My solution for getting out of my own filter bubble, not only to understand people around me, but to seek what’s true beyond that, has been to be cognizant of the full span of contemporary political discourse, including those political perspectives that fall outside the Overton window to the left, to the right, or whatever direction.
To me this still seems like a strong filter as it’s still thinking in the one dimensional frame of politics where politics is about a certain set of questions.
The question about whether or not the US should switch to an inquisitorial legal system like Germany has, is a political question that’s not much asked in contemporary political discourse.
A similar question would be whether the Anglo-Saxon paradigm of how to do accounting is really better then the old German way.
If you move further then you get to question such as whether diplomats should do exercise that increase their bodily perception before sitting down to negotiate about important matters where the question is even farther out of the Overton window.
To me this still seems like a strong filter as it’s still thinking in the one dimensional frame of politics where politics is about a certain set of questions.
It’s all relative. Most of the time when people talk about filter bubbles, I still see them only going as far as reaching across the political aisle to people who still share many if not most of their core political beliefs. I’ve tried going beyond that, and I thought I’d write something about it, but you’re right it is still a similar and simple way to go about things. I don’t doubt one can gain even more perspective by expanding the sets of questions one asks about politics.
If you move further then you get to question such as whether diplomats should do exercise that increase their bodily perception before sitting down to negotiate about important matters where the question is even farther out of the Overton window.
In a sense, any question anyone asks about any topic related to politics can be thought of as a “political question.” I was thinking of “political questions” in terms of the kind of conventional and typical problems most people try to solve in politics. The question you’re asking is interesting. The idea of an Overton window doesn’t make sense to me in the context of the unconventional question you’re asking. Of course it’s about diplomacy, which is political, but it’s so out of left field, “what kind of exercise should diplomats do before negotiations?” seems to me “outside the Overton window” in the same sense of the question “what should I have for lunch today?” I don’t see how you mean for the two to intersect.
I was thinking of “political questions” in terms of the kind of conventional and typical problems most people try to solve in politics.
You can use this kind of definition of politics but you have to be careful as it means that political power has nothing to do with politics. In that frame Robert Moses can have the power to get the parliament in New York to pass whatever bill he wants without him doing anything political.
Of course it’s about diplomacy, which is political, but it’s so out of left field, “what kind of exercise should diplomats do before negotiations?” seems to me “outside the Overton window” in the same sense of the question “what should I have for lunch today?” I don’t see how you mean for the two to intersect.
That reaction is because it’s far enough outside of your Overton window that you don’t have a good way to think about the question and what it means.
The question “what should I have for lunch today?” is different because you don’t want to achieve political ends. Getting diplomats to do exercises to get in touch with their body on the other hand can be a means to get them to come to a peaceful resolution instead of waging war.
You can use this kind of definition of politics but you have to be careful as it means that political power has nothing to do with politics. In that frame Robert Moses can have the power to get the parliament in New York to pass whatever bill he wants without him doing anything political.
This is a good point. It’s not the definition of politics I use for everything, just for the purposes of the OP.
Getting diplomats to do exercises to get in touch with their body on the other hand can be a means to get them to come to a peaceful resolution instead of waging war.
I guess it’s fine as an example for depicting how far outside the norm thinking can be. I don’t think you’re using the concept of “Overton window” entirely correctly with your given example. An Overton window isn’t just what in a country what is normal for people to talk about in politics. It’s specifically the window of acceptable political discourse. That doesn’t mean just ‘politically correct’, because while a lot of cultural institutions in, e.g., North America are in the thrall of political correctness, the fact of the matter is there are multiple political factions who disagree with political correctness. Altogether, this leads to what might be a majority of people opposing (different kinds of) political correctness, but for different reasons. So, there is wide opposition to political correctness. It’s just not centralized like the support for political correctness is. So, I’d say in the last few years, ideologies like socialism and nationalism that 20 years ago weren’t in the Overton window are back into it in the United States.
It doesn’t seem the example of diplomats doing exercises isn’t outside the Overton window, because it doesn’t strike me as politically unacceptable. It’s just seems like something most people wouldn’t bring up because for whatever reasons they just wouldn’t see the relevance of it. Or at least they may not be able to affect the personal behaviour of diplomats, so they wouldn’t be the point of discussing it.
It’s specifically the window of acceptable political discourse.
I don’t think it’s within the window of acceptable political discourse within North America to discuss whether or not Trump should do some exercises that get him in touch with his body together with the Chinese before they set down to negotiate, with the goal to get them to mutual understanding of each other.
That’s not an acceptable question to ask about the US-Chinese trade dispute. It’s not just that answers to the questions are problematic, the question itself is outside of the window.
Well, before you were using diplomats as an example, and now you’re specifically talking about the POTUS, which changes everything, especially with regards to the Overton window. Suggesting the POTUS do something is of course much more sensitive than suggesting a generic/random diplomat do the same, regardless of what it is.
To me this still seems like a strong filter as it’s still thinking in the one dimensional frame of politics where politics is about a certain set of questions.
The question about whether or not the US should switch to an inquisitorial legal system like Germany has, is a political question that’s not much asked in contemporary political discourse.
A similar question would be whether the Anglo-Saxon paradigm of how to do accounting is really better then the old German way.
If you move further then you get to question such as whether diplomats should do exercise that increase their bodily perception before sitting down to negotiate about important matters where the question is even farther out of the Overton window.
It’s all relative. Most of the time when people talk about filter bubbles, I still see them only going as far as reaching across the political aisle to people who still share many if not most of their core political beliefs. I’ve tried going beyond that, and I thought I’d write something about it, but you’re right it is still a similar and simple way to go about things. I don’t doubt one can gain even more perspective by expanding the sets of questions one asks about politics.
In a sense, any question anyone asks about any topic related to politics can be thought of as a “political question.” I was thinking of “political questions” in terms of the kind of conventional and typical problems most people try to solve in politics. The question you’re asking is interesting. The idea of an Overton window doesn’t make sense to me in the context of the unconventional question you’re asking. Of course it’s about diplomacy, which is political, but it’s so out of left field, “what kind of exercise should diplomats do before negotiations?” seems to me “outside the Overton window” in the same sense of the question “what should I have for lunch today?” I don’t see how you mean for the two to intersect.
You can use this kind of definition of politics but you have to be careful as it means that political power has nothing to do with politics. In that frame Robert Moses can have the power to get the parliament in New York to pass whatever bill he wants without him doing anything political.
That reaction is because it’s far enough outside of your Overton window that you don’t have a good way to think about the question and what it means.
The question “what should I have for lunch today?” is different because you don’t want to achieve political ends. Getting diplomats to do exercises to get in touch with their body on the other hand can be a means to get them to come to a peaceful resolution instead of waging war.
This is a good point. It’s not the definition of politics I use for everything, just for the purposes of the OP.
I guess it’s fine as an example for depicting how far outside the norm thinking can be. I don’t think you’re using the concept of “Overton window” entirely correctly with your given example. An Overton window isn’t just what in a country what is normal for people to talk about in politics. It’s specifically the window of acceptable political discourse. That doesn’t mean just ‘politically correct’, because while a lot of cultural institutions in, e.g., North America are in the thrall of political correctness, the fact of the matter is there are multiple political factions who disagree with political correctness. Altogether, this leads to what might be a majority of people opposing (different kinds of) political correctness, but for different reasons. So, there is wide opposition to political correctness. It’s just not centralized like the support for political correctness is. So, I’d say in the last few years, ideologies like socialism and nationalism that 20 years ago weren’t in the Overton window are back into it in the United States.
It doesn’t seem the example of diplomats doing exercises isn’t outside the Overton window, because it doesn’t strike me as politically unacceptable. It’s just seems like something most people wouldn’t bring up because for whatever reasons they just wouldn’t see the relevance of it. Or at least they may not be able to affect the personal behaviour of diplomats, so they wouldn’t be the point of discussing it.
I don’t think it’s within the window of acceptable political discourse within North America to discuss whether or not Trump should do some exercises that get him in touch with his body together with the Chinese before they set down to negotiate, with the goal to get them to mutual understanding of each other.
That’s not an acceptable question to ask about the US-Chinese trade dispute. It’s not just that answers to the questions are problematic, the question itself is outside of the window.
Well, before you were using diplomats as an example, and now you’re specifically talking about the POTUS, which changes everything, especially with regards to the Overton window. Suggesting the POTUS do something is of course much more sensitive than suggesting a generic/random diplomat do the same, regardless of what it is.
It would also not within the discourse to suggest that the other diploments that are involed in the negotiation should do so.