Can anyone help me narrow down the definition of "gaslighting" to better make sense of it as a concept?
I read the Wikipedia article about "gaslighting" and know it comes from a 1944 film of the same name in which an abusive husband gradually dims the gaslights at home – while denying doing so – to drive his wife mad.
Yet whenever I see the term used (which happens a lot, lately) I can't make the connection. It seems people use it for the simple act of lying or denying something, which to me is mostly just... lying, not "gaslighting". Any kind of stupid, misguided act is getting the sinister "gaslighting" stamp as if it some 5d chess move when it simply looks like incompetence. The core principle of it seems to revolve around having a plan to psychologically manipulate someone but I mostly don't see the plan nor the actual goal. If anything untruthful you say about an important topic is "gaslighting", then the term doesn't seem to have a lot of value on its own. Wikipedia actually mentions "unconscious" gaslighting which seems to contradict its purpose of actually wanting to manipulate someone.
So, given its popularity, I'm curious if there might be a (succinct) definition of the term that helps me understand it properly? Do you think it's just a trendy term to throw at politicians doing shit you don't like? Am I missing an important detail?
Gaslighting is not just about denying or lying, it's a deliberate attempt to make someone question their own sanity, perception of reality, and destabilize their mental well being. It can be accomplished using some of the methods you mentioned (e.g. lying, denying the truth, manipulating them/their environment, etc), but the methods used are not what makes it gaslighting, it's the intent.
My go to example of gaslighting is in the movie Amélie (which is wonderful film, BTW). In it she intentionally tries to drive her asshole neighbor insane by deliberately altering various things around his house in subtle (and some not so subtle) ways. E.g. She breaks into his house and replaces his slippers with the exact same kind but one size smaller than his original ones, fucks with the electric wiring so his lights make a constant droning sound, adds bitters to his booze, and swaps his phone's speed dial numbers to call a local psychiatric hospital.
As for your questions about the political situation in the US and people referring to Republican/Fox News efforts as gaslighting... No offense, but I ain't touching that with a 10 foot pole. ;)
Yeah, you and @vord both bring up good points about how "intent" may not be strictly necessary for it to be gaslighting. I guess the more accurate way of describing it would be to just ignore that part of my definition, and cut it down to "attempt to make someone question their own sanity, perception of reality, and destabilize their mental well being" instead (regardless of whether it's done deliberately, with willful intent, or not).
I think your summary hits it spot on. I prefer using Orwell's 1984 as an example, as the USA has been using it as a blueprint for how to do politics. It doesn't use the exact term gaslighting, but the function is the same. @Adys might have had this in mind with respect to propaganda. Propaganda is a subset of gaslighting, in particular retroactive propaganda.
Oh wow, I never made that connection. "Doublethink" is basically gaslighting, with a stick.
I only read 1984 a couple of years ago. I knew a lot of its themes from real-world analogies but mostly the bits about oppression and surveillance. Actually reading the book made me appreciate the much weirder themes of psychological manipulation, especially forcing people to think two contradictory thoughts at once. Honestly, it still hard for me to grasp that but I'm at a point where I'm beginning to understand that this way of thinking has a place in real-world society, that this is something that can work. I don't think I have any two contradictory things I genuinely believe in, but would I even notice, isn't that the point?
Interesting comparison, thanks!
One minor disagreement about intent after giving it more thought:
Some people with mental disorders (specifically Narcissism and BPD) will frequently gaslight, but not necessarily intentionally. They are just blind to the practice, as the world revolves around them.
I disagree slightly with @Adys' characterization, though I'd agree that it's been broadened well past its original meaning.
I think the original usage is along the lines of "trying to make someone think they're crazy." See the usage in the song "Gaslighting Abbie" 20 years ago.
People started applying it to the Trump administration when the admin would lie even in the presence of obvious evidence against their claims. In a 2018 Psychology Today story, they cite Trump's denial of remarks he said on video as gaslighting, since they feel it matches their definition:
In particular they call out his remark that "What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
I'd argue that even this is not exactly in line with the original usage. While Trump is trying to muddy the waters of fact and fiction and sow doubt among those who will not seek out the truth, I think of gaslighting as trying to make someone doubt their own credibility/mental faculties. Trump, on the other hand, wants to make his listeners distrust others: those who share facts that are harmful to him. And the effect that it has on his detractors is also not to make them doubt their sanity sincerely so much as to enrage them.
In more popular usage today, people are starting to apply it to many instances of lying or invalidating someone's experience, but I think that's a much broader application.
I think this is probably the most succinct definition. It's one person using a combination of lying, sowing doubt, and abusing authority to make someone else question their own perception of reality. The originating example illustrates this in a very literal fashion: the lamps are unquestionably and objectively getting dimmer. But the husband convinces the wife that her perception of reality is wrong.
So it's more than just lying, it's using lies and other tactics to warp someone's perceptions so much that they doubt their own ability to correctly perceive something. The really insidious part of gaslighting is that the goal isn't necessarily to convince someone of something that isn't true. Getting someone to question their own perception of reality leaves them confused and looking for direction, which leaves them open to being directed by someone else. The other key part of gaslighting is that the abuser also sets themselves up as an authority figure or trustworthy figure. So when someone is looking for that help and direction, the abuser also conveniently has all the answers.
While I'm contradicting my original comment slightly, I think there's some value in calling out the impact of the brazenness of, for example, Trump's denial of his own on-the-record comments. See the "Shaggy defense" (named for the excellent song, "Wasn't Me" by Shaggy), wherein one denies culpability in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It's not so much that it actually convinces us, but that we're left somewhat speechless or without recourse because we'd never expect someone to deny something that's so well-supported.
Nonetheless, this is not necessarily "gaslighting," per se.
I agree, it's worth pointing out that this is somehow both the same and yet at the same time worse.
I think this is what angers me about so much of Trump's behavior. It's not that he lied, or did any number of shady things. It's that the unspoken social contract that I was operating under was broken when he was exposed and nothing happened to him. Over. And Over. And Over.
So err... The whole exchange between Palpatine and Anakin in the opera would be the former gaslighting the latter?
I think it's similar, but I personally wouldn't describe it as gaslighting. Palpatine is manipulating Anakin, but he's doing so by making him question the intentions of other people, rather than an observable fact.
Both involve lying, but I think it doesn't qualify as gaslighting unless Palaptine where to offer up something that could be directly disproved. Such as "I heard Jedi Master Bob say XXX", which is a provable fact. Or "remembering" things that didn't actually happen, and questioning why Anakin doesn't also "remember" them. As opposed to offering up a warped interpretation of the Jedi's words and actions.
This is beyond the area of my expertise :P
The way "gaslighting" is currently used, it often means "bombarding with propaganda".
When used in the context of a single person lying, it doesn't make sense, but if that person lying is part of a larger group of incessent, often-contradictory lies, calling it gaslighting makes a lot of sense.
Especially when those same people tell you: "you can't trust the media", "everyone other than me is lying to you", etc.
In other words, in its current usage, it means propagandizing; denying reality; breaking people's ability to determine what is true or false.
Edit: I think @cfabbro wrote a better summary than I did, so refer to that.
It seems to be about getting someone to doubt their own memories of what happened. The lie has to contradict their own previous observations. The catch-phrase is, “who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?”
For example, when a politician says something on camera and later denies they said it, then it’s contradicting people’s memories of what they previously saw. This is more brazen than lying in a way that doesn’t contradict what was previously known. Someone who was worried about being caught lying would attempt to make believable lies that are consistent with what people know already.
So, properly speaking, there has to have been some previous direct evidence that it’s a lie. But I think like a lot of popular insults it gets used loosely.
In my understanding, the term rose to prominence years ago, largely in feminist forums and outlets. It stayed true to the original meaning from the play, and was particularly used when describing psychological manipulation in domestic abuse. It's a good metaphor and the etymology is interesting, so it's easy to see how it spread.
As more people came across it and applied it in less apt situations, its meaning became diluted. Eventually it reached politics, where it has become almost useless. In the new context 'gaslighting' is equivalent to "pretending that a narrative is true", and does not require focused intent to manipulate and confuse. In contrast to the original meaning, some people even use it to describe self-deception and willful ignorance.