But no one deferred to anyone. There was an argument and then someone simply stood on the number one spot. The concession required for deference wasn't present.
I don't agree. Among the UK housemates, there was a deferring to the older members (Barrymore, Galloway, Burns). There was also an argument over whether 'UK famous' ought to defer to 'US famous'.
That exercise was an explicit illustration of one particular hierarchy of deference within the House, related to fame. Following the task, there was much discussion, particularly around the subject of Barrymore and Galloway - both of whom were then seen (among UK housemates, anyway) as being 'most famous').
Interestingly, the fame hierarchy mapped pretty closely onto the age hierarchy (the two Americans excepted). At that point, the younger, 'less famous' House members voluntarily arranged themselves at the foot of the scale, deferring to the others. As I say, I think these two coincident hierarchies did 'set' a pecking order of sorts, albeit a shifting one.
Arguably so but very limited. I think you have to dominate to gain the position of alpha and he didn't quite happen.
You can dominate indirectly, as well as overtly. From the moment he entered the House, Galloway positioned himself in a (if not the) dominant role, by taking the lead in tasks. I think his selection - twice - as most intelligent, articulate housemate reflected this.
I haven't really seen it in that way. A division between age groups certainly but there was only a hierachical fight between the older members of the group. The younger members all seemed to take an active decision to step away from the tension.
Sure. And, in stepping away from the tension, they've effectively deferred to the older members, allowing them to take a lead.
They formed into cliques certainly but having watched the live footage I'm not certain that any hierachy formed at all.
I think a number of hierarchies formed, but the nature of the personalities involved means they've been unstable and often conflicting. I suspect the inclusion of powerful males who, by dint of their sexuality, don't fit easily into traditional alpha male roles has contributed to this instability. |
