Healing Beyond the Collective Gas Lighting
According to the American Psychology Association (2023), Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person or group makes someone question their perceptions, memories, or reality, often to gain control or power over them. It involves persistent denial of the victim's reality, dismissiveness, or misdirection, which can lead to the victim doubting their experiences and perceptions.
Gaslighting disproportionately affects underrepresented or marginalized communities, such as people of color, LGBTQ+ individuals, and women. It can take the form of systemic or institutional gaslighting, where power structures deny or invalidate their lived experiences of discrimination, racism, sexism, or oppression.
For example:
Racial Gaslighting: This occurs when individuals or institutions dismiss experiences of racism by framing them as "overreactions" or "misunderstandings," undermining the credibility of those reporting harm (Davis & Ernst, 2019). It perpetuates systemic racism by silencing dissent and erasing historical and present-day realities.
Gender Gaslighting: Women reporting sexual harassment or workplace discrimination often face accusations of being "too sensitive" or fabricating incidents, leading to self-doubt and reluctance to speak out (Sweet, 2019).
LGBTQ+ Gaslighting: Members of the LGBTQ+ community may face invalidation of their identities, with their experiences of homophobia or transphobia dismissed as exaggerated or imagined (Brown, 2020).
The psychological impact of gaslighting includes increased anxiety, depression, and erosion of self-esteem, which can exacerbate existing inequities. For marginalized groups, it reinforces systemic power imbalances by making them doubt their ability to advocate for themselves or challenge injustices.
It feels as though recently when continuous insults are aimed toward underrepresented groups in the workplace, politics, and community spaces, some people tote “free speech.” Yet, I ask advocates and practitioners when statements made are false, racist, or foster inequity among the workforce; it’s labeled as “wokeness.” I encourage people instead of making statements without an understanding of what it is, and not what is perceived, to convert them into questions. As a professional in equity building, there is a myth that advocating begins with dialogue and perspectives that help foster a more inclusive environment beneficial to all without taking away from one group to give to another.
For those of us in consulting focused on systemic equity, now is the time to continue to build on the foundational work of creating inclusive spaces and leaders that was established prior to the 2024 presidential election cycle.
Yet, leadership and equity practitioners must ask the right questions to move forward, honor differences, and remind organizations of systemic inequities across U.S. industries.
A helpful place to begin this process is to understand how people felt before the elections using existing polling data from the Pew Research Center. This isn’t about one party being right while the other is not; it is about trying to understand the disconnect between opinions, candidate actions, family influence, personal values, beliefs, and how each may influence our vote.
Before the 2024 presidential election, Pew Research Center conducted of a multiple layered poll on the 2024 election, and I want to point the section about policies impacting Black, Hispanic, Asian, and White communities .
According to a Pew Research Center article (2024)
Impact of Trump’s policies
Six in ten or more Trump backers say that Trump’s policies would make things better for Black (65%), White (64%), Hispanic (63%), and Asian people (60%).
Harris backers are more likely to say that Trump’s policies would help (35%) rather than hurt (23%) White people. Yet a clear majority of Harris supporters expect that Trump’s policies would have negative impacts on Hispanic (81%), Black (78%), and Asian people (65%).
Impact of Harris’ policies
Majorities of Harris supporters say she would have make things better for Black (66%) and Hispanic (62%) people, and about half (51%) say she would make things better for Asian people. About half of Trump supporters say Harris would worsen things for each group (Pew Research, 2024).
With political division growing, I encourage public-serving professionals to lean into community engagement principles to create brave spaces and hold honest conversations about how intersectionality perpetuates representation gaps across industry sectors.
Acknowledging differences does not mean anyone is expecting guilty confessions of being racist, biased, ableist, homophobic, or ageist. Doing so acknowledges a systemic problem, allowing an organization to openly admit some have benefited from built-in systemic inequities. In contrast, other groups of our fellow citizens continue to be overlooked for promotions during a whole career pipeline.
Call to Action
The first step in creating or sustaining systemic equity infrastructure is establishing a baseline by inviting conversations through active listening. This helps to create a brave space where individuals can express themselves, engage, and understand the importance of inclusive spaces, especially for those who feel unseen and unheard.
As we move forward from the 2024 election, let us embrace the opportunity to heal by leaning into our differences and fostering meaningful dialogue. Restorative practices offer a path to understanding, connection, and community-building.
Avant Consulting and Training invites everyone, regardless of political perspective to come together in restorative circles to share stories, listen deeply, and honor the diversity of experiences that make us stronger as a nation. Focusing on shared humanity and collective growth can transform division into dialogue and rebuild community trust.
Join us in choosing connection over conflict, empathy over division, and healing over harm. Together, we can create a culture where every voice is heard and every difference is respected.
References
American Psychological Association. (2023). Gaslighting. In APA dictionary of psychology. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/gaslight
Davis, L. & Ernst, R. (2019). Racial gaslighting. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 7(4), 761–774. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2017.1403934
Pew Research Center, 2024). How Voters Expect Harris’ and Trump’s Policies to Affect Different Groups in Society. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/09/25/how-voters-expect-harris-and-trumps-policies-to-affect-different-groups-in-society/
Sweet, P. L. (2019). The sociology of gaslighting. American Sociological Review, 84(5), 851–875. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122419874843
Brown, M. (2020). LGBTQ+ experiences of gaslighting: Identity and systemic invalidation. Journal of LGBTQ Issues in Counseling, 14(3), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2020.1790469
