The Technology of Imposing “Values”

American sociologist Joseph Overton described a technology for changing society’s attitude toward things that were once considered absolutely unacceptable. After reading this, your view of the world we live in may change completely.

According to the Overton Window, for every idea or issue in society, there is a so-called window of opportunity. Within this window, an idea can or cannot be widely discussed, openly supported, promoted, or even legislated. The window shifts, changing the range of possibilities, from the stage of “unthinkable” (completely alien to public morality and totally rejected) to the stage of “current policy” (widely discussed, accepted by the masses, and enshrined in law).

This isn’t brainwashing in the traditional sense, but rather a set of subtler techniques. Their effectiveness comes from consistent, systematic application and the fact that the society being targeted doesn’t even notice the influence.

Below, I’ll break down, step by step, how society first starts to discuss something unacceptable, then considers it appropriate, and eventually accepts a new law that legitimizes and protects what was once unthinkable.

Let’s Take an Extreme Example

Let’s use something completely unimaginable as an example: cannibalism, the idea of legalizing the right of citizens to eat each other. Pretty extreme, right?

It’s obvious that right now (as of 2014), you couldn’t launch a campaign promoting cannibalism—society would be outraged. This means the issue of legalizing cannibalism is at the zero stage of the window of opportunity. According to Overton’s theory, this stage is called “Unthinkable.” Let’s model how this unthinkable idea could move through all the stages of the Overton Window.

The Technology

Again, Overton described a technology that allows any idea to be legalized. Note: he didn’t just propose a concept or share his thoughts—he described a working technology. That is, a sequence of actions that, if followed, inevitably leads to the desired result. As a weapon for destroying human communities, this technology can be more effective than a nuclear bomb.

How Bold!

The topic of cannibalism is still disgusting and completely unacceptable in society. It’s not something you’d discuss in the press or, even less, in polite company. It’s still an unthinkable, absurd, forbidden phenomenon. So, the first move of the Overton Window is to shift the topic of cannibalism from the unthinkable to the radical.

After all, we have freedom of speech. So why not talk about cannibalism? Scientists are supposed to discuss everything—there are no forbidden topics for them. So, let’s organize an ethnological symposium on “Exotic Rituals of Polynesian Tribes.” We’ll discuss the history of the subject, introduce it into academic discourse, and get an authoritative statement about cannibalism.

See? It turns out you can talk about cannibalism in a respectable, academic way. The Overton Window has already shifted. The process of re-examining positions has begun, moving society from outright rejection to a more neutral stance.

At the same time, some “Society of Radical Cannibals” will inevitably appear, even if only online. The media will notice and quote these radicals. First, this creates another “statement of fact.” Second, these shocking figures are needed to create a “radical bogeyman”—the “bad cannibals” to contrast with another bogeyman: “fascists who want to burn anyone different at the stake.” But more on bogeymen later. For now, it’s enough to publish stories about what British scientists or some radical weirdos think about eating human flesh.

Result of the first move: The unacceptable topic is introduced into circulation, the taboo is desacralized, and the problem is no longer black and white—now there are “shades of gray.”

Why Not?

The next step moves the window further, shifting cannibalism from the radical to the possible.

At this stage, we keep quoting “scientists.” After all, you can’t turn away from knowledge, right? Anyone who refuses to discuss cannibalism is branded a prude and a hypocrite.

To fight hypocrisy, cannibalism needs an elegant new name. We can’t let “fascists” label dissenters with the “C-word.” Creating a euphemism is crucial. To legalize an unthinkable idea, you must change its name.

No more “cannibalism.” Now it’s called, say, “anthropophagy.” But soon, even that term will be replaced, as it too becomes “offensive.” The goal of inventing new names is to separate the essence of the problem from its label, depriving opponents of the language to fight it. Cannibalism becomes anthropophagy, then anthropophilia, just as a criminal changes names and passports.

Meanwhile, a supporting precedent is created—historical, mythological, current, or even made up, but most importantly, legitimized. This will be found or invented as “proof” that anthropophilia can, in principle, be legalized.

• “Remember the legend of the selfless mother who gave her blood to her dying children?”
• “And the stories of ancient gods who ate everyone—Romans did this all the time!”
• “And among Christians, anthropophilia is totally fine! They still ritually drink the blood and eat the flesh of their god. You don’t accuse the Christian church, do you? Who are you to judge?”

The main goal at this stage is to at least partially remove eating people from criminal prosecution, even if just once, in some historical moment.

That’s How It Should Be

Once a legitimizing precedent is provided, the Overton Window can move from the possible to the rational. This is the third stage, where the single problem is broken down into parts.

• “The desire to eat people is genetic, it’s human nature.”
• “Sometimes eating a person is necessary—there are insurmountable circumstances.”
• “Some people want to be eaten.”
• “Anthropophiles were provoked!”
• “Forbidden fruit is always sweeter.”
• “A free person has the right to decide what to eat.”
• “Don’t hide information—let everyone figure out if they’re an anthropophile or an anthropophobe.”
• “Is anthropophilia harmful? Its inevitability hasn’t been proven.”

A “battlefield” is artificially created in public consciousness. On the extremes are the bogeymen—radical supporters and radical opponents of cannibalism. Real opponents—normal people who don’t want to see cannibalism destigmatized—are lumped together with the bogeymen and labeled as radical haters. The role of these bogeymen is to create the image of crazy psychopaths—aggressive, fascist haters of anthropophilia, calling to burn cannibals, Jews, communists, and Black people alive. The media gives airtime to everyone except the real opponents of legalization.

In this setup, so-called anthropophiles appear to be in the middle, on the “territory of reason,” from where they passionately denounce “fascists of all kinds.” “Scientists” and journalists at this stage argue that humanity has always eaten each other from time to time, and that’s normal. Now the topic can move from the rational to the popular. The Overton Window shifts again.

In a Good Way

To popularize cannibalism, it needs to be supported by pop culture, linked to historical and mythological figures, and, if possible, modern media personalities. Anthropophilia floods the news and talk shows. People are eaten in blockbuster movies, song lyrics, and music videos.

One popularization technique is “Look Around You!”:

• “Did you know a famous composer was an anthropophile?”
• “A well-known Polish screenwriter was an anthropophile all his life, and was even persecuted for it.”
• “How many were locked up in psych wards! How many millions were exiled, stripped of citizenship! By the way, have you seen Lady Gaga’s new video, ‘Eat me, baby’?”

At this stage, the topic goes mainstream and starts to self-replicate in mass media, show business, and politics. Another effective technique: the essence of the problem is drowned out by information operators (journalists, TV hosts, activists, etc.), cutting specialists out of the discussion.

Then, when everyone is bored and the discussion has stalled, a specially chosen professional steps in and says, “Ladies and gentlemen, it’s not what you think. The real issue is this, and here’s what we should do,” giving a very specific direction, the bias of which is set by the movement of the Window.

To justify supporters of legalization, criminals are humanized by creating a positive image through characteristics unrelated to the crime.

• “They’re creative people. So he ate his wife—so what?”
• “They truly love their victims. If he eats, he loves!”
• “Anthropophiles have high IQs and are otherwise very moral.”
• “Anthropophiles are victims themselves, life forced them.”
• “They were raised that way,” etc.

These kinds of twists are the bread and butter of popular talk shows. “We’ll tell you a tragic love story! He wanted to eat her! She just wanted to be eaten! Who are we to judge? Maybe it’s love? Who are you to stand in the way of love?!”

We Are the Power Here

The fifth stage of the Overton Window is reached when the topic is hot enough to move from popular to current policy. The groundwork for legislation begins. Lobbyist groups in power consolidate and come out of the shadows. Polls are published, supposedly showing high support for legalizing cannibalism. Politicians start floating trial balloons about legislating the issue. A new dogma is introduced into public consciousness: “Banning eating people is banned.”

This is the signature dish of liberalism—tolerance as a ban on taboos, a ban on correcting and preventing society’s destructive deviations. During the final stage, as the Window moves from “popular” to “current policy,” society is already broken. The most active part will still resist legalizing what was recently unthinkable, but overall, society is defeated. It has already accepted its loss. Laws are passed, norms of human existence are changed (destroyed), and the topic inevitably reaches schools and kindergartens, meaning the next generation will grow up with no chance of survival.

How to Break the Technology

The Overton Window, as described by Overton, moves most easily in a tolerant society—one without ideals and, as a result, no clear distinction between good and evil.

Want to talk about your mother being a prostitute? Want to publish an article about it? Sing a song? Prove that being a prostitute is normal and even necessary? That’s the technology described above. It’s based on permissiveness.

• No taboos.
• Nothing is sacred.
• No sacred concepts whose discussion is forbidden, and whose dirty discussion is immediately stopped. None of that exists. So what is there?

There’s so-called freedom of speech, turned into the freedom to dehumanize. Before our eyes, one by one, the barriers that protected society from the abyss of self-destruction are being removed. Now the road is open.

You think you can’t change anything alone? You’re absolutely right—one person can’t do much. But you personally are obligated to remain human. And a human can find a solution to any problem. What one can’t do alone, people united by a common idea can accomplish. Look around you.