Introduction
Gaslighting is a manipulative tactic aimed at making individuals doubt their own perceptions or sanity, typically to divert attention from abusive behaviors. This short article unravels the intricate web of gaslighting, exploring its sinister characteristics and its impact on individuals, particularly in the context of betrayal and infidelity. (If you would like to listen to the full conversation just click here)
Understanding Gaslighting
Historical Context
Traditionally, gaslighting was a psychological manipulation strategy aimed at causing mental illness or committing an individual to a psychiatric institution. In a modern sense, it’s a dark form of manipulation used to hide the truth or conceal immoral actions, often used in the context of betrayal. Below is a useful table that compares gaslighting and passive agression. This will help you identify the patterns better and gauge the degree of manipulation you are dealing with.
| Parameter | Gaslighting | Passive Aggression |
|---|---|---|
| Goal | Control and dominate the victim by altering their perception of reality. | Express discontent or exert control indirectly without open confrontation. |
| Communication Style | Directly deceptive, may deny or distort facts to confuse the victim. | Indirect and covert, often through sarcasm, procrastination, or silent treatment. |
| Impact on Victim | Erosion of self-confidence, self-doubt, and may feel they are losing touch with reality. | Frustration, confusion, and may feel belittled or disrespected. |
| Deniability | High, as the manipulator denies or alters facts making it hard for the victim to assert truth. | High, as the behavior is covert and indirect, making it difficult to address. |
| Typical Phrases | “You’re overreacting.”, “You’re crazy.”, “You’re being paranoid.” | Silent treatment, procrastination, backhanded compliments, forgetfulness. |
| Response Strategy | Documenting incidents, seeking support, setting boundaries, and possibly seeking professional help. | Addressing behaviors openly, setting clear expectations, and maintaining boundaries. |
Characteristics of Gaslighting
Gaslighting is categorized by several distinct behaviors. These include countering, withholding, trivializing, denial, diverting, and others. Each of these behaviors serves to distort the reality of the victim, making them question their sanity or perceptions.
Gaslighting in Betrayal and Infidelity
Personal Experiences
Narratives from individuals who’ve been gaslit reveal a sinister pattern of manipulation. These stories shed light on how gaslighting escalates the trauma already inflicted by betrayal, creating a dysfunctional and toxic environment.
Strategies to Counteract Gaslighting
Developing strategies to counteract gaslighting is crucial. Reflective understanding, emotional equanimity, and objective discourse are some strategies that can be employed. Indifference, in particular, is highlighted as a potent tool against gaslighting.
Passive Aggression Vs Gaslighting
Understanding Passive Aggression
Passive aggression and gaslighting often overlap, amplifying the manipulative strategy. A comparison table illustrates the differences and similarities between these two forms of manipulation, helping individuals identify and address these issues.
Strategies Against Passive Aggression
Taking an educational approach and guiding individuals towards more constructive communication are steps towards dealing with passive-aggression, which often intertwines with gaslighting.
What would Marcus do?
Marcus Aurelius, the Roman Emperor and Stoic philosopher, may have responded to passive-aggressive behavior with equanimity and rational discourse, as suggested by his philosophical writings. Below is a summary ceated by ChatGpt on how Marcus Aurelius might have dealt with these types of manipulative tactics. You will also see some quotes from Meditations that might be useful to memorize and add to your toolset of defence against gaslighting and passive aggression.
Here’s a hypothetical approach based on M.A’s Stoic principles:
- Reflective Understanding:
- Marcus Aurelius may have sought to understand the underlying causes of the passive-aggressive behavior, such as fear, insecurity, or frustration, instead of reacting impulsively.
- Emotional Equanimity:
- Maintaining emotional balance and not allowing the passive-aggressive behavior to provoke a reactive emotional response would likely be a part of his approach. Stoicism emphasizes control over one’s emotions and reactions.
- Objective Discourse:
- Engaging in objective, honest discourse to address the issues at hand calmly and logically could be a probable approach. Marcus Aurelius often stressed the importance of truth and rational discussion.
- Practicing Indifference:
- Stoics advocate for indifference towards things outside one’s control. If the passive-aggressive behavior continues despite efforts to address it, Marcus Aurelius might have practiced indifference towards the individual’s behavior while continuing to act virtuously himself.
- Personal Virtue:
- Marcus Aurelius believed in the importance of personal virtue and acting with integrity, regardless of the behaviors of others. He might have continued to behave virtuously, adhering to his principles, regardless of the passive-aggressive behavior.
- Educational Approach:
- He may have taken an educational approach, attempting to guide the individual towards more constructive communication and behavior through example and discussion.
Marcus Aurelius’ writings, particularly his “Meditations,” provide insight into how he may have approached interpersonal challenges, emphasizing rationality, virtue, and emotional control. Here are some quotes from Marcus Aurelius’ “Meditations” that support the outlined hypothetical responses to passive-aggressive behavior.:
- Reflective Understanding:
- When you have to deal with someone, ask yourself: What does he mean by good and bad? If he thinks x or y about pleasure and pain (and what produces them), about fame and
disgrace, about death and life, then it shouldn’t shock or surprise you when he does x or y.” (Book 8, Chapter 14)
- When you have to deal with someone, ask yourself: What does he mean by good and bad? If he thinks x or y about pleasure and pain (and what produces them), about fame and
- Emotional Equanimity:
- “To live life in peace, immune to all compulsion. Let them scream whatever they want. Let animals dismember this soft flesh that covers you. How would any of that stop you from
keeping your mind calm—reliably sizing up what’s around you—and ready to make good use of whatever happens? So that Judgment can look the event in the eye and say, “This is
what you really are, regardless of what you may look like.”” (Book 7, Chapter 68)
- “To live life in peace, immune to all compulsion. Let them scream whatever they want. Let animals dismember this soft flesh that covers you. How would any of that stop you from
- Objective Discourse:
- “If anyone can refute me—show me I’m making a mistake or looking at things from the wrong perspective—I’ll gladly change. It’s the truth I’m after, and the truth never harmed
anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance.” (Book 6, Chapter 21)
- “If anyone can refute me—show me I’m making a mistake or looking at things from the wrong perspective—I’ll gladly change. It’s the truth I’m after, and the truth never harmed
- Practicing Indifference:
- “It’s silly to try to escape other people’s faults. They are inescapable. Just try to escape your own.” (Book 7, Chapter 71)
- Personal Virtue:
- “To stop talking about what the good man is like, and just be one..” (Book 10, Chapter 16)
- Educational Approach:
- “If thought is something we share, then so is reason—what makes us reasoning beings. If so, then the reason that tells us what to do and what not to do is also shared.
And if so, we share a common law..” (Book 4, Chapter 4)
- “If thought is something we share, then so is reason—what makes us reasoning beings. If so, then the reason that tells us what to do and what not to do is also shared.
These quotes reflect Marcus Aurelius’ Stoic philosophy of self-reflection, rational discourse, emotional control, personal virtue, and educational approach which could be applied in responding to passive-aggressive behavior. Through these teachings, he advocates for a balanced and virtuous approach to dealing with challenging interpersonal dynamics
Conclusion
Gaslighting is a destructive form of manipulation, especially devastating in the context of betrayal and infidelity. By understanding its mechanics and developing strategies to counteract its effects, individuals can reclaim their reality and work towards healing. The insights shared in this article aim to shed light on this dark aspect of human interaction, encouraging a discourse that promotes awareness and healing.