A note on the Overton Window

Psychotherapy prides itself on being a liberal pursuit, save that which is considered illegal or harmful. During the process of psychotherapy it is essential that the patient and therapist form a therapeutic alliance. This relational position ensures that patients are offered the emotional environment in which to speak freely and without hinderance - from without and within. By this I mean, what is perceived as unacceptable to discuss outside the relationship should be permitted within it - establishing a level of trust and safety is therefore crucial. This invitation to speak freely - known as the basic or fundamental rule - is regarded, as the term suggests foundational if any meaningful work is to be accomplished.

However, when the "perceived reality of things" is a defence against the "reality of things", trust and safety break down. That is to say, when the therapist's assumptions about the world - his or her "world views" - are actually incorrect, the resulting defence of these assumptions becomes a denial of the truth and patients' will inevitably feel misunderstood.

There is a wealth of literature describing the impacts and complexities spun from cultural differences that weave themselves into the therapeutic relationship, however little has been written concerning the intercultural stories and narratives propagated to instil a sense of parental authority and societal cohesion within any given community, nation or culture.

Our views of the world are general formed through epistemic trust. Knowledge obtained from trusted sources. Experiential knowledge - obtained through first hand experience - is largely limited (roughly 5%) and so what we actually know to be true is infinitesimal compared to the broad knowledge acquired from epistemologically recognisable and reliable educators - whether institutional or personal. So, how are our opinions formed?

The notion of the Overton Window was solidified by a colleague of Joseph Overton (1960-2003) after his death. It describes the window of socially acceptable discourse within a society, at any given time. This window opens and closes at the whim of societal power groups who police and regulate the margins of what is acceptable to talk about, and what is not. Speech is managed through mechanisms of shame and guilt, but also more crudely by omission. A given world view might be heralded as virtuous to discuss and on which one might form an opinion and another, very much taboo.

In the referenced paper, the author suggests that "society is an organism which seeks goodness" and moral certitude. That due to a number of factors, individualistic liberal societies have become a "system of moral strangers" that find agreement in laws and norms. The existence of power determines these norms. Power that has slipped from a democratic locus, toward those with economic power - from as it were, the public to the private. The fall of the political has given way to the rise of the expert class. This lack of universal morality or hierarchy of values, has left materialism, science and finance capital as arbiters of what is acceptable to think, casting those with heterodox opinion to the fringes, often as conspiracy scapegoats.

Given credence by those in power - the legacy media, politicians, professionals and academics - the window opens. What was previously unthinkable or unacceptable is given airtime. Cognitive dissonance within the public realm cracks and declares the topic prohibited, but with exceptions. Discussed adversarially this opinion begins to form an acceptable discourse and a taboo is finally broken. The once denigrated narrative formed around such a topic has become generalised. Eventually and perhaps over many years or decades, it influences lawmaking as, unless censored again, politicians of the proceeding generation will support the socially accepted and demanded ideas.

How does this window appear in therapeutic work? Where is the idealogical power located? How does the impact of the individual’s place in their community or society infect the mind of the patient in the room?

The late Hanna Segal (1918-2011) perhaps offers an insight when she spoke on camera about the future of psychoanalysis.

"As far as the future of analysis in the world, I have a rather pessimistic view, but perhaps you don't need to worry, because in old age one becomes more pessimistic, as they know they are going to die so they think that world is going to pieces, and one has to be aware of that. But, actually, I think our culture is so anti-mind. With violent attacks on the mind. Because our minds may not go along with the policies of the rich and mighty and imperialistic ones. So everywhere, an attack on the mind which seems to be changing into figures, numbers and on the whole I think the analytical ethos is endangered."

What may feel unacceptable to think or discuss socially, should of course be welcome material in psychotherapy, however is this always the case? The opinions, stance and attitude of the therapist will impact the feelings of safety within the alliance. Conscious disclosure in this context is therefore is to be discouraged if the therapist is to maintain and generate an air of openness and safety so that the views of the patient can be heard and understood. Moral judgement and/or theoretical gymnastics only serve to close down curiosity. The psychotherapist's defence of their world views and beliefs only serves to communicate judgement and a willing servitude to those who control "The Window".

1 Segal, H. (2018-2011) Trailer for Encounters Through Generations, a film about psychoanalysis in the UK. UK. The Institute of Psychoanalysis. (2010) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtxytpdO3JM

2 Ma de la Luz Casas-Martínez. Bioethics and the Overton window. Mexico. School of Medicine, Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics, Universidad Panamericana (2022)