Gaslightinggetty

2022's Merriam-Webster Word Of The Year was “gaslighting.” It’s both an apt term for a set of real and serious experiences, and an overused word that threatens to trivialize those same experiences. Either way, “gaslighting” feels especially familiar to many people with disabilities. The word seems to name and give form to one of the most common, but hard to pin down varieties of ableism.

So what is “gaslighting?” It’s not just lying. It’s not being honestly mistaken. It’s not expressing a different opinion or perspective, even if it’s vastly different from one held by a person who may feel they are being gaslit.

Gaslighting is when someone tries to make you doubt yourself. It’s an effort t o undermine your own judgment. It’s not just arguing that you are wrong about a specific thing, but that your perceptions and character are fundamentally broken. Gaslighting’s goal is to make you think that there's something wrong with you, so you no longer trust yourself.

Gaslighting also implies deliberate attempts at control. And disabled people in particular often experience attempts by others to control them. Sometimes it’s for sinister reasons, like financial fraud or emotional manipulation. But often it’s for supposedly benign motives, like protecting a disabled person from risks when they seem to be unable to protect themselves. But regardless, such control is almost always invasive. Attempts to assert control over a disabled person through mental manipulation, no matter how justified the reasons might seem, can be properly termed "gaslighting."

Here are three ideas disabled people hear quite a lot, each of which can act as a form of gaslighting.

1. Ableism is natural

It’s rarely stated quite so plainly, but there is a fairly common belief that ableism, (or disability prejudice), is in some sense true and realistic, and therefore in some sense less offensive. It’s part of the broader revival of other long discredited “hot takes” on “survival of the fittest” that justify all kinds of social domination, supremacy, and neglect. And there’s always someone ready to grab attention and feel “brave” and “freethinking” by openly espousing offensive ideas – including the supposedly inherent inferiority of disabled people.

One ableist idea leads to another. It's natural for people to be uncomfortable around disabled people. It's logical to expect disabled people to be less capable. Non-disabled people’s discomfort, awkwardness, and rude behavior towards disabled people is to be expected. It's unrealistic to expect otherwise. After all, by definition, having a disability means being less capable, less fit in some way. Other animals reject those that are deformed, that can't survive on their own. So it's not surprising that humans have some of the same tendencies, at least instinctively. And so on, and so on …

Of course, some of this is partially true.

Disabilities do make some things harder to do, like walking, talking, seeing, or hearing. And some non-disabled people do indeed have an almost instinctive revulsion when they see people with disabilities. It’s a fact of life.

But this realism becomes harmful gaslighting when it’s used to suggest that ableist reactions, preferences, and habits are "natural," and therefore justified. It’s gaslighting to use ableist ideas to reinforce disabled people's self-loathing and sense of being unworthy. And it’s gaslighting to make disabled people doubt the few positive signals of inclusion and love they do receive from people who aren't ableist.

But what purpose does this form of gaslighting serve? It excuses ableism on the personal level. If it’s natural, then who can be blamed for it? And it offers grounds to question modern progress in attitudes towards disability, justifying old prejudices as somehow more authentic than "woke" attitudes and standards.

More insidiously, it attempts to persuade disabled people that they are better off coming to terms with ableism. It argues that disabled people should accept their lesser status and essential weirdness, and learn to be thick-skinned when confronted with ableist remarks, derision, and jokes. Meanwhile it undermines disabled people’s efforts to organize and advocate for fundamental rights and social support. Worst of all, positively justifying ableism justifies eugenicist policies that make disabled people dispensable, and cast efforts to support them as wasteful and actually bad for society.

2. Ableist offenses aren't intentional

Disabled people hear a variation on this theme all the time – “He didn’t mean anything by it!” They are constantly reminded that awkward, outdated, or inappropriate comments aren’t intentional. And other forms of disability discrimination are likewise mostly unintentional. It's wrong for disabled people to assume evil motives to every instance of ableism. And it's important for disabled people to be patient and understanding, to give people the benefit of the doubt and educate them. Or, so the conventional reasoning goes on how disabled people should respond to ableism.

When someone calls a disabled person "handicapped," it's probably because they aren't up to date on the newer terminology. If they say "special needs" or "differently abled," it might be cringey, but it's well-intended. And failures in accessibility and accommodations are about practicality and scarce resources. It's not about deliberately excluding disabled people.

Again, there is some truth to this idea.

Disability terminology and etiquette standards do change a lot, and a lot of people say awkward things to disabled people, honestly thinking they’re using the right terminology. There really are almost always practical and financial constraints on accommodations and accessibility. Failure to meet modern standards of access and accommodation aren't always about intentional hostility towards disabled people.

But urging disabled people to always be forgiving and diplomatic in these matters can also be a form of subtle but powerful gaslighting.

Telling disabled people that it's unkind or even abusive to criticize others for treating them badly is classic victim blaming. Persuading disabled people to regard accommodation and accessibility as rare acts of charity to be grateful for makes them feel even more dependent, powerless, and demanding. Implying that assertive disabled advocates are unreasonable and counterproductive weakens and discredits both self-advocacy that’s necessary for individual survival, and organized disability activism for social progress.

And that is often the underlying purpose of this flavor of disability gaslighting. It’s meant to discourage disabled people from complaining about ableism. It encourages them instead to be sweet, comforting, unobtrusive, and yielding. It places responsibility on disabled people themselves to make life easier for non-disabled friends, family, co-workers, and service providers. At the same time, this form of gaslighting also takes the pressure off businesses, organizations, and government to ensure equal access and opportunity for disabled people.

Making disabled people feel guilty and wrong for feeling angry about ableism and other injustices makes everyone else’s life a little easier. Maybe that’s one of the reasons why the idea of benign, unintentional ableism remains so popular.

3. "The only disability in life is a bad attitude"

This quote is most often attributed to figure skater Scott Hamilton. But anyone could have said it. One one level, it’s a fairly generic statement about the importance of “positivity,” But it also expresses a line of thinking about disability that is admittedly attractive, but often has a distinct gaslighting effect on disabled people.

This is the alluring idea that "disability" isn't even a real thing – that it’s just difference. The reasoning goes that we see ableism in society because people are too fixated on separating people out by ability and disability. So, if you refuse to think of yourself as disabled you can overcome disability itself. Instead of focusing on disability, we should focus on ability. Complaining about disability and ableism doesn't help — it just keeps the negative idea of disability going. Disabled people hear this most often from friends and family who say, "I don't even think of you as disabled!" It also partly explains why some parents, teachers, and counselors urge people with disabilities not to identify as disabled, on the premise that doing so will somehow make them more disabled.

There’s some merit to this idea as well, at least in the broadest sense.

It's generally a positive thing if people close to a disabled person don't only think of their disability, but focus instead on other parts of their personality and talents. A certain degree of positivity is beneficial to most people, including most disabled people. And an overly depressed, defeatist, helpless self-image is rarely an asset, especially for disabled people,

Positivity becomes gaslighting when emphasizing strengths means denying very real and practically significant impairments and barriers. Asserting the irrelevance of disability hurts disabled people when they are urged not to associate with other disabled people, or to take any interest in disability issues and culture. If disability doesn’t really exist, then barriers and problems can only be attributed to failures of character and determination. Redefining disability out of existence is an interesting intellectual exercise, but it often does more harm than good for actual disabled people.

Often these really are sincere, positive efforts to change attitudes so that disability really is just human difference. But such formulations are just as often strenuous, almost desperate efforts to look away from something scary, to change an uncomfortable subject, to avoid ableism by denying disability itself. Its effect can be a gaslighting effort to get disabled people to stop talking about disability, and get on with being as normal and inconspicuous as possible.

There’s a more practical problem too. Running away from the label of “disability” also weakens legal rights, accessibility, accommodations, and supports for disabled people, which are based on definable and acknowledged disability. If you don’t allow yourself to name it and speak about it, it’s harder to deal with.

How do we avoid gaslighting people with disabilities in these ways? Here are a few suggestions:

Steer clear of popular positive cliches about disability that instead of being empowering, can morph into undermining and denying a disabled person's experience and feelings.
Don't wave away or try to redefine the hardships disabled people face and talk about. It's one thing to argue about the most effective advocacy strategies in difficult situations. It's another matter to get into the habit of automatically questioning and criticizing disabled people every time they talk about ableism.
Don’t let specific critiques develop into broader character assessments, or contempt. If you get so frustrated that you actually do start thinking, "This person is crazy!" then it's time to take a step back and reassess your approach.

Above all, beware of the impulse to "reform" a disabled person or "change their attitude." From non-disabled people especially, it's galling to be told to "cheer up" and "think positive" in response to every genuine hardship.