Olivia: Jackson, why do companies spend millions of dollars on a single 30-second Super Bowl ad? Jackson: To reach a massive audience, obviously. It's the biggest stage, the most eyeballs. Simple math. Olivia: That's what everyone thinks. It’s the easy answer. But what if the real product they're buying isn't just eyeballs, but something far more subtle and powerful? Something that also explains why revolutions happen and why you feel awkward being the only person to show up to a party. Jackson: Hold on. You're connecting a beer commercial to the French Revolution? That's a bold opening move, Olivia. I'm intrigued and a little skeptical. What's the link? Olivia: The link is the core idea in a fascinating book called Rational Ritual: Culture, Coordination, and Common Knowledge by Michael Suk-Young Chwe. Jackson: Rational Ritual. The title itself sounds like a contradiction. Olivia: Exactly! And Chwe is the perfect person to explore it. He's a political scientist with a PhD in economics, and he applies cold, hard game theory to things we normally see as purely cultural—ceremonies, traditions, public gatherings. Jackson: Game theory for culture? Okay, my brain is already buzzing. It sounds like the kind of book that academics would love for its originality, but might drive other readers a bit crazy. Olivia: That’s a perfect summary of its reception. It’s been highly praised in academic circles for being this brilliant, interdisciplinary work. But some critics and readers feel it can be a bit… cold. That it tries to explain away the magic of culture with equations. Jackson: I can see that. But you mentioned a secret ingredient in those Super Bowl ads, something more powerful than just a big audience. Let's start there. What is it?

Olivia: It’s a concept from game theory called "common knowledge." And it’s simpler than it sounds. Common knowledge isn't just when everyone knows something. It's when everyone knows that everyone else knows it, too. And that everyone knows that everyone knows that everyone knows it... and so on, into infinity. Jackson: Whoa, okay. That sounds like a brain-twister. Give me a simple analogy. It’s like read-receipts for an entire society? Olivia: That's a perfect way to put it! Think about a surprise party. If the host emails everyone individually, you know about the party. But you don't know for sure if anyone else got the email. You might be the only one who shows up. That's just knowledge. Jackson: Right, and that would be incredibly awkward. Olivia: But if the host creates a group chat, you not only see the invitation, you see that everyone else saw it too. You have common knowledge. You know they know. They know you know. Now you feel confident going, because you're coordinating. You won't be alone. That confidence is the magic of common knowledge. Jackson: Okay, that makes total sense. We need to know we're all on the same page before we act together. But how does that connect to, say, a product? Olivia: Let's look at one of the most brilliant and manipulative marketing campaigns in history: Listerine. In the early 20th century, Listerine was a surgical antiseptic. Nobody was using it as a mouthwash. Jackson: So how did they create a market out of thin air? Olivia: They didn't just sell a product; they manufactured a social problem. Their advertising agency took an obscure medical term, "halitosis"—which just means bad breath—and turned it into a source of deep social shame. Their ads were little dramas. A sad-looking woman with the tagline, "Often a bridesmaid but never a bride." The implied reason? Halitosis. Jackson: Oh, that's brutal. They're selling insecurity. Olivia: They're doing more than that. They're creating common knowledge about that insecurity. Before the ads, you might worry privately if you had bad breath. But you had no idea if anyone else cared or noticed. The Listerine ads, plastered in every major magazine and newspaper, didn't just tell you about halitosis. They told you that everyone else was also being told about it. Jackson: Ah, so now I'm not just worried about my breath. I'm worried that you know about halitosis, and you might be judging my breath. They sold the shared anxiety! Olivia: Exactly! The ads were a public ritual that created common knowledge. Suddenly, using a mouthwash wasn't just about hygiene; it was about participating in a social solution to a newly public problem. Sales exploded. They created a daily ritual—the morning mouthwash—out of thin air. Jackson: That's genius and utterly terrifying. It reframes advertising completely. The goal isn't just to inform me, but to inform me that you've also been informed. But surely this can be used for good, right? It can't all be about selling us things we don't need. Olivia: Absolutely. Think bigger. Think about the French Revolution. The revolutionaries wanted to create a new, rational society. Part of that was getting rid of the chaotic, ancient system of weights and measures. They invented the metric system. Jackson: A much better system, for sure. But how do you get an entire country to switch from measurements they've used their whole lives? You can't just send out a memo. Olivia: You can't. It's a massive coordination problem. A merchant will only adopt the meter if they know their customers and suppliers will also adopt the meter. So, what did the revolutionaries do? They held huge public festivals. They organized grand ceremonies where they unveiled the official meter bar. They made it a public spectacle. Jackson: They turned the launch of a unit of measurement into a party. Olivia: A ritual! These festivals generated common knowledge. Everyone saw everyone else celebrating the new system. It sent a clear signal: "We are all doing this, together, starting now." It wasn't just about the information; it was about the public, shared experience of receiving that information. It made the change feel inevitable and unified the nation. Jackson: So common knowledge is the grease in the wheels of massive social change. Without it, everyone is just waiting for someone else to make the first move. Olivia: Precisely. It solves the "who goes first?" problem. Whether it's adopting a new currency, rising up against a dictator, or just agreeing that bad breath is a social problem, you need a mechanism to make your shared awareness public.

Jackson: Okay, so these festivals, these ad campaigns... these are the 'technologies' for creating common knowledge. It's not just about the content of the message, but the publicness of the message. The fact that it's a shared event. Olivia: You've got it. And that's Chwe's second major point. We should think of rituals as a form of technology. They are tools, developed over centuries, specifically designed to generate common knowledge. And they are everywhere, once you know what to look for. Jackson: Which brings us back to the Super Bowl. Olivia: It brings us right back to the Super Bowl. Chwe points out that if you analyze the ads, you find that products that are "coordination goods" are advertised there far more often. Jackson: What's a coordination good? Olivia: It's a product whose value increases the more people use it or talk about it. Think of movies. A big part of the fun of seeing a blockbuster on opening weekend is talking about it with everyone on Monday. Or a new video game console, or a popular beer brand. You want to be part of the conversation. Jackson: You don't want to be the person who hasn't seen the show everyone is referencing. Olivia: Exactly. So when a movie studio buys a Super Bowl ad, they aren't just paying for 100 million individual viewers. They are paying for the common knowledge that 100 million people are seeing the ad at the same time. The ad creates the hype. It makes the movie an event. It coordinates our attention. It's why those ad slots are so much more expensive per-viewer than other shows with high ratings. The advertiser is buying publicity in its purest form. Jackson: Wow. So a queen riding through a village in the 16th century and a Budweiser commercial with talking frogs are, in a weird way, cousins. Olivia: They are absolutely cousins! Let's look at that queen. Chwe analyzes the "royal progresses" of Queen Elizabeth Tudor. She would travel through England, town by town, with huge pageants and ceremonies. The traditional interpretation, from anthropologists like Clifford Geertz, is that this was about symbolism—stamping her authority on the land, connecting herself to the divine. Jackson: Which makes sense. It's a show of power. Olivia: It is. But Chwe adds another layer. He says, think about the structure of the event. When the queen enters a town, the whole town comes out to watch. Everyone sees her. But just as importantly, everyone sees everyone else seeing her. Each person in the crowd knows that their neighbor is witnessing the same display of allegiance and power. Jackson: It prevents anyone from thinking, "Am I the only one who supports her?" or, more dangerously, "Are we the only ones who don't?" Olivia: Precisely. The ritual eliminates that uncertainty. It creates common knowledge of loyalty. It solves the coordination problem of submitting to authority. It’s a technology for maintaining power. The publicness of the ritual is what gives it its political force. Jackson: That's a powerful idea. But it also feels like it strips the magic out of culture. Is a royal ceremony just about solving a coordination problem? What about genuine belief, awe, what the book calls the 'master fiction' of a society? Doesn't the content of the ritual matter? Olivia: That's the main critique leveled against the book, and it's a fair point. Chwe doesn't say the content is irrelevant. The story, the symbols, the music—they all matter. But he argues that academics have focused so much on interpreting the meaning of the symbols that they've missed the equally important function of the structure. The publicity is a key part of what the ritual does. It's not just a broadcast; it's a broadcast about the broadcast. Jackson: The medium really is the message, in a way. The fact that it's a public ritual is a message in itself. Olivia: Yes. And this framework helps explain so many other things. Why are meeting rooms often circular? To create an inward-facing circle where everyone can see everyone else paying attention, generating common knowledge. Why did revolutionary movements from France to Poland work so hard to create new festivals, new songs, new symbols? To erase the old common knowledge and build a new one. Jackson: It's social engineering, but with songs and parades instead of code. Olivia: It's the original social network.

Jackson: I have to say, this idea is going to stick with me. It reframes so much of social life. It's like seeing the source code running behind the user interface of culture. Olivia: And that's the book's big, challenging insight. It’s not arguing that meaning, emotion, and belief don't matter. It’s arguing that the structure of how we share that meaning—the public, open, undeniable ritual—is a piece of rational social technology. It’s the software that allows us to coordinate everything from a company meeting to a national identity. Jackson: It bridges the gap between what we think of as "culture" and what we think of as "rationality." They aren't opposites. Culture is often the most effective tool rationality has. Olivia: Chwe’s work really challenges that old divide. He shows that to understand rational choice, you have to study culture. And to understand culture, it helps to think about rational choice. They're two sides of the same coin. Jackson: It makes you see the world differently. You start looking for the 'common knowledge generators' everywhere. The all-hands meeting at work, the viral TikTok trend, the town's Fourth of July parade... they all have this hidden function. Olivia: Even something as simple as a wedding. Why do we make people stand up and say their vows in front of everyone? It's a ritual to create common knowledge of their commitment, not just for them, but for the entire community. Jackson: Right, so the community is coordinated in how they're supposed to treat this couple from now on. Wow. It's everywhere. Olivia: It is. So our question to you, our listeners, is this: What's a 'rational ritual' in your own life? What's something you do with others, not just for its own sake, but because you know everyone else is participating and watching too? Jackson: It could be big or small. A weekly team meeting, a family holiday tradition, even just watching a hit TV show's finale live with everyone else on social media. Share your thoughts with us on our social channels. We'd love to hear the modern rituals you spot out in the wild. Olivia: This is Aibrary, signing off.