I remember reading about this whole concept of "alpha" and "beta" males/females and how misunderstood it was.
For example, we usually see alpha male as someone physically dominant in the group, while in fact it is not true - hierarchies that are supported only by physical dominance of "alpha male" fall apart very quickly, usually taken down by 2+ males.
Therefore, if you are an "alpha male" that only means you have slightly more authority in that narrow circle of people that help you maintain power (and of course more power outside of it).
It was proven by observing wolves and chimpanzees - alpha wolf walks last in pack to make sure everyone else is safe, fights with outsiders and in exchange eats first and gets to mate - but the personal risk is huge, as walking last makes you prone to being killed (no one is covering your back, if something happens to you probability of others noticing is lower) plus fights with outsiders come with obvious and quite severe risk.
So, we give leaders food and mate, because we want them to:
a) protect us (therefore we keep them well fed)
b) keep their genes in the pool (because, I assume, they were decent leaders and there is good chance their offspring will help us too)
The above is "servitude of leader" at its prime if you ask me - since "protection" is a very broad word and it includes internal and external dangers.
That have a very interesting consequences - we absolutely DESPISE people who accept perks of being a leader and don't provide the above.
And to warp things up: Females periods synchronize not to make "alpha male" couple with every single one of them, but to make sure when "alpha female" is out of the market, everyone is. :)
Cheers!
Thank you Sim.
But I don't go along with the wolf comparison when it comes to humans.
I got this sentence from this source: https://thinkgrowth.org/the-alpha-myth-150121d3868f
There is no source to be found where the hierarchy (alpha, beta etc.) is named in the context of humans, it only counts for animals.
When I talk about a former king I also considered the social structure and that the king stood as a strong symbol in protecting and caring for the people and the land.
I think we all can agree on the fact that once the leaders become decadent and stuff themselves with luxuries while the folk suffers, this can be what produces revolutions like the French ones against the aristocrats.
Nowadays we face much more complex circumstances and power structures and I wonder where humanity will go. ...
Well, question is, are we really more complicated than animals when it comes to basics ? Maybe it's just outer shell that makes it seems so?
What I'm also saying is that there is no "alpha", "beta" or whatever and never been. There is just role that you are accepting and they come with different shapes and sizes - so happened that hierarchy often comes with similar needs and we get similar behaviors on certain levels.
Also, saying that because we are too socially complex we can't define "alpha" is also untrue - we could if we consider that role of one human being differs among those circles - we can't define it because in the shape that it is defined now it does not take that differences within one being into account (someone could be alpha in situation X, but not alpha in Y and so on).
"I think we all can agree on the fact that once the leaders become decadent and stuff themselves with luxuries while the folk suffers, this can be what produces revolutions like the French ones against the aristocrats."
I don't think folk need to suffer - resentment, jealousy is not necessary a suffering and still produces similar outcome. Let's go with modern example though: how do you feel about bankers getting fat bonuses for layoffs?
About the last part: Do we really face more complexity or we just exchanged one type into another ? I also do wonder what will be, but the thing is, world doesn't care and just go on :)