Probing the Overton

• Recently around the sphere there was a spate of articles building on the notion of the Overton Window — the current set of politically acceptable ideas — to note the formation during the recent election process in the US of an Overton Bubble.
• Both the notion of an Overton Window and that of an Overton Bubble are attempts to characterise a monopolar thought-space.
• The Overton Window is an acknowledgement of the limits of expressible thought within a broader spectrum that can gain demotic power at the current point in time.
• The Overton Bubble on the other hand, marks a delineation by demotic power of the only thoughts which can be expressed while retaining standing with the group that holds power. Under the conditions of a holiness spiral, it renders those inside incapable of understanding that which occurs outside their bubble, because outside the bubble are the untermenschen, and one cannot be contaminated.
• Thus the Overton Window is observable and discernible at all points in time, while an Overton Bubble is something that forms only under certain conditions.
• Given that we do currently have a mature Overton Bubble to observe, it is worth making some notes as to its characteristics as a thought-space.
• The defining characteristic of a bubble is its boundary. Overton Bubbles have an observable boundary, although observation generally consists of noting when someone stepped outside the bounds and lost standing. This boundary is always changing, and the capacity to adapt to the changing boundary is part of the requirement of maintaining standing.
• But what is the nature of this boundary? Is it thick  or thin? How can we examine it?
• Start by simplifying the problem. Ignore the entirety of the bubble (a vast n-dimensional thought-space with complex interrelations) and focus on a single vector within that space, a single issue.
• Of these, categorise by political and apolitical.  Political in this instance means that an official position on the issue is established. In this instance, a Cathedral position. Ignore the apolitical, other than to note that an apolitical issue can become political at short notice.
• Looking at political issues: by definition there exists an official position. This is the position most people are expected to express. Consider this the ‘zero’ position.  A person expressing this position will suffer no social tension because of it.
• One characteristic of this bubble that can be noted is that very few issues have no alternative position. In fact, the system is built upon the notion that a diversity of views is accepted.  In practice however, there are a limited number of acceptable positions held.
• Question: Why do people hold alternative views?
• Firstly, people hold alternative views because they were the official view at some time in the past, and that view has ossified; the person has become conservative on that issue.  These positions are generally grandfathered and are politically inert. They form the resistance to the leftward ratchet.
• Secondly, people hold alternative views in order to advance socially.  Status advancement only occurs through tension.  This person is either signalling (claiming more holy) or counter-signalling (claiming status to burn). It is in this second, active sense that the Overton Bubble is properly formed.
• Under this notion of social advancement by social tension, the question of thickness or thinness can be considered. In a thick-boundary model, a spread of views in both the signalling and counter-signalling directions would be found.  In a thin-boundary model, these alternative positions would tend to consolidate to a single alternative view.
• In practice, what we see is that counter-signalling tends towards a thin boundary, and signalling towards a thick boundary.
• Counter-signalling is the expression of heresy.  Accepted heresy, but heresy nonetheless. The reward of successful counter-signalling is the demonstration of higher value. The risk here is that the gap between accepted heresy and unacceptable heresy is very thin indeed.
• To demonstrate higher value, the best move is thus to a heretical position that someone else has already established. No further, no less.  Counter-signalling tends towards a thin boundary.
• Signalling is the search for a new official position. It makes the claim that this new position is more holy than the official position. Universities specialise in this search for holiness. High level language and specialised jargon are often used to facilitate  deviation from the official position. Constructing speech in a manner not generally accessible to others — and especially not accessible to those who have ossified — reduces the likelihood of a conservative reaction occurring prior to consensus forming around a new official position. Thus signalling tends towards a thick but occluded boundary.
• Thus a single vector model suggests that there will be an official position; a set of previous official positions (grandfathered into conservatism); a singular counter-signalling position held by those seeking social advancement by demonstration of higher value; and a search for a new official position that is characterised by occlusion followed by consensus and then a near instantaneous transition to being the new official position (at which point the old position will be grandfathered, and those who cannot make the transition will become conservative).

END.

H/T to Tom Barghest.