metta
This really is a guy thing question. I truly don't think women have any idea about these social things men experience, especially as young men.
I have a fair few alpha male friends and relatives, as do we all.
It's all very ego isn't it, in the psychological and dharmic sense.
At the end of the day though, so long as they all totally do what I want and revere me as the nexus of their machoverse, then everyone is happy.
One of my good friends is a very gay, very alpha male and I would say in every sense his path is very far from Dharma. Though his partner is a Buddhist. It takes all sorts (as does he....)
Moving on...
I'm wafling now:p
namaste
I do. Does that help?
much of the competition between women is deeply rooted in their animal part as well.
One famous example is the fact that a bunch of woman in a close community (like a dormitory at university) will all synchronize their menstrual cycles to the dominant female...
Couldn't agree more. People's roles and standing within society and any group, are ever changing variables, so I've come to realize that labels are a way of explaining reality that is too limited and constrained, trying to freeze the world into a single word/term and put the affected group into a tidy box. This brings confusion and turmoil when you realize the world cannot be separated into tidy groups no matter how much you want to do it.
Macho thinking (which the alpha/beta/omega way of viewing the world is a part of) is obviously stronger among younger and/or less educated groups of males. If you've "made it" in this life (e.g. have a half-decent job and live in a half-decent neighborhood), you can probably just close your eyes on it and be totally fine. For instance, today my primary male group is my workplace and even though I don't show a lot of initiative there (preferring to just work in the direction I'm given), I'm mostly liked and accepted there...
This Is Bull.
please clarify.
I know exactly mean. I am happy I left the Army but I do sometimes miss it. I was an enlisted 11B. I have had my problems with the military but that is a long story.
I think enviroment has a lot to do with it. I've noticed by moving around that where I grew up which is where i'm living now, is very working class so to speak and people are very staright talking offend or please. Also it's this feeling that Alpha males are looked up to by both men and women, as long as they're not too thugish.
Sorry absolute rubbish, i'd say it's a possiblity that some could suffer more, as whether it's work or general life, if people veiw you as an Alpha male, because of the ego you feel it's your duty to lead and stand up for everyone if there's any trouble. We all know the effects of karma. The more anger you put out there, the more people you hurt the more it comes back to you. That's my experience anyway.
The trick for me is is to be an honest stand up guy that's not ruled by ego (doesn't mean ego is gone), that can be both peaceful and compasionate and know when to yield and when to stand, and then labels don't matter anymore, not that they really do anyway.
i was posting with the definition that alpha = low emotionality. i thought it was similar to what shadowleaver said about most buddhists being beta or omega.
once again I agree with you Frederica,
We should do things more like the animals do, everything will just fall into place.
One thing to add: Even tough an omega member of a wolf pack get's picked on often, get's to eat last etc. He still is a member of the pack, and they will fight to defend him, they won't let him starve and i've seen plenty of footage (i'm a nature documentary freak) were the alfa male cleans the omega and vica versa.
Animals are great!
Ok where are you getting this information from?
In another sense, we exist in a society which has tacitly agreed on these distinctions, and in that sense they are quite real; they don't disappear just because we choose not to acknowledge them.
Given a choice between the three, I would choose Omega without hesitation. I don't want to tell anyone else what to do; nor do I want to passively follow someone else. I want to be my own person and do my own thing, whether it conforms to anyone else's ideas or not.
That (it seems to me) is what an artist is: someone who marches to the beat of their own drum. Perhaps most artists are Omegas.
Even the alphas themselves had very high stress levels due to their constantly having to assert their status. They lead the group to a landfill, which became their new feeding ground, ending their established pattern of migration.
Then one day, since they eat first and the most, ALL the alphas were killed by something tainted or poisioned in the landfill. The omegas then lead the group out of the landfill and back to their normal migration, and established a new culture where uncooperative, alpha behavior was not tolerated. Their stress levels disappeared and the entire group became more healthy, well-fed, and better groomed.
Oh yeah, ironic part tho.. The scientist was then stressed because he was basically out of a job, which was tracking the groups stress levels, etc. (But I think he found another group of crazy monkeys to track.)
Just something I remembered about ethology. I think it was on Netflix, a Nat.Geo. documentary on stress.
And I enjoyed all of your posts!
My point: you look anywhere, say WW1 and WW2: nearly 100 years of trouble literally caused by a bunch of guys acting like apes. Seriously, only .001% of the population yet those testosterone-poisioned blockheads at Treaty of Versailles, Stalin, Hitler, all "manly" individuals wound up fighting over their manliness with the result being millions dead.
They profess to care so deeply about their own mothers and children but have no problem killing other peoples' mothers and children. I'm sorry for the depressing rant/outburst. Such a disappointment - these humans!
But why is the arrogant, domineering macho stuff still happening? After 40 or 50 years of the women's movement,why aren't mothers raising their sons to be mellow and thoughtful, considerate, humble? What gives?
But I'm glad you like it.
And it doesn't explain the nice guys. Less testosterone/ml? I don't think so. What about entire cultures full of mellow guys?
I guess our culture somehow reinforces obnoxious male behavior. There must be some built-in reward for it, or perceived reward. But I don't understand why parents aren't making an effort to raise their boys to be more kind and thoughtful.
"The qualities ascribed to the nice Jewish boy are derived from the Ashkenazic ideal of edelkeit (either "nobility" or "delicateness" in Yiddish). According to Daniel Boyarin's Unheroic Conduct (University of California Press, 1997), edelkeit embraces the studiousness, gentleness and sensitivity said to distinguish the Talmudic scholar and make him an attractive marriage partner"
-wikipedia
I look surprisingly similar to Brigitte Nielsen with enough scaffolding and botox....
One hears a lot about women who like macho guys, or abusive guys. One rarely, if ever, hears about women who like gentle guys, sweet guys, or guys with more integrated male-female qualities. But there are lots of those women, too.