Among participants in Internet battles, the phrase “Overton window” has become familiar and familiar over the past few years. It is usually talked about as a terrible technology that allows something abnormal and socially dangerous to be turned into the norm. Moreover, the technology is scientifically based and works flawlessly. We figured out whether there is such a scientific theory, how it is substantiated and whether there is evidence that it works.

“Overton Window” is a frequently encountered phrase in the Russian segment of the Internet. Only in media indexed by the Yandex.News service, it meets 1800 times. And all this is only after 2014.

In RuNet, interest in the concept was caused by its appearance in LiveJournal in 2014 post Evgeny Gorzhaltsan (zuhel) entitled “Destruction Technology”. The author told how the American sociologist Joseph Overton revealed the liberal “technology of changing society’s attitude towards issues that were once fundamental to this society.” It was Overton who “described how ideas completely alien to society were lifted from the cesspool of public contempt, laundered and finally legislated.” This is how the “legalization of homosexuality” occurred; the legalization of pedophilia, incest and child euthanasia, if not cannibalism, looms ahead. The post was replicated not only by Russian media and portals with a dubious reputation, but also by such a large tabloid as "Komsomolskaya Pravda". Moreover, he appeared on Nikolai Starikov's blog. The topic also appeared interesting to the authors of the portal “Pravoslavie.ru”.

The meaning of the concept is explained approximately like this. Society has a range of acceptable norms, which is supported by the assurances of politicians, intellectuals, and laws. This spectrum is called the “window of political discourse.” Attempts to change the boundaries of the “window of discourse” are associated with the proposal to see the reasonable in the taboo and unacceptable. This is how an insidious minority tries to legalize ideas that lead to negative consequences for the majority. “Look for who benefits and draw your own conclusions,” supporters of the “window of discourse” concept, often speaking from conservative positions, note conspiratorially. They also notice that the concept is named after the author, an American scientist from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy think tank, which means it is scientific and correct.

But it is not only conservatives who have adopted the theory. IN article Republic edition, the author freed the “Overton window” from the “conservative” connotations already familiar to the reader and returned the concept to its seemingly inherent scientific status. In the text, the “political science” hypothesis of the “Overton window” made it possible to explain how “the framework of what is acceptable and normal, customary for a given society, can be expanded in a situation of crisis or threat.” An example was the success of Russian propaganda in constructing the image of the “Kyiv junta” against the background of “the possible withdrawal of Ukraine from Moscow’s sphere of influence.”

However, gradually notes appeared in the high-quality Russian-language press that questioned the scientific status of the concept. In 2018, in the “Opinions” section of the same Republic appeared investigation of the success story of the “Overton window” in Runet from 2014 to 2017. Also in 2018, the publication “Knife” presented evidence of the conspiracy, rather than political, nature of the concept. In search of an expert who will confirm or refute the scientific status of the concept, in 2019, Echo of Moscow listeners asked for clarification to Ekaterina Shulman. She noted that the concept does not exist, it is mentioned only by Russian-speaking “conspiracy publicists and bloggers,” and the term does not appear in English. And in general, it is impossible to impose a norm on society - ideas change in society, and then public discussions begin. In 2020, the Wonderzine website citing Shulman told, “how a political concept turned into a cover for conspiracy theories.”

But it should be noted that the concept still appears in English-language scientific texts - for example, in a chapter from a collective monograph Gender and Queer Perspectives on Brexit, published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2019. In general, the story of the acquisition of the status of a scientific concept by the phrase “Overton window” has a detective intrigue. Not the least important place in it is occupied by the manipulations of experts from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy think tank.

In the mid-1990s, the vice president of this think tank, Joseph Overton, came up with a certain scheme. She explained at the level of common sense the value of the expertise of think tanks in working with public opinion. During Overton's lifetime the scheme was not widely known. And he himself was not a scientist, but a libertarian-minded free market analyst. In the scheme, he saw an abstraction that would replace the boring ideas about the struggle between left and right for the sympathy of the public. Behind it there was no systematization of empirical data, methodology or criticism of previous hypotheses - elements without which it is difficult to imagine scientific knowledge. After Overton's death in 2003, his colleagues appropriated this idea, turned it into a semblance of a scientific concept, and popularized it in this form.

In 2006, a user of the Daily Kos platform made repost neoconservative writer Joshua Treviño's post on the Swords Crossed blog (now inaccessible). Treviño, citing Overton, described the “discourse window” as a method of creating political opportunities for the affirmation of norms, which is used by think tank experts. Let’s say the think tank believes that some issues of social order require reconsideration—say, the attitude toward homeschooling in the state of Michigan. Once homeschooling was illegal, the idea of legalizing it seemed unthinkable. With the involvement of scientists, media, activists and lobbyists, the legalization of homeschooling for citizens acquired the status of a reasonable measure, and then the current norm. Thus, any idea can be transformed from unthinkable to radical, acceptable, reasonable, standard and codified. Because all ideas exist in the context of the “window of political discourse”: those shared by society fall into this “gap”, and the rest require a special “nudge” in order to be accepted.

Afterwards, the “Overton window” appears more and more often in the American media. Following Treviño, it was used by authors sympathetic to the moderate right. In 2007, The Atlantic editor Ross Douthat noticedthat such games with public opinion are played not only by conservatives, but also by liberals and social democrats. At this stage, the Overton Window is not discussed as a scientific or conspiracy theory. This is simply the author’s diagram, as if convincingly showing the principles of operation of the political establishment.

In 2010, Joseph Lehman, who headed the Mackinac Center for Public Policy think tank, suggested a refined and seemingly empirically more correct description of the “Overton window of political opportunity” model. He insisted: norms are not moving because politicians want them to. Instead, politicians choose proposals that are supported by citizens. Typical political behavior is to remain within a familiar set of norms (the very “window of political opportunity”). But citizens can publicly raise silent issues through debates and the involvement of experts from think tanks. And then their political representatives will not be able to ignore changes in public sentiment. Today, experts from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, describing the “Overton window” model, They say directly: citizens, not politicians, are the leaders of transformation processes in political life.

At this stage, the Overton Window could remain a model for describing an active civil society. But the phrase was appropriated by the popular American radio and television presenter, conservative Glenn Beck. In 2010, Beck, known for criticizing "progressivism" and President Barack Obama, released book, science fiction thriller "The Overton Window". In it, left-wing radical political strategists-villains manipulated public opinion to justify the occupation of America and desecration of the Constitution. The novel reflected the sentiments of political movements like the Tea Party Movement and became the quintessence of a conspiracy theory on politics and social processes. According to the book, any observed changes in social orders are the result of efforts specifically designed by a minority to destroy traditions and dehumanize.

Because of Beck's specific image, the concept of the "Overton window" lost the charm of an apocryphal but interesting scientific hypothesis. For the liberal public, the Overton Window remained a political metaphor used by traditionalists and conspiracy theorists. The appearance of Donald Trump on the political arena has changed a lot. IN column for National Review in late 2015, David French, a former low-key conservative, recalled the model's explanatory potential in trying to explain the businessman's popularity. Here is Trump with his radical proposals: ban Muslims from entering the United States, build a wall with Mexico. They go against recent policy decisions and the acceptable window of discourse. But why are they suddenly supported by so many in America? It's simple: Americans are tired of progressive politics and want to reconsider them in favor of more conservative values. Citizens are moving the Overton Window, and Trump is the prophet of future transformations.

Liberal-minded columnist of the British The Guardian Suzanne Moore spoke from a close position. In 2016 she noticedthat the polarization of British society (expressed in widespread support for the Tories) means that citizens are dissatisfied with standard ideas. Social norms and agreements—the notorious “Overton window”—require revision. And this is not a bad thing, because this way you can build a social democracy that is attentive to the needs of not only the center-left Laborites.

Over time, the “Overton window” appeared less and less often in English-language journalism. The range of conspiracy theories in the conservative arsenal has expanded since 2017 (see QAnon), and supporters of other ideological positions have rarely resorted to the explanatory power of the concept. Sometimes in scientific articles the concept used to describe the conservative turn. Eventually, around 2018, it evolved into meme.

That's the whole detective story. The vice president of a think tank, who did not pretend to be a scientist, came up with an abstract model to illustrate the importance of his own work. The populists carried out a generalization operation: they generalized Overton's private observations and received a “scientific concept.” The concept transparently explained the structure of changing political life. The simplicity of the explanations allowed it to acquire ideological overtones and become a tool of conservatives and the basis for conspiracy theories in the early 2010s. However, it does not contain verifiable information about the empirical world. There was never any specific methodological optics or verifiable data behind it. It cannot be verified, nor can it be falsified, and it has nothing to do with scientific knowledge.