Big Brother's nominations raise another important issue - the housemates' hostility to perceived insincerity.
At least four housemates nominated people because they thought them two-faced or false. But what's so bad about insincerity? If everyone went round being honest to everyone, the Hobbesian war of all against all would kick off in seconds, as BB shows.
Two-facedness, then, is necessary for any sort of social life - it's a modus vivendi. Why don't the housemates - and BB7 is not unusual here - see this?
It's because they have the unthinking modern belief that social interaction must involve the revelation of character, the mobilization of narcissism.
But this is a relatively modern development, perhaps to be blamed upon the Romantics. For centuries, social life consisted in role-play, in the adoption of personae. As Shakespeare said, "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players."
The loss of this tradition is costly. It's potentially gravely illiberal, as the rules that control of social life now impinge upon our deepest, intimate character, rather than upon our roles. Personae and masks were forms of protection. These are lost.
Also, the idea that social life is all about character encourages the fundamental attribution error, and disguises structural constraints upon our behaviour. It gives us the illusion of freedom, of potential. BB housemates illustrate this perfectly. They believe the revelation of their personality - as distinct from persona - will be the road to success and riches.
And, what's more, in multiplying the appearance of intimacy, it devalues the real thing.
I'm being a bit vague here. I certainly can't improve upon Richard Sennett's classic book. My point is just that the cliche-mongers have it right. Big Brother does reveal something sick about our society. It's just that the sickness is more profound than anyone realizes.