This morning, Merriam-Webster declared “gaslighting” its 2022 Phrase of the Yr.
M-W’s well-liked dictionary defines gaslighting as:
- psychological manipulation of an individual normally over an prolonged time period that causes the sufferer to query the validity of their very own ideas, notion of actuality, or recollections and sometimes results in confusion, lack of confidence and vanity, uncertainty of 1’s emotional or psychological stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator
- the act or follow of grossly deceptive somebody particularly for one’s personal benefit.
But, as we all know, dictionary definitions are of restricted worth in settling the that means of difficult or controversial ideas. Gaslighting is one such idea, and philosophers have been engaged on growing accounts of gaslighting that seize the suitable phenomena and assist us perceive it. For these all in favour of exploring the idea additional, under is a number of some philosophical work on gaslighting. Readers are inspired to complement this listing with different supplies and hyperlinks within the feedback.
“Turning Up the Lights on Gaslighting” by Kate Abramson (2014, Philosophical Views)
…The phenomenon that’s come to be picked out with that time period [gaslighting] is a type of emotional manipulation during which the gaslighter tries (consciously or not) to induce in somebody the sense that her reactions, perceptions, recollections and/or beliefs usually are not simply mistaken, however completely with out grounds—paradigmatically, so unfounded as to qualify as loopy. Gaslighting is, even at this stage, fairly not like merely dismissing somebody, for dismissal merely fails to take one other severely as an interlocutor, whereas gaslighting is geared toward getting one other to not take herself severely as an interlocutor. It nearly all the time includes a number of incidents that happen over lengthy stretches of time; it incessantly includes a number of events taking part in the function of gaslighter, or cooperating with a gaslighter; it incessantly includes isolating the goal in numerous methods. And there are attribute issues gaslighters say: certainly it’s outstanding how a lot overlap there’s between phrases that Gregory makes use of within the film, and the types of proclamations which might be made by gaslighters to their targets in actual life. I need to suggest an account of what’s fallacious with this fashion of interacting with somebody. To take action, we’ll want to start with an account of the construction of interactions that match the preliminary tough characterization simply supplied. Any such account of the construction of gaslighting interactions will contain some regimentation of the time period—in any case, what we now have here’s a colloquial and therapeutic time period that’s selecting out a recognizable phenomenon in human interactions, and the extra precision we give to what we’re speaking about after we speak in regards to the type of ‘loopy making’ manipulation that’s at problem in gaslighting, the extra we set parameters for what qualifies as central and peripheral instances thereof. My hope is to offer an illuminating account of the construction of gaslighting interactions that nonetheless preserves as its core that which has made it potential for “gaslighting” to turn into a colloquial time period figuring out a recognizable phenomenon. Then again, on condition that my purpose is in the end to offer an account of what’s fallacious with gaslighting, just some facets of gaslighting interactions can be pertinent right here.
“Allies Behaving badly: Gaslighting as Epistemic Injustice” by Veronica Ivy (previously Rachel McKinnon) (2017, Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice)
This chapter focuses on the unhealthy epistemic behaviors of “allies”, approached from a trans* perspective. One frequent type of unhealthy habits is that when “allies” are confronted with their unhealthy habits, they use their id as an “ally” as a protection; different occasions, folks will accomplish that on an ‘”ally’s” behalf’: “Dave couldn’t have behaved that badly, he’s an ally!” The chapter describes gaslighting for example of epistemic injustice – extra particularly, for example of testimonial injustice. In lots of instances, “allies”, when listening to an individual’s testimony, privilege their very own first-hand expertise over the testimony of the individual they’re purported to be supporting. Most likely, the “ally” suspects that the affected individual isn’t correctly epistemically located – maybe they’re not suitably goal – to correctly assess the state of affairs. Possibly the “ally” thinks the individual is anticipating to see harassment, so that they understand harassment when it’s not likely there.
“Epistemic Dimensions of Gaslighting: Peer-Disagreement, Self-Trust, and Epistemic Injustice” by Andrew Spear (2019, Inquiry)
Miranda Fricker has characterised epistemic injustice as “a type of injustice during which somebody is wronged particularly in her capability as a knower” (2007, Epistemic injustice: Energy & the ethics of figuring out. Oxford: Oxford College
Press, 20). Gaslighting, the place one agent seeks to achieve management over one other by undermining the opposite’s conception of herself as an unbiased locus of judgment and deliberation, would thus appear to be a paradigm instance. But, in probably the most thorough evaluation of gaslighting up to now (Abramson, Ok. 2014. “Turning up the lights on gaslighting.” Philosophical Views 28, Ethics: 1–30), the concept that gaslighting has essential epistemic dimensions is quite roundly rejected on grounds that gaslighting works by the use of a method of assertion and manipulation that’s not correctly understood in epistemic phrases. I argue that Abramson’s deal with the gaslighter and on the ethical wrongness of his actions leads her to downplay methods during which gaslighters nonetheless deploy genuinely epistemic methods, and to dedicate much less consideration to the standpoint and reasoning processes of the sufferer, for whom the expertise of gaslighting has substantial and important epistemic options. Taking these options under consideration reveals that each one gaslighting has epistemic dimensions and helps to make clear what resistance to gaslighting would possibly appear like.
“Gaslighting, Misogyny, and Psychological Oppression” by Cynthia Stark (2019, The Monist)
This paper develops a notion of manipulative gaslighting, which is designed to seize one thing not captured by epistemic gaslighting, particularly the intent to undermine ladies by denying their testimony about harms carried out to them by males. Manipulative gaslighting, I suggest, consists in getting somebody to doubt her testimony by difficult its credibility utilizing two techniques: “sidestepping” (dodging proof that helps her testimony) and “displacing” (attributing to her cognitive or characterological defects). I clarify how manipulative gaslighting is distinct from (mere) cheap disagreement, with which it’s generally confused. I additionally argue for 3 additional claims: that manipulative gaslighting is a technique of enacting misogyny, that it’s usually a collective phenomenon, and, as collective, qualifies as a mode of psychological oppression.
“Gaslighting by Crowd” by Karen Adkins (2019, Social Philosophy As we speak)
Most psychological literature on gaslighting focuses on it as a dyadic phenomenon occurring primarily in marriage and household relationships. In my evaluation, I’ll lengthen latest fruitful philosophical engagement with gaslighting (Abramson, “Turning up the Lights on Gaslighting” [2014]; McKinnon, “Allies Behaving Badly: Gaslighting as Epistemic Injustice” [2017]; Ruiz, “Spectral Phenomenologies” [2014]) by arguing that gaslighting, notably gaslighting that happens in additional public areas just like the office, depends upon exterior reinforcement for its success. I’ll floor this examine in an evaluation of the movie Gaslight, for which the phenomenon is called, and in the middle of the evaluation will deal with a paradox of this sort of gaslighting: it wreaks vital epistemic and ethical damages largely via small, usually invisible actions which have energy via their accumulation and reinforcement.
“Gaslighting, First- and Second-Order” by Paul-Mikhail Catapang Podosky (2020, Hypatia)
In what sense do folks doubt their understanding of actuality when topic to gaslighting? I recommend that a solution to this query relies on the linguistic order at which a gaslighting trade takes place. This marks a distinction between first-order and second-order gaslighting. The previous happens when there’s disagreement over whether or not a shared idea applies to some facet of the world, and the place the usage of phrases by a speaker is apt to trigger hearers to doubt their interpretive talents with out doubting the accuracy of their ideas. The latter happens when there’s disagreement over which idea needs to be utilized in a context, and the place the usage of phrases by a speaker is apt to trigger hearers to doubt their interpretive talents in advantage of doubting the accuracy of their ideas. Many instances of second-order gaslighting are unintentional: its prevalence usually relies on contingent environmental information. I finish the article by specializing in the distinctive epistemic injustices of second-order gaslighting: (1) metalinguistic deprivation, (2) conceptual obscuration, and (3) perspectival subversion. I present how every reliably has sequelae when it comes to psychological and sensible management.
“Dilemmatic Gaslighting” by Cameron Domenico Kirk-Giannini (2022, Philosophical Research)
Current work on gaslighting ties it constitutively to information in regards to the intentions or prejudices of the gaslighter and/or his sufferer’s prior expertise of epistemic injustice. I argue that the idea of gaslighting is extra broadly relevant than has been appreciated: what’s distinctive about gaslighting, on my account, is just {that a} gaslighter confronts his sufferer with a sure type of selection between rejecting his testimony and doubting her personal fundamental epistemic competence in some area. I thus maintain that gaslighting is a purely epistemic phenomenon—not requiring any specific set of intentions or prejudices on the a part of the gaslighter—and in addition that it may possibly happen even within the absence of any prior expertise of epistemic injustice. Appreciating the dilemmatic character of gaslighting permits us to grasp its reference to a attribute form of epistemic hurt, makes it simpler to use the idea of gaslighting in follow, and raises the chance that we would uncover its construction and the related hurt in shocking locations.
“Emotional Gaslighting and Affective Empathy” by Katharina Anna Sodoma (2022, Worldwide Journal of Philosophical Research)
Gaslighting is a type of manipulation that undermines a goal’s confidence in their very own cognitive colleges. Totally different types of gaslighting could be distinguished in line with whether or not they undermine a goal’s confidence of their emotional reactions, perceptions, reminiscence, or reasoning talents. I deal with ‘emotional gaslighting’, which undermines a goal’s confidence of their emotional reactions and corresponding evaluative judgments. Whereas emotional gaslighting not often happens in isolation, it’s usually an necessary a part of an general gaslighting technique. It is because feelings may also help us to grasp the evaluative facets of our state of affairs and thus put us ready to protest wrongs, which is a context during which gaslighting incessantly happens. I argue that affective empathy constitutes an necessary antidote to emotional gaslighting. Affective empathy can result in endorsement of a goal’s emotional response as acceptable to their state of affairs and settlement with the corresponding evaluative judgment. When it results in endorsement, affective empathy can counteract the consequences of emotional gaslighting as a result of it reassures a goal of their potential to make evaluative judgments primarily based on their emotional reactions. Due to its opposing results, affective empathy with the sufferer thus constitutes an necessary intervention to emotional gaslighting on the a part of third events.
There’s additionally a set of articles on gaslighting and epistemic injustice in Hypatia, volume 35, number 4 (2020).
Your instructed additions to the listing are welcome.
