One of the proven methods of harassing an individual is gas lighting him. Under this term several forms of attacks can be included. The term comes from a Hollywood movie of the same name. Charles Boyer and Ingrid Bergman played lead roles in the movie. TNT used to show the movie on TV when international channels were first received in the land through satellite dish antennas. It might be possible to obtain a copy of the movie through the video stores. I do not know for certain because I never tried it yet. Somehow Ingrid Bergman appeals to the Indian aesthetic sense and is said to have been a great favorite with the older guys. The fact is I too fell in love with her when I first saw her on the tele. I was sorry that I could not see her on the big screen in her prime.
Well that is another matter altogether. Let us come to the point. In the movie Charles Boyer tries to drive his wife (played by Ingrid Bergman) crazy by calculated manipulation of things and events inside their house. If she places something at one place it would be moved by Boyer to someplace else, to make it appear that she is forgetful and disoriented. The flickering and dimming flame of the gaslight plays an important part in the drama. For those who are not familiar what gaslights are, these used to be the fore runners of the modern day light bulbs. The flames in the lamp in each room were fed by pipes carrying gas from a tank situated some where in the house. You can turn the flame up or down by dials. The lamp in Bergman’s room would go bright or dull as if invisibly controlled through out the movie. Boyer would accuse her of imagining things as it was always steady when he was around.
In gas lighting a person various techniques are involved. To do it properly detailed information on the person is necessary. His habits, his preferences, his schedule, the vehicle used by him, their registration numbers, his family details, his hobbies, his wife’s details, job, habits and every thing that can be known about him is collected before going on with the plan of attack. An important fact is that the attackers would try to conceal their intention up to the point where the attack begins. This would prevent the victim from countering it. Mostly gas lighting is a group activity. This reduces the risk of being found out by the victim. Also there is safety in numbers for the attackers. For you can accuse someone of having ‘evil designs” on you. But if you go on accusing a number of people, it is your sanity that would be doubted.
Methods employed may include the following
1. Substituting items of clothing with smaller or larger sizes which looks the same. Victim starts wonder whether he is “shrinking” or “swelling” in size.
2. Moving furniture. Changing their positions just enough to create doubt in the victim
3. Removing small items and replacing them after the victim has stopped searching for it, at slightly different locations.
4. Instead of stealing fuel from vehicle more fuel is added to it, creating doubt in victim about his memory of the amount of fuel filled the last time.
5. Framing or filing baseless complaints against victim necessitating police involvement
6. Sabotaging work to cause confrontations between the victim and his employer or boss.
7. Complaining that deliveries are not made to the victim’s house in his name to the post office/courier company/newspaper guy etc to make the victim appear as a crank while the things have already been received.
8. Subscribing to hundreds free magazines (available in plenty) in the victims name.
9. Sponsoring the victim to annoying magazines like Readers Digest. They would not stop once they get the name and address of any one.
10. Sending anonymous mails with “ copy it and send it to hundred people or you will be cursed” texts
11. Placing “bad” books in the plastic or other type of bags carried by the victim unknown to him causing confusion when discovered at home or in front of others.
2 comments:
In response to the description and identification of what gaslighting is, and the purported reason for using it, it seems logical to conclude that it is used in a far broader sense today in commerce, as well as in employment and politics to confuse the public, to facilitate the acquisition of predatory profits, and to reduce the costs traditionally associated with earning those profits. Why would the practice of gaslighting be confined to the personal when it is so easily a method for any purpose, and not a socially-limited pattern of conduct. By any other name, it would be considered a trade practice abuse, anti-trust or conspiracy problem in such a context. What is the difference?
I am afraid you have got it all wrong, anonymous or annoyed friend,
The intention hardly was to monopolize the term and delimit it to any particular form of human activity. It may (or may not) have applicability in other fields as well. But alas those did not come within the context of this post and hence were not very relevant here.
As to the question regarding ‘difference’
Every form of thinking develops its own terminology over time which distinguishes it from other like forms. Coining new expressions and attaching new significance to the already existing ones are a part of this. It’s apparent that the mind control victims over the internet have also shaped a specific vocabulary to express their own thing. I find the development normal and natural and would like to follow their behest in this regard when I am writing about their particular problems.
Remember that metaphors are a part of any parlance and are intimately connected to the experiential reality of its user’s. They would naturally have different connotations in that particular context to what they have otherwise. But this surely does not exclude their usage in a dissimilar frame work at all the only need being one of interpretation and application.
Post a Comment