https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
“The Overton window is a term for the range of ideas tolerated in public discourse, also known as the window of discourse. The term is named after Joseph P. Overton, who stated that an idea’s political viability depends mainly on whether it falls within this range, rather than on politicians’ individual preferences.[1][2] According to Overton, the window contains the range of policies that a politician can recommend without appearing too extreme to gain or keep public office in the current climate of public opinion.”
Also from the Wikipedia page, a wonderful quote from Noam Chomsky:
Noam Chomsky said in 1998:[6]
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.
This concept gets pretty meta, but it’s easy to see how it applies beyond politics. It’s interesting to consider how this window varies from place to place, and, inter-personally speaking, is so dependent on the context of the relationship between the parties. What is widely acceptable to talk about with friends may be completely different from what is widely acceptable to talk about with parents. It is also interesting to consider that notions of control extend beyond being able to carry an argument between two opposing views, rather, the goal would be presuppose the conversation by firmly outlining socially acceptable opinions within a tolerable range that keeps people engaged between sides but not in any sort of way that challenges either the status quo, or the desired outcome of the group attempting control.
It’s debatable whether this counts: say, to use a seemingly silly, innocuous, yet potentially insidious example – many commercials follow this sort of patter: a problem is presented, a person makes some consideration of their options, and then opts to use the product or service being advertised. Or sometimes doesn’t, and then we are shown how that is not working out for them, followed by a contrast against someone who did choose to use the product or service, and is now much better off for it.
Of course you would expect this from a commercial; they are promoting themselves after all. But many commercials have a habit of seriously misrepresenting the consumer during the consideration process. Often, done as an attempt at humour, for further psychological purposes, get you laughing to reduce your guard, that sort of thing – the consumer, or perhaps a husband or wife, is presented as a bit of a bumbler, who then the wiser spouse is able to help by pointing them in the direction of said product or service. Thanks!
But the problem lies with the fact that in so many of these, the consumer is made to be confronted with problems that a moderately resourceful person could easily overcome. Things are emphasized to be more difficult than they are, and our capabilities as less, to build a sense of reliance on the product or service – locking in future profits, I believe that is called. Trained helplessness, through a presentation of false dichotomies. This thought doesn’t relate to political viability of an idea though, just the promotion of a given idea through a limiting of the potential options – so perhaps more akin to anchoring than the Overton Window.
Setting goalposts, or anchoring, is a related concept.
A further summary, generated by ChatGPT:
The Overton Window is a concept that refers to the range of ideas, policies, and opinions that are considered acceptable and mainstream in a given society or political context at any given time. Coined by Joseph P. Overton, a former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, the concept is named after him.
The Overton Window suggests that public discourse and policy-making are constrained by a set of boundaries that determine which ideas are considered legitimate and viable within a specific period. These boundaries can shift over time due to various factors, including cultural shifts, political movements, and evolving public opinion.
Within the Overton Window, there are typically three main zones:
- Unthinkable: Ideas or policies that fall outside the current window and are widely considered beyond the realm of acceptability or rationality. These ideas may be viewed as extreme, radical, or highly unpopular.
- Radical: Ideas or policies that are outside the mainstream but are still part of public discourse, often championed by fringe groups or unconventional thinkers. While not widely accepted, they may generate debate and challenge the existing status quo.
- Acceptable: Ideas or policies that fall within the bounds of the current window and are widely considered reasonable, legitimate, and within the realm of public acceptance. These ideas are typically supported by mainstream political parties and the general public.
The Overton Window is not fixed and can shift over time due to a range of factors such as political events, social movements, technological advancements, or changes in public opinion. As certain ideas gain traction and become more accepted, the window may expand to include them, while previously acceptable ideas may become less favored or even fall outside the window.
The concept of the Overton Window is often used to analyze political discourse and public opinion, particularly in the context of policy-making and ideological shifts. Understanding the Overton Window can help individuals and organizations navigate the prevailing attitudes and determine how to shape or influence public opinion within the existing boundaries or possibly expand those boundaries through persuasive arguments and public engagement.