Is it possible for the “owner” of a tribal company (by this I mean the person who organized the venture from the beginning and secured all the required loans for equipment, shelter, utilites, etc. under his/her name) to have a functioning part WITHIN the business?

Or would his/her day-to-day presence dissolve the “equality” needed amongst members to ensure a tribal cooperation/organization? (Basically, I can say “no” to a man who is my boss if I think a “no” is called for, but saying “no” to a man who laid the groundwork for our enterprise, without whom we would not have the backing to operate, is very different).

Of course it would be possible for the person who organized the venture to have a functioning part in the business. Why on earth wouldn’t it be? The person who organized the Neo-Futurist Theatre Company is without doubt the tribal “chief.” Rennie and I were the chiefs of the East Mountain News.

You can’t think so rigidly about this. “Equality” is not like virginity. Decision-making is a task that must be performed within any organization, including a tribal organization. When you join the circus, you become part of the tribe, but this doesn’t mean you get to make the decisions; that remains the task of the circus owner.

The founder of the Neo-Futurist Theatre Company (who is the only permanent member of the tribe—the others come, work within the tribe for a while, and then move on) is accepted as the one who must make decisions about the company. Rennie and I held that role in the East Mountain News, and everyone else knew (and were perfectly content with this); they knew they couldn’t possibly make the decisions we had to make to keep the thing going.

ID: 647
posted:
updated: 13 Sep 2003