Originally, it appears that gaslighting was defined as how someone is INTENT on "manipulating (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity." It came from the British play "Gas Light" along with two movie adaptions named "Gaslight".

But then in order to determine something to be gaslighting, this means you have to KNOW the INTENT of the person doing it, which is much easier to assume than verify.

In recent years, there's been an arising new definition of gaslighting which seems to be about IMPACT, in line with a desire to validate feelings and experiences of those who identify as victims which have otherwise been dismissed, denied, or silenced. This would work out great if the intent of this was strictly to validate someone’s experience. However, it appears that the definition has evolved to become some version of equating IMPACT and INTENT, ie "If I feel gaslighted (IMPACT), it means you are gaslighting me (INTENT)". The problem is, since it's obvious intent isn't always present, a new expression has arisen: "accidental gaslighting", implying that someone can be gaslighting someone else without intending it. Unfortunately, this also means that INTENT no longer matters for this to be true.

So if someone is gaslighting without intending it and someone is being gaslighted without intending it, then where is the locus of RESPONSIBILITY in the engagement?

What's interesting is, the same thing can be applied to microaggressions or any other morally important topics of today where people can have very different experiences of INTENT vs IMPACT without a real way to verify intent and without a real way to verify impact (while assuming that whoever speaks of impact would never say so with an intent to harm)

So how do we resolve these differences in relative experiences?

Let's try:

THE FACE-OFF OF TWO DIFFERENT REALITIES

Instead of speaking in such relative terms as intent vs impact (which there can be two of each in all engagements: the intent of one person and the impact of the other, and the intent of the other person and the impact on the first person) as actions and words are simultaneously launched in both directions, what if gaslighting is, to some degree, about two versions of reality fighting for SUPREMACY?

By supremacy, I mean ultimately some version of validation or that the existence of one reality is, at least, morally or intellectually more acceptable or correct than the other.

The problem here is that people have a difficult time acknowledging that it is perfectly normal that more than one version of (relative) reality can exist SIMULTANEOUSLY and this is a fundamental reason for the existence of conflicts in the first place: each person operates within their reality and it leads to harm/pain/suffering/trigger/defensiveness on the other side as the other side try to engage with a reality that is incongruous with their own.

AGREEABLE VS DISAGREEABLE

Generally the person who is the most agreeable (as a personality trait) will lose in an engagement with someone who is the most disagreeable, and for good reasons: agreeableness is about making things work with others (which is great and adaptive in the context of collaboration) instead of some version of "my way or the highway", which is what being disagreeable is (which is also great and adaptive in the context of protection against what is too different/too much/difficult for the nervous system). 

Which one is best? Well, it depends on whether things are going well (in this case agreeable is best) or not and at what point people begin to need to protect themselves (in that case disagreeable is best).

Ultimately you can train people to be more of what they are not, but until they are proficient in it, either agreeable or disagreeable is their engagement template and that's that.

OBJECTIVE VS SUBJECTIVE

In my work with people, there usually comes a point where they begin to try to discern the different between their RELATIVE experience and the actual reality of what is happening (which they cannot fully perceive without bias but can try to), ie the NATURE of the relationship and conflicts they have with another person. I'm always clear with them that their experience is valid and accurate FOR THEM, while it may look very differently for the other person. In fact, the experience of both people is ALWAYS valid and accurate, but if this experience is too different between each person it will lead to a sense that either or both people will begin to feel that their reality is fraying at the edges.

And that's the crazy-making experience of gaslighting: the other person’s reality begins to impact them, and as a result they begin to question their own sense of reality.

This clearly does not have to require the other person to be EGREGIOUS (intending or wanting to hurt the first person). It only requires at least one person to have a reality that isn't very solid compared to the other person's reality.

It's like two "kids" roughhousing and one kid is much bigger than the other.

Part of the problem is, too, that when such a conflict of (my vs your) reality arises, people's wounds/coping mechanisms/reactivity also begin to play a bigger role, which then involves deeper and deeper bias/polarization/protection/conflict.

This means that the two "kids" above aren't just roughhousing anymore: they are fighting because of the wounds present in their own selves. This means they are both trying to protect themselves AND their wounds. They are fighting for survival.

How well do you think this is going to go?

And this is the objective reality I try to help my clients witness around their experience and the nature of the reality of them and this other person they are in conflict with. It's rarely that one person is "bad" and more likely that two realities are fighting it off and one is losing--and that this sort of reality clashing template is likely not something that just arose a minute ago: it's likely something that's been living in my clients--and the person they are in conflict with--for a long time, likely way longer than their relationship with this person has ever existed.

And so it's playing out, likely again and again in my client's life, until there are more resources added to their system for the conflict to end. Which is why I'm coaching.

THE RESOLUTION BEGINS WITH SELF-RESPONSIBILITY

So what resources will help when conflicts arise?

It depends.

Solo, clients can begin to understand that everyone (including the other person they are in conflict with) brings their messiness and shadows (the messiness that isn't known) to the table. This is a given and will always be challenging for any people and any relationships. 

Of course, this is easier said than done. The pain of conflict and how it connects with old pains, conflicts, and suffering often needs to be resolved first so that my clients can fully engage with a present conflict without past experiences getting in the way. 

From there, they usually can begin to understand that the best and most responsible way to engage with other people's reality (as well as messiness and shadows) is to solidify the way they relate to themselves (by acknowledging feelings in some inner parts and feeling supported by other inner parts) to create a deeper personal integrity and truth to stand strong in when they face reality as well as other people and their reality. Armed with this, they can begin to engage with others responsibly, with sovereignty, agreements, and mutuality—and disengage more easily when it becomes clear this is not possible, workable, or realistic.

In mediation, clients will go through a similar experience of sharing about feelings and having them witnessed and acknowledged not only by their own inner parts, but also by the other person, and then this will lead to conversation about needs and how these needs can be fulfilled, either by each other, or within oneself, or by looking for resources outside of the relationship beyond mediation. But most often however, the greater piece of the work is usually just being able to hear each other without the crazy-making feeling of gaslighting when things get too intense because the mediator is there to help pace the conversation and in a way, hold everyone "honest" as a third party.

After this, the topic of gaslighting rarely even comes up because it's no longer about whose reality is most correct or valid or relevant: it's now about how they can bring these realities together in a way that works. As a shared reality. And if this isn't possible, walking away knowing they've given it their best as not all realities are meant to co-exist because not everyone has the tools and/or resources to keep these realities aligned and healthy together.

This is why people often break up: they made it work for a while, and in that process grew and contributed to each other (hopefully), and now that journey has run its course and is no longer serving them.

THE NEXT STEPS

Do you have conflict in your relationship? Would you like to see more clearly into the nature of how you relate and why both your realities are in conflict? I'm here to help. Send me a message and we’ll chat more or book a free intro session with me.