Abstract In spite of its long history, ritual tends to be dismissed on the ground that it is merely an ornamental activity. This is known as the problem of ritual efficacy. This paper identifies and examines three important debates on ritual efficacy: expressive versus instrumental, doctrinal versus operational efficacy, and asserted and actual efficacy. I argue that these are less than satisfactory approaches to ritual efficacy in general, and in the diplomatic domain, in particular. Instead, the paper proposes a more adequate understanding of efficacy in terms of the mutual acceptance of, and accountability to the diplomatic order that is at stake in ritual. In contrast to previous approaches that sought to create a universal theory of efficacy, I develop a context-specific account of ritual efficacy. Further, while they were interested in establishing the appropriate logic of validation—internal or external—I argue that the evaluation of diplomatic rituals’ efficacy depends primarily on the diplomat’s ability to unlock, and act in accordance with the meaning lodged in the messages transmitted by rituals. I refer to this as “informative efficacy”. The paper differentiates it from what it is closest to, that is, performative efficacy, and uses examples to probe its explanatory reach.
Thierry Balzacq (Thu,) studied this question.