Say you have a group of people who have pooled their resources together to make a living and succeed and/or fail as a group. Their commitment is "one for all, all for one" in the sense that each member contributes to the group and that the group provides for each member. This would be tribe-like no? Now, say that this group is successful and have been approached by someone who would like to join the group. If the group has already made commitments (loans or other obligations), then any new prospective member must be expected to "buy in" to those obligations as well, yes? All for one, one for all? In our present culture, groups such as this would make binding legal contracts to secure a stable and "safe" relationship amongst its members. Wouldn't this just be a business as opposed to making a living tribally? Shouldn't there be some sense of "belonging" amongst people who make their living tribally? I mean, what's an example of an aboriginal method of keeping unscrupulous members from really hurting the tribe? I mean, obviously, there are no courts amongst tribes (at least that I know of), but I imagine that there are safeguards and, failing those, justice of some kind. • Ishmael.org, the work & philosophy of Daniel Quinn

Say you have a group of people who have pooled their resources together to make a living and succeed and/or fail as a group. Their commitment is “one for all, all for one” in the sense that each member contributes to the group and that the group provides for each member. This would be tribe-like no?

Now, say that this group is successful and have been approached by someone who would like to join the group. If the group has already made commitments (loans or other obligations), then any new prospective member must be expected to “buy in” to those obligations as well, yes? All for one, one for all?

In our present culture, groups such as this would make binding legal contracts to secure a stable and “safe” relationship amongst its members. Wouldn’t this just be a business as opposed to making a living tribally?

Shouldn’t there be some sense of “belonging” amongst people who make their living tribally? I mean, what’s an example of an aboriginal method of keeping unscrupulous members from really hurting the tribe?

I mean, obviously, there are no courts amongst tribes (at least that I know of), but I imagine that there are safeguards and, failing those, justice of some kind.

You say, “If the group has already made commitments (loans or other obligations), then any new prospective member must be expected to ‘buy in’ to those obligations as well, yes?” My answer would be, why should he?

Let’s say the original members have bought a building from which to run their business. They’re paying the mortgage and when it’s paid off, it will belong to them. If they take in a new member, why should he be expected to buy into the building? I suppose he might, but why is it necessary? Even though he’s a member of the tribe, the building belongs to the original members.

There are no hard and fast rules for building a tribe. What works for the particular tribe is all that counts. If it doesn’t work, don’t do it. If it works, do it. The question to ask of a tribal newcomer is: Can you make a living by helping us make a living? That’s what Hap and CJ did for us at the East Mountain News. They made a living by helping us make a living. The reverse was also true: we made a living by helping them make a living. All the rest is peripheral.

ID: 540
posted: 06 Feb 2002
updated: 02 Apr 2002
Related Q&A(s):
149 258 377 380 392 403 406 407 415 421 426 448 452 456 461 468 471 473 474 481 483 493 494 496 500 501 505 509 513 516 526 529 531 539 540 544 546 547 548 549 550 551 552