Gaslighting
From Wikipedia:
The origin of the term is the 1938 British thriller play Gas Light by Patrick Hamilton, which provided the source material for the 1940 British film Gaslight. The film was then remade in 1944 in America, and it is this film which has since become the primary reference point for the term. Set among London’s elite during the Victorian era, it portrays a seemingly genteel husband using lies and manipulation to isolate his heiress wife and persuade her that she is mentally unwell so that he can steal from her. The term ‘gaslighting’ itself is neither in the screenplay nor mentioned in either the films or the play in any context. In the story, the husband secretly dims and brightens the indoor gas-powered lighting but insists his wife is imagining it, making her think she is going insane.
For behaviour to be gaslighting, it must have three elements: (1) causing another to question their perception of reality (2) deception (3) the purpose of inducing insanity.
The word is widely used in the world of recovery to denote any disagreement by another person about what is going on in a situation. Sally challenging Susan and suggesting that Susan’s perception is wrong is not gaslighting. Sally would firstly have to know that Susan’s perception is indeed accurate and would secondly have to have an ulterior motive of inducing insanity, presumably to some other end. It is vanishingly rare that these three tests are met.
The inappropriate charge of gaslighting is a very clever ego defence: I am right about everything, and anyone who questions me is dangerous.
Narcissism
Narcissistic personality disorder is a technical term in psychiatry. The term ‘narcissism’ is bandied around in the world of recovery, particularly in Al-Anon. It is not used as a descriptive term but as a slur to get the listener on the side of the slurrer, to side against the slurred. What is usually meant by this is that the person in question is selfish. The difficulty is that the person who is making this charge is usually describing the other person as selfish because the other person is not doing what they, the person levelling the charge, wishes. In other words, we have a battle of two selfishnesses, and only someone with a full and impartial knowledge of the situation would be able to judge who, if either of them, is genuinely behaving selfishly. This would still be a far cry from a clinical description. The term is best avoided. If you mean ‘vain’, say ‘vain’ and provide evidence. If you mean ‘selfish’, likewise. Use ordinary words.
Toxic / toxic relationship
These are further terms used to avoid actually describing and holding up for critical analysis what is going on and instead to apply a label that defies analysis and challenge.
One particularly website on ‘toxic relationships’ describes 22 signs of toxic relationships, the first of which is ‘you feel disrespected’. This is nonsense for several reasons. Firstly, reality is not determined by a feeling but can be discerned by perception, interpretation, and critical analysis of that perception and interpretation. Feeling disrespected does not mean one has been disrespected. Secondly, the wording in the passive carves out the other person’s behaviour entirely: whether or not they are actually being disrespectful is irrelevant; if one feels it, the other person is guilty. Thirdly, there is no definition of what ‘respect’ means. Fourthly, it presumes that this elusive quality of ‘respect’ is something one is due. What if one is behaving badly or talking nonsense? Should the bad behaviour or nonsense be respected? Fifthly, people often conflate disrespect for a behaviour or a view with disrespect for a person. Sixthly, I myself have conflated disagreement or disobedience with disrespect. Often, the other person does respect me. They’re just disagreeing with me or failing to obey me. I do not command agreement or obedience: they are not due to me.
Rather than describing the other person as toxic or the relationship as toxic (both of which shift the responsibility away from me), how else could I describe what is going on?
I could do my own inventory and discover that I am immature and immoral and that, even if I am behaving well, I might be entangled with a person who or an institution which is immature and immoral, which opens me up to the question: What am I getting out of this? Why am I so bad at picking people and institutions to interact with? What insecurity am I allaying by putting up with this? The finger thus gets pointed back at me in a way that I can work with.