The Overton Window: How to Legalize Anything

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.

What Is the Overton Window?

According to the Overton Window, every idea or issue in society exists within a so-called window of possibilities. Within this window, an idea can be discussed, openly supported, promoted, or even legislated. The window can be shifted, changing the range of possibilities—from “unthinkable,” meaning totally alien to public morality and completely rejected, to “current policy,” meaning 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 society often doesn’t notice the manipulation.

Let’s break down, step by step, how society can go from first discussing something unacceptable, to considering it appropriate, and finally accepting a new law that protects what was once unthinkable.

An Example: Cannibalism

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

Obviously, as of 2014, there’s no way to openly promote cannibalism—society would be outraged. This means the issue of legalizing cannibalism is at the zero stage of the window of possibilities, which Overton calls “Unthinkable.” Let’s model how this unthinkable idea could move through all the stages of the Overton Window.

The Technology

Overton described a technology that can legalize absolutely any idea. 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, will inevitably lead to the desired result. As a weapon for destroying human communities, this technology can be more effective than a nuclear bomb.

Stage 1: “How Daring!”

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

We have freedom of speech, right? So why not talk about cannibalism? Scientists are supposed to discuss everything—no topic is off-limits 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 and still remain within the bounds of scientific respectability. The Overton Window has already shifted. Society’s attitude moves from strictly negative to something more neutral.

At the same time, some “Society of Radical Cannibals” will inevitably appear, even if only online. The media will notice and quote these radicals.

• This provides another “statement of fact.”
• It also creates a “radical bogeyman”—the “bad cannibals”—to contrast with another bogeyman: “fascists who want to burn anyone different at the stake.”

At this stage, it’s enough to publish stories about what British scientists or radical weirdos think about eating human flesh.

Result of Stage 1: The taboo topic is introduced into discourse, the taboo is desacralized, and the problem is no longer black and white—now there are “shades of gray.”

Stage 2: “Why Not?”

The next step moves the topic from “radical” to “possible.”

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

To fight hypocrisy, we need to give cannibalism an elegant new name, so “fascists” can’t label dissenters with the “C-word.”

Creating a euphemism is crucial. To legalize an unthinkable idea, you must change its name. Cannibalism becomes “anthropophagy,” but soon even that term is replaced, as it too is deemed offensive. The goal is to separate the essence of the problem from its label, depriving opponents of the language to fight back. Cannibalism becomes anthropophagy, then “anthropophilia,” just as a criminal changes names and passports.

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

• “Remember the legend of the selfless mother who gave her blood to her dying children?”
• “What about the ancient gods who ate everyone—Romans thought nothing of it!”
• “And among Christians, anthropophilia is fine! They still ritually drink the blood and eat the flesh of their god. You don’t accuse the Christian church, do you?”

The main goal at this stage is to at least partially remove eating people from criminal prosecution, even if only once, at some point in history.

Stage 3: “That’s How It Should Be”

Once a legitimizing precedent is provided, the Overton Window can move from “possible” to “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 sweetest.”
• “A free person has the right to decide what to eat.”
• “Don’t hide information—let everyone decide if they’re an anthropophile or 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 in with the bogeymen and labeled as radical haters. The role of these bogeymen is to create the image of crazy, aggressive, fascist haters who call for burning 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 “rational” to “popular.” The Overton Window shifts again.

Stage 4: “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 appears in news and talk shows. People are eaten in blockbuster movies, song lyrics, and music videos.

One popularization technique is “Look Around You!”

• “Didn’t you know that 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 asylums! 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 predetermined 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 what if he ate his wife?”
• “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?!”

Stage 5: “We Are the Power”

The fifth stage 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: “Banning the eating of people is forbidden.”

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 may still resist the legalization of what was recently unthinkable, but overall, society has surrendered. It has accepted defeat. Laws are passed, norms of human existence are changed (or destroyed), and the issue 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.

Do you want to talk about your mother being a whore? Publish an article about it? Sing a song? Prove that being a whore is normal and even necessary? That’s the technology described above. It relies on permissiveness.

No taboos. Nothing sacred. No concepts so sacrosanct that even discussing them is forbidden, and any attempt to drag them through the mud 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 are personally obligated to remain human. And a human can find a solution to any problem. What one person can’t do, people united by a common idea can. Look around you.