Finally, ‘gaslighting’ has become more than a dating buzzword

The presence of phrases like gaslighting and love-bombing in popular culture undoubtedly speaks to a wider culture shift in challenging abusive behaviour

Every summer, at least one ‘Love Island’ contestant is accused of gaslighting on the show (ITV)

TikTok’s West Elm Caleb, Love Island’s Jake Cornish, America’s Donald Trump: what do these three men have in common? They have all been accused of “gaslighting”, an insidious form of psychological abuse that distorts a victim’s view of reality by undermining and trivialising their memories, feelings and needs.

It’s a term that refers to a very specific form of abuse, yet it has evolved into a relationship buzzword. Seeping so far into our vernacular that the Oxford English Dictionary named it one of the most popular words of 2018, gaslighting has experienced what language experts call “semantic creep”, where the meaning of a phrase morphes over time as it permeates popular culture.

In its purest sense, gaslighting is a form of coercive control – a type of domestic abuse that has been a criminal offence in England and Wales since 2015. It forces victims to question their very sense of self, gradually eroding their agency in a bid to make them isolated, dependent and vulnerable to further control. By feeding someone false narratives and challenging their beliefs, abusers are able to keep victims in a chronic state of uncertainty, and manipulate their mental state for their own gain.

Despite being a technical definition, the term continues to gain traction in mainstream conversation. Every summer, at least one Love Island contestant is accused of gaslighting on the show (Women’s Aid has raised concern over the series on more than one occasion). Meanwhile, TikTok users recently inspired a diatribe against the so-called “West Elm Caleb”, a New York-based designer who was publicly condemned for gaslighting and love-bombing multiple women he’d dated.

Yet in its original, clinical-adjacent form, the term gaslighting had yet to make an impact within the legal system, where survivors of abuse need advocacy the most. That was until earlier this week, when The Independent exclusively revealed that the term gaslighting was used in a High Court judgement for the first time.

Charlotte Proudman, the award-winning human rights barrister leading the case, explained that her client’s perpetrator not only raped and abused her, but caused her significant psychological harm, using his authority as a mental health professional to convince the woman she had bipolar, an unfounded claim that was simply used as a vehicle to assert control. Prof Proudman won her appeal after a judge tried to undermine and frighten her client by threatening to have her child removed from her if she continued with her accusations.

This is a real watershed moment for victims of abuse, as it sets a legal precedent for future cases and finally acknowledges the serious nature of gaslighting in a legal setting. The least that we can give survivors of abuse is recognition of the torment they have suffered, particularly when their self-esteem has been robbed by their perpetrators, and this powerful ruling will give true validity to the phrase. While there’s a painful irony in gaslighting only now becoming recognised in the courts despite being a prominent definition in popular culture for years, the case is an important step towards a firmer understanding of the many facets of abuse.

The High Court ruling feels akin to Sally Challen’s case, a victim of domestic abuse who killed her husband after suffering years of physical and psychological torment at his hands. The landmark appeal saw Challen’s murder conviction reduced to manslaughter after new psychiatric evidence suggested that she was suffering from two mental disorders at the time of the killing, and paved the way for change to how the criminal justice system treats similar cases. I hope that this latest judgement gives further agency to victims of gaslighting and makes it easier to bring perpetrators to justice.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment, sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

This decision goes beyond helping victims of coercive control  – we’ve seen how important definitions like gaslighting are in high profile cases of sexual assault too. Prince Andrew’s lawyers were recently accused of “victim-blaming” and “gaslighting” after they requested Virginia Giuffre’s mental health records, including confidential notes from her counselling sessions. Prof Proudman condemned these tactics as being the very kind that abusers use to undermine their perpetrators.

While one could argue that the saturation of phrases like gaslighting and love-bombing could dilute the meaning of serious clinical terms and veer into hyperbolic territory, their presence in popular culture undoubtedly speaks to a wider culture shift in challenging abusive behaviour. The sheer volume of powerful men being outed as abusers has forced us to examine our tolerance for misogyny and abusive behaviour at every scale.

If we are equipped with the tools to call out abuse in all forms, whether on TikTok or in the family courts, we can better our understanding of coercive control and educate others on identifying such behaviours, in turn bringing abusers’ actions into the cold light of day. The recent court ruling is a vital moment in recognising coercive control as a devastating form of abuse, and if the popularity of the term gaslighting has helped secure the verdict, all the better.