In this dissertation, I theorize on how gaslighting manifests in managerial and organizational settings. I discuss the process of gaslighting and how the use of various manipulation tactics manifests between people in organizations over time. I take three distinctive approaches to study this complex phenomenon. First, using a rich case study, I develop new theory to explain how one notorious child molester was able to sustain a career for decades while assaulting hundreds of children and young women. In doing so, I introduce the concept of gaslighting which previously has only been rigorously applied to intimate interpersonal relationships in domestic (e.g., at home) settings. In essay 2, I expand on the individual level theory developed in essay 1 to develop a more generalized theory of gaslighting in organizations. I situate gaslighting within a nomological net of related constructs and illustrate how gaslighting is a unique construct with different antecedents and consequences that occurs in organizations more often than it should. In my final essay, I build on one of the propositions developed in essay 2 and empirically test what antecedents are likely to influence whether or not a firm is accused of gaslighting on Twitter. Through doing so, I find counter-intuitive yet interesting results. In conducting a post-hoc analysis, I reveal insightful knowledge about the interactions influencing whether a firm will be accused of gaslighting on Twitter and impacting the number of accusations that will be leveraged against a firm.

Gaslight, an Industrial Revolution technology, developed in the period 1780–1820. The foundations for the technology are partly found in the pneumatic chemistry of the eighteenth century, both in terms of the knowledge of gases and their properties, and the instruments used to manipulate them, such as the gasometer, making gaslight one of the earliest instances of a technology heavily based on science. Although many people experimented with lighting with gases in the late eighteenth century, the move to a commercial technology began with Philippe Lebon and William Murdock who had a clear commercial purpose in mind. The technology in its early phases was found everywhere in Europe, but it was at Boulton & Watt in Birmingham that it was first successfully applied. As Boulton & Watt developed the technology they identified many and solved some of the problems associated with scaling up the technology. They were not, however, very interested in gaslight and only sporadically gave attention to it, before effectively abandoning it around 1812. They nevertheless had an important role to play in its development not only because if their technical work, but also because they demonstrated the technology’s viability to the broad public, and by giving people experience in gas engineering. The technology's final form as a network utility was partly as a result of a battle fought between Boulton & Watt and Frederick Winsor's Gas Light and Coke Company in London during 1807–1810. Boutlon & Watt did not want a large limited-liability corporation as a competitor, and the contest in Parliament between the two groups resulted in a negotiated compromise where the Gas Light and Coke Company gave up all rights to manufacture apparatus, and focused exclusively on gas provision, effectively making it a utility. The years from 1812–1820 saw the technology mature into a large network which included not only technical development, such as the pressure balancing with valves and regulators, but also political and social elements, such as the control of user expectations through education and usage enforcement through inspectors. By 1820, the technology was sufficiently developed to be transferred to the Continent.

Gaslight, an Industrial Revolution technology, developed in the period 1780–1820. The foundations for the technology are partly found in the pneumatic chemistry of the eighteenth century, both in terms of the knowledge of gases and their properties, and the instruments used to manipulate them, such as the gasometer, making gaslight one of the earliest instances of a technology heavily based on science. Although many people experimented with lighting with gases in the late eighteenth century, the move to a commercial technology began with Philippe Lebon and William Murdock who had a clear commercial purpose in mind. The technology in its early phases was found everywhere in Europe, but it was at Boulton & Watt in Birmingham that it was first successfully applied. As Boulton & Watt developed the technology they identified many and solved some of the problems associated with scaling up the technology. They were not, however, very interested in gaslight and only sporadically gave attention to it, before effectively abandoning it around 1812. They nevertheless had an important role to play in its development not only because if their technical work, but also because they demonstrated the technology’s viability to the broad public, and by giving people experience in gas engineering. The technology's final form as a network utility was partly as a result of a battle fought between Boulton & Watt and Frederick Winsor's Gas Light and Coke Company in London during 1807–1810. Boutlon & Watt did not want a large limited-liability corporation as a competitor, and the contest in Parliament between the two groups resulted in a negotiated compromise where the Gas Light and Coke Company gave up all rights to manufacture apparatus, and focused exclusively on gas provision, effectively making it a utility. The years from 1812–1820 saw the technology mature into a large network which included not only technical development, such as the pressure balancing with valves and regulators, but also political and social elements, such as the control of user expectations through education and usage enforcement through inspectors. By 1820, the technology was sufficiently developed to be transferred to the Continent.

Le projet proposé est le suivant : d’abord tenter de comprendre quelle place joue l’indicible dans le langage et quelle forme prend — au niveau fondamental — la violence exercée à son endroit en suivant l'oeuvre d'Emmanuel Levinas et de Ludwig Wittgenstein. Ensuite, poursuivre l’analyse des formes de violence du langage en se penchant sur les conditions de possibilité d’une telle violence ou plutôt sur certaines manifestations historiques d’un tel exercice à l'aide du Différend (1983) de Jean-François Lyotard. Et finalement, appliquer les distinctions établies dans les deux chapitres précédents pour mettre en place les conditions d’établissement d’un espace discursif ouvrant à la possibilité du témoignage non-violent visant à reconnaître l’expérience de la survivante auparavant réduite au silence. / The current project aims to understand the role played by the “unspeakable” in language and what form—at a fundamental level—does the violence perpetrated towards it take by following the works of Emmanuel Levinas and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Then, the analysis of linguistic violence continues by examining the different manifestations of this wrong and their conditions of possibility or more precisely, by scrutinizing certain historical incidences of such a reproduction of violence by proposing a close reading of Jean-François Lyotard’s Le Différend (1983). Finally, an attempt will be made at establishing the conditions necessary for the construction of a discursive safe-space opening the possibility of a non-violent witnessing and testimony oriented towards the recognition of the experience of the once silenced survivor.