The warning that “the concept of gaslighting is being abused” can itself silence victims — how careless expert communication causes secondary harm
4月 24, 2026菅原隆志25 min read
記事を共有するアクション
有料100円税込
“Isn’t that misusing the word gaslighting?” This one line can, depending on the situation, stop a victim’s voice and inflict further harm—there is a real-world danger like that.
Of course, once a term spreads, misuse is natural. So there is no need to completely reject efforts to “protect the accuracy of the concept.” The issue is who this talk of “the abuse of the concept of gaslighting” is being delivered to, what it is delivering, and how it functions. Especially when the speaker is an expert or a mental health professional, the impact becomes even more serious.
In this article, I will examine from a clinical and support perspective why arguments about “misusing the concept” can become a form of silencing, why expert communication tends to increase secondary victimization, and what is truly needed instead.
What is gaslighting? Its essence is manipulation that erodes reality testing
The core of gaslighting is not simply denial or an argument. It is a relational form of manipulation that gradually undermines reality testing so that the victim can no longer trust their own perceptions, memory, or judgment.
Typically, the following elements are intertwined:
Repetition: not a one-off, but something repeated over time
Power imbalance: differences in status, dependence, authority to evaluate, financial power, and so on
Blocking counterevidence: a structure in which nothing works, such as “even if you show evidence, it is denied” or “even if you explain it, it is twisted”
Isolation: reducing places to seek advice and taking away standards for judgment
Fixation of self-doubt: “Maybe I’m the problem,” “Maybe I’m the one who’s strange” becomes the norm
The more deeply we understand it, the more serious it becomes. And that is why “being there” matters
Conversation
Be the First Voice
この場所に、最初の感想や気づきをそっと残せます。