Gaslighting, Psychological Abuse, and Abuser Insight
This is the unedited version of an article posted to Psychreg. You can read the final version here.
Gaslighting is an interesting word. Granted, I think most words are interesting, but given the attention this specific word has seen lately, I don't think I'm alone on this one.
Mind, most of that interest is directed at the more modern sense of the word—one Merriam-Webster added on designation as its 2022 word of the year:
the act or practice of grossly misleading someone especially for one's own advantage
I'm more interested in the traditional sense of the word. Specifically, I'm interested in how Merriam-Webster phrases their definition thereof:
psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one's emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator
In the term's namesake film, Gaslight, the antagonist makes a conscious effort to convince his wife she's lost touch with reality. Merriam-Webster's definition, however, doesn't specify intent—and I believe that's no mistake. I believe many acts of gaslighting—and, in fact, many acts of psychological abuse in general—are carried out without explicit malice. Let me illustrate with a hypothetical example.
As a child, Sal's mother often gave him mutually exclusive instructions. For example, she told Sal not to "over apologize," but she also told Sal that, when he apologizes, he should acknowledge what he's done wrong and commit to improvement. No matter what he tried, he couldn't seem to do both; he'd always fall short of one demand or the other.
As an adult, he confronted his mother about this behavior. Having no interest in explaining herself or admitting to having done wrong, she denied it. Even when confronted with specific examples, she insisted she remembered them differently or didn't remember them at all.
Sal came away from the conversation anxious and full of self-doubt. It wasn't the first time he'd confronted his mother about something only for her to deny it had ever happened. He felt sure of what he remembered, and according to those he confided in, his mother seemed psychologically abusive. Still, deep down, he couldn't help but think he was the problem. Maybe his memories really were wrong.
The above is a clear case of gaslighting—Sal's mother has repeatedly lied to him, and as a result, he's beginning to question his memories and even mental health. However, the mother's goal isn't to destabilize her son's grip on reality; it's to avoid accountability. In all likelihood, Sal's mother is paying no mind to how her behavior affects him.
It's unlikely Sal's mother even recognizes her behavior as gaslighting. Encyclopedia Britannica notes that many gaslighters exhibit some form of psychopathology and, as such, lack insight into their behavior:
Because the gaslighter is himself typically psychologically disordered, he is often not fully aware of what he is doing or why he is doing it.
Indeed, I believe many acts of psychological abuse in general involve a lack of self-awareness. As Kaytee Gillis notes in an article on Psychology Today, many abusers exhibit personality disorder pathology and, as such, may lack insight into their own behavior. Likewise, Sal's mother may suffer from some form of personality disorder, and as such, she recognizes neither her denial as gaslighting nor the contradictory instructions as a double bind.
That's not to defend the mother's behavior, to be clear. As Kaytee Gillis notes, "Whatever an abuser’s knowledge or level of self-awareness of their actions, abuse is wrong." Rather, the point is that the mother's lack of intent doesn't make her behavior any less abusive. I think this is something Merriam-Webster got exactly right: when defining abuse, it's not intent that matters; it's the impact on the victim.