'We're not all dangerous and crazy'. Negotiating the voice hearing identity: A critical discursive approach

Towards validating invalidated knowledge: a discourse analysis of firsthand accounts of hearing voices

BACKGROUND

As Foucault historically traced, dialogs about madness were silenced with the emergence of biomedical psychiatry. The silence entailed the epistemic violence of invalidating persons who hear voices as knowers, arguably leaving them without validating sensemaking languages for firsthand experiences. This article analyzes five Norwegian firsthand accounts of hearing voices, and how they differed from the predominating biomedical psychiatry discourse, in search of validating languages and knowledge that may facilitate making sense of voice-hearing for persons who hear voices.

METHODS

The text material consisted of four sets of blogs authored by four young women and a short interview with a man, all of whom had firsthand experiences of voice-hearing in a Norwegian context. Ian Parker's version of Foucauldian discourse analysis was used to analyze the material.

RESULTS

Six discourses were identified: biomedical psychiatry-discourse, discourse of reason, psychodynamic discourse, discourse of personal characteristics, spiritual discourse and discourse of personal relationships between hearer and voices. Within the discourses of biomedical psychiatry and reason, voice-hearing was rendered as hallucinations, unreason, and as a problem to be solved, preferably by professionals, thus silencing the person who hears voices. In contrast, within the discourses of psychodynamics, personal characteristics, spirituality, and personal relationships between hearer and voices, voice-hearing has diverse meanings, and they grant voice hearers greater freedom concerning voice-hearing. The psychodynamic discourse nonetheless aligns with the discourses of reason and biomedical psychiatry in allowing professionals the prerogative of determining the meaning of voice-hearing. The remaining three discourses appear to facilitate more space for voice-hearers to narrate and engage with their voice-hearing at their discretion, with little to no professional impingement.

CONCLUSIONS

Discursive complexity notwithstanding, I consider that particularly the discourses of personal characteristics, spirituality, and personal relationships facilitate languages that may enable a person to narrate their own experiences and actions at their own discretion, without needing an expert commentator on the side. To have such languages available is argued to entail clear strides towards more empowered positions in one's life.