Gaslighting
Lisy Estopinan

“Can governments manipulate people to remember events that never happened?” The professor reads the question aloud that is written on the board for the class to discuss.

While I lived in Venezuela, out of curiosity I decided to take a political science class; knowing in advance how controversial it is to talk about politics in my country after more than twenty years with the same non-democratic government. Mr. Nicolas Maduro, placed in power in a non-democratic way by Chavez before he passed away, has only further aggravated the country's situation by perpetuating the "legacy" that Chavez left behind. Today, Maduro is not recognized internationally as the legitimate president of Venezuela. Politics loses all credibility when the rhetoric of political discourse becomes ideological discourse. It ends up turning into gaslighting.

"And what do you think?” The professor turns to face the students.

Suddenly, a student raises his hand. He firmly believes and paraphrases from Eva Orduña in her publication “Human Rights and Political Credibility” written in 2006: “The credibility of a government is an essential element to achieve social unification and the solidity of the State; however, this can only be achieved through a comprehensive policy of protection of human rights. If people are manipulated, the right to freedom is violated.”

I respond by agreeing that a government's credibility can be achieved through the protection of human rights and freedom of speech. Furthermore, I state that today it's evident there's a credibility and economic crisis marked by the elimination of most of the private companies. People no longer trust their government.

According to the student, the wrongness of using manipulation (gaslighting) as a tactic to gain power with the intention of harming or benefiting some at others’ expenses can only occur in communist governments. But there's no way it can happen in a democratic government like the United States, for example.

My ears start bleeding. I laugh ironically, looking at him and ask, "Are you serious? Do you really believe that gaslighting is not used as a tactic in democratic governments?"

"Well, yeah," he says.

"I think you're wrong. The problem lies in the great difference that exists between manipulative rhetoric and facts," I add by emphasizing the latter.

"Rhetoric collects a whole catalog of social and universal feelings because it's aware that if you know society, you persuade it. Hence, it insists that it's necessary to know the behavior of men and their culture, their customs. Ultimately, their context, their cognitive framework, to be able to put the interlocutor in a certain mood in order to persuade them: We know their image, we know their soul and, therefore, we dominate them," he quoted verbatim from “Rhetoric, Behavior and Power in Political Speech.”

"Ok, then it's about the intention (dissembling) and how those who are in power decide to use rhetoric," says the professor, adding, "It doesn't matter what kind of government it is, they will use it anyway."

"In a dictatorship as the one we have here in Venezuela for instance, it is more than obvious what Chavez did in his show called "Aló Presidente" ("Hello President") that was broadcast live on national television every Sunday at 11am and lasted from four to eight hours, or even more. And it was like this for over a decade!” says a student who is sitting two chairs behind me.

"Yes, that show played an essential role in communicating with Venezuelans and mainly with the status of a social class that used to be ignored, vulnerable, and shared the same values and ideas of Chavez's political project. People didn't know whether the information was true or not, since most of them were uneducated who neither questioned themselves nor did they question the information," says the professor.

"Moreover, Chavez also fed the idea well by making Venezuelans believe that we were in war against the United States, or should I say the American government was in a media war against us? Does anyone remember when he accused the United States government of inducing him with cancer or blocking the sale of military equipment to Venezuela by suggesting that Washington planned a military action against the country?" says the guy next to me.

"True. This tactic always was a distraction to divert attention from the problems that were happening in the country, making people believe that the enemy responsible for Venezuelans' problems was outside and not in our own home. The other thing is that over time the narrative that lay in his populist discourses changed, establishing an ideology that ensured his position as an authoritarian leader of Venezuelan's ‘Bolivarian Revolution.’ Everyone here remembers that everything Chavez did, said, or decided in that program turned into our reality right away," I say. 

"And do you guys remember every time that he presented the ‘Bolivarian revolutionary process’ as the continuity of the Revolution of Independence? Haha. Even worse, he identified with Bolivar," says the girl in front of me.

Several of us roll our eyes and a student clears his voice and imitates Chavez by saying, "…the best tribute that we Bolivarians can pay to Bolívar is not to place flowers in the National Pantheon, it's not just talking of him and his glory, no! The best tribute that we're paying to Bolívar and we're going to pay Bolívar is to take up his flag and make his dreams and his struggles for a free and sovereign homeland come true, and that is what we are doing now in Venezuela… Guilty." 

Many of us burst out laughing. 

"Hey, respect!" says the professor.

"What a brainwashing!" says the guy next to me. 

"It's a fact that the problem arises when we accept the information passively without questioning it at all. We can all be gaslighted one way or another," I add. 

"Indeed, Chavez's discourse focused on many different discursive strategies to engage through dialogue during his show. Can anyone name one strategy?" the professor asks.

"Does it sound familiar, a lie repeated 1000 times, becomes a truth?" I say.

“The use of repetition. What else did he use in his discourses?" the professor asks again.

"Fragmentation or alteration of selected themes and stories he presented so eloquently, as well as hypothetical situations framed in a specific context," says the guy next to me.

"Very well. Now, a few minutes ago a full explanation was made on rhetoric, behavior and power in political speech. It was mentioned that using gaslighting as a tactic to gain power can not be used in democratic government like the United States. However, in this country the mainstream media have for years used gaslighting and dissembling in headlines as strategies to increase ratings and sell. Besides, the American government controls almost everything, if not everything…

Regarding politics, it can range from gaslighting members of the government and the public like racial gaslighting, to even more complex situations, with the exception of conventional warfare, but when national security is a priority, as happened during the Cold War, the United States used and continues to use different diplomatic, intelligence, informational, and economic measures to influence, pressure, frighten, or sabotage its interests or those of its allies...

Political warfare, which is the term that describes this type of conflict, is a gaslighting tactic that affects the decision-making of a state. Perhaps the Marshall Plan, white propaganda, or psychological warfare on black people are just some of the strategies used by the American government," the professor adds.

After a short silence, the professor asks, "And what about the war veterans? 

So I ask again, ``Can governments gaslight people to remember events that never happened?"

"Only through critical thinking will we have the ability to determine the credibility of governments," says the boy who raised his hand at the beginning of class. And at that moment, the professor ends the discussion.

*****

Now that I live in the United States, I closely watched the end of the Obama administration and the tenure of the Trump administration. The Trump administration has gaslighted in similar ways as Chavez once did. I feel like I come from the future. 

Does it sound familiar, a lie repeated 1000 times, becomes a truth?