Gaslighting: what to do if you are denied adequacy?

If everything was too simple, then learning would be impossible. And the perception of the new, too. And the recognition of mistakes with their correction — too. And the very phenomenon of awareness of something, which implies the ability to look at the situation from a new point of view, too. After all, we only see what we want to see, right? It is a little surprising for me that this idea was loved not only by manipulators of various stripes (more on them below), but also by psychologists. For example, on my own Facebook (an extremist organization banned in Russia), in response to comments about the prevailing atmosphere of hatred in modern Russia, I received two comments from colleagues:

• “Yes, there is no such atmosphere, you need to watch TV less”;
• “As for the “atmosphere around”, I would venture to remind you that a person sees around him what he wants and can see. It is even naturally attracted to him and clusters around him. So, I think, the first thing a person should do when “feeling the atmosphere” is to look closely and, if possible, unbiasedly at himself.

Both comments — with varying degrees of elegance — deny the adequacy of the author’s perception and transfer the conversation to his personal, certainly not good, features.

There is one very important point here that separates manipulation from simple disagreement (after all, anyone can be wrong in their perception). With simple disagreement, they say: “I don’t agree with you, I have a different vision of the situation / feeling of the atmosphere” — we are talking about oneself, about one’s world and one’s vision. It becomes possible to contact two people, or at least the acquaintance of two pictures of the world. When “look at yourself”, the contact of two equivalent “Selves” is impossible, one of them, according to the conditions of the situation, is inadequate.

WHAT IS GAS LIGHTING?

In general, the idea is clear: if you are talking about something that you don’t see, don’t want to see, or don’t attach importance to another, then this does not indicate a difference in views, but that something is wrong with you personally. This idea and the associated manipulations have already been given a specific name — «gaslighting».

This word comes from the name of the Hollywood film Gaslight, in which this manipulation is displayed. On the Internet, it is found in rather mild versions, but in real interpersonal relationships it often turns life into hell.

Often comes to the idea that the interlocutor is mentally abnormal. I have encountered situations in which parents, in response to their children’s attempts to convey their claims to them, directly began to doubt their mental state:

— Mom, you beat me!

— It wasn’t. You are inventing.

Children, driven to despair by the fact that their parents completely deny cruelty, inattention, and neglect on their part, may begin to get angry and even scream, and immediately the manipulators turn on the second part: “Listen, your condition scares me. You’re crazy. Go see a psychiatrist.»

When gaslighting, there are two main patterns: «Adequate» («Normal») and «Inadequate» («Abnormal»).

“Adequate”, instead of listening to the words of “Abnormal” (not necessarily agreeing, by the way), rejects them right away — well, what good can this “hysterical”, “abnormal” and so on say? Very often this game is played by men in relation to a woman. If a man is afraid of strong emotions, then those who express them are often automatically recorded as “Inadequate”.

I remember the words of one young man heard in the minibus, loudly said to the interlocutor on the phone: “Now, if you weren’t freaking out, then there wouldn’t be a problem. Control yourself, then everything will be fine. It seems that in the picture of this young man there is only a “psychotic girlfriend”, and the reasons for her “psychosis” are exclusively in herself, and not in ignoring him.

“There was no such thing”, “you are inventing”, “you misunderstand everything” are frequent words in the arsenal of “Adequate”, which has a monopoly on “correct understanding”. Psychologically “savvy” like to throw phrases: “These are all your projections” (the fact that projections can be adequate is completely forgotten) or “These emotions of yours are due to the fact that you have not worked through your problems with a psychologist enough” (about that even an «excessive» emotional reaction does not mean the absence of a problem that causes it — is also forgotten).

Sometimes there is a complete lack of reaction to the words of another. I just listened and that’s it. He got up and went about his business.

Ultimately, the person assigned to the role of «Nermal» may actually begin to think that something is wrong with him, feel annoying, hysterical, too arrogant, and so on. I had situations when clients constantly asked me: “Is this reaction of mine is generally normal?”

And then in their family history, relatives were found who liked to say to clients: “This is some kind of inadequate”, “Heal your nerves!” or “Daughter, drink valerian, otherwise you got nervous about something” (and “daughter”, for example, just found out that her mother gave all her money to her lover).

“Adequate” does not have to be rigidly ignoring, he can be “understanding”, “sympathetic” — for example, in response to his wife’s displeasure, answer: “I understand you, you are depressed, that’s why you say so. Rest, please, and go to a psychiatrist, I am ready to pay any expenses.

How to be in such situations, if you are clearly recorded in the «abnormal»? To begin with: if you start to feel “wrong”, hysterical, torn apart in a permanent relationship with someone (against the background of dazzlingly shining “adequates”), you have become involved in this manipulation, the essence of which is to whitewash yourself, project all your shortcomings onto you .

What is the difference between gaslighting and reasoned disagreement?

It is important to remember that there is a difference between ignoring with devaluation and reasoned disagreement. The other person has every right not to share our vision of a relationship or situation, but without associating our vision with our shortcomings. There is also a difference between situational and systematic neglect.

Neither we nor our partners are perfect, and there can be both ignoring and unwillingness to discuss anything at a particular moment in time. The difference is that with gaslighting, this condition is the norm, a constant background, and not a rare episode.

The impossibility of «reaching out» to the other may be related both to the way we do it, and to the personal characteristics of the other and ourselves. But definitely not only with us. Even if we do something “wrong” (for example, we select such a form of expressing our feelings in which we don’t want to start a conversation at all), another person who sincerely wants to solve the problem that has arisen will try to take counter steps in the form of questions, clarifications, expressions of one’s own feelings.

In gaslighting, all this is absent, the efforts are made exclusively by the “Abnormal”. Gaslighting does not have to be deliberate or malicious. It is based on powerful shame and, as a result, unwillingness to admit one’s own imperfection and one’s own contribution to the problem. If strangers on the Internet begin to doubt our adequacy, this is the usual narcissistic arrogance.

What to do if you are a victim of gaslighting?

In short and simply, then get out of a relationship in which there is no place for you, your feelings and thoughts. Regain the sense of self-worth that inevitably suffers in the «problem-in-you» situation.

It is useless to play by the rules of “Adequate”, because the only condition that will allow him to recognize you as “Adequate” is complete surrender and rejection of all experiences and needs that are uncomfortable for the “Normal”. Even a divorce application — if it is a married couple — will be interpreted as «well, I told you that he (she) had brains on one side.»

And one more thing: we really see what we want to see. But, firstly, this fact does not mean that we see only this. And secondly… This does not mean that what we do not see does not exist.