Closing the Overton Window

A window, which has been shown to actually work
A window, which has been shown to actually work
It’s become quite common for political pundits and online commentators to talk sagely about the “Overton Window” when they’re talking about public opinion. (Click here for a sampling of recent uses of it) It’s presented as an immutable law of political science – there’s a range of possible policies available on any given issue or set of issues, but only a certain amount (those within the Overton Window) are possible/politically deliverable at any given time. Thus, to make something politically possible that’s currently not, one must shift the window somehow.

There’s always a general vagueness about just how it works, but that the the Overton Window exists is taken as read by a lot of people, and I’m sure most people who cite it believe it’s an idea that’s been discussed by academics over many years and has been rigorously tested and proven to be correct. You might think that, but you’d be wrong. Here’s a search for it with Google Scholar, which indexes millions of pieces of academic research and writing, which brings back no serious academic references to it. It does get mentioned in a few Glenn Beck books, some obscure libertarian pamphlets and in publications from the think tank it emerged from, but no serious academic attention has been paid to it.

Why is that? I’d propose that the most obvious explanation is that the Overton Window isn’t actually a theory, it’s just a vague assertion. See, for instance, this article about it (pdf) which starts from the assumption that it exists and goes from there. Any actual theory of political science has to be testable, and if the Overton Window was a theory it would come with a set of testable predictions about public opinion and how it shifts over time. It would also come with justification for some of the simplifying assumptions it appears to be based on, most notably that all the policy options for a certain issue can be placed on a straight line. None of that exists for the Overton Window, and none of its advocates appear to have put any effort into trying to prove it, preferring to assert its truth without testing.

I’ve written before about Zaller’s Receive-Accept-Sample model of public opinion, and I think it provides an interesting counterexample to the Overton Window in that it’s a genuine theory which has been thoroughly tested and shown to make accurate predictions about how public opinion works. However, as it’s slightly more complex than ‘you can do some things, you can’t do others, but if you want to do the others then sizeable donations to our think tank might help make them possible’ it doesn’t get mentioned much by supposed experts on public opinion in the media.

This is a shame, because I think Zaller’s work on how elite opinion leads public opinion (in The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion) is a much more useful concept than talk of windows. Zaller shows that when elites (politicians, media and other opinion formers) are generally agreed on an issue, public opinion follows suit. Public opinion on an issue only begins to shift when elite opinion begins to divide and differ. To use Zaller’s example (though there are many others in the wider literature), American opinion on the Vietnam War was mostly in favour of it until newspapers and politicians started raising questions about it, and then it began to fade. (That’s a bit of a simplification, but the key point is that public opinion tends to follow elite opinion, not vice versa) If there’s not an elite consensus, then public opinion will tend to cover a much wider spectrum.

Public opinion is a much more vague and nebulous thing than an idea like the Overton Window gives credit for. In truth, most people have what Converse called ‘nonattitudes’ to most issues: they’re capable of giving an opinion on something if asked, but that opinion is often completely random based on what they’ve seen and heard recently rather than a fixed and carefully considered outcome of rational thought. Trying to analyse something so amorphous using concepts that are fundamentally weak is almost a guarantee of misunderstanding what’s actually happening. Public opinion can be shifted much more quickly and much more widely than people think but the key to doing that is finding messages that reach people and become part of their considerations, not obsessing over the location of mythical windows.

4 thoughts on “Closing the Overton Window”

  1. So first of all, I’m not here to defend the academic research around the Overton window. As we used to say at the last place I worked, if you want something researched really badly, leave it to the PoliSci dept.

    However, where Zaller’s work gives us less – and where the Overton window is useful for lay people – is that there is a cultural frame around both what possibilities are worth considering or indeed, at a deeper level, a cultural agreement about “model of the world” or “how things really work.”

    To put it in terms of the “bucket” metaphor often used in connection with Zaller’s work, there are filters over what gets in the bucket. Zaller’s work is less detailed in this area, but a good guide to interactions about things that do get into the bucket.

    1. It’s hard to defend the academic work around the Overton Window, as there doesn’t seem to be any.

      And I believe PoliSci departments say that if you want something researched really badly (with the results you want), leave it to a think tank. 🙂

  2. You’ll have to forgive me, but this is a pet peeve of mine.

    An important question is – why isn’t there any academic work around the Overton window?

    Perhaps it is because Zaller is very good at describing “how” things change – and that internal dynamics stuff is good for PoliSci journals.

    What is missing from Zaller is, at root, descriptions of “why.” It bothers me that PoliSci as a discipline seems to repeatedly shy away from the why question.

    I’ve had this argument over Adam Curtis’ work as well. Much like the Overton Window, it’s a lame, incomplete approach to “why” – but at least it’s an approach to why. Mainstream political science doesn’t seem to like to think about that. That scares me, if I’m honest.

Comments are closed.