I don’t think those things are necessarily distinct. Many people do not compartmentalize the status-hierarchy-supporting behaviors from the trust-building and responsibility-dividing ones.
Well, they can be distinct if you analyse what’s happening. I agree that most people not only don’t compartmentalise, but even do not recognize that there are multiple things happening under the hood.
I think 1 and 3 are closely related. 2 seems like a logically distinct thing that people associate with dominance, maybe because people who are cowed by authority behave submissively and also don’t think they’re allowed to take charge of anything.
I don’t think 1 and 3 are that closely related. Maybe in the sense that camaraderie occurs between people of roughly the same status and is impossible between an alpha and an omega.
Things like horseplay can be used to establish dominance (basically when “fake aggression” is not fake any more), but in this case I would argue it is just used as a fairly transparent cover.
What’s an alpha or omega here? Your comment seems like evidence for rather than against the relationship of 1 and 3 - the “fake aggression” is made of actual dominance and submission behaviors.
So, relative status at the end of the interaction depends on how someone responds to “fake” aggression, and one possible outcome is that it’s the same as it started.
This isn’t the same thing at all as not being a status transaction.
There are probably at least three things going on here:
Re-affirmation of mutual trust through fake aggression. Camaraderie, basically.
Taking or declining responsibility. Sometimes you are just happy to let someone else take care of things.
And only finally, sub/dom power games.
I don’t think those things are necessarily distinct. Many people do not compartmentalize the status-hierarchy-supporting behaviors from the trust-building and responsibility-dividing ones.
Well, they can be distinct if you analyse what’s happening. I agree that most people not only don’t compartmentalise, but even do not recognize that there are multiple things happening under the hood.
I think 1 and 3 are closely related. 2 seems like a logically distinct thing that people associate with dominance, maybe because people who are cowed by authority behave submissively and also don’t think they’re allowed to take charge of anything.
I don’t think 1 and 3 are that closely related. Maybe in the sense that camaraderie occurs between people of roughly the same status and is impossible between an alpha and an omega.
Things like horseplay can be used to establish dominance (basically when “fake aggression” is not fake any more), but in this case I would argue it is just used as a fairly transparent cover.
What’s an alpha or omega here? Your comment seems like evidence for rather than against the relationship of 1 and 3 - the “fake aggression” is made of actual dominance and submission behaviors.
Alpha = one at the top of the pecking order, omega = one at the bottom.
No, I don’t think so. Aggression is different from dominance. I shove you, you shove me, we both laugh. No dominance and no submission.
What happens if you shove me and I don’t respond? Is there still no effect on relative status?
That all entirely depends on the context and the particulars. Compare:
I shove you and you look down and move off
I shove you and you curtly tell me to get lost since you’re busy
I shove you and you call my a crazy chupacabra
So, relative status at the end of the interaction depends on how someone responds to “fake” aggression, and one possible outcome is that it’s the same as it started.
This isn’t the same thing at all as not being a status transaction.
As I said, it all entirely depends on the contex. It can be a status transaction. It can also not be a status transaction.
I would also remark again that if the point is to assert status, calling that aggression “fake” is probably not quite right.