Have you ever had the feeling, when faced with an unsatisfactory, unfair, abnormal or even frankly violent situation, that you no longer know if you were really a victim or " only " making up your mind, if not completely losing your mind ? The technique of mental manipulation consisting of disorienting a person who is bullied until he or she is no longer sure of anything and especially not of his or her judgment has a name : gaslighting. Or cognitive hijacking. Increasingly present in the conversation on dysfunctional relationships, this notion is useful to know in order to maintain one's ability to perceive reality in situations of adversity.
The origins : a play with a diabolical plot
Gaslighting owes its name to a play by Patrick Hamilton that was staged in 1938 and adapted several times for the screen (notably by Alfred Hitchcock in 1938 and George Cukor in 1944). The argument is as follows : a man puts his wife under the influence by making her believe that she is losing her mind... Until she herself doubts her mental health, finds herself weakened and therefore even more submissive to her husband.
To do this, humans manipulate micro-details of their daily environment: they move objects, they lower the brightness of gas lights... When she expresses her feeling that their home is darker, he replies that she is delusional, that it is in her head that it happens. Little by little, the woman is convinced that her perceptions are wrong and loses all self-confidence. The husband doesn't even need to make her look crazy anymore, because she's the one who feels crazy... And could even end up becoming really so, by dint of it !
A mechanism of introjection
In 1981, psychologists Victor Calef and Edward Weinshel published a scientific article in which they compared the plot of the play to a mechanism known in psychoanalysis : introjection. Introjection is the act of unconsciously internalizing what comes from the outside world. Through this psychic process, the individual makes the beliefs, opinions, and visions of others his own without this going through conscious reflection and voluntary adherence. Introjection is therefore not the fact of changing one's point of view after having dialogued with a loved one on a given subject, for example. It is the fact of considering this external point of view as one's own because someone close to him has installed it as an indisputable truth. Children practice introjection when they inherit their parents' worldview without the possibility of being able to envisage that other worldviews are possible.
The construction of identity and personality normally allows the individual to develop his or her own vision of the world. Except when he is under the influence ! The individual under the influence is prevented from accessing his own perception of reality, as if obliged to internalize the vision of the world of the person (or group) that infantilizes and manipulates him. It is not surprising in these conditions that it is so difficult to convince the victim of a narcissistic pervert (or a cult group, for example) that he or she must get away from him as quickly and as far as possible. Weakened in his emotional maturity, the individual is no longer able to conceive that a reality other than the one he believes in is possible.
An analytical framework in the fight against violence against women
While psychologists analyze gaslighting through the prism of attacks on emotional stability, feminist activists take up the scenario of Hamilton's play to denounce psychological violence within couples. What happens to the heroine is not without homology to what women describe when they leave a controlling relationship.
Psychiatrist Marie-France Hirigoyen was able to identify a whole mechanism of blurring the victims' cognitive landmarks put in place by domestic aggressors: disqualification of their opinions and their words, denigration of their personality (" you don't have a sense of humor ", " you're too sensitive "), Guilt, questioning their abilities, denying their suffering... And above all, the reversal of the situation : the executioner pretends to be the victim (" you're trying to make me look like a bad guy in the eyes of others ", " you're making me live a hell with your delusions of persecution ", " you're going to end up making me depressed by making this face "...).
In her book Gaslighting or the Art of Silencing Women (Éditions de l'Observatoire, 2023), Hélène Frappat considers that gaslighting is not the work of a few people who can be described as perverse. For her, gaslighting is part of the patriarchal culture that takes less into consideration the words of women than men, suspects them of exaggerating, extravagating, and falling into the irrational. From Cassandra to Britney Spears, women are not believed, says Frappat. And not giving credence to a word is the best way to silence it. Who really dares to assert their perception of reality while feeling discredited in advance?
A concept activated in the face of " fake news " and " alternative narratives "
The concept of gaslighting is also of interest to observers of the collective conversation, especially when it comes to understanding social phenomena involving " fake news " and other " alternative narratives ". As in Cukor's film where the truth (of the reduction of the brightness in the couple's apartment) evaporates behind the thick veil of induced doubt, fake news claims to replace the understanding of an observable or demonstrated reality (climate change, social inequalities, for example) by questioning the conditions of collective conversation. The fake news does not say " climate change does not exist", but " people who talk about climate change are unreliable ". And this can disturb even the most Cartesian minds because by attacking the framework of trust in which everyone thinks about the world around them, the technique of gaslighting undermines the emotional and relational stability that makes the mere act of thinking possible! And yes, in order to think, we need to feel safe.
Gaslighting at work
The concept of gaslighting is also beginning to infuse discourses on labour relations under the term "cognitive hijacking". It is a person who does not transmit information that another needs to work. It is a person who imposes on another a narrative that transforms reality (for example, by speaking of " conflict " to describe outright violence, or even by denying the situation : " you are not a victim "). It is a person who communicates erroneous information. It is a person who, in the event of relational difficulties, refers the problem to the personality of the other person (" you have no humor "), to his or her cognitive skills and abilities (" you have no memory ", " you don't understand what we are talking about "), to his or her professional posture (" you can't stand feedback " when instead of feedback, the person is subjected to targeted criticism), their psychological structure (" I'm not responsible for the fact that you're self-conscious ", " don't care about your neuroses at work, please ") or even their mental health (" you're completely paranoid ").
How can we resist these maneuvers that are likely to severely boost self-esteem ? First and foremost, by looking after your own mental health. Any sign of loss of psychic balance and a fortiori of doubts about one's ability to perceive and interpret what is happening around one is a good and just reason to take care of oneself. It is perfectly legitimate and healthy to ask for help when you feel that you are wavering... And the earlier we intervene to preserve our psychological integrity, the less power we leave to act to the person who tries to gaslight us .
Marie Donzel, for the EVE webmagazine
