Are people overusing the concept of "gaslighting"?

[CheetahGirl]

I’m a doctor, and if you are still insisting a less powerful demographic can’t be racist you are wrong

It is not racism (by the operational definition above...), it is something else you're tapping into (as I stated previously, xenophobia, discrimination, prejudice, etc.). Again, we're talking high-level, deeply introspective perspective, with all your own personal bias on the table (not generally arrived at, by most...you have to want to see the truth, in order to accept it). The less powerful demographic will NEVER take the majority perspective in a society (nor receive the same treatment as the majority race by everyone around them. Case in point: Advertising - when one does not see ads of individuals who look like them, you simply do not adopt the majority perspective).

What kind of doctor, your specialty - may I ask?

Then, I can provide you a psychosocial global example of what you and I are both trying to convey (remember, as stated above....I studied this topic for 10+ years/longer even, since childhood - as I am an ethnic minority, raised in the U.S.,...and still am [studying this topic] in my current research, as a sidebar...my specialty is working with individuals with severe mental illness).

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[CheetahGirl]

We both know I am exactly the type of stupid that liked this movie when it came out.

OMG....it is one of my favorite movies of all time.

 

[clausewitz2]

@DynamicDidactic I agree with your point that humans tend toward discriminatory behavior towards outgroups left to their own devices, but I think they are equally naturally inclined towards coalitional violence if we are talking about drives plausibly shaped by natural selection. I tend to think neither of these impulses should be indulged.

A related term I have increasingly seen lose it's meaning is "mansplaining." The original sense of it describes something that 1000% happens all the time and is really noxious, it was a very useful summary of a very stupid behavior. And I thought I knew what it still meant until a friend of mine recently complained that someone was mansplaining to her and she didn't appreciate it. It turns out, in fact, that this person talking to her knew vastly more about the subject matter in question than she did, and she readily said as much. She did not, however, appreciate his tone, so he was mansplaining.

Whatever happened to just calling someone a condescending p***k?

 

[DynamicDidactic]

The less powerful demographic will NEVER take the majority perspective in a society (nor receive the same treatment as the majority race by everyone around them.

Can you please say more? Words like demographic, never, everyone, and will make this seem like a non-specific and extreme statement.

 

[CheetahGirl]

Can you please say more? Words like demographic, never, everyone, and will make this seem like a non-specific and extreme statement.

Oh Lord, please don't psychoanalyze my forceful choice of words...you are correct; they are extreme qualifiers but directed a very specific point being made, regarding @sb247's statement "if you are still insisting a less powerful demographic can’t be racist you are wrong." Less powerful demographic, by definition, is not the majority group. Racism is thrust upon the minority group by the majority group in a population (based on the majority group's perspective that their biological race is superior to others).

[BTW I like to discuss in terms of ethnicity, less invasive, more qualifying, interesting, and easier to connect with people when you ask them to share about their ethnicity and culture. I reserve racial terms for hardcore science needs or journals that require discrete racial groups, and this is clearly the social scientist in me coming out.]

"Racism" (by definition) in Southeast Asia looks very different than racism in the United States. We can change the population, but there is no need to change the definition. I hear "reverse racism" a lot, which sadly to those using the terms, is not a thing. It is the term 'racism' being misused, and in this case, "prejudice" would be more applicable. Going back to the OP's point about the term 'gaslighting.'

Edit: Wow....I stand corrected: "Reverse racism, noun: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism on the basis of race directed against a member of a dominant or privileged racial group." source: lexicon.com (I suppose it became a thing when I wasn't paying attention by anti-affirmative action folks in the U.S. and anti-apartheid folks in South Africa.) Thankfully, it says reverse racism is not empirically supported (so that's probably why I don't give the concept much credence), but widespread in the U.S. (making sb247's point about the less powerful demographic being prejudice, discriminatory, and thinking they are superior).

 

[clausewitz2]

Oh Lord, please don't psychoanalyze my forceful choice of words...you are correct; they are extreme qualifiers but directed a very specific point being made, regarding @sb247's statement "if you are still insisting a less powerful demographic can’t be racist you are wrong." Less powerful demographic, by definition, is not the majority group. Racism is thrust upon the minority group by the majority group in a population (based on the majority group's perspective that their biological race is superior to others).

[BTW I like to discuss in terms of ethnicity, less invasive, more qualifying, interesting, and easier to connect with people when you ask them to share about their ethnicity and culture. I reserve racial terms for hardcore science needs or journals that require discrete racial groups, and this is clearly the social scientist in me coming out.]

"Racism" (by definition) in Southeast Asia looks very different than racism in the United States. We can change the population, but there is no need to change the definition. I hear "reverse racism" a lot, which sadly to those using the terms, is not a thing. It is the term 'racism' being misused, and in this case, "prejudice" would be more applicable. Going back to the OP's point about the term 'gaslighting.'

So I think the basic problem is that your interlocutors don't share the definition you have stipulated for racism, and it is one that is at considerable variance with how "racism" is used by most English speakers. I wonder if you could speak to why you feel it must be defined this way? While I accept the view that oppression of minority groups by majority groups and the ways in which they are disadvantaged by institutions is something different from just expressing visceral and irrational dislike, I know I have had the knee jerk reaction against insistent that only the former and not the later counts as racism. Not saying you're doing this, but that can feel like a rhetorical sleight of hand, recruiting the revulsion that is generally shared these days towards open hatred based on race/ethnicity and trying to smuggle it over to a different construct. That is to say, "racist" is charged in a way "structurally oppressive in a systematically unjust fashion" is not and it's important not to play a shell game where you insist that people don't actually mean what they are saying they mean when they talk about racism.

Terms of art are important but it's also important to justify why a usage that diverges from standard English is superior or more apt in some way if you're going to insist on it outside of field-specific academic discussions where everyone accepts it already.

 

[CheetahGirl]

So I think the basic problem is that your interlocutors don't share the definition you have stipulated for racism, and it is one that is at considerable variance with how "racism" is used by most English speakers.

Agreed.

I wonder if you could speak to why you feel it must be defined this way? While I accept the view that oppression of minority groups by majority groups and the ways in which they are disadvantaged by institutions is something different from just expressing visceral and irrational dislike, I know I have had the knee jerk reaction against insistent that only the former and not the later counts as racism.

True.

Not saying you're doing this, but that can feel like a rhetorical sleight of hand, recruiting the revulsion that is generally shared these days towards open hatred based on race/ethnicity and trying to smuggle it over to a different construct. That is to say, "racist" is charged in a way "structurally oppressive in a systematically unjust fashion" is not and it's important not to play a shell game where you insist that people don't actually mean what they are saying they mean when they talk about racism.

Terms of art are important but it's also important to justify why a usage that diverges from standard English is superior or more apt in some way if you're going to insist on it outside of field-specific academic discussions where everyone accepts it already.

By the definition of 'racism' I provided, it 'opens the door' to the visceral and irrational dislike that need to be explored, in order to better understand what's going on underneath a veneer of discrimination, distrust, hatred. Is it truly because one thinks he/she is superior? Or is it something deeper? Prejudice, maybe? Feelings of inferiority (reaction formation)? However, if everyone already accepts this concept of racism (outside of field-specific academic discussions), but the 'misconstrued' notion adds to societal hostility, should we (as trained professionals) work towards educating others rather than letting misconceptions escalate?

As in my 'reverse racism' example (above, edited), if you do a quick search, the concept is perpetuated by white supremacists, which can be problematic (in my opinion), unless that particular white supremacist wants to live his/her life without causing harm to oneself and others. Then, to each their own, with their own individual worldview and belief system. (Who am I to say & judge?)

Again, I made a comment earlier that in today's zeitgeist, unless it's professionally relevant, I let most of it go......unless another SDNer tells me I'm unequivocally wrong. Note: I am also taking an anti-racist point-of-view, right? Not shying from the discussion, wanting to learn more, while self-correcting & growing when exploring others' perspectives...in an effort to promote racial equality (by acknowledging my own racial privilege & limitations).

 

[deleted480308]

Oh Lord, please don't psychoanalyze my forceful choice of words...you are correct; they are extreme qualifiers but directed a very specific point being made, regarding @sb247's statement "if you are still insisting a less powerful demographic can’t be racist you are wrong." Less powerful demographic, by definition, is not the majority group. Racism is thrust upon the minority group by the majority group in a population (based on the majority group's perspective that their biological race is superior to others).

[BTW I like to discuss in terms of ethnicity, less invasive, more qualifying, interesting, and easier to connect with people when you ask them to share about their ethnicity and culture. I reserve racial terms for hardcore science needs or journals that require discrete racial groups, and this is clearly the social scientist in me coming out.]

"Racism" (by definition) in Southeast Asia looks very different than racism in the United States. We can change the population, but there is no need to change the definition. I hear "reverse racism" a lot, which sadly to those using the terms, is not a thing. It is the term 'racism' being misused, and in this case, "prejudice" would be more applicable. Going back to the OP's point about the term 'gaslighting.'

Edit: Wow....I stand corrected: "Reverse racism, noun: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism on the basis of race directed against a member of a dominant or privileged racial group." source: lexicon.com (I suppose it became a thing when I wasn't paying attention by anti-affirmative action folks in the U.S. and anti-apartheid folks in South Africa.) Thankfully, it says reverse racism is not empirically supported (so that's probably why I don't give the concept much credence), but widespread in the U.S. (making sb247's point about the less powerful demographic being prejudice, discriminatory, and thinking they are superior).

You are using the word wrong. Racism is not in any way contingent on power

 

[DynamicDidactic]

Oh Lord, please don't psychoanalyze my forceful choice of words...you are correct; they are extreme qualifiers but directed a very specific point being made,

I spent a lot of time wordsmithing that post to avoid judgment. I am surprised that a fellow psychologists would accuse me of "psychoanalyzing" them, which is what I typically hear from laypeople. Those are extreme qualifiers and I often find extreme language leads to more problems than solutions (my DBT hat).

I am fine if you no longer want to provide any more information on the topic. It is not a topic I have taken a side on and, if anything, taken the middle road that definitions can change over time. I have not studied the topic as much as you.

Here is another question if you are interested in answering.

Less powerful demographic, by definition, is not the majority group.

I guess here we are going to have to discuss the definition of the word majority. A majority is those with the greater numbers. There are definitely less powerful ethnic groups throughout history that were the majority (e.g., Apartheid South Africa, Syria under Bashar al-Assad).

 

[CheetahGirl]

I spent a lot of time wordsmithing that post to avoid judgment. I am surprised that a fellow psychologists would accuse me of "psychoanalyzing" them, which is what I typically hear from laypeople. Those are extreme qualifiers and I often find extreme language leads to more problems than solutions (my DBT hat).

Totally poking fun with my terminology because you are correct to call me out on my extreme qualifiers.

I am fine if you no longer want to provide any more information on the topic. It is not a topic I have taken a side on and, if anything, taken the middle road that definitions can change over time. I have not studied the topic as much as you.

Here is another question if you are interested in answering.


I guess here we are going to have to discuss the definition of the word majority. A majority is those with the greater numbers. There are definitely less powerful ethnic groups throughout history that were the majority (e.g., Apartheid South Africa, Syria under Bashar al-Assad).

This could be population majority, right? This is my operational term. But, interestingly, Apartheid supporters (those who believed in a system of widespread racially-based segregation) were the minority group (less in numbers), but claimed racial superiority. So, YES! Things are never black and white, nor should our thinking (& writing) be.

My foundation of understanding of the concepts start with sociology and anthropology (because race is a biological construct). Psychology adds a different element to the discussion, and even now, we're veering into a geopolitical discussion. We could discuss in sociological terms of 'ingroups' and 'outgroups.' If we adopt this definition, then outgroup members can certainly be racist towards ingroups members and vice versa. As @clausewitz2 suggested, there is a range of function of why we're even discussing this...is it in terms of systemic racism in the judicial & law enforcement system, or health disparities in medicine, or just having visceral reactions to those not like us. The purpose and goal of the discussion serves a vital function. My point of even initially mentioning the term, was because it is often overused (for one example: in my NYC community, by folks running around, calling each other racists, when clearly the interaction had nothing to do with how I operationally define the term).

 

[CheetahGirl]

You are using the word wrong. Racism is not in any way contingent on power

Does power have to do with dominance in your rendering?

You're avoiding my question about your specialty? What type of doctor are you? A Physicist? Political Scientist? Neurosurgeon? If you're a psychologist - what's your focus?

 

[deleted480308]

Does power have to do with dominance in your rendering?

You're avoiding my question about your specialty? What type of doctor are you? A Physicist? Political Scientist? Neurosurgeon? If you're a psychologist - what's your focus?

I don’t find those questions germane to the discussion as the definition of the word isn’t impacted by it.

of course power impacts a racist’s ability to do something to someone else with their racism, but even someone who is powerless can be a racist

 

[CheetahGirl]

I don’t find those questions germane to the discussion as the definition of the word isn’t impacted by it.

Huh? I'm going to imagine that you're a Physicist and speak to you as such.

of course power impacts a racist’s ability to do something to someone else with their racism, but even someone who is powerless can be a racist.

Please provide an example. A powerless person who thinks he/she is biologically superior is not a racist...I would imagine he/she could be many things, but racism doesn't strike me as one, unless you can provide a specific example.

I cannot engage with you further, if you're going to be evasive. Write what you explicitly mean, rather than just contradiction, and stop wasting both my and your time, for the sake of arguing, please. Thank you.

 

[deleted480308]

Huh? I'm going to imagine that you're a Physicist and speak to you as such.



Please provide an example. A powerless person who thinks he/she is biologically superior is not a racist...I would imagine he/she could be many things, but racism doesn't strike me as one, unless you can provide a specific example.

I cannot engage with you further, if you're going to be evasive. Write what you explicitly mean, rather than just contradiction, and stop wasting both my and your time, for the sake of arguing, please. Thank you.

I've been clear, you just don't like my point. It's simple, racism is about about your belief structure not the power you have to wield that against people. Even a restrained prisoner can be racist.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

A powerless person who thinks he/she is biologically superior is not a racist...I would imagine he/she could be many things, but racism doesn't strike me as one, unless you can provide a specific example.

Isn't this circular logic (or some other fallacy)? If one cannot be racist even though they think they are biologically superior than what kind of example can one possibly provide?

@sb247 (not that I necessarily agree, I am just trying to understand) says yes they can be. Again, if the traditional definition of racism did not, explicitly, include anything about power. Why is there a movement to change the definition? What is gained by labeling people as prejudice rather than racist if they have beliefs of racial supremacy? Why can we not describe minorities or people with little or no power as racist if they hold views of racial supremacy?

Perhaps, we need to retire the word racism and simply say racial supremacy or that person is a racial supremacist?

 

[PsyDr]

OMG....it is one of my favorite movies of all time.

and I think we can agree that an angel got its wings every time andrea dworkin had penetrative sex.

(That's like 4 cultural references in one post!)

 

[clausewitz2]

Isn't this circular logic (or some other fallacy)? If one cannot be racist even though they think they are biologically superior than what kind of example can one possibly provide?



Perhaps, we need to retire the word racism and simply say racial supremacy or that person is a racial supremacist?

The term you are looking for is the technical sense of begging the question, i.e. presupposing the truth of a proposition in stipulating it in the first place.

I am happy describing what @CheetahGirl is describing as racism as white supremacy in the US context, honestly. I think it is way less of a stretch to describe impersonal policies as tending to promote and maintain the social and economic dominance of white people than to describe it with a term that has as it's more common usage an affective ascription. I can imagine someone being a white supremacist in their beliefs and goals with the best intentions in the world.

It's not the biggest concern I have in my life but I think pushing this particular definition of racism is dangerous for a very pragmatic reason. If nothing else the last four years have demonstrated that weakening of norms against explicit and open expressions of ethnic hatred is really bad. We should have a bright shining line separating people who tend to support white supremacist systems as defined above from, say, the KKK, even if that line is partially arbitrary. The more you lump Klansmen and Nazis together with people who maybe have not thought through the historical and structural context of social and political institutions, the more of those people shrug and figure they might as well get a hood.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

I think pushing this particular definition of racism is dangerous for a very pragmatic reason.

To be clear, which definition?

We should have a bright shining line separating people who tend to support white supremacist systems as defined above from, say, the KKK, even if that line is partially arbitrary. The more you lump Klansmen and Nazis together with people who maybe have not thought through the historical and structural context of social and political institutions, the more of those people shrug and figure they might as well get a hood.

I agree with that. My goal was to understand if power should be considered in the definition of the term racism. I am not sure how that fit into this.

 

[clausewitz2]

To be clear, which definition?

I agree with that. My goal was to understand if power should be considered in the definition of the term racism. I am not sure how that fit into this.

Mainly the idea of preserving the connection between the concept of racism and irrational bias of some kind rather then the idea that it should be defined mostly in terms of power structures with a disparate impact across ethnic groups.

 

[CheetahGirl]

I've been clear, you just don't like my point. It's simple, racism is about about your belief structure not the power you have to wield that against people. Even a restrained prisoner can be racist.

Yes. But since I'm addressing you as Physicist (since I don't know what type of doctor you are), I'm going to assume that you've yet to be exposed to Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory. The belief system you spoke of arrived by some power dynamic. Hence, the concept of SYSTEMIC in the (now commonly used) 'systemic racism.'
We're both correct...just pushing the limits of understanding to know more (from different perspectives).

 

[deleted480308]

Yes. But since I'm addressing you as Physicist (since I don't know what type of doctor you are), I'm going to assume that you've yet to be exposed to Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory. The belief system you spoke of arrived by some power dynamic. Hence, the concept of SYSTEMIC in the (now commonly used) 'systemic racism.'
We're both correct...just pushing the limits of understanding to know more (from different perspectives).

View attachment 320153

Using more words doesn’t make your statements more accurate

 

[CheetahGirl]

Using more words doesn’t make your statements more accurate

And using less words make your statements seem unclear and evasive. What is your point? That racism is based on a belief system, that is mutually exclusive to contributing factors (such as society, situational stress, context, geographical community, etc.)? Well, if so, that's an underdeveloped idea (in my opinion).

 

[deleted480308]

And using less words make your statements seem unclear and evasive. What is your point? That racism is based on a belief system, that is mutually exclusive to contributing factors (such as society, situational stress, context, geographical community, etc.)? Well, if so, that's an underdeveloped idea (in my opinion).

Then we simply disagree

 

[DynamicDidactic]

Mainly the idea of preserving the connection between the concept of racism and irrational bias of some kind rather then the idea that it should be defined mostly in terms of power structures with a disparate impact across ethnic groups.

I am open to both. But, again to be clear, we are saying that the definition should be changed. Not that the definition has always been this way.

 

[gene_halpert]

John McWhorter, a linguist at Columbia, wrote an interesting piece relevant to this exchange in The Atlantic:

The Dictionary Definition of 'Racism' Has to Change

Dictionaries can lag behind societal developments, and the idea that a “word” indisputably “means” what dictionaries say is simply sloppy.

www.theatlantic.com

And from 2019:

'Racist' Is a Tough Little Word

The definition has grown and shifted over time.

www.theatlantic.com

Of course, he has his extra-linguistic viewpoints that influence his arguments here.