with some regularity – e.g., the valuation of stocks in the stock market. In this context, conventions are defined by Dupuy (1989: 369) as:
(…) a behavioural regularity R (or a behaviour and a belief) that, in a population P, satisfies the following six conditions: 1. Each conforms to R. 2. Each believes that the others are conforming to R. 3. This belief that the others are conforming to R provides a good and decisive reason for conforming to R. 4. All prefer general conformity to R rather than slightly less general conformity […] 5. R is not the only regularity possible in satisfying the last two conditions; at least another, R’, could have equally been respected (this condition guarantees that there is a certain arbitrariness in conforming to R). 6. These statements of fact described in conditions (1) to (5) are common knowledge. ix (our translation)
One fundamental aspect of this definition is that conventions can be viewed as institutions or rules which integrate common knowledge. The way a convention is created, however, is blurred. It is a social process related to the decisions of individuals and their ensuing results and the behavior of them facing the behaviors of others. This complexity marks social process. Dupuy et al. (1989: 143) highlight that:
As the semantic field of the term ‘convention’ well suggests in indicating the device constituting a desired agreement as well as its outcome, endowed with an obligatory normative force, convention must be secured at the same time as the result of individual actions and as a constraining framework on the x
individuals. (our translation)
Furthermore, given that conventions are products of human activity, they are not free from individual will and interests involved in its formation:
IE-UFRJ DISCUSSION PAPER: MODENESI; MODENESI; OREIRO; MARTINS, 2012 – TD 007.
12