Challenging our intellectual arrogance: Part 2. The Overton window

We have previously discussed the issue of our intellectual struggles regarding the comprehension of the origins of our social consciousness. It was shown that each generation as well as every individual tends to take for granted the contents of their minds. In other words, hardly anyone seems to be willing to ask the following questions. Why do I believe what I believe in? Why do the members of the society share this or that particular social value? Why do I find this particular social norm acceptable instead of that one? Rather, it is presumed - arrogantly, it might be added - that all of this is the result of a purely autonomous intellectual capacity. And since no one would be willing to doubt their own intellectual capacity, by default everyone is convinced of having found the ultimate historical truth.

One of the problems that stem from such a perspective is the weird coincidence of having entire generations unanimously accept some social norms, while simultaneously rejecting others. If our understanding of the world was purely the result of personal individual brain capacities, then we would have had advocates for gender equality during the time of the Roman Empire, as well as today we would still have believers in human sacrifice to gods. But that is not the case. So why was the 13th century civilization collectively more intelligent than the one from the 2nd century BC, for instance? And how come the society of the 18th century was much more rational than the one in the 13th century? And finally, why do we today collectively no longer believe in the nonsenses of the previous generations? Do we, namely the individuals living in 2026, have the greatest intellectual capacity throughout human history? But what would be the reason for this collective luck? And should we assume that the individual brain capacities of the future generations will outperform us?

All in all, the treatment of the human mind as a purely individual and autonomous phenomenon does not hold water. It is clear that our social consciousness is a reflection of our material social experience. Collective social beliefs stem from collectively experienced social reality. And as the constant economic progress has historically been changing and shifting the latter, the former would also be subjected to a never ending historical evolution. And so far all these processes have been taking place behind our backs, without humanity exerting any control over them. In this sense, we bear very limited responsibility, at best, over our worldviews. These are, in the final instance, the products of the material reality that dominate a particular historical era. And this notion, arguably, conflicts with our intellectual arrogance. And indeed, it would be very arrogant to assume that “I would have held the same beliefs and social values no matter which century or which historical epoch I would have lived in”.

Aside from the conservative people being convinced about the fall of civilization as a result of some new progressive ideas, this intellectual arrogance also manifests itself within more academic settings. The Overton window can be used as a notable example of the limitations of the dominant liberal paradigm. As far as this political model is concerned, it is possible to find varying discourses regarding the way it operates. Here is an example:

“Political scientists have posited strategies by which politicians and others in the political arena might shift or expand the span of the Overton window to make specific policies more or less acceptable in public opinion. According to the Mackinac Center, it is very rare that politicians can move the window on their own, and most politicians choose policies within the window. However, some political scientists claim that it is possible for groups or organizations to alter the political placement of the window’s range, or expand its full spectrum of possible positions, by influencing public opinion through strategic campaigns.”

Right away we might critically inquire into the criteria used by a politician to “choose policies”. Is he or she just an empty blanket that could absorb any political idea in order to get votes? Or, rather, is it the case that the political beliefs of this politician already fall to a greater or lesser degree within this window? In any case, here is an explanation by Joseph Lehman - a colleague of Joseph Overton who developed the original idea after Overton died:

“Public officials cannot enact any policy they please like they’re ordering dessert from a menu. They have to choose from among policies that are politically acceptable at the time. And we believe the Overton window defines that range of ideas. [...] The most common misconception is that lawmakers themselves are in the business of shifting the Overton window. That is absolutely false. Lawmakers are actually in the business of detecting where the window is, and then moving to be in accordance with it.”

Therefore, “if politicians must locate the window, think tanks and social movements must shift the Overton window to succeed in their advocacy. They must convince voters that policies outside the window should be in it.” As for the issue of historical social progress, the essence of this paradigm of an ideological window is that social change “reflects progress in shifting” it:

“Abolition of chattel slavery was not initially mainstream but is now predominantly unquestioned. Women’s suffrage started as a movement in the mid-19th century and gradually picked up steam until the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920 prohibited discrimination against voters on the basis of sex in the United States. Same-sex marriage was not accepted in much of the Western world until the late 20th century when European countries began legalizing it. In the United States its public acceptance was low in the 1990s but had become a majority view by the time it was legalized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015.”

“Support in the United States for same sex marriage has catapulted into the Overton window of not just political possibility, but legal feasibility, being now legal in all 50 states. Democrats' support of same-sex marriage has grown 50 percentage points from 33% to 83% [in 2019 - ed.] since 1996 — the most among political party groups.”

“To get an idea of how the Overton Window can change over time, think about the Prohibition Era. Just a few generations ago, the sale and use of alcoholic beverages was made illegal by federal law, suggesting that this policy was safe inside the Overton Window. But fast forward to today when people poke fun of the folly of Prohibition and virtually no politician endorses making alcohol illegal again. The Overton Window has clearly shifted, and Prohibition is no longer within its borders.”

Yet again, the question is never asked over why particular “groups or organizations” would even embark upon altering “the political placement of the window’s range”. Why do “think tanks and social movements” put all that effort in order to “shift the Overton window to succeed in their advocacy”? What is behind the motivation to “convince voters that policies outside the window should be in it”? Of course, it is implicit here that all of them would simply believe in their cause. But what makes them believe in one cause or the other? Hence, even when it is accepted that “sometimes politicians can move the Overton Window themselves by courageously endorsing a policy lying outside the window”, the fundamental part is ignored. The political stances and ideological positions of all these actors are simply taken for granted.

As we see, unfortunately, the essential aspect is hardly ever tackled when discussing the modus operandi of the Overton window. For example, what was the source of the protestant religious ideas during Reformation? And why did such a movement emerge when it did? What was the basis for the women’s suffrage movement to emerge? Why did some people suddenly realise that women should vote after all? And also, why was this question once even outside of the “window’s range”?

To conclude, it is not incorrect to claim that “our social institutions — families, workplaces, friends, media, churches, voluntary associations, think tanks, schools, charities, and many other phenomena that establish and reinforce societal norms — are more important to shaping our politics than we typically credit them for”. But all of these social institutions are constituted by people, by individuals. Moreover, nearly all of these institutions themselves only exist because the members of a society believe in them. There would be no church if no one believed in god. There would be no elections if no one believed in democracy. There would be no public schools if no one believed in public education. Therefore, the key question is over the origins of the contents of a person’s mind. And in this regard the political model of the Overton window is completely impotent.

Sources:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Overton-window
https://conceptually.org/concepts/overton-window
https://www.mackinac.org/OvertonWindow

Image by Freepik.com