Understanding Interpersonal Relationships in Africa, Part 2 of 3

It is seen here that Western friendship is based on the concept of emotional and social compatibility. The goal of friendship and social interaction is never physical gain. I think we can go so far as to say that, to the Westerner friendship that is based in gain is disdained or at best, disliked. When people seek either monetary or positional gain from friendship it is considered to be a sign of an individual that is morally corrupt. Since this form of behavior is so frowned upon in the West, a missionary cannot even imagine this as a basis of a relationship. Therefore, a missionary, is very hesitant to assume an acquaintance would seek to build a relationship based on these reasons.


The problem arises from the fact that the Westerner has a completely different definition of friendship than the African. To the general African, material goods, monetary help, and other benefits must be present for a relationship to exist and have any value. Here is a quote to help you understand how Africans view friendship:

Robert LeVine, anthropologist, 1970: 288-289 “ There is (a) dimension of (interpersonal behavior) that Africans emphasize when describing relationships of equality to inequality, namely, obligations to give material goods- food, gifts, financial help, property, and babies. Relationships are frequently characterized by African primarily in terms of the type of material transaction involved: who gives what to whom and under what conditions… “
“In Contrast with the Western attitude (genuine or hypocritical) that the emotional component in interpersonal relations is more important than any transfer of material goods involved (the latter being thought of as something incidental), Africans are frankly and directly concerned with the material transfer itself as indicative of the quality of the relationship…”
“In considering the part… material goods play in African social life, several points should be emphasized. (1) A certain amount of material giving is obligatory in a relationship, particularly in a kin relationship, and is not dependent on how the individual feels about, or even how well he knows, the other person. (2) Persons are evaluated partly in terms of how much and how freely they give to others; those who give more than the obligatory minimum may be better liked as generous persons or may become special friends or leaders of others. (3) Failure to meet the material obligations of role relationships cannot be compensated by a friendly attitude or compensated by emotional warmth and support; since relationships are conceptualized in terms of material transactions, attitudes and feelings are concomitants, but not substitutes. (4) Relationships that have goals of obtaining valued resources generate competition, particularly when the resources are limited, the scope of obligations wide…”



In a culture with this concept of friendship, it starts to become very clear how the average person looks at his interpersonal life. Life in Africa is hard (at best), money is always difficult to gain, and society is not built to ensure every person has an equal opportunity to succeed, Therefore he, the African, is always on the look out for new friends, especially those that he deems able to help him gain a position or help him financially. To him he needs real friends.

David Maranz, African Friends and Money Matters, (pg 65) “A network of friends is a network of resources. Friendship and mutual aid go together. A Kenyan told me, ”More friends means more security.” A friendship devoid of financial or other material considerations is a friendship devoid of a fundamental ingredient: mutual dependence… It is normal to expect material benefit from friendship… the formation of true, meaningful, and satisfying friendships (is) difficult to achieve between Westerner and African.”



This is where the missionary comes in. In Africa all relationships are started by determining who is of the higher status and who is of the lower. All other actions will flow from this understanding.

David Maranz, African Friends and Money Matters, (pg. 127) “A singular approach to social organization is found in many African societies. In these, people are classified as either givers or receivers…”

David Maranz, African Friends and Money Matters, pg. 67 “…the Westerner and the African live on very different socioeconomic levels, with the African considering the Westerner to be rich and himself to be poor, with much cultural behavior flowing from these differences… many Africans are ready to use casual meetings or acquaintanceships as a means to gain personal profit.”


African friendship do have balance and harmony, but they only achieve this when the two people in the relationship are on the same financial level.

David Maranz, African Friends and Money Matters,(pg. 70) “…when foreigners are implicated in a reciprocal system.. there is an inherent mismatch. 1. relationships are supposed to be mutually dependent, but if the Westerner us always the giver, a basic requirement of the system cannot be met. There really will never be reciprocity. The Westerner will never be in a position to be on the receiving end, as his or her material needs will never be greater than those of the borrower. 2. Part of the dynamics of the system is that the donor receives prestige and “big man” status, but for the Westerner this can never be the case. They do not feel an enhancement of their prestige through this type of giving… Besides, they could not fill the role of an African big man if they wanted to.”

To understand this fully you must understand that the foreigner in Africa will never be viewed as poor or even middle class. The mindset in all African societies is that the foreigner is rich. Not only is he rich, but his economic status is believed and always assumed to be higher than Africans that have notably more money and wealth then the foreigner (i.e. presidents, government officials, businessmen).