Gaslighting
Getty
Merriam-Webster’s word of the year for 2022 is “gaslighting.” It’s both an apt word to describe a range of real and serious experiences, and an overused term that threatens to trivialize those same experiences. Either way, “gaslighting” is a word that is especially familiar to many people with disabilities. The word seems to give name and shape to one of the most common yet hardest to identify forms of ableism.
So what is “gaslighting”? It’s not just lying. It’s not being honestly wrong. It’s not expressing a different opinion or perspective, even if it is significantly different from the opinion or perspective of the person who feels they are being gaslighted.
Gaslighting is when someone tries to make you doubt yourself. It’s an attempt to undermine your own judgment. They don’t just claim that you’re wrong about certain things, but that your perceptions and character are fundamentally flawed. The goal of gaslighting is to make you think there’s something wrong with you so that you stop trusting yourself.
Gaslighting can also mean a deliberate attempt at control. People with disabilities, in particular, are often the subject of attempts at control from others. Sometimes it is for malicious reasons, such as financial fraud or emotional manipulation, but often it is for seemingly innocent motives, such as protecting a person with a disability from danger when they seem unable to protect themselves. But either way, such control is almost always invasive. Attempts to control people with disabilities through psychological manipulation can properly be called “gaslighting,” no matter how legitimate the reasons may seem.
Here are three common beliefs people with disabilities hear, all of which can act as a form of gaslighting.
1. Discrimination against people with disabilities is natural
Though it’s rarely stated so explicitly, there’s a fairly common belief that ableism (or prejudice against disabled people) is in some ways true and real, and therefore in some ways less offensive. This is part of a broader revival of other long-discredited “sour opinions” about “survival of the fittest” that justify all kinds of social domination, dominance, and neglect. And there will always be people who try to attract attention and feel “brave” and “free-thinking” by openly espousing offensive ideas, including the inherent inferiority of disabled people.
The idea of ableism leads to other ideas: it’s natural to feel uncomfortable around disabled people. It’s reasonable to expect disabled people to be less capable. It’s natural for able-bodied people to feel uncomfortable, awkward, and disrespectful towards disabled people. It’s unrealistic to expect anything else. After all, by definition, being disabled means being less capable, unfit in some way. Other animals reject those that are deformed and unable to survive on their own. So it’s not surprising that humans have some of the same tendencies, at least instinctively. And so on…
Of course, some of that is partially true.
Having a disability makes it difficult to walk, talk, see, hear, etc. And some non-disabled people have an almost instinctive disgust when they see a disabled person. This is a fact of life.
But this realism becomes harmful gaslighting when it is used to suggest that ableist reactions, preferences, and habits are “natural” and therefore justified. It is gaslighting when ableist ideas are used to reinforce ableist people’s feelings of self-loathing and worthlessness. It is also gaslighting when it makes ableist people doubt the few positive signs of inclusion and love they actually receive from non-ableist people.
But what purpose does this form of gaslighting serve? It justifies ableism on an individual level – if it’s natural, who is to blame? And it provides a basis for questioning modern progress in attitudes towards disability, justifying old prejudices as somehow more authentic than “woke” attitudes and standards.
More insidiously, the movement tries to convince disabled people that they would be better off accepting ableism – that they should accept their inferior status and essential strangeness and learn to remain calm in the face of ableist remarks, ridicule, and jokes – while undermining efforts by disabled people to organize and claim basic rights and social support. Worst of all, actively justifying ableism is seen as a justification for eugenic policies that eliminate disabled people and portray efforts to support them as futile and bad for society.
2. Able List violations are unintentional
Disabled people hear variations on this theme all the time: “He didn’t mean anything!” They are constantly reminded that awkward, outdated, or inappropriate comments are unintentional. And other forms of ableism are largely unintentional as well. It is wrong for disabled people to assume ill will toward all ableism, and it is important for disabled people to be patient and understanding, give people the benefit of the doubt, and educate. Or so the conventional argument goes about how disabled people should respond to ableism.
If someone calls a person with a disability “disabled,” it’s probably because they’re not familiar with the new terminology. If they say “special needs” or “different abilities,” it may be awkward, but it’s well-intentioned. And failures in accessibility and facilities are due to practicality and lack of resources, not deliberate exclusion of people with disabilities.
Again, there is some truth to this idea.
Disability terminology and etiquette standards change frequently, and many people say awkward things to people with disabilities when they truly believe they are using the correct terminology. There are almost always practical and financial constraints on accommodations and accessibility. Failure to meet modern access and accommodation standards is not necessarily due to intentional hostility toward people with disabilities.
But urging disabled people to always be tolerant and diplomatic on these issues can also be a subtle but powerful form of gaslighting.
Telling people with disabilities that it is unkind or even abusive to blame others for treating them poorly is classic victim blaming. Persuading people with disabilities to view accommodations and accessibility as rare acts of charity for which they should be grateful makes them feel even more dependent, powerless, and demanding. Suggesting that active disability advocates are unreasonable and counterproductive weakens and discredits both the self-advocacy necessary for individual survival and the organized disability movement for social progress.
And that is often the underlying purpose of this type of disability gaslighting: to discourage disabled people from complaining about ableism. Instead, they encourage them to be nice, comforting, modest, and submissive. They place the responsibility on disabled people themselves to make life easier for their non-disabled friends, family, colleagues, and service providers. At the same time, this type of gaslighting also removes pressure from companies, organizations, and governments to ensure equal access and opportunities for disabled people.
Making disabled people feel guilty or wrong for feeling angry about ableism and other injustices makes life a little easier for others — which is probably one of the reasons why the idea of benign, unintentional ableism is still so popular.
3. “The only obstacle in life is a bad attitude.”
This quote is best known as coming from figure skater Scott Hamilton, but it could be said by anyone. In some ways, it’s a fairly general statement about the importance of positivity, but it also expresses a mindset about disability that, while certainly appealing, clearly has a gaslighting effect on disabled people.
This is a tempting idea that “disability” is not a real thing, it’s just a difference. The theory is that ableism exists in society because people are too fixated on distinguishing people by ability and disability. So if you refuse to think of yourself as disabled, you can overcome the disability itself. Instead of focusing on disabilities, you should focus on abilities. Complaining about disabilities and ableism is not helpful; it only perpetuates negative beliefs about disability. Disabled people are most often told by friends and family, “I don’t even think of you as disabled!” Also, some parents, teachers, and counselors encourage disabled people not to identify as disabled, on the assumption that doing so will somehow make them even more disabled.
There is some merit to this idea, at least in the broadest sense.
It is generally a good idea for those close to disabled people to focus on other aspects of their character and talents rather than just focusing on their disability. A certain amount of positivity is beneficial for most people, and for many disabled people too. And an overly depressed, defeatist or helpless self-image is of little benefit, especially for disabled people.
Positivity becomes gaslighting when emphasizing strengths means denying very real and practically significant disabilities and barriers. Insisting that disability is irrelevant hurts disabled people when they are encouraged not to associate with other disabled people or to not care about disability issues and culture. If disabilities do not actually exist, barriers and problems can only be attributed to a lack of character or determination. Redefining disability as something that does not exist is an interesting intellectual exercise, but it often does more harm than good to real disabled people.
Often these are sincere, positive efforts to change attitudes, recognizing that disability is simply a human difference. But more often such representations are laborious, almost desperate efforts to deflect attention from something horrible, change an uncomfortable topic, or avoid ableism by denying disability itself. The effect can be a gaslighting attempt to stop disabled people from talking about their disability, to make themselves as normal and invisible as possible.
There’s also a more practical problem: running away from the label “disability” also undermines the legal rights, accessibility, accommodations, and support that people with disabilities have that are based on a definable, recognized impairment. This becomes harder to address when we don’t allow ourselves to name and talk about our disabilities.
How can we avoid this type of gaslighting towards people with disabilities? Here are some suggestions:
Avoid common positive disability clichés, as they can dilute and negate the experiences and feelings of disabled people, rather than empowering them. Don’t ignore or try to redefine the difficulties disabled people face and talk about. It’s one thing to discuss the most effective advocacy strategies in difficult situations; it’s another to get into the habit of automatically questioning and criticizing every time a disabled person talks about ableism. Don’t let specific criticisms evolve into broader character judgments and contempt. If you’re really frustrated enough to start thinking, “There’s something weird about this person!”, you should take a step back and reevaluate your approach.
Above all, beware the urge to “fix” or get people with disabilities to “change their attitude.” It can be especially frustrating when non-disabled people tell you to “cheer up” and “think positively” whenever something really difficult happens.