While I got a bit self-reflective on the subject of "alpha-ism" (personally, I don't think of myself as an "alpha male", by the traditional definition of the term), I eventually ended up thinking about the idea itself. What is an "Alpha-human"? Is it a good thing?
It seems to me that society in general defines an "alpha-human" as a human who has power or desires power in some way. The ruthless business person. The power-hungry politician, or the war-hawk president, willing to sacrifice thousands if not millions of lives to.. The Don-Juan or Donetta-Juanita who has sexual power over others. The rich stock trading tycoon with the power to buy and sell in such a way that it determines the fates of others. And it seemed to me that our definition of "alpha-human" is essentially the same as our definition of "alpha-animal". Fangs barred for war, in constant struggle for domination over others.
The one separating factor, it seems, between our definition of "alpha-human" and "alpha-animal" is that the human power struggles are only sometimes set on the stage of violence More often than not, especially as time goes on, the stage of the power struggle is the "civilized battlefield": the government buildings, the boardrooms, the court houses, the media, even entertainment. Today, the "alpha" isn't always the big muscular square jawed club welder with the God-of-War charisma that instills fear and obedience. There's certainly "nerd alphas", "sweet old guy/lady alphas", "scholastic alphas....pretty much any group you can think of has an "alpha-human" element to it. They want to be the leader of the group.
One thing I think is changing in that idea of "alpha" , the thing that was the main result of my meditation on the subject, is that...as the venue of the "power struggles" has become more "civilized", so has the idea of what constitutes an acceptable, modern version the "alpha". Consider how, not very long ago, the battlefield was THE venue for power. All roads led to the battlefield when it came to the true desire for power. Even now, the battlefield and militaristic government plays it role, but that role is becoming secondary to venues like the bank and the boardroom and the halls of legal and economic government. But still it's mostly about raw power for many people partaking in the activities taking place in those venues.
But I think we're starting to see a new type of "alpha" arising in these new venues. I don't think their a majority, but I do think they're going to be the new, less animalistic definition of "alpha", and they in turn will define the world to come. In general I view these new types of "alphas" as having the following characteristics:
1) A more humanitarian approach to their fields. They don't want to use peoples bodies against them. They don't want to be unjust (or at least not as much as their predecessors were). They don't accept racism, sexism, homophobia, or other such hateful tactics as acceptable tactics to use in gaining power OR retaining power. They don't see bloodshed as the first and only option to "win".
2)A desire for adoration from others as opposed to fear/intimidation over others. Fame as opposed to infamy. They' prefer arriving to a gala walking on a red carpet after getting out of a nice car over arriving in a conquered town on their horse that's red with blood.
3)A desire to co-operate instead of being the sole "God-King". A desire to talk TO people as opposed to AT them.
4)A more scientific approach, as opposed to a more religious or faith based approach. The recognition that the only intervention that can keep the world in its most harmonious balance possible is human intervention, not divine intervention.. The recognition that occasional chaos and upheaval is natural (if not necessary), but a balance between flexibility to allow for chaos and containment of it can keep the chaos and upheaval from becoming the "all and everything" of existence. That we have to look for plausible solutions to our problems, and not just wait on supplications to the sky to solve the problems we face, be they big or small.
Notice how all 4 of those characteristics are kind of dependent on each other? It's about rational thought over irrational thought. It's about separating the human intellect from the animal urges. A "new alpha" doesn't (necessarily) want to conquer people with money and weapons, they want to conquer old, failing ideas with new ideas and innovations......and get some money and/or fame in the process, if we're being honest. I think the "new alpha" is a still-evolving archetype. It's certainly not perfected or established, and people I would define as "new alphas" are still prone to the same.... ruthless power-grabs... that the more traditional "alpha"-types are known for.
My hope is that, eventually...SOME day... the "alpha" archetype will be the person who leads, but does so from a place of true historical significance and relevance as opposed to the "power-in-my-lifetime alpha" of old.
To better define, I think the best possible outcome for the evolution of the "alpha" archetype is a person who:
1) Wants to be known, contemporarily AND historically for conquering things like disease and poverty and "-isms" of all sorts. As opposed to being known for conquering the most territories or the most people.
2) Desires a world filled with scholars, not servants and serfs and slaves. A "new alpha" will see that the world can only function at its best when everyone is able to do their best by having the best amount of knowledge possible. That recognizes that ability varies from person to person, and it's only through knowledge of self and knowledge of the world around us that we can bring the best out of every person. Get everyone educated, working at their top capacity. A "new alpha" would see they have to make everyone a part of the betterment of humanity, and that will result in people who will value humanity.
3) Faces tough decisions, but faces them with intelligent compassion before passionate, power-hungry ill-advised judgement and execution.
Again, these three things are pretty intricately linked to one another. There's a lot of philosophical and practical dependency between those three aspects. Sort of a "you can't have one with out the others" interdependency.
I think most people are starting to reach the general consensus that things like race and gender and sexual preference and philosophical/religious preference aren't the things we should be defining our larger cultures by. I think most people acknowledge that we should be
I feel like the current presidential administration is sort of a reflection of a last-gasp effort for that dying, decaying "old alpha" mentality. I also think it reflects our general collective uncertainty about what we're looking for in a new type of leader. I don't think the Trump administration is STRICTLY a "white backlash" against Obama, or a "male backlash" against the possibility of a Hillary Clinton presidency. I think it was and is a backlash against a cultural paradigm shift we're undergoing. I think the Obama administration was a step in the proper direction, and it caught a lot of people off-guard. A lot of people wanted a new direction, got it, and then when it wasn't as smooth and instantaneous of a change as they had hoped for they "backlashed" against that by reverting to voting for the most base, traditional "alpha(s)" that they could vote for. The "speak loudly and carry a big stick" candidate.
I hope, in the coming mid-term elections and the subsequent 2020 elections, there is a backlash against that "Trumpist backlash, and we start getting back on the road to making real progress. It's not an instantaneous thing. It takes more than one or two consecutive progressively-minded presidents (with a progressively-minded Court and Senate and Congress) to REALLY change things, but I think we've been starting down the road to a better future. I don't necessarily know if that means "vote for any and every democrat", or if it means "find the best possible candidate from any party you can". I think, with recent events like the non-overturning of the ACA/Obamacare, we're seeing that even some defining themselves as traditional Conservatives are seeing the benefits of a different, more altruistic approach to life and the world in general. Maybe I'm being too optimistic. But I think we are, as a societal whole, starting to move to a better place where we realize that we can't JUST be defined by the whims of a few people who are willing to sacrifice, in one form or another, millions of lives. for the sake of some ultimately fleeting power over other. I think that's the impetus that will define the new, evolving definition of what it means to be an "alpha", and a leader.
As a kind of post-script, I'll offer this not quite fully developed opinion: what I've called the "old alpha" (maybe a better name might be the "outdated alpha") is the type of person who's ruled by the ego. And in the "old alpha" case, ego is defined as "an over-inflated sense of self, where one considers themselves above accepted morality and also considers themselves superior to most (if not all) others".
What I've been calling the "new alpha" is someone who's ruled by the Freudian Ego. This is the ego that mediates essentially keeps both the Id and the Superego in check by being able to moderate the needs more carnal and the needs more ascetic/regimented of a person (and in the case of a modern leader, one's constituency).
I submit that the "old alpha" is ruled by what Freud called the "Id". The "old alpha" has a more refined, controlled "Id", but mostly it's just a (slightly) more human version of the base, animalistic urges of dominance and unchecked desire and savagery. . I'm not really an expert on psychology (much less Freudian psychology), but that's my analysis of the difference in the mindset of the two types of alphas (old and new) I'm considering in the write up that preceded this post-script.