(Roughly) Daily

The estimable Henry Farrell, responding to thoughts from Adam Tooze (here and here) and Paul Krugman (here) in trying to make sense of what happened in Davos last week, draws on the thinking of Michael Chwe’s Rational Ritual: Culture, Coordination and Common Knowledge (on why a game theoretic account of why ritual is important) to suggest that Europe and Carney disrupted Trump’s ceremony of self-anointment…

… I take two lessons from his book. First, that Davos fits very clearly into his definition of `ritual.’ Second, that rituals are important because they create common knowledge.

What we have seen at Davos over the last few days was an effort by the Trump administration to create new common knowledge in the world, an agreement that Trump was in charge, and that politics revolved around him. That effort has failed because of pushback from politicians, both Europeans who were furious at Trump, and Canada’s prime minister, Mark Carney who gave a quite extraordinary speech. However, the result is most certainly not a decisive victory for Europe, Canada, and the other forces allied with them. Instead, it is one significant moment in a longer story of struggle and contention…

… Rituals often take place in consecrated places. British kings are crowned in Westminster Abbey. They also often take place at a particular time of the year (see churches and organized religion, passim). So it is not at all a stretch to see the Davos meeting as a ritual that is held in the same overcrowded place at much the same time every year. Like many rituals, its boredom and its ceremony go hand in hand. For many years, Davos’s most obvious social purpose was to reinforce the consensus about globalization, in predictable ceremonial language. Its very dullness and lack of surprise was a side effect of its power.

That was then; this is now. I don’t think that it is at all implausible to see Trump’s planned descent on Davos this year as a version of a royal progress (see Stacie Goddard and Abe Newman on “neo-royalism”). Swooping into Davos, and making the world’s business and political elite bend their knees, would have created collective knowledge that there was a new political order, with Trump reigning above it all.

Business elites would be broken and cowed into submission, through the methods that Adam describes. The Europeans would be forced to recognize their place, having contempt heaped on them, while being obliged to show their gratitude for whatever scraps the monarch deigned to throw onto the floor beneath the table. The “Board of Peace” – an alarmingly vaguely defined organization whose main purpose seems to be to exact fealty and tribute to Trump – would emerge as a replacement for the multilateral arrangements that Trump wants to sweep away. And all this would be broadcast to the world. Adam’s combination of stage, convening and acting would provide a means to shape the collective understanding of a global audience that Trump was now in charge.

That, of course, is not what happened. First, the Europeans were finally pushed to the point where they pushed back. As Belgium’s prime minister put it, “Living as a happy vassal is one thing, existing as a miserable slave is another.” It was clear that the Europeans were finally becoming willing to retaliate against Trump. That in turn had consequences for business.

As Adam suggests, businesses are unwilling to visibly step up to oppose Trump one on one. But businesses are not only individual participants in the ceremony. They are also members of a vast and depersonalized audience, via the anonymizing mechanism of the market, and, as Chwe suggests, it is the collective understanding of the audience that is most important. Just as the ouija board allows individuals to express their desires without being held accountable to them (thanks to the ‘ideomotor effect’ so too, the invisible hand of the market moves the planchette of stock prices in ways that no business can be held accountable for. When stock markets fall, even at the prospect of trade conflict between Europe and the United States, politicians pay attention. “Market fundamentals” (a loaded and problematic term) provided a very different understanding of the shared consensus than the one Trump sought to impose.

Second, Carney’s speech laid out an entirely different understanding of what was happening, and what had gone before. In his words:

Let me be direct: We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition. Over the past two decades, a series of crises in finance, health, energy and geopolitics have laid bare the risks of extreme global integration. But more recently, great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons. Tariffs as leverage. Financial infrastructure as coercion. Supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited.

… from Chwe’s more immediate perspective, what is more important than the vision of the past and future is where Carney said it and how he framed it. If you are planning a grand coronation ceremony, which is supposed to create collective knowledge that you are in charge, what happens when someone stands up to express their dissent in forceful terms?

The answer is that collective knowledge turns into disagreement. By giving the speech at Davos, Carney disrupted the performance of ritual, turning the Trumpian exercise in building common knowledge into a moment of conflict over whose narrative ought prevail…

… He wasn’t telling people anything that they didn’t know as individuals. He was, instead, turning that private knowledge into a putative collective understanding that countered the alternative collective understanding that Trump wanted to impose upon the world…

… The ceremony was disrupted by European threats of retaliation, which in turn led the market audience to express its unhappiness, and by Carney’s quite deliberate and self-conscious effort to crack the illusion of inevitability.

That does not mean that the Trump political project has been defeated. It is going to be very hard for Europe and Carney to build a viable counter-consensus. Already, Trump is looking to discipline Canada and seize back control of the narrative. What we have seen was a battle, not a war. But to appreciate the weapons that the battle was fought with, and understand the prize that was contended for, it is really helpful to emphasize the relationship between ritual and collective expectations. Chwe’s book is the clearest account of this relationship that I know of…

Eminently worth reading in full: “Davos is a rational ritual,” from @himself.bsky.social.

[Image above: source]

* Terry Pratchett, Pyramids

###

As we grapple with geopolitics, we might send illicit birthday greetings to Frank Costello; he was born Francesco Castiglia on this date in 1891. Having gotten his start in bootlegging during Prohibition, Costello became the head of the the Luciano crime family. a position he held (albeit for a few years in the 1950s remotely, as he served a federal prision sentence for tax evasion) until his retirement in 1957 after he had survived an assassination attempt ordered by Vito Genovese.

Costello had an “unusual” relationship with the man who could/should have been his primary antagonist, J. Edgar Hoover.

During the 1930s, Hoover persistently denied the existence of organized crime, despite numerous organized crime shootings as Mafia groups struggled for control of the lucrative profits deriving from illegal alcohol sales during Prohibition, and later for control of prostitution, illegal drugs and other criminal enterprises. Hoover [protested that] was reluctant to pursue the Mafia as he knew that organized crime investigations typically required excessive man hours while resulting in a relatively small number of arrests. He also feared that placing underpaid FBI agents—who had a starting annual salary $5,500 in the mid 1950s—in close contact with wealthy mobsters could undermine the FBI’s reputation of incorruptibility.

Many writers believe Hoover’s denial of the Mafia’s existence and his failure to use the full force of the FBI to investigate it were due to Mafia gangsters Meyer Lansky and Frank Costello‘s possession of embarrassing photographs of Hoover in the company of his protégé, FBI Deputy Director Clyde Tolson. [E.g., here] Other writers believe Costello corrupted Hoover by providing him with horseracing tips, passed through a mutual friend, gossip columnist Walter Winchell. Hoover had a reputation as “an inveterate horseplayer” and was known to send Special Agents to place $100 bets for him. Hoover once said the Bureau had “much more important functions” than arresting bookmakers and gamblers…

– source