endo and exonormative standards

A quick one on the definitions.

Endo- means inside or within, exo- means the opposite of endo-.

In linguistics literature we gleam this enthusiasm and optimism about the so-called endonormative standards. It is also associated with being participative and "natural".

For instance, Widdowson (1994) wrote that "the essential point is that a standard English, like other varieties of language, develops endo-normatively, by a continuing process of self-regulation, as appropriate to different conditions of use" (pp. 386).

Just take a short while to appreciate what endonormativity is. It is the development of a standard from within, through a process of self-regulation.
Now, take also a short while to imagine it, the process of self-regulation.

Self-regulation is pretty much the antonym of exonormativity. Exonomativity is about the application of an external standard, self-regulation on the other hand, has no particular perpetrator, no power relations (?). After all, when you self-regulate you are the person doing things to yourself. It is therefore a standard which is fair, participative and naturally arising... if only it were possible to be perfectly self-regulating.

The way I imagine it, endonormativity is not quite like that. In the end, some people set the trend and the rest follow. The internet is one place where you see this. Many people know how to speak the so-called new languages such as the "doge" or "lolcat" but do they all contribute to its formation? It is more like a few influential users and a whole crowd of followers. The norm is not as participative as we imagine it to be.

Perhaps, you can even say that it is in some sense, Exonormative. After all, the setters of the standards are distinct from their followers. Their followers are not part of the self-regulation of the standard (although this is certainly debatable), and so indeed, receive it from beyond themselves.

Finally the notion of "natural" is really suspicious. How is one human action (imposition of exonormative standards) any less "natural" than another (a self-regulating norm). If language is the product of the human mind then certainly we should not be talking about norms as being "imposed" upon it as though it were existing independently from the mind and thus allowing human minds to act upon it as intruders?
Why, the imposition of norms is the very creation of language itself.

For now I really don't buy it. I don't buy the associations of participation and naturalness.