When the sense of reality starts to flicker

A vintage mystery-thriller flick provides a very current term for a form of psychological warfare that seems much in use lately.

Chris Large/FX/AP
David Thewlis (l.) and Andy Yu (r.) star in 'Fargo.'

I might not have noticed this term at all if I hadn’t just had to change a number of lightbulbs around the house. It’s a lighting term – but it signals a way to cast doubt rather than shed light.

And now I see it everywhere: gaslighting.

A usage example from Macmillan explains: “In the simplest of terms, gaslighting is the act of using misinformation and persuasion to make others question what they know to be true, to make them distrust their own memory and instincts, for your own gain.”

Here are two recent appearances of gaslighting on Google News, both in headlines (suggesting the usage needed no explanation): A commentary in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz called a politician’s recent visit “One Big Gaslighting Charade” and an entertainment website reported: “Seth Meyers takes a closer look at how the Trump camp is straight-up gaslighting us now.” 

On the TV show “Fargo,” actor David Thewlis plays a man who “cunningly makes a prosperous businessman ... question his own sanity in order to bleed him dry.” An interviewer called this behavior “gaslighting.” Mr. Thewlis agreed: “I like the term ‘gaslighting’ and it comes from classic Hamilton I understand.” 

He’s right. “Gas Light” was a 1938 play by Patrick Hamilton, later made into three different films (all called “Gaslight”). 

The 1944 version, directed by George Cukor, is generally seen as having brought “gaslighting” into the vernacular. In it, a villainous Charles Boyer woos and wins a young heiress (Ingrid Bergman) to gain access to her aunt’s London townhouse. It contains a secret stash of unimaginably valuable jewels the woman knows nothing of.

As he searches secretly in the attic for the jewels, he launches a campaign to drive his wife mad. He starts small: He hides his watch and pretends she’s taken it. He removes a picture from the wall and claims she’s hidden it. He messes with her mind to get her out of his way.

Amateur word sleuths should note that any term whose roots they seek is almost always older than they think. Gaslighting seems to be an exception to that rule.

Even if we understand where this term came from, though, not everyone agrees on the role of actual gaslight in the story. Earlier this year, in the Los Angeles Review of Books, Rosemary Erickson Johnsen wrote that most people assume that Boyer’s character “uses gaslight to drive his wife crazy, making it flicker and then telling her she’s imagining things in a deliberate attempt to undermine her sanity.” In fact, the writer argues, “[T]he alterations in the gaslight are one means by which the victim clings to rationality and exerts some agency.”

In a house lit by gas, turning up the flame in one room dims lights elsewhere. Bergman’s character eventually begins to trace her husband’s attic explorations, by the brightening and dimming of the lights. Aided by an earnest detective, she escapes her husband’s trap.

Strictly speaking, the husband did not actually use gaslight in order to gaslight his wife. But in the film, the lambent flames of wall sconces and other lamps throughout the house are a brilliant visual metaphor. They convey the way Bergman’s character feels her sense of reality has begun to flicker.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.