ASRXXX10.1177/0003122419874843American Sociological ReviewSweet 874843research-article2019 American Sociological Review 2019, Vol. 84(5) 851 –875 The Sociology of Gaslighting © American Sociological Association 2019 https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122419874843DOI: 10.1177/0003122419874843 journals.sagepub.com/home/asr Paige L. Sweeta Abstract Gaslighting—a type of psychological abuse aimed at making victims seem or feel “crazy,” creating a “surreal” interpersonal environment—has captured public attention. Despite the popularity of the term, sociologists have ignored gaslighting, leaving it to be theorized by psychologists. However, this article argues that gaslighting is primarily a sociological rather than a psychological phenomenon. Gaslighting should be understood as rooted in social inequalities, including gender, and executed in power-laden intimate relationships. The theory developed here argues that gaslighting is consequential when perpetrators mobilize gender- based stereotypes and structural and institutional inequalities against victims to manipulate their realities. Using domestic violence as a strategic case study to identify the mechanisms via which gaslighting operates, I reveal how abusers mobilize gendered stereotypes; structural vulnerabilities related to race, nationality, and sexuality; and institutional inequalities against victims to erode their realities. These tactics are gendered in that they rely on the association of femininity with irrationality. Gaslighting offers an opportunity for sociologists to theorize under-recognized, gendered forms of power and their mobilization in interpersonal relationships. Keywords gaslighting, domestic violence, gender, sexuality, intersectionality George Cukor’s 1944 film Gaslight1 tells the how psychological manipulation dominates the story of Paula (Ingrid Bergman) and her new “post-truth” political era. The Guardian’s Ariel husband Gregory (Charles Boyer), who sets Leve wrote an article in 2017 titled, “Trump is about the task of isolating her and making her Gaslighting America.” Psychotherapist Steph- believe she is insane. His eponymous tactic is anie Sarkis, whose popular book Gaslighting to dim and brighten the gaslights and then came out in 2018, makes a similar argument. insist she is imagining it. Gregory aims to Gaslighting was even made an official part of undermine Paula’s sense of self and everyday criminal domestic violence law in the United life, to confuse and distort her reality such Kingdom in 2015, and more than 300 people that she must accept his imposed reality in have since been charged with the offense place of her own. (Mikhailova 2018). Today, gaslighting is an increasingly ubiqui- Despite its growing recognition as an abu- tous term used to describe the mind-manipulating sive power tactic, sociologists have ignored strategies of abusive people, in both politics and interpersonal relationships. Dozens of aHarvard University online checklists instruct readers on the “warn- ing signs” of gaslighting in their intimate rela- Corresponding Author: Paige L. Sweet, Harvard University, 1730 tionships. A second edition of Robin Stern’s Cambridge Street, CGIS S410, Cambridge, MA bestselling 2007 book The Gaslight Effect was 02138 released in 2018, and the new version considers Email: [email protected] 852 American Sociological Review 84(5) gaslighting, leaving it for psychologists to women do not typically have the cultural, eco- study. This, I argue, is a mistake. Gaslighting nomic, and political capital necessary to gas- is fundamentally a social phenomenon. Engag- light men—gaslighting is therefore a gendered ing in abusive mental manipulation certainly phenomenon. In fact, whether or not it is exer- involves psychological dynamics, but scholars cised by a male-bodied person against a female- have thus far disregarded the social character- bodied person, gaslighting tactics construct istics that actually give gaslighting its power. victims in terms of feminized irrationality. Specifically, gaslighting is effective when it is Recent survey data suggest that gaslight- rooted in social inequalities, especially gender ing is common in domestic violence situa- and sexuality, and executed in power-laden tions, preventing women from accessing intimate relationships. When perpetrators resources (Warshaw et al. 2014). As my anal- mobilize gender-based stereotypes, structural ysis shows, gaslighting can amplify the dan- inequalities, and institutional vulnerabilities gers already present in abused women’s lives. against victims with whom they are in an inti- Gaslighting can also prevent domestic vio- mate relationship, gaslighting becomes not lence victims from accessing institutional only effective, but devastating. resources that would help them escape the This article develops a sociological theory abuse. Indeed, the very institutions set up to of gaslighting using in-depth analysis of life help victims can become part of the gaslight- story interviews with women attending ing process. Gaslighting should be of interest domestic violence support groups. I define to sociologists, then, because domestic vio- gaslighting as a set of attempts to create a lence is widespread and gaslighting is a core “surreal” (Ferraro 2006) social environment feature of intimate abuse. by making the other in an intimate relation- Yet, the importance of gaslighting for soci- ship seem or feel “crazy.” I argue that gas- ologists extends well beyond the case of lighting tactics become consequential when domestic violence: first, gaslighting occurs in abusers mobilize macro-level inequalities other types of interpersonal relationships, cre- related to gender, sexuality, race, nationality, ating and exacerbating power imbalances; and class against an intimate other. By conse- second, accepting purely psychological quential, I mean that such tactics damage approaches to gaslighting risks the prolifera- victims’ sense of reality, autonomy, mobility, tion of context-free analyses; and finally, gas- identity, and social supports. lighting exposes how the association of Unlike psychological approaches to gas- women with irrationality exacerbates existing lighting, a sociological theory of gaslighting gender and sexual inequalities. A theory of must show how macro-level social inequali- gaslighting therefore offers an opportunity for ties are transformed into micro-level strate- sociologists to identify and analyze under- gies of abuse. Decades of research reveal that recognized, gendered forms of power and no form of abuse can be extracted from social their mobilization in interpersonal relation- context: anyone can use manipulative tactics ships across a range of situations. against anyone else, but such actions only transform victims’ lives—becoming abusive (Stark 2010)—when they are embedded in TOWARD A SOCIOLOGICAL relations of power. The theoretical framework THEORY OF GASLIGHTING offered here has two layers. Psychological Accounts of First, gaslighting works when deployed in Gaslighting power-unequal intimate relationships, creating an environment of “surreality.” Second, gas- Despite the recent journalistic use of gaslight- lighting works when perpetrators mobilize ing to name Trump’s political strategy, gas- gender-based stereotypes, intersecting inequali- lighting is traditionally understood as an ties, and institutional vulnerabilities against interpersonal, psychological dynamic. In fact, victims. This second point is critical because psychotherapists popularized the term. Sweet 853 Barton and Whitehead are thought to have attempt to determine the boundaries of vic- coined “gaslighting” in a 1969 Lancet paper tims’ realities. Johnson (2008:9) writes, “It’s that analyzed involuntary hospitalization as a her crazy behavior . that requires him to form of abuse.2 The term then appeared a control her . she’s [really] the abusive part- handful of times in the psychotherapeutic lit- ner. She’s so out of touch with reality that erature during the 1970s and 1980s (Calef maybe she should get some help.” Dobash and and Weinshel 1981; Gass and Nichols 1988; Dobash’s (1979:105) landmark study refer- Smith and Sinanan 1972). However, “gas- ences abusers’ consistent construction of lighting” seems to have fallen out of use until women as “exaggerating” and making up the psychotherapist Robin Stern popularized it in violence; abusers in their study even invented her 2007 book, which holds that gaslighting is tales of wives’ infidelities and tried to con- a phenomenon of “mutual participation” vince their wives the stories were true. Accord- between “gaslighter” (perpetrator) and “gas- ing to Richie (2012:43), these manipulations lightee” (victim). She writes, “The first step is create a “hostile social environment” that feels to become aware of your own role in gaslight- disorienting. In short, although IPV scholars ing, the ways in which your own behavior, do not theorize these “crazy-making” tactics desires, and fantasies may be leading you to as a specific phenomenon, they clearly recog- idealize your gaslighter and seek his approval” nize them as endemic to abuse. (Stern [2007] 2018:xxvii). This overview indicates that gaslighting is Although Stern claims that gaslighting is ubiquitous but under-theorized as a distinct gender-neutral, nearly all her case studies phenomenon in IPV research. The IPV litera- involve a heterosexual male partner as gas- ture overwhelmingly situates “crazy-making” lighter and a woman as gaslightee. Stern tactics within the broader context of “intimate