Reflection on Gaslighting Discourse from a Bullshit Perspective
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background
This study critically reflects on gaslighting discourse in contemporary society through the conceptual lens of bullshit, as defined by Frankfurt and Ball. In this context, bullshit refers to a form of fictional discourse that is indifferent to truth or falsehood, yet often believed and perpetuated by its originators. When combined with gaslighting—a tactic of psychological manipulation that distorts others’ perception of reality—such discourse can serve as a potent tool for social control.
Methods
The study employed a qualitative methodology comprising literature review and discourse analysis. A total of 33 scholarly sources, including 5 books and 28 journal articles, were selected from both domestic and international databases using keywords such as “gaslighting” and “discourse.” These sources were critically analyzed to explore the intersections between gaslighting and bullshit across various sociocultural domains.
Results
The analysis identifies five domains in which gaslighting operates as bullshit discourse: (1) education that enforces conformity under the guise of development, (2) political rhetoric aimed at emotional manipulation, (3) media that distorts or selectively frames information, (4) religious teachings used to psychologically control followers, and (5) close personal relationships where asymmetrical power dynamics exist. The study further proposes six strategies to resist such discourse: cultivating critical thinking, political literacy, dialogic competence, media literacy, balanced religious education, and healthy interpersonal communication.
Conclusions
This study contributes to expanding the critical understanding of gaslighting as not merely a psychological tactic but a discursive and sociopolitical phenomenon. By introducing the concept of bullshit as an analytical tool, the study offers a novel framework for diagnosing manipulative communication in the post-truth era and provides practical guidelines for fostering democratic resilience and intellectual autonomy.
Downloads
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Bae, J.A., 2021. How did bullshit conquer the world? The power of post-truth over truth. KISO, 42, 51–53.
Baehr, J., 2011. The Inquiring Mind: On Intellectual Virtues and Virtue Epistemology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Baek, G.U., Kim, J.T., Park, S.J., 2024. A survey on the relationship between MBTI propensity and RPG occupational group. J. Inst. Internet Broadcast. Commun. 24, 69–76.
Baptista, J.P., Gradim, A., 2020. Understanding fake news consumption: A review. Soc. Sci. 9, 185.
Brennan, J., 2016. Against Democracy. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Chae, Y.I., Lee, S.B., 2025. Mediating effects of social support and self-efficacy on college academic stress and mental health. J. Convergence Cult. Technol. 11, 305–315.
Chu, B.W., 2021. Civic virtues in the era of post-truths. J. Moral Ethics Educ. 72, 145–168.
Fairclough, N., 2022. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. Routledge, London.
Frankfort, H.G., 2016. Translated by L. Yoon, On Bullshit, Philosophic, Seoul.
Ha, S.B., 2023. The symbolic production and practice of political power - a study on the political Mise en Scene of French President, F. Mitterand. J. Contemp. Eur. Stud. 41, 27–48.
James, B., 2020. Translated by S.Y. Kim. How did bullshit conquer the world. Dasan Books.
Jang, H.C., 2014. A critical analysis of the wealth discourse appeared in the sermons of ministers of Korean mega-churches since the IMF crisis. Discourse 201, 177–208.
Jung, Y.K., 2022. Educational reading on How Bullshit Conquered the World. J. Element. Educ. Res. 33, 585–595.Kim, J.W., Lee, S.H., 2022. A historical study on the ideology: Karl Mannheim’s point of view. Korean Public Admin. History Rev. 55, 31–52.
Kim, D.-H., 2020. Practical ways to help korean churches possess an ability to discern the age of the fourth industrial revolution. Theol. Praxis 69, 743–774.
Kim, H.J., 2024. A study on cultural learning through cultural comparison activities: Focusing on learner perception. Int. J. Adv. Cult. Technol. 12, 80–87.
Lee, S.J., 2022. Comparison of Psychological Definitions between Gaslighting and Stalking. Korean Police Stud. Rev. 21, 211–236.
Lee, J.Y., 2021. A Study on the response model of the gaslighting in an institutional. J. Soc. Convergence Stud. 5, 47–54.
Nguyen, C.T., 2020. Echo chambers and epistemic bubbles. Episteme 17, 141–161.
Oh, S.Y., Shin, H.J., 2021. A study on the damage and countermeasures of gaslighting in the workplace: Focusing on the power distance in the workplace. Korea Crim. Intell. Rev. 7, 129–148.
Oh, S.Y., Song, H.J., 2021. A study on the progress process of gas lighting crime based on case study. Korean J. Convergence Sci. 10, 101–111.Robin, S., 2008. Translated by J.Y. Shin. Gaslight Effect, Random House Korea.
Tansley, A.G., 1985. The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology 16, 284–307.
Time, 2023. Gaslighting, Narcissist, and More Psychology Terms You're Misusing. Health Psychology Gaslighting, Narcissist, and More Psychology Terms You’re Misusing, Angela Haupt.
Yoon, O.H., 2017. Sociology of Education. Yang Seo-won, Paju.