As mentioned in Part 1, ancient cultures recognized dozens of male archetypes – as in the example of Greek gods where each mythological character is presented as a carefully delineated personality type.

Despite our tendency to think of Zeus as the single Alpha male of the pack, it’s more accurate to say that each god, each archetype, demonstrates alpha qualities in a specific domain, each demonstrating a different kind of power. Zeus was Alpha in his political leadership, Ares in martial skill, Hephaestus in labour consciousness and artisan mastery, Apollo on intellectual pursuits, and so on. Conversely each of these characters are Beta, if not Sigma in the areas outside of their specialities, as demonstrated in the instances where each god was subjected to moments of dominance by another deity.

Looked at in this polytheistic way, modern descriptions of Alpha, Beta, Sigma etc. appear not only reductionistic as applied to real men (men who may excel in one area and not another), but also frankly gynocentric in the way each ranking is defined by an overriding criteria of whether a man is pleasing to, or useful for women. Is this the only way to assess men’s value? By way of contrast none of the classic male gods (archetypes) described by the Greeks were based on what women want, as the Alpha, Beta, Sigma etc. designations have unfortunately come to be defined today.

* * *

 

Further Reading: The One True Masculinity