Dancing in Darkness
How does cognitive dissonance and gaslighting play out in Socially Incongruent Grief?
This article was written for therapists, psychiatrists and mental health practitioners. Since other readers may also find it helpful it has been slightly modified.
In a previous article titled “What does it mean to experience Socially Incongruent Grief?” (featured in MindCafe Issue #94), I provided a comprehensive explanation of the concept of Socially Incongruent Grief (SIG), its origins, and its impact. To illustrate, I shared the story of a person named “Mavis” (a pseudonym), who endured childhood sexual abuse by her older brother. Her brother grew up to be a respected and highly educated professional holding a prestigious and influential government position. Mavis exhibited great courage when she confronted him about the abuse she suffered. However, despite admitting to his sexual abuse of her, he never apologised. Consequently, she decided to sever ties with him. Five key points were raised, which underscored the purpose of that article: (1) fragmented or seemingly disjointed storytelling of grief and loss experiences occurs whenever narrated by trauma survivors (Herman, 1992) rendering them potentially vulnerable; (2) societal norms of the day often dictate a person’s permission to grieve, which can cause “Loss of the Ability to Complete Mourning” (Bloom, 2000, p.2); (3) a person’s level of self awareness of a disconnect between a socially perceived illegitimate grief and their own internal experience of heart and mind consequently feed into an incongruent mental and emotional state of grief; (4) the significance of knowing that grief occurs within a psycho-social and historical political context and is socially and politically regulated (e.g., Fowlkes, 1990); and (5) in the absence of appropriate support, the endurance of ongoing cognitive dissonance and gaslighting continues. This article focuses on this latter point, addressing how the two integral elements which define SIG, cognitive dissonance and gaslighting, play out.
In the realm of business, manufacturers benefit from being close to their customers. However, in the context of grief, SIG sufferers do not benefit from proximity to those who choose to “manufacture” their preferred version of the griever’s experience, leading to gaslighting. SIG sufferers make determined efforts, often on their own, to resist external influences that do not align with their truth. It would be unethical to minimise, belittle, or invalidate the emotional and psychological experiences of a SIG sufferer. If we value truth, we need to safely reveal and openly examine the contradictions in their grief experiences. These contradictions often arise between what the individual is experiencing and what others in their social environment might be imposing on them.
Since we are hardwired to seek connection and avoid disconnection, SIG sufferers cannot always control the mosaic of their grief. This may be due to the highly emotive content and various moving pieces occurring within a seemingly circuitous sense of identity and belonging. They are therefore often unable to immediately disentangle facts relevant to their truth from what a gaslighter is trying to achieve. As a result, they may need support from an external, non-judgmental, somewhat impartial, and compassionate professional.
However, those burdened by SIG are the ones who ultimately decide where specific discrepancies, contradictions, and general incongruities exist. They determine the extent of the gaps between their authentic internal state or lived experiences and what others in their life are trying to impose, which consequently often leads to the experience of cognitive dissonance. For instance, as Mavis’s brother was still physically alive, her experience of non-physical-death-related grief took on a unique form that she struggled to comprehend and receive support for. She faced cognitive dissonance, grappling with the conflicting messages she received. While her family conveyed sentiments like “your brother loves you,” internally she experienced physical, emotional, and psychological turmoil. There was also a notable disconnect between societal expectations of having a lifelong, normal sibling relationship and the reality of having a sibling who behaved abnormally towards her. Consequently, Mavis found herself profoundly isolated and silenced, convinced that she had no right to mourn, leading her to acquire a sense of being an “illegitimate mourner” (Misrachi, 2012). This refers to someone (or a collection of people as will be discussed in my next SIG article) who, through no fault of their own, develops a sense of having no right to grieve their valid losses following psychological trauma. However, when they also experience one or more episodes of cognitive dissonance, it is precisely this additional feature piled on top of a sense of being an “illegitimate mourner” that led to the more apt term, “Socially Incongruent Grief” (SIG).
In this context, cognitive dissonance occurs when the internal understanding of the self, such as the reality of what happened to them, is completely incongruent with how others within their social sphere view, perceive, or accept what happened to them. Essentially, it is a social betrayal of their grief experience which initially begins with cognitive dissonance but often develops into the destructive gaslighting process. Spear (2019, p.78–79) encapsulates how cognitive dissonance can become gaslighting:
… the gaslighter begins the process of gaslighting by introducing cognitive dissonance, often quite emotionally charged cognitive dissonance, into the relationship with [their] victim, dissonance that specifically requires the victim to decide between [their] own way of viewing things and that of the gaslighter, and the gaslighter then works directly or indirectly to ensure that the victim resolves the dissonance in [the gaslighter’s] favor, specifically by downgrading [their victim’s] conception of [their inner self] as a locus of independent thought and judgment relative to [the gaslighter].
The impact of SIG is influenced by vulnerability and resilience factors in the context of the individual’s family, community, or other relevant groups or institutions. Distress resulting from SIG can be understood as psycho-emotional distress in response to cognitive dissonance that threatens to escalate to various levels of gaslighting. It is a component of the overarching awareness of how cognitive dissonance and gaslighting can affect an individual. This distress is part of the broader spectrum of issues that can impact mental health. For counsellors, therapists and mental health practitioners, it is essential to exercise extra care to avoid pathologising rational distress stemming from SIG, while also identifying possible signs of mental health issues or maladaptive coping styles.
An objective and ethically-minded practitioner can assist such individuals in a supportive and compassionate manner, to disentangle their reality from the confusion. Doing so serves as a “life buoy” for those who are at risk of being overwhelmed, particularly in situations where they feel they lack control due to, for instance, misguided self-fulfilling prophecies. They may be self-gaslighting or unconsciously colluding with their family system, which ends up serving to invalidate their grief.
Because aptly naming a grief reduces mental suffering, illumination of SIG is a protective factor. It allows such grievers to safely access certainty towards a healthier sense of agency. By naming and offering a jargon-free understanding, its language provides therapeutic stepping stones. This becomes a preventative measure as it gives freedom, confidence and license to bond, i.e., authentically connect, firstly internally within one’s self, then externally with others willing to accept their legitimate grief. This in turn reduces potential for cognitive dissonance or gaslighting (e.g., Spear, 2019). As one reader, an overseas healthcare worker, notes:
First reading [about your new concept, SIG] brought to light, miscarriage, still birth and neonatal death. Grief is not seen as legitimate by various others — nothing seen, nothing to grieve. Secondly, there is this misunderstood notion of support networks. Lots of people lots of support. A person [suffering SIG] may be trauma bonded to a group of people who are harmful to that person’s health. You make this point… with Mavis’ situation. So permission to grieve is withheld leading to further trauma. Too many things to process leading to more entrenched ill-health.
Hospital Consultant and Psychotherapist, Wales.
Cognitive dissonance and gaslighting are key factors causing Socially Incongruent Grief. The availability of a suitable language to discuss the multiple, stacking layers of grief present in many ways can never go astray. If one’s internal world and their external social environment become more congruent it makes the ecosystem of a person’s life more stable, cohesive and peaceful. It organically grows and develops into a linking process normalising grief while acting as an important internal resource. It potentially increases compassion while reducing shame, a painful wound of not belonging (e.g., Bath, 2019).
The unethical dance between cognitive dissonance and a person’s inner reality often self perpetuates until somebody trustworthy ‘switches on the light’ to describe and name their experience as SIG, if appropriate. Putting a stop to the seemingly cruel manoeuvres of gaslighting frees up SIG sufferers from the tyranny and blinding darkness they may be trapped in. The alternative otherwise is to continue dancing in partnership with cognitive dissonance, against total darkness.
This article was originally published in Mind Cafe, November, 2023, Issue 96. (Some modifications were made to the original article to suit a general readership).
References:
Bath, H. (2019). Pain and the Unspoken Emotion: Shame. International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies, 10(2–3), 126–141.
Bloom, S., L. (2000). The grief that dare not speak its name. Part II: Dealing with the ravages of childhood abuse. Psychotherapy Review, 2(10), 469–472.
Fowlkes, M.R. (1990). The social regulation of grief. Sociological Forum, 5, 635–652.
Herman, J. L. (1992). Trauma and recovery: The aftermath of violence-from domestic to political terror (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.
Misrachi, S. (2012). Lives Unseen: Unacknowledged Trauma of Non-Disordered, Competent Adult Children of Parents with a Severe Mental Illness (ACOPSMI). Department of Social Work Melbourne School of Health Sciences Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, from http://hdl.handle.net/11343/37852
Spear, A.D. (2019). Epistemic dimensions of gaslighting: peer-disagreement, self-trust, and epistemic injustice. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy. Volume 66, 2023 — Issue 1. Pages 68–91.
