What is an ‘entrepreneurial tribe’? At first glance, the phrase could cause confusion. It sounds like an oxymoron in the context of the 21st century. In fact, however, the entrepreneurial tribe is a concept that may be the answer to giving African farming the ‘makeover’ it needs and achieving food sovereignty on the continent. In this chat with Foodlog founder Dick Veerman, Dr. Otto Kroesen introduces and explains the concept of tribal entrepreneurship. Surprisingly the interview also addresses tribalisation as a way out of the identity crises of people in modern Western societies. In Kroesen's opinion, the tribe could bring back the lost sense of 'we'.
A farming ‘makeover’
Kroesen begins the interview by establishing a chain of reasoning for why the entrepreneurial tribe is necessary in the context of food security in African nations. Africa at large still does not have food sovereignty, which is in part due to the fact that much farming on the continent is still subsistence based, looked down upon, and mostly executed by women or those who did not find other jobs. As such, there is a need to improve the image of farming on the continent as a whole so that it doesn’t have a negative association.
The entrepreneurial tribe: an introduction
What does ‘entrepreneurial tribe’ mean and entail? The former part of the concept is quite self-explanatory, as entrepreneurship has a major role in the world economy today. As Dr. Kroesen writes, modern day entrepreneurial networks are “exemplifications of the introduction of tribal bands and strong group loyalties right in the heart of modern society.”
The tribal aspect stems from the rich history of tribes in Africa, dating back centuries. As Dr. Kroesen explains, in the past, Africans went about agriculture with tribes at the centre of the system. Tribes, typically didn’t trust each other, engaged in extensive low cost agriculture to feed only their own. This was particularly because they wanted to exist and be self-sufficient to avoid taxes, a trend which continued through colonialism. However, after colonialism and the formation of new countries and borders, the tribes no longer had the same freedom to move around. Thus, though the in-group tribal mentality and bonds stayed, the self-sufficiency was now on a lower level, which explains trends in modern day African household subsistence farming.
Along similar lines, the most interesting and thought provoking part of the interview is perhaps when Dr. Kroesen takes the discussion a step further and points out that the West could learn from Africa and re-tribalise itself. Dr. Kroesen makes an astute observation that, “Africa has too many ‘we groups’ which do not trust each other at all, but in the West, we don’t have any group at all anymore.” Thus, it seems that while the West is set on the entrepreneurial aspect, there would be even more added value to society if traditional tribal values were re-introduced.
Is tribal entrepreneurship and trust-building the answer to food sovereignty in Africa? Furthermore, what thoughts and patterns would be necessary to change at the grassroots level before such a concept could be introduced and welcomed? And: do you think Western countries would benefit from a touch of new tribalism as well? What is your opinion?
Kroesen begins the interview by establishing a chain of reasoning for why the entrepreneurial tribe is necessary in the context of food security in African nations. Africa at large still does not have food sovereignty, which is in part due to the fact that much farming on the continent is still subsistence based, looked down upon, and mostly executed by women or those who did not find other jobs. As such, there is a need to improve the image of farming on the continent as a whole so that it doesn’t have a negative association.
You don’t invest [in farming], because that is too risky, but you try to survive with little means outside the imperial structureHere, it may be important to point out other regional specificities that hinder large scale and more centralised farming practices in many African countries. One of these is a lack of trust in authority above and beyond the tribal level. As Dr. Kroesen explains in his book (Cross-cultural Entrepreneurship and Social Transformation), the lack of a universalist state, as well as in-group tribal bonds that are stronger than any sense of national loyalty are huge barriers to economic development on the continent. Thus, the problem lies in “how to get an effective and accountable hierarchical authority above and beyond tribal and clannish loyalties”. Herein comes the entrepreneurial tribe, which may be the answer to this problem.
The entrepreneurial tribe: an introduction
What does ‘entrepreneurial tribe’ mean and entail? The former part of the concept is quite self-explanatory, as entrepreneurship has a major role in the world economy today. As Dr. Kroesen writes, modern day entrepreneurial networks are “exemplifications of the introduction of tribal bands and strong group loyalties right in the heart of modern society.”
The tribal aspect stems from the rich history of tribes in Africa, dating back centuries. As Dr. Kroesen explains, in the past, Africans went about agriculture with tribes at the centre of the system. Tribes, typically didn’t trust each other, engaged in extensive low cost agriculture to feed only their own. This was particularly because they wanted to exist and be self-sufficient to avoid taxes, a trend which continued through colonialism. However, after colonialism and the formation of new countries and borders, the tribes no longer had the same freedom to move around. Thus, though the in-group tribal mentality and bonds stayed, the self-sufficiency was now on a lower level, which explains trends in modern day African household subsistence farming.
So you need a tribal team, as it were, so that people from a different background work towards a common goalSo, is the entrepreneurial tribe just a group of African small-farm owners who share a common national/ethnic background? Not quite. In Dr. Kroesen’s words, the entrepreneurial tribe is not a traditional tribe, because it is based in economics, and not politics. Therefore, members of an entrepreneurial tribe would not be tied together by traditional bonds such as identity politics, but by their entrepreneurial spirit instead. In other words, the proposal of an entrepreneurial tribe is an attempt to apply traditional African concepts of loyalty and partnership that fuel in-group tribal mentality to the economic sphere, thus decreasing mistrust between groups and increasing opportunities for more effective and efficient farming. In his book, Dr. Kroesen points this concept in action in the guilds of the Middle Ages in Europe, which were highly successful in uniting their members.
...[in the West] we have fragmented individuals in big machine-like societies, and they are all in search of their identityDe-tribalisation in Africa, re-tribalisation in the West
Along similar lines, the most interesting and thought provoking part of the interview is perhaps when Dr. Kroesen takes the discussion a step further and points out that the West could learn from Africa and re-tribalise itself. Dr. Kroesen makes an astute observation that, “Africa has too many ‘we groups’ which do not trust each other at all, but in the West, we don’t have any group at all anymore.” Thus, it seems that while the West is set on the entrepreneurial aspect, there would be even more added value to society if traditional tribal values were re-introduced.
Is tribal entrepreneurship and trust-building the answer to food sovereignty in Africa? Furthermore, what thoughts and patterns would be necessary to change at the grassroots level before such a concept could be introduced and welcomed? And: do you think Western countries would benefit from a touch of new tribalism as well? What is your opinion?
Dr. Otto Kroesen was trained as a theologian and still preaches every now and then. Since 1997 he teaches at Delft University of Technology. He is now an associate professor in Philosophy and Technology Dynamics. His projects and research focus on cross-cultural entrepreneurship in various African nations. His book, Cross-cultural Entrepreneurship and Social Transformation, discusses the concepts above in even more detail, as well as other research in the fields of development and entrepreneurship.
Kroesen considers the “entrepreneurial tribe” as an emerging solution for the predicament of both Africa and western societies. The distrust between different ethnic groups in Africa, vertical networks of dependency and patrimonialism, institutional voids, create serious obstacles for successful entrepreneurship. In the old days extensive low cost agriculture was the solution for clans and families to stay out of the (taxing) regime of empires. Now strong “entrepreneurial tribes” are required to navigate an environment of adverse institutional conditions. Western societies need the “entrepreneurial tribe” for the opposite reason. Here increasingly people are without any belongingness or identity. Right wing politicians exhibit the promise of a petrified national identity and belongingness. But the “entrepreneurial tribe”, not in politics, but in the sphere of economics, is the solution also for the Western societies. Student teams operating on behalf of African enterprises, community projects, startups, are examples of such involvement. The “entrepreneurial tribe” also enhances the capacity and resilience of its teammembers. Human faces become more human if they are able to face challenges.
Kroesen considers the “entrepreneurial tribe” as an emerging solution for the predicament of both Africa and western societies. The distrust between different ethnic groups in Africa, vertical networks of dependency and patrimonialism, institutional voids, create serious obstacles for successful entrepreneurship. In the old days extensive low cost agriculture was the solution for clans and families to stay out of the (taxing) regime of empires. Now strong “entrepreneurial tribes” are required to navigate an environment of adverse institutional conditions. Western societies need the “entrepreneurial tribe” for the opposite reason. Here increasingly people are without any belongingness or identity. Right wing politicians exhibit the promise of a petrified national identity and belongingness. But the “entrepreneurial tribe”, not in politics, but in the sphere of economics, is the solution also for the Western societies. Student teams operating on behalf of African enterprises, community projects, startups, are examples of such involvement. The “entrepreneurial tribe” also enhances the capacity and resilience of its teammembers. Human faces become more human if they are able to face challenges.
Related
Otto Kroesen , welcome at AgriFoodNetworks.org. Frans de Jong a must read and see.
An electronic copy of the book Cross-cultural Entrepreneurship and Social Transformation, Innovative Capacity in the Global South, is freely available on Research Gate.
Since opinions on the above are requested, here is mine.
First of all, Kroesen's original thinking deserves a lot of praise. A new way of looking at the same things is always welcome.
That does not mean that some critical questions are not possible. But let me stress that they are (opinionated) questions, not answers, let alone final ones. I will make two comments: one looks at Kroesen's reasoning from an empirical angle, while the other is a more fundamental one.
Is it really true that we do not find 'entrepreneurial tribes' in Africa? (for that is the implication of what Kroesen writes.) Based on my 20-year long employment with Agriterra, I can state quite the contrary. Anagolously to the European guilds that Kroesen sets as an example, in Africa there exist many organisations of farmers, including entrepreneurial ones. And not just advocacy-type organisations but also economic structures like producer associations and. of course, cooperatives that, more often than not, try to ignore ethnic differences: all farmers all welcome. To name but one example, farmers' cooperatives in Rwanda are stronger than ever, precisely because of their entrepreneurial spirit and their ambition to be there for all people with the same profession: farmer. So, it seems more logical to strengthen these structures than to pretend they are not there.
My other point has to do with the 'we' concept and is just a general caution. While it is essential to be organised (united we stand, etc.), the existence of a 'we' by definitin means that there is a 'they'. And we should always beware of an 'us vs them'-attitude that, in the end, is a regression to, precisely, tribalistic attitudes, whatever the criterion for distinguishing 'tribes' is.
I look forward to Kroesen's comments.
In answer to Jur Schuurman and with thanks for the issues raised, first let’s take another look at the guilds of the Middle Ages in Europe. The cities of the Middle Ages were composed of runaway serfs, mobile craftsmen, former farmers who lost their property , often uprooted people. Family ties were broken due to economic mobility. In the guilds organization they found an alternative family. They had to enter by taking an oath with the promise to treat each other as brothers and sisters of the same family, and often they also made their deceased parents member of the guild, and they organized a lot of masses for commemorating the dead. In a sense it was an alternative clan or family and also quite entrepreneurial, because somehow they had to make a living. So guilds specialized in different crafts.
Yes, something comparable is taking place in Africa. Many Africans live in two worlds, one leg in the city and the other leg still in the village. If a Harambee would be organized in the old days family members, neighbors within the village, were called upon to contribute to the funeral or a wedding. Nowadays living half in the city, half in the countryside, many Africans also call upon their colleagues and sometimes even Western friends to contribute. Around a Harambee there is no corruption. You just don’t do that in the face of the deceased.
So luckily, yes, cooperatives are also growing in number. Still they function better in as much as they are small and people know each other. Personalized relationships still are of primary importance in order to establish trust. But the circle is becoming bigger and bigger. But in investing trust people take a risk, just as when for the first time in the guilds biological family members were replaced by trusted friends. The oath was necessary to confirm loyalty and reliability.
My point is this: in development projects in Africa and also in entrepreneurship programs this risky and difficult transition needs to be taken into consideration. From an African perspective Western cooperative solutions involve risks often not perceived by the Western partners, who tend to see a cooperative as just a technicality.
Collectivisms are dangerous. The second point. Yes, they are. First, the original tribes consisted much more of teamwork than often is realized. Teamwork means that people contribute from different perspectives. Even in a patriarchal family, where the man has the final word in all and everything, the man has to keep quiet if the baby is asleep. His wife will tell him. The more so if the tribe would be on the move. Nothing was fixed. Only when the tribes settled and adopted agriculture they could afford to become more traditional. Secondly, we need the mentality of the original tribes for effective entrepreneurship. There the tribe becomes important for the West. If in running an enterprise a group of people creates a strong sense of belongingness (“We!”), they do not feel uprooted anymore, and they can also grow as individuals as part of the group. In this way the risk of having collectivism as a surrogate political identity of national or ethnic belongingness can be avoided. We are in the West in great risk of falling in that trap for the second time in history. We should have collectivism in the economic sphere in order to avoid having it in the political sphere.
Otto #4 My initial curiosity in your article on entrepreneurial tribes turned into some questioning that I compact here into one: isn't this not too much whishful (and theoretical) thinking? I just take your last sentence: "We should have more collectivism in the economic sphere in order to avoid having it in the political sphere" . "You mean in "Africa" or the"West? Re. respectively de- and retribalization.
"Africa"
I am not an antrapologist but in my humble experience in family based agriculture in about 20 African countries, a tribe is and a social and an economic and an spiritual and a political collective. All part of the tribal 'sphere'. If you are not part (member) of that 'tribe', you run into issues of land access and land security, an issue that is key in food security and food sovereignty, from family level to nation level. No way to separate economics from politics, in terms of spheres or otherwise. No way to detribalize African (rural) communities. Also in urban economics and entrepreneurship, tust is key and often family, clan, tribe based. And so is politics, as you know. Interestingly, also in your example of Rwanda, there is a very strong entrepreunerial tribe that is - how shall I put is mildly - closely linked to Presidential powers in that country.
"The West"
With a different social and economic history, the same question of sphere separation arises, but even a bit stronger: economy is politics. Full stop. And by the way, 'we' have a lot of groups that couldn't function nor produce nor sell, or whatever, without mutual trust and loyalty. These include all sorts of cooperatives and collectives. Excuse me if I misundertand your point, but in The Netherlands there are these days 'we-groups' of agrarian entrepreneurs that manifest themselves collectively and strongly in both economic and political spheres. Does FDF fall witin your definition if entrepreneurial tribe?
PS. I did go to ResearchGate; thank you for the link. Hope to come back on this subject