What do you think?
Rate this book
Rational Ritual: Culture, Coordination, and Common Knowledge
Why do Internet, financial service, and beer commercials dominate Super Bowl advertising? How do political ceremonies establish authority? Why does repetition characterize anthems and ritual speech? Why were circular forms favored for public festivals during the French Revolution? This book answers these questions using a single common knowledge.
Game theory shows that in order to coordinate its actions, a group of people must form "common knowledge." Each person wants to participate only if others also participate. Members must have knowledge of each other, knowledge of that knowledge, knowledge of the knowledge of that knowledge, and so on. Michael Chwe applies this insight, with striking erudition, to analyze a range of rituals across history and cultures. He shows that public ceremonies are powerful not simply because they transmit meaning from a central source to each audience member but because they let audience members know what other members know. For instance, people watching the Super Bowl know that many others are seeing precisely what they see and that those people know in turn that many others are also watching. This creates common knowledge, and advertisers selling products that depend on consensus are willing to pay large sums to gain access to it. Remarkably, a great variety of rituals and ceremonies, such as formal inaugurations, work in much the same way.
By using a rational-choice argument to explain diverse cultural practices, Chwe argues for a close reciprocal relationship between the perspectives of rationality and culture. He illustrates how game theory can be applied to an unexpectedly broad spectrum of problems, while showing in an admirably clear way what game theory might hold for scholars in the social sciences and humanities who are not yet acquainted with it.
Game theory shows that in order to coordinate its actions, a group of people must form "common knowledge." Each person wants to participate only if others also participate. Members must have knowledge of each other, knowledge of that knowledge, knowledge of the knowledge of that knowledge, and so on. Michael Chwe applies this insight, with striking erudition, to analyze a range of rituals across history and cultures. He shows that public ceremonies are powerful not simply because they transmit meaning from a central source to each audience member but because they let audience members know what other members know. For instance, people watching the Super Bowl know that many others are seeing precisely what they see and that those people know in turn that many others are also watching. This creates common knowledge, and advertisers selling products that depend on consensus are willing to pay large sums to gain access to it. Remarkably, a great variety of rituals and ceremonies, such as formal inaugurations, work in much the same way.
By using a rational-choice argument to explain diverse cultural practices, Chwe argues for a close reciprocal relationship between the perspectives of rationality and culture. He illustrates how game theory can be applied to an unexpectedly broad spectrum of problems, while showing in an admirably clear way what game theory might hold for scholars in the social sciences and humanities who are not yet acquainted with it.
Hardcover
First published May 7, 2001
52 people are currently reading
2494 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
December 4, 2016
When does habit become ritual? When it is a private or public ritual?
My Review: https://vimeo.com/155435300
My Review: https://vimeo.com/155435300
April 19, 2015
A little random, but let me start with my favorite exchange from Game Of Thrones:
Varys: 3 great men sit in a room. A king, a priest, and a rich man. Between them stands a common sellsword. Each great man bids the sellsword kill the other 2. Who lives, who dies?
Tyrion: Depends on the sellsword.
Varys: Does it? He has neither crown, nor gold, nor favor with the gods.
Tyrion: He has a sword, the power of life and death!
Varys: But if it's swordsmen who rule, why do we pretend kings hold all the power? When Ned Stark lost his head, who was truly responsible? Joffrey, the executioner, or something else?
Tyrion: I've decided I don't like riddles.
Varys: Power resides where men believe it resides. It's a trick. A shadow on the wall.
Rational Ritual is primarily about the concept of Common Knowledge, what everyone knows that everyone knows (… that everyone knows). Had it limited itself to that topic, the need for common knowledge, and how it’s both disseminated and prevented, I think it could have been a good book, as it’s a pretty interesting concept. Especially as it relates to power, because his thesis about ritual - that it doesn't just reinforce power but gives power itself by shaping common knowledge - is very compelling, and echoes the GoT reference. Power is held by who people think hold it.
Unfortunately, the book makes several digressions (oddly, the title ends up being secondary - ritual is discussed in only a fraction of the book, and rationality almost not at all) that don’t add up to a frustrating read. Some criticisms:
- Its language is academic and not particularly readable.
- It’s structured oddly. The title doesn’t reflect the main thesis, and large parts don’t seem related to either the title or thesis. He also spends an inordinate amount of time on metadiscussion, in the intro saying what he plans to do, in the conclusion saying what he intended to do, instead of just doing it.
- It’s really just a big conjecture, and some aspects of it are not compelling. There are large sections devoted to advertising, his thesis being that “social” products require larger audiences because they require being known as common knowledge. It has nothing to do with ritual. And his definition of a social product seems arbitrary and unconvincing. That I buy a type of beer because I know everyone else knows what it is seems a stretch.
Random trivia: Chwe and I belong to a rare club; we both have the same Korean last name transliterated unusually. It’s usually spelled Choi.
Varys: 3 great men sit in a room. A king, a priest, and a rich man. Between them stands a common sellsword. Each great man bids the sellsword kill the other 2. Who lives, who dies?
Tyrion: Depends on the sellsword.
Varys: Does it? He has neither crown, nor gold, nor favor with the gods.
Tyrion: He has a sword, the power of life and death!
Varys: But if it's swordsmen who rule, why do we pretend kings hold all the power? When Ned Stark lost his head, who was truly responsible? Joffrey, the executioner, or something else?
Tyrion: I've decided I don't like riddles.
Varys: Power resides where men believe it resides. It's a trick. A shadow on the wall.
Rational Ritual is primarily about the concept of Common Knowledge, what everyone knows that everyone knows (… that everyone knows). Had it limited itself to that topic, the need for common knowledge, and how it’s both disseminated and prevented, I think it could have been a good book, as it’s a pretty interesting concept. Especially as it relates to power, because his thesis about ritual - that it doesn't just reinforce power but gives power itself by shaping common knowledge - is very compelling, and echoes the GoT reference. Power is held by who people think hold it.
Unfortunately, the book makes several digressions (oddly, the title ends up being secondary - ritual is discussed in only a fraction of the book, and rationality almost not at all) that don’t add up to a frustrating read. Some criticisms:
- Its language is academic and not particularly readable.
- It’s structured oddly. The title doesn’t reflect the main thesis, and large parts don’t seem related to either the title or thesis. He also spends an inordinate amount of time on metadiscussion, in the intro saying what he plans to do, in the conclusion saying what he intended to do, instead of just doing it.
- It’s really just a big conjecture, and some aspects of it are not compelling. There are large sections devoted to advertising, his thesis being that “social” products require larger audiences because they require being known as common knowledge. It has nothing to do with ritual. And his definition of a social product seems arbitrary and unconvincing. That I buy a type of beer because I know everyone else knows what it is seems a stretch.
Random trivia: Chwe and I belong to a rare club; we both have the same Korean last name transliterated unusually. It’s usually spelled Choi.
December 28, 2015
Read this JEL review by Vince Crawford: http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~v2crawford/C...
If you are not convinced, read the other reviews http://chwe.net/michael/reviews.html (The Economica review makes for good critical reading post-book as well.
This book is a must-read. I have little else to say because it would just be a rehash of what the book itself says in much superior form.
If you are not convinced, read the other reviews http://chwe.net/michael/reviews.html (The Economica review makes for good critical reading post-book as well.
This book is a must-read. I have little else to say because it would just be a rehash of what the book itself says in much superior form.
March 8, 2018
Concept is very interesting, with far-reaching implications. The writing and substance of the book is too muche like a few academic dissertations stitched together though.
November 23, 2018
Chwe does a great job of explaining the importance of establishing common knowledge to solve coordination problems. Sadly, a large chunk of this short book is taken up with a thoroughly unconvincing chapter about how advertising is a way of establishing common knowledge about certain brands (rather than being either informational or persuasive). This dubious analysis is dominated by one good: beer. Chwe describes beer as a social good (because you want to have beer in your fridge that people will like when they come over). Of the 18 social brands in the analysis, 13 of them (over 2/3) are beer brands. So whether you are convinced by the analysis almost solely depends on whether you think beer is a social good.
I would describe this book as an author working out an idea he had rather than presenting a fleshed out hypothesis. Much more could have been done through the presentation of case studies with insights from more data-heavy analyses tossed in. The reader would probably get more mileage out of Kuran's Private Truths, Public Lies. On a more positive note, Chwe's Jane Austen, Game Theorist is an absolute joy. Read that instead.
I would describe this book as an author working out an idea he had rather than presenting a fleshed out hypothesis. Much more could have been done through the presentation of case studies with insights from more data-heavy analyses tossed in. The reader would probably get more mileage out of Kuran's Private Truths, Public Lies. On a more positive note, Chwe's Jane Austen, Game Theorist is an absolute joy. Read that instead.
July 2, 2023
This is a small, fun book applying game theory to culture through the concept of common knowledge. Ritual dances, advertising, the symbols of the French revolution and protest mechanics more generally, Bentham’s panopticon and what Foucault got wrong, strong versus weak ties in society, the Islamic call to prayer and the fact there seems to be a ‘Theory of the Mind’ module in our brains: there is a danger this book applies the lens of common knowledge too broadly. However, I found the wide ranging insights and anecdotes enjoyable to read, with a particular concentration on American mass media events of the 20th century. Essentially, it’s a cool book that ties together many interesting academics that I can think of: David Lewis, Foucault, Benedict Anderson, Eric Hobsbawm and Thomas Schelling. The idea of communication as not just transmission (first order) but also ritual (common knowledge) is of course not original to this book, but I would still recommend it highly.
P.S Frustrating that Goodreads crashed as soon as I had finished writing my original review
P.S Frustrating that Goodreads crashed as soon as I had finished writing my original review
February 17, 2019
Rational Ritual is an explanation of the theory of "Common Knowledge". As per this theory, large masses of people face a coordination problem because they are not aware of what others think. This can be solved by the spread of the same information (common knowledge) across the masses through public rituals.
The theory is backed with a number of examples from history and our present era. Particularly interesting is Chwe's analysis of how products that become more preferrable when more people use it (example : the iphone and its ecosystem) need to generate more common knowledge through advertising.
The book posits an interesting theory and is very informative but ... it is not a book that most of us would find it enjoyable or even useful. It is basically a very long research paper and the high price tag means that I will not recommend this unless you have a particular interest in the subject.
Who would I recommend it to? People with academic interest in Marketing, Social Networks or Advertising. Even in which case I am sure there will be cheaper or even free options to learn about the subject.
The theory is backed with a number of examples from history and our present era. Particularly interesting is Chwe's analysis of how products that become more preferrable when more people use it (example : the iphone and its ecosystem) need to generate more common knowledge through advertising.
The book posits an interesting theory and is very informative but ... it is not a book that most of us would find it enjoyable or even useful. It is basically a very long research paper and the high price tag means that I will not recommend this unless you have a particular interest in the subject.
Who would I recommend it to? People with academic interest in Marketing, Social Networks or Advertising. Even in which case I am sure there will be cheaper or even free options to learn about the subject.
February 15, 2021
Fascinating read that will change how you view everything from standing for the national anthem, to how super bowl commercials actually work, to philosophical concepts that examine the foundations upon which entire societies stand.
Though parts of the book are a little out dated (discussion of linear TV advertising), many parts are absolutely timeless (the effects of common knowledge), and other parts downright prophetic (societal fragmentation and collapse of sources of common knowledge.)
For anyone with a modicum of interest in marketing, advertising, philosophy, religion, or sociology, there's something in this book for you.
Though parts of the book are a little out dated (discussion of linear TV advertising), many parts are absolutely timeless (the effects of common knowledge), and other parts downright prophetic (societal fragmentation and collapse of sources of common knowledge.)
For anyone with a modicum of interest in marketing, advertising, philosophy, religion, or sociology, there's something in this book for you.
August 22, 2018
we dance so that i know, i know you know i know, i know you know i know you know i know
March 27, 2020
A very well researched and highly interesting argument, if not particularly well written
July 12, 2023
Somehow made rational choice interesting!
August 14, 2023
It is sufficient to just read the first page of the introduction.
April 14, 2016
I did not like this book one bit. It's main blessing is that it is short, though this is mainly because I am a busy lady with more than one book to read in a lifetime. If we're being realistic, it should have been longer, because Chwe may then have had to expand on some of the very many hazy concepts. One of the issues with books that try to tie together 35,000 different things is that the chances of covering any of those things well decreases.
For instance, this central concept of social vs non-social goods is basically entirely undefined--or at least, there is no rigorous definition that would allow a reader (or the author) to systematically parse one type of good from the other. Why is Listerine a social good when deodorant isn't, when both debuted in the same era, with similar ad campaigns, and both were part of the general movement to stigmatize body odor? Why is pizza a social good but candy isn't?
Why did Monster.com and HotJobs need to advertise during the Superbowl but social media companies--whose very existence and product are their users--all launch without doing similar? This last is an unfair question since Facetweetgrams didn't exist when the book was written, but the theory should still hold.
I love a book that references Uspensky and 20th century Russian philosophical interpretations of Medieval ikon painting, but again, if you can't just throw out reverse perspective as an argument for how everything has its audience and reverse perspective indicates that the audience is God/Jesus/whatever saint. Uspensky (if I recall) is partly trying to justify, after the fact, why Russian ikon painters never reached the heights of the Renaissance (or got anywhere close) and his argument is that they didn't use perspective not because they didn't know how, but because the audience is inside the ikon. Sure, ok. I love Uspensky. However Chwe is mistaken in taking that out of context, and also ignores the fact that the audience is also people who pray to ikons.
I am also totally here for a discussion of the panopticon/Foucault/Bentham, but in major ways unremarked-upon and even ignored is the enormous capacity for monitoring that these 'circular structures' allow. Indeed, we all know the same thing--we all know that we are under surveillance.
Drawing this rant to a close, I did not like this book, but I guess the concept of common knowledge is fine.
For instance, this central concept of social vs non-social goods is basically entirely undefined--or at least, there is no rigorous definition that would allow a reader (or the author) to systematically parse one type of good from the other. Why is Listerine a social good when deodorant isn't, when both debuted in the same era, with similar ad campaigns, and both were part of the general movement to stigmatize body odor? Why is pizza a social good but candy isn't?
Why did Monster.com and HotJobs need to advertise during the Superbowl but social media companies--whose very existence and product are their users--all launch without doing similar? This last is an unfair question since Facetweetgrams didn't exist when the book was written, but the theory should still hold.
I love a book that references Uspensky and 20th century Russian philosophical interpretations of Medieval ikon painting, but again, if you can't just throw out reverse perspective as an argument for how everything has its audience and reverse perspective indicates that the audience is God/Jesus/whatever saint. Uspensky (if I recall) is partly trying to justify, after the fact, why Russian ikon painters never reached the heights of the Renaissance (or got anywhere close) and his argument is that they didn't use perspective not because they didn't know how, but because the audience is inside the ikon. Sure, ok. I love Uspensky. However Chwe is mistaken in taking that out of context, and also ignores the fact that the audience is also people who pray to ikons.
I am also totally here for a discussion of the panopticon/Foucault/Bentham, but in major ways unremarked-upon and even ignored is the enormous capacity for monitoring that these 'circular structures' allow. Indeed, we all know the same thing--we all know that we are under surveillance.
Drawing this rant to a close, I did not like this book, but I guess the concept of common knowledge is fine.
July 17, 2020
I recently finished listening to the book, “Rational Ritual: Culture, Coordination, and Common Knowledge” by Prof. Michael Chwe, on Audible. Overall, I think this is a great book on using rational choice theory (specifically, common knowledge) to explain cultural phenomenon (i.e., ritual).
The core idea is to use common knowledge to understand ritual. Common knowledge of p is defined as following: a group of agents knows that they know about p, and they all know that they know p, and they all know that they all know that they know p, and so on ad infinitum. The author interprets ritual as a device to create common knowledge and thus can assist the group to solve coordination problem. The author also notes that the contents of ritual are important. Usually, rituals involve in repetitive and simple information, such feature helps generate common knowledge. The author uses this framework to explain firms’ marketing strategy, the formation of national identity, etc.
Overall, the book provides a powerful framework to connect common knowledge to cultural phenomenon. In present day context, it is useful to apply this framework to understand people’s behaviors on social media.
The core idea is to use common knowledge to understand ritual. Common knowledge of p is defined as following: a group of agents knows that they know about p, and they all know that they know p, and they all know that they all know that they know p, and so on ad infinitum. The author interprets ritual as a device to create common knowledge and thus can assist the group to solve coordination problem. The author also notes that the contents of ritual are important. Usually, rituals involve in repetitive and simple information, such feature helps generate common knowledge. The author uses this framework to explain firms’ marketing strategy, the formation of national identity, etc.
Overall, the book provides a powerful framework to connect common knowledge to cultural phenomenon. In present day context, it is useful to apply this framework to understand people’s behaviors on social media.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 14, 2015
Michael Chwe pushes the limits of game theory to cultural rituals in an awesome manner.
That the active process of a coordination problem situation is attained through clear-cut communication is beyond doubt the principle the drives information/knowledge transfer in the social media and mob actions. Viral social media effect as well as iterative ritualistic communication in mob-like situations find application in every sphere of human endeavour where community and social influence is key to success. ‘That which others are more likely to do only if they knew others more are already aware’ of/or doing certainly drives the success of mass-marketed coordination problem products, but the ritualistic component of forming the common knowledge is itself the is at the hub that drives the coordination problem.
Though Chwe’s thesis touched on weak and strong social links and the information flow models within them, it is silent on whether there's any interaction between the two especially for a coordination problem amongst conspecifics.
Great work!
That the active process of a coordination problem situation is attained through clear-cut communication is beyond doubt the principle the drives information/knowledge transfer in the social media and mob actions. Viral social media effect as well as iterative ritualistic communication in mob-like situations find application in every sphere of human endeavour where community and social influence is key to success. ‘That which others are more likely to do only if they knew others more are already aware’ of/or doing certainly drives the success of mass-marketed coordination problem products, but the ritualistic component of forming the common knowledge is itself the is at the hub that drives the coordination problem.
Though Chwe’s thesis touched on weak and strong social links and the information flow models within them, it is silent on whether there's any interaction between the two especially for a coordination problem amongst conspecifics.
Great work!
December 23, 2015
I read this because it was a recommendation by Mark Zuckerberg but I can now see why, the topic of group psychology is very much what Facebook is involved in.
I didn't enjoy the book at all, it's only 100 pages but I couldn't wait to get it over with but I dare say the aim of the author was not that of entertainment.
I assume the aim was to educate but I feel that it failed on that as well.
Yes, I took away some knowledge about "coordination problems" and "common knowledge" but not as much was presumably intended. Most of the books points are buried in an excessive amount of academic style commentary around real world applications, many of which I cannot at all relate to.
It reads like a student essay, the content may be good but the delivery is poor.
I didn't enjoy the book at all, it's only 100 pages but I couldn't wait to get it over with but I dare say the aim of the author was not that of entertainment.
I assume the aim was to educate but I feel that it failed on that as well.
Yes, I took away some knowledge about "coordination problems" and "common knowledge" but not as much was presumably intended. Most of the books points are buried in an excessive amount of academic style commentary around real world applications, many of which I cannot at all relate to.
It reads like a student essay, the content may be good but the delivery is poor.
June 20, 2016
The thought behind this short book wanders some, but the theory is an interesting one. The book outlines "coordination problems" as problems where social needs (in order to participate, I want/need support from others in my community) demand that the participants are aware of the knowledge, intentions, and even meta-knowledge (I know that you know that I know, and you know that I know that you know that I know) of the other participants. I found the implications of that to be very interesting. It means that common knowledge has more importance than I could have guessed, and that the creation of common knowledge is vital to getting large groups of people to function cohesively. It means that tools like ritual and feedback can be powerful in solving coordination problems.
April 14, 2015
It was a short read, which was nice. Basically about how economic game theory and other economic principles can be applied to basic social interactions, popularity, and why we might buy things. I enjoyed reading it-found it easy. One other reviewer wanted to know about social media. I think he touched on it in the post-script, and I could see a lot of the basic principles being applied. However, I also think that could be a whole other book.
Also, this author wrote a whole book about how Jane Austin used game theory in her books (before game theory was invented/articulated). Now that's a book for a rainy day!
Also, this author wrote a whole book about how Jane Austin used game theory in her books (before game theory was invented/articulated). Now that's a book for a rainy day!
Want to read
June 27, 2016* 20 books Mark Zuckerberg thinks everyone should read
Zuckerberg thinks this book by UCLA economist Michael Suk-Young Chwe can help its readers learn how to best use social media.
"The book is about the concept of 'common knowledge' and how people process the world not only based on what we personally know, but what we know other people know and our shared knowledge as well," Zuckerberg writes.
Chwe's idea may sound complicated, but it's essentially a breakdown of the psychology behind people's interactions with others in public settings, and how they use these communities and rituals to help form their own identities.
Zuckerberg thinks this book by UCLA economist Michael Suk-Young Chwe can help its readers learn how to best use social media.
"The book is about the concept of 'common knowledge' and how people process the world not only based on what we personally know, but what we know other people know and our shared knowledge as well," Zuckerberg writes.
Chwe's idea may sound complicated, but it's essentially a breakdown of the psychology behind people's interactions with others in public settings, and how they use these communities and rituals to help form their own identities.
April 14, 2015
One solid interesting study, a mathematical analysis of acquired data about Super Bowl advertising, was extended to over 100 pages by conceptually tying it to just about anything, from various novels to the idea that Athenian democracy worked because they had 120 annual public rituals, and by adding 20+ pages of citations.
The mathematical model in the appendix could I guess be useful for modeling idealize group behavior, or programming AI to simulate it.
The mathematical model in the appendix could I guess be useful for modeling idealize group behavior, or programming AI to simulate it.
April 12, 2015
Seguramente para un matemático o economista puede ser fascinante, para mí resultó ser muy largo y aburrido para una idea muy simple: la mejor manera de resolver problemas de coordinación es a través del "common knowledge", y la mejor manera de obtener esto son los rituales de nuestra sociedad moderna.
April 21, 2015
This book is possibly really a thesis? It sure reads like one but was chosen as one of Zuckerberg' s books. It was mildly interesting (I read much more interesting things in college marketing classes), until I took the time to read the diagrammed game theory in the appendix. Love game theory - and I feel it really tied the rest of the "book" together.
May 9, 2015
A very interesting concept, briefly introduced. A little ad hoc and inconsistent in parts when it comes to defining what is or is not common knowledge (in particular a mass communication received individually is treated as common in some parts and not others). The data analysis is pretty weak too. Still, an interesting application of game theory and certainly makes sense. Worth checking out.
April 5, 2015
another Zuck book. I liked the message of this one better. The writing is clear and unassuming; there is a lightness to Chwe's touch. I also appreciated his ability to cite examples from a wide range of fields.
April 22, 2015
To solve coordination problems, we need common knowledge: information that we know, and know that other people know, and so forth. The creation of this common knowledge can be seen as one of the purposes of cultural practices, rituals and media events like the Super Bowl.
April 23, 2015
This read like a sociology article on how people communicate and why it is an entire book I do not understand. The author repeats much of what is said at the beginning over and overaking this a long short book. If you have read anything newer about communication or marketing, nothing here is new.
June 17, 2015
It's a short book but the concept is quite powerful. Once read you will start under standing society a bit better. I would advise everyone to pick this up and speed read through it. It does get quite technical and dry at some parts. For the technical nerds it is quite nice. :)
January 2, 2016
This book has gave me so much inspirations on culture differences and mutual understanding. And, through this book, I seem to be able to see what a future, better world would be like and challenges and ways of overcoming those challenges.
May 27, 2015
Interesting concept, but boring read.
Examples are all over the place
Examples are all over the place
May 5, 2015
Intriguing. Spurred some interesting conversations with my husband.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews