On gaslighting

Abramson, an associate professor of philosophy at Indiana University--Bloomington, debuts with an edifying exploration of the ubiquitous yet often misunderstood term, which originated in the 1944 film Gaslight and spread in therapeutic circles before entering the public lexicon in the 2010s. According to the author, gaslighting occurs when one person "induce in another" the "sense that her reactions... qualify as 'crazy,'" and "that she isn't capable of forming apt beliefs." Yet the term has been stretched to encompass such phenomena as dismissal, shaming, and betrayal, according to Abramson, and has been misapplied in such notions as "structural gaslighting," which holds that social structures exert "crazy-making" effects on marginalized people. (Abramson disqualifies the phrase partly because gaslighting refers to interpersonal interactions, but acknowledges that the "prejudicial social tropes" upheld by these structures--that women are "hysterical and overly emotional," for example--are often utilized as tools by gaslighters.) While Abramson's prose can become convoluted ("it's immediately clear how implausible it is to suppose that whatever makes gaslighting wrong, and whatever that wrongness consists in, it's simply to be read off of 'whatever the wrong-making feature of wrongful manipulation is'"), she makes salient points about the ways gaslighting traffics on trust, and ends on an uplifting note, encouraging readers to "be articulate and specific" when describing experiences for which they might otherwise be gaslit. Patient readers will be rewarded. (Mar.)

A philosopher's consideration of the broader implications of the toxic behavior known as gaslighting. "Gaslighters chip away at people's sense that they can trust their own judgment," writes Abramson, a professor of philosophy at Indiana University. Since the term has "entered the colloquial lexicon," she writes, "there's been a commensurate surge in academic theorizing about gaslighting," first in psychoanalytic literature as a form of "projective identification." The author argues that, contrary to some recent discourse, gaslighting is "best understood as a form of interpersonal interaction rather than as a feature of social structures. To put it a bit starkly, people gaslight, social structures don't." While arguing against such a structural redefinition, she maintains that gaslighting is generally perpetrated by men, and that marginalized groups are most likely to be gaslit. "Sexist and racist norms can frame gaslighting [and] be employed as leverage by the gaslighter," writes Abramson. Over seven scholarly chapters, the author focuses on the essential qualities of gaslighting and the tools and motivations of the gaslighter, while limning differences between other "awful" behaviors--e.g., simple manipulation or lying--in order to emphasize "moral reasons to distinguish gaslighting from other morally problematic ways of interacting." Abramson suggests it is scarily ubiquitous in contemporary relationships, since gaslighters rely on emotional tools including love and empathy and, whether as intimate partners, abusive parents, or unethical bosses, wish "to destroy even the possibility of disagreement." Abramson capably references related fields like psychoanalysis and gender studies. Her approach to this hot-button issue is thoughtful, yet the academic nature of her discussion might lose lay readers, as it often relies on repetition for emphasis and wanders through long, jargony passages based on a limited number of case studies or cultural references. Fuel for debate about the semantic and emotional injuries inherent in personal relationships and social marginalization. Copyright (c) Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.