Have you ever encountered an idea so strange, so alien to your values, that you wondered how anyone could possibly entertain it? There's a popular theory that suggests this is no accident. It claims that society can be methodically conditioned to accept absolutely anything—from the trivial, like pineapple on pizza, to the truly horrific. This supposed technique for influencing public consciousness is called the Overton window.

The story goes that this "window" of acceptable ideas can be deliberately stretched to introduce destructive concepts, twisting a population into people for whom no moral norms exist. It's a frightening thought, one that found a wide audience in Glenn Beck's 2010 book, The Overton Window, which painted a picture of evil forces manipulating the masses.

But what if this very theory of mass manipulation is itself the myth? Let’s look closer at what the Overton window concept truly is and how it became a cornerstone of modern conspiracy thinking.

How to Make Cannibalism Normal in Five "Easy" Steps

The most sensational example used by proponents of the theory is the legalization of cannibalism. The logic seems straightforward. Cannibalism is a deep and ancient taboo. From a practical standpoint, our ancestors realized it was far more efficient to hunt than to prey on their own kind, which requires decades of investment to raise a single person. Later, religious consciousness established strict prohibitions against it.

Yet, believers in the Overton window theory insist that even this profound taboo can be dismantled. In 2011, Christian activist Joe Carter, inspired by Beck's book, laid out a supposed five-step process:

1. From Unthinkable to Radical: An idea is first introduced by a marginal group where it is considered normal. This moves it from the realm of the impossible into the category of radical but existing thought.
2. From Radical to Acceptable: The language is changed to make it sound more scientific or academic. "Cannibalism" becomes "anthropophagy." This creates a veneer of legitimacy.
3. From Acceptable to Reasonable: The idea is rationalized. Proponents might argue, "Our ancestors did it," or "It’s common in the animal kingdom; it’s natural." This frames it as a sensible choice.
4. From Reasonable to Popular: The concept is made fashionable. Media and opinion leaders are used to portray the idea in a positive light, associating it with famous or respected figures.
5. From Popular to Policy: Finally, the new norm is codified into law, cementing its place in society.

According to this view, these steps have been used to explain many social changes people find disagreeable, from rising atheism to the legalization of abortion.

The Real Joseph Overton and His Window

This narrative would have likely surprised the man whose name is attached to it. Joseph Overton, a political technologist who passed away in 2003, never invented a method for legalizing monstrous ideas. His concept was, in fact, almost the complete opposite.

Overton described a "window of political possibilities." He suggested that all public opinions on an issue can be arranged on a scale from least to most popular. The "window" is the segment of that scale containing the ideas and values that society already finds acceptable. For a politician, proposing an idea that falls outside this window is a massive political risk.

The window isn't static; it can shift. But its movement is influenced by a complex web of factors: the economic situation, the level of education, major societal events, and more. It cannot be artificially forced open or expanded by a small group of propagandists. Society will only accept ideas it is already prepared for. Overton’s advice to politicians was to work within the existing window, not to try and shatter it with radical proposals.

The Danger of the "Zombie" Myth

The myth of the Overton window is appealing because it offers a simple explanation for a complex world. It’s part of a larger conspiracy narrative where unseen forces—be they the CIA or some other shadowy group—are brainwashing the population.

This idea of the "zombified" public is perhaps the most dangerous part of the myth. The term "zombie" comes from Voodoo culture, describing a person who has lost all control of their thoughts and blindly obeys commands. They are no longer a thinking subject. The philosopher René Descartes famously established the thinking mind as the basis of selfhood ("I think, therefore I am"). To call someone a brainwashed zombie is to deny their capacity for thought, to strip them of their subjectivity. It implies their opinion is worthless and they are not fully human, making it easy to dismiss them without having to engage with their arguments.

Ironically, people who believe in this theory rarely fear for themselves. They tend to believe their own values are unshakable, while seeing those around them as weak and easily influenced. This distrust can mask a rejection of any uncomfortable opinion, labeling it as harmful, immoral, or subversive.

Why Reality is More Complicated

Today, the popular version of the Overton window is considered unscientific. It contradicts well-established concepts in the social sciences, such as frame theory. This theory states that people develop normalized practices, or "frames," through their daily interactions with each other. Think of the "frame" of visiting a museum: we know to be quiet, check our coats, and not touch the exhibits. We learn these norms from each other, not from a secret world government.

Furthermore, sociological research shows that the fundamental values of a society change very slowly. It is a complex process that cannot be easily manipulated by media or political strategists. New values tend to emerge with generational change, significant shifts in quality of life, or during major upheavals and cataclysms. And because society is not a monolith, these changes rarely affect everyone at once.

The Overton window myth seems plausible because we do observe values changing and the public agenda shifting. But the myth gets the relationship backward. It is not the agenda that influences values; everything happens exactly the opposite: first, the norm changes, and then public discussion begins. Try to have a serious public debate about legalizing cannibalism today. The conversation wouldn't even get started, because the foundational values aren't there. The boundaries of what is acceptable would remain exactly where they are.

Belief in simple conspiracy theories can erode our ability to think critically far more effectively than any alleged propaganda campaign. It's crucial to remember that no single theory can explain our complex and diverse world. Rather than fearing hidden puppeteers, a healthier approach is to cultivate our own critical thinking and recognize that societal change is a slow, multifaceted, and deeply human process.

References

• Lehman, N. (2010). An Introduction to the Overton Window of Political Possibility. Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

  This publication from the institution where Joseph P. Overton worked provides a clear and concise explanation of his original concept. It details the "window" not as a tool for manipulation but as a model for understanding which policies are politically viable at a given time, emphasizing that politicians are limited by what the public finds acceptable, not the other way around.

• Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Harvard University Press.

  This foundational text in sociology introduces the concept of "frames" as the structures of understanding that we use to make sense of the world. Goffman argues that our perception of reality is organized through these social frameworks, which are negotiated and maintained through everyday interactions. This contradicts the top-down manipulation suggested by the Overton window myth. Specifically, the introduction (pp. 1-20) lays out the core principles of how individuals organize their experience.

• Karpf, D. (2018). On the left, the ‘Overton window’ is a myth. The Guardian.

  While a media article and not a peer-reviewed paper, this piece by David Karpf, an associate professor of media and public affairs, provides a cogent and accessible academic critique of how the Overton window concept has been misused. He argues that the conspiratorial interpretation is a poor model for understanding political change and that social movements succeed by mobilizing public support for ideas that are already gaining traction, not by "shifting the window" through manipulation.