Alpha Males and Alpha Females

Humans are constantly examining their actions in trying to understand why they behave as they do.  A major point of contention always arises when evaluating what of our behaviors is derived from our genetic makeup and what is learned from our interactions with members of society after we are born.  This is the nature versus nurture, or biology versus culture, controversy.  One way to evaluate biological contributions is to search for behaviors or characteristics which are shared with our nearest primate relatives the apes.  This is the approach taken by the highly regarded primatologist Frans de Waal as he considers differences between males and females in his book Different: Gender Through the Eyes of a Primatologist.  Of most use in this context is our growing understanding of primate behaviors and in particular the characteristics of our closest kin, the chimpanzees. 

Deriving conclusions from studying this ape becomes quite intriguing because there are two versions of chimps.  The most numerous and widespread is referred to as the “common” chimp.  Societies of common chimps are, to a casual observer, dominated by the highest-ranking male chimp, a situation generating the label of “alpha” male.  Within those societies the females will also have organized themselves into a hierarchy led by an alpha female.  The gender roles in the second class of chimp, the bonobo, are partially reversed with the alpha females having the most social or political power in their societies.  Scientists tell of our ancestors and those of the bonobos breaking off from the ancestors of the common chimpanzee millions of years ago.  Clearly evolution has brought great changes to all three species, indicating, among other things, that male dominance is not an evolutionary imperative.  Yet all three beasts still harbor common genetic characteristics while developing much different cultural characteristics.

Evolution can be thought of as the result of who within a species is most likely to have their genes reproduced by having them passed on to succeeding generations.  There are at least three mechanisms for determining the specimens most successful at contributing to the gene pool.  First, an individual must survive long enough to reach mating age and to produce a significant number of offspring.  The phrase “survival of the fittest” was created to cover this aspect.  Second, an individual must have the opportunity to mate.  This may not be as easy as it seems because males and females will each have preferences for the types of individual they most desire as mates.  Third, cultural factors in a society will also influence who gets to mate with whom.  The latter constraint is clearly active in human societies, and in those of chimps and bonobos as well.  The role of mate selection in evolutionary processes was recognized by Darwin and then mostly ignored by his successors.  The contribution of cultural factors is rarely explicitly mentioned.

To understand the society of the common chimpanzee, one must understand the role of the alpha male and recognize that human use of the term is misapplied.  De Waal explains.

“I recognize two main alpha types.  The first type fits the one fêted in…business books.  They are bullies who live by Machiavelli’s credo that ‘it is better to be feared than loved if you cannot be both.’  These males terrorize everyone and are obsessed with instilling loyalty and obedience.  We know this kind of male all too well in our species but also in chimpanzees.”

De Waal tells the tale of one such chimp leader who was ultimately challenged and lost his position.  He was rewarded for his tactics as leader by being nearly beaten to death by a gang of angry males.  Clearly this male did not build a happy constituency during his reign.  The purpose of forming a male hierarchy with an alpha male is not to reward the strongest or the best fighter, although that is part of the process.  The purpose is to bring stability to a society.  All societies must arrive at a state of stability but there is no unique and inevitable path. For a healthy chimp society, a competent leader is required.

“The other type of alpha is a true leader.  While he is dominant and defends his position against rivals, he is neither abusive nor overly aggressive.  He protects the underdog, keeps peace in the community, and reassures those in pain or distress.  Analyzing all instances in which one individual hugs another who has lost a fight, we found that females generally console others more often than males.  The only striking exception is the alpha male.  This male acts as the healer-in-chief, comforting others in agony more than anyone else.  As soon as a fight erupts, everyone turns to him to see how he will handle it.  He is the final arbiter of disputes.”

Less physically imposing chimps can attain alpha status by forming alliances with other males who will provide support if necessary.  One of the advantages of being a high-status male is greater access to mating-ready females.

Male chimps seem to be born knowing what lies ahead for them: a physical struggle for dominance.

“I am always astonished at the inexhaustible energy with which young male apes romp around, jump up and down things, and go at each other, rolling over the ground with big laughing faces while they rip each other apart.  Known as rough and tumble play, it’s mostly fake assaults, wrestling, pushing, shoving, slapping, and gnawing on each other’s limbs while laughing.”

This behavior is found among all primates, including humans.  Male children will tend to play with other males and females with females, both having play characteristics tuned to future roles in society.  Do chimps produce their male hierarchy because inherent physical competitiveness made that inevitable, or did the need for a dominant leader to provide a stable society drive evolution to select the appropriate male characteristics?  If males predisposed to strive for dominance have greater access to mates and produce more offspring their genetic tendencies will become ascendent in the gene pool.  Is evolution driving chimp societal culture, or is chimp culture driving evolution?

Female chimps also seem to be born knowing what lies ahead for them: motherhood and nurturing children.  Primates learn how to be a mother to an infant by watching mothers in action

“Among primates, the orientation to vulnerable newborns and their substitutes, such as dolls or logs, is undoubtedly part of biology and more typical of females than males.”

“Young primate females are besotted with infants…Young females surround a new mother and try to get close to her infant.  They groom the mother and—if they are lucky—get to touch and inspect the infant…Females follow the mother wherever she goes.  They may play with the newborn and carry it if the mother lets them, which serves as a preparation for the moment when they get their own progeny.”

Female chimps know that their major responsibility is to produce and care for offspring.  However, they still feel the need, whether cultural or genetic, to form their own hierarchy and have an effective leader, one who, like the male leader, will work to ensure the stability of the society.  Females will have power, but it will be exercised in a different way than that of the males.

De Waal tells us that the role of females in chimp society was long overlooked and only recently even recognized as a relevant topic.

“The reason we rarely hear about feminine power in other primates is that we can’t look past male leadership.  Males are flamboyant and suck up all the attention with their cockiness, displays, and noisy fights.  They are also less timid, which means fieldworkers get to know them first…while females received less attention, at least initially.  Given their low-key behavior, it took decades for them to enter the scientific literature.”

Female chimps are more subtle and more nuanced in their behaviors, required more patient effort to figure out what they are up to.

“Female apes rarely compete physically with each other over status.  In captive settings we sometimes put them together from a variety of sources.  It is astonishing how quickly females establish ranks.  One of them walks up to another, who submits by bowing, pant-grunting, or moving out of the way.  That’s all there is to it.  From then, on the first female dominates the second.”

Manifestations of physical power are the surest path to high rank on the male side.  On the female side, age, experience, and personality are prized.  These characteristics are not prized by males, but they are often respected.  Typical alpha males need political alliances to lead effectively.  Approval or disapproval from a respected alpha female who can deliver half the population of the group to the decision process, can provide considerable influence.  De Waal provided several examples where the alpha male’s power depended upon the alliance, or lack thereof, with the alpha female.

“When we say that chimpanzees are male-dominated and bonobos female-dominated, we therefore need to qualify that the less dominant sex is never powerless.”

One can reasonably assume that evolution provided the sexual pleasure that encourages sexual activity that produces the offspring that sustains the population of the species.  But if those who derive the most sexual pleasure produce the most offspring, the genetic pool will tend to produce specimens with ever greater desire to have sex.  There must be some way of limiting this process.  A species who spent all day having sex and neglected searching for food would not survive long.  Well, the bonobos seem to have developed the desire and the ability for nearly day-long sexual antics.  However, we will not dwell on that topic since we are here interested in differences between males and females.

There is no way of knowing how or why females became dominant, but the result produced a stable culture and affected the physical evolution of the species.

“Chimpanzees look as if they work out in the gym every day.  They have large heads, thick necks, and broad muscular shoulders.  In comparison, bonobos have an intellectual look, as if they spend their time in the library.  They have slim upper bodies, narrow shoulders, thin necks, and elegant piano-player hands…When standing on two legs, bonobos straighten their back and hips better than any other ape so that they look eerily human-like…Of all the great apes, the bonobos anatomy is closest to that of Lucy, our Australopithecus ancestor named after a 3.5-foot, 4-million-year-old juvenile female fossil.”

When one bonobo group meets another, the males my respond with traces of typical male behavior, but the dominant females will make sure socialization occurs.  A researcher once quipped that what follows is more likely to be an orgy than a battle.

“When bonobo groups meet in the wild, males chase neighboring males.  But since these encounters are typically initiated by females, who are eager to mingle and groom with their neighbors, male competition never escalates to the level of violence seen in chimpanzees.  Chimps kill their enemies, whereas male bonobos barely make a scratch.”

Bonobo males are more powerful than bonobo females, but females acting as an organized group keep males in line. Normally, everyone gets along, but a male knows that if it arouses anger among the females, it is best to become scarce until everyone calms down.  The males seem to have no interest in changing their place in society.

Female dominance provides an opportunity to feed acceptance of this state preferentially into the gene pool.  Besides the dominant females having breeding mate choices, they seem to support their offspring in finding the best mates as well.

Bonobos are in some ways more similar to humans than are the common chimpanzees.  Any such comparison raises difficulties with many people.  Male-dominated fields are more comfortable with violent male ancestors than oversexed subordinate ones.  It is also difficult to promote a comparison when the characteristics of bonobo society are not fit for prime-time television.

“Since apes hold up a mirror to ourselves, we care how they make us look.  Perhaps the biggest problem with bonobos is their nonviolence.  We have no confirmed reports of one bonobo killing another, whereas we have an abundance of such cases for chimpanzees.  You’d think everyone would be pleased to get a break from chimpanzee brutality and finally meet a close relative leaning toward love rather than hate.  But then you wouldn’t have reckoned with the prevailing narrative in anthropology, according to which we were born warriors who conquered the earth by eliminating every ancestral type that stood in our way.  We are children of Cain, not of Abel.”

What is clear is that sex-segregated hierarchies are the standard, with the males usually dominant.  But the evidence supports both sexes having the cognitive capabilities to provide leadership.  This applies to much of human history as well, although marriage in recent history would occasionally leave a male-dominated society with a queen in charge.  It is only in the past few generations that societies began attempting, under female demands, to essentially create hierarchies in which the two genders could be intermixed.  This is a grand endeavor.  But should we think of this situation as a grand experiment, something that might ultimately prove inefficient or ineffective?  What does our knowledge of primate relatives tell us about the possibility of success or failure?  De Waal provides his opinion.

“Modern society’s attempt to integrate both genders into a single hierarchy relies on the leadership capacities of both.  From looking at other primates, we know that these capacities can be found in both sexes.  They may not be exactly the same, but they overlap more than they diverge.  We have no reason to assume, as is often done, that males are more suited for leadership than women.  Men’s greater size and strength doesn’t make them better leaders, even though these qualities still subconsciously bias our judgement.  In other primates, both sexes astutely exert power, and female leadership is not hard to find…Moreover, many alpha individuals, regardless of their sex, care about more than rank.  They defend the underdog, settle disputes, console distressed parties, facilitate reconciliations, and promote stability.  They serve their community while at the same time safeguarding their position and privileges.

In other words, what our society is doing might be a bit unusual, but it is not unnatural.

You can learn a little about a lot of things or you can learn a lot about a very few things. Guess which is the most fun.