What a nice, useful article on an overused term. Sincerely, people are doing exactly what she talks about all the time and if they are they should read this!

However, political, institutional, and medical gaslighting happens every day.

To get the full effect go to university and sign up for courses on critical race theory, post colonialism, queer theory, gender studies, disability studies, or more generally ableism. Words to look for include “critical theory” and “inter-sectionalism.”

Concepts you won’t need or find will include empiricism, critical thinking, and any meaningful coverage of western literature, unless of course as a vehicles to denigrate them and their authors.

Or save money and just watch major tv “news” or mainstream print media, Twitter etc.

Bonus points, if you live in the states, just follow public teachers unions in the big cities and attend school board meetings in those areas.

Seems to me that gaslighting, or being gaslit, is simply another way of saying “i’m in a relationship” – of pretty much any kind!

I’d go further, and say that having relationships simply involves consenting to being gaslit, perhaps as a preferable option to living the life of an hermit. Everyone, in the non-pathological sense in which Stock describes it so entertainingly, is seeking to influence everyone else to a greater or lesser degree. Indeed, the phenomenon of being termed an ‘influencer’ suggests we recognise all this and (at least some) positively seek it out.

When we choose which Unherd articles to read, we’re consenting to being potentially influenced, or perhaps to having our ideas, our ‘reality’ reinforced. The opposite of walking the gaslit street is to retreat into our echo chamber.

That this feeds into the narrative of critical theorists is no coincidence. Stock’s defenestration from Sussex has opened up a window for us all to contemplate. Dare we jump, or will we be pushed?

Good, calm article. Language evolves, in response to unadmitted politics. “To “gaslight” someone once had a specific, narrow meaning; now, as the author notes, it’s close to being a synonym for merely arguing. Of course, in the age of new secular religions, mere disputation now is A Bad Thing and must be discouraged. I have similar reservations with folks – on both left and right – using overblown words such as “tyranny” and “dictatorship” when talking about e.g., Priti Patel, or the EU.
In the law faculty in Queens Univ Belfast, many years ago, one would be set a “moot” essay on an assigned (contentious / arguable) subject. You had no choice of what subject might be assigned to you. You’d be asked to write 2 essays, one for one side of the argument, and one for the other. Then there’d be a faculty mooting competition, presided over by an actual beak. And you’d be told a couple of days before which side you were taking.
All good training for life, never mind law. But a form of mental discipline that, in our age of boil-in-the-bag secular certainties, seems about as archaic as ‘phone boxes, cash and choke-levers on cars. The idea that, for the crack, you could argue against your own position has largely been lost. 
From a short blog I did on the topic (with a clip of an elderly Heidegger):
“The basis of thinking is an ability to embrace inner conflict. If you wish seriously to think about anything, you have to dismantle your own comfortable ideas, and argue against yourself. 
That’s the basis of an adversarial legal system; both sides in a case slug it out and try to make dirt of each other’s position. And, obviously, swap the lawyers, and they will easily tomorrow argue against their own position yesterday.
That seeming cynicism and amorality leads to lawyers being culturally derided as unprincipled by the hoi polloi.
However, it also points up how principle itself is an impediment to thinking.”
Blog here: https://ayenaw.com/2021/07/18/post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc/

I think it’s sad that a strong word with a very specific meaning has been diluted to mean no more than trying to persuade someone they’re wrong. Why has this happened? I think because the word has such a lovely sound that people can’t resist using it and also because it has victimhood built into it.
Can’t be helped, of course. Language evolves and often for the worse.

It seems we’re dealing with a common abuse of language: the dilution of the meaning of a word by applying it sloppily (or with intent) beyond its original scope. An example: “survivors” are no longer those that survive a dangerous situation— often one that might have killed them or others— but instead are people who underwent an unpleasant experience. The idea is to wrap a cheap idea in expensive paper.

The fact that a bunch of undereducated ignoramuses use a term they never bothered to look up so they would know what it actually entails doesn’t preclude the ongoing gaslighting by both political parties and their cohorts in the mainstream media. It may have originated as an evil scheme to rob someone, but it’s based on principles known since Bernays told us how useful it was to maintain political and social control over the masses.
You could just have easily cited “genocide” and “brainwashing”, two other terms eagerly bandied about on a regular basis. I could probably come up with another dozen if I set my mind to it.
Dismissing the very real fact that the public is being bombarded with carefully designed propaganda 24/7/365 is dangerous, because especially in the US, where critical thinking skills ceased being taught in public schools 40-odd years ago, it allows the march toward authoritarianism to continue unabated.

Brilliant. I’ve been a bit unclear what “gaslighting” actually is, or is meant to be (understandable given its breadth of application and ubiquity) and this makes it very clear. It’s another weapon (the accusation, not the act)

Fair enough, though I think gaslighting is a useful term to describe the abuser who then blames you for the abuse and tells you they are actually the ones being abused.

The universe is gaslighting every one of us. And all creatures that feel any emotion at all.

Gaslighting isnt convincing someone they are wrong and you are right about something.
It’s much narrower than that, it’s trying to convince someone that their perceptions are wrong and that therefore they are crazy. If people use it in a more broad nebulous sense it will cease to have any power as a word beyond every day retorts of disagreement