The reappropriation of voices: Misunderstandings and misconceptions in the field of hallucinations

Abstract

Objectives: Voices hearing is still an stigmatized experience, generally interpreted through the prism of psychopathology. This experience remains associated with serious disorders, including schizophrenia. Today, the latest edition of the DSM-5 attests to the evolution of international psychiatric classifications regarding the place given to these phenomena. These transformations indicate an evolution of the caregiving body on this experience, even if the notion of psychopathological disorder still hovers. Furthermore, this article explores the conceptualization of hearing voices both from psychiatric and from phenomenological perspectives. Despite these recent nosographic developments, the care of people hearing voices has been the subject of criticism and controversy from users of psychiatry. Materials and methods: Thus has emerged in this context a social movement, called Hearing Voices, which aim is the reappropriation of this phenomenon on a normative level. People with these experiences do not recognize themselves in existing psychiatric classifications. We review the burgeoning literature on which they rely, which tends to argue that voices are a fairly common experience that occurs independently of a mental illness. Added to this are the many criticisms regarding the care of people experiencing voices (psychiatric abuse, poor effectiveness of drug treatments with significant side effects, etc.). The voices are thus considered to carry meaning for the hearers and in order to understand this meaning, a dialogue seeks to be established with them. Distinctions are made on these experiences, since if some voices generate suffering or any form of pressure on individuals, this would not be the case for all voices where some would be positive or neutral. Distinctions are made on these experiences, since if voices generate suffering or any form of pressure on individuals, this would not be the case for all voices or some would be positive for people. Results: Over the past several decades, this movement has grown globally as voices hearers and users of psychiatry from various countries have built their own organizations to defend the values of the movement on a national level. In addition, these people retrace their steps with the care services in order to offer support that they deem more appropriate to their needs. With this in mind, self-help groups for voice hearers have sprung up. There is a strong heterogeneity from one group to another. Some are carried by users, others by caregivers listening to the claims that have been made by the movement. However, this diversity makes it difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of this group. The creation of self-help groups for voice-hearers by caregivers is proof of their willingness to offer support that meets the needs that may have been claimed, but it raises new questions. Is it possible to elaborate on these experiences when the people who continue to “facilitate” the groups are the same people who have been linked to a form of abuse? Conclusions: The history of this movement remains marked by the relationship with the care approaches that have been proposed to it until today. This has led to a transformation of the representation of voice understanding on a transdiagnostic and neutral side.