Lifting the Ban: The Overton Window
Despite its rising popularity, professional MMA is still illegal in several states in the US. Part of the challenge of getting MMA legalized is changing the perception of the sport; as long as there are people who view MMA as a barbaric spectacle, there will be many obstacles to widespread acceptance. While most efforts to change public opinion focus on education that helps to break down misconceptions about MMA, there is another approach to changing perception that is potentially worth exploring.
There is a concept in political theory called "The Overton Window." Wikipedia describes the concept as follows:
The Overton window is a concept in political theory, named after the former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Joe Overton, who developed the model. It describes a "window" in the range of public reactions to ideas in public discourse, in a spectrum of all possible options on an issue. Overton described a method for moving that window, thereby including previously excluded ideas, while excluding previously acceptable ideas. The technique relies on people promoting ideas even less acceptable than the previous "outer fringe" ideas. That makes those old fringe ideas look less extreme, and thereby acceptable. Delivering rhetoric to define the window provides a plan of action to make more acceptable to the public some ideas by priming them with other ideas allowed to remain unacceptable, but which make the real target ideas seem more acceptable by comparison.
Basically, the idea is that an idea needs be acceptable before it can become popular, and it needs to be popular before it can become policy. If you wish to make something policy, you need to alter the idea of what's acceptable by promoting the unthinkable.
To apply this theory to legalizing MMA, we first need to define the range of opinions that will define our window. One possible way to define this spectrum is as follows:
- All combat sports are immoral and should be banned.
- Some combat sports are acceptable, like boxing, as long as they are regulated and only professionals can participate.
- Some combat sports are acceptable, like boxing, and amateurs and pros should be allowed to participate.
- MMA is acceptable, as long as it is regulated and only professionals can participate.
- MMA is acceptable, and amateurs and pros should be allowed to participate.
- No holds barred fighting competitions should be legal, as long as the participants are willing.
- Street fighting should be legalized.
Certainly there are all sorts of other ways to define this, but let's use this as the basis of our discussion.
Right now, I think it's fair to say that opinions #2 - #3 are in the "window of acceptability." Depending on where you live, #4 and #5 may also be considered acceptable.
By Overton's logic, one way to achieve the desired perception shift is to actually promote more radical concepts, such as those espoused in views #6 and #7. If an organization were, for example, to begin actively promoting Tyler Durden-style street fighting, it would make big news. Many people would very likely be outraged and offended by such an unthinkable idea. If this idea were to get enough traction in the media, you would likely see a counter-argument being made; people would begin speaking out against this unthinkable idea.
So, what does that accomplish? Well, by focusing people's outrage on something more outlandish, MMA becomes more tolerable. People would begin to adopt a "well, at least they're not street fighting" attitude. If you believe Overton, this could lead to more widespread acceptance of MMA.
Some might argue that this approach is manipulative and dishonest. I can't say I disagree, and I'm not really sure if I would be comfortable using these tactics myself. But the efficacy of the approach is undeniable. (If you're unconvinced, try Googling for "Overton window" and "school vouchers" or "Overton window" and "estate tax" for some examples of how previously unthinkable ideas have been made into law.)
I'd be interested to hear any thoughts other fans might have about this idea, or other ideas to push for MMA legalization.
The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Bloody Elbow readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bloody Elbow editors or staff.
4 recs |
5 comments
Comments
this is great
I disagree with your conclusions - I think that invites backlash - but just the fact that you’re talking about the overton window on an mma blog! very impressive.
by Kid Nate on Jul 25, 2008 7:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks...
Thanks, Nate.
It occurred to me after I wrote this that even with an approach like this, I think it’s still important to educate people, in parallel, about what MMA is and is not. Otherwise, how will they know the difference between MMA and the truly repugnant stuff?
Frankly, I wondered how this kind of discussion would be received since much of the discourse (at least in the comments section) of the MMA blogs I read is somewhat . . . unsophisticated. Thanks for the feedback.
by josemonkey on Jul 26, 2008 8:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is one of the more thought provoking posts I’ve read in a while, and something I honestly hadn’t thought of before. With that said, I’m not sure pushing for no holds barred street fighting is the best way to continue on the path to regulation. I tend to believe education is the only way to complete the legalization of mma.
As you said in the comment above me, it is important to define what mma actually is, and why it is acceptable as a combat sport. Personally, I feel that the perception of mma as a spectacle watched by a bunch of blood thirsty punks with no sense of honor or sportsmanship is the biggest obstacle to complete legalization. I know the language I used is a bit dramatic, but that’s the sort of language media types often use to portray mma.
If government officials hold that sort of bias (and I believe many do), then it is critical to counter those perceptions. By promoting street fighting, those pushing for mma legalization only reinforce prejudices that mma is nothing more than a blood lust spectacle. This fortifies the position of those against mma and hinders the chances of regulation.
Just my two cents.
by Andy R on Jul 26, 2008 10:58 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
I couldn’t agree more. The approach I laid out here was really just food for thought, I guess. I tend to favor the path you’ve described.
by josemonkey on Jul 27, 2008 10:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the studies that have been done on the dangers of MMA compared to other sports and about why people watch MMA have been an under utilized source of information in showing the false assumptions and misconceptions of the sport.
I always see them pairing up a fighter against some journalist who hates MMA and they make them have a discussion about it. The journalist always comes loaded with the same old misconceptions and false information. Then the fighter has to calmly try and defend it and usually the moderator is uninformed on the sport so it gets moderated poorly. The journalist who hates MMA keeps interrupting the fighter and the moderator does nothing about it. Then when the journalist is saying something false the fighter will try and interrupt to correct him. The journalist gets all mad and says don’t interrupt me. Since the journalist is usually always a colleague of the moderator he always gets the unfair air time. The fighter then usually comes off to the uninformed as just trying to justify the sport because he is in it. It is never a fair debate.
I wish they would include a professor or two that have done studies on it to help establish some facts and to dispel the misconceptions in those kinds of debates. Also to have a moderator that has actually done some research prior to participating so that he can moderate it fairly. When the moderator realizes somebody has said something inaccurate then he could interrupt and have a professor who has studied it clarify the truth.
by mattman73 on Jul 26, 2008 2:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

by 












