I just managed to read Understanding Voices by Marius Romme. It was easy to read, and the claims and conclusions in it were backed-up by much social research and statistics. One of the main points in the book were that people who coped better with their hearing voices experiences, were those who identified the voices as coming from themselves, rather than coming from an external source.
Marius Romme also said that biological psychiatry wasn't helpful, because it interpreted the voices as being beyond the persons control and grasp (as a result of illness), much like very delusional thinking does about voices coming from an external source like technology. Biological psychiatry was also seen as unhelpful, because it suppressed hearing voices with psychiatric drugs, instead of allowing the person to work through the problems brought out by the voices with their messages and meaning.
The book said that people who coped better with hearing voices, were those who felt less powerless, more supported, and less threatened in their environment, and those who felt less powerless after traumatic events or circumstances. The book also said that as voices are often the result of personal and social problems in the persons lives, that gaining self-determination and control over problems in daily living were conducive to recovery from hearing voices. It was also concluded that in order to cope with voices and to overcome confusing problems, it is important to be allowed to develop one's own identity, making choices, solving dilemma's.
The book listed the three phases of hearing voices: 1. The Startling Phase: This is when the onset of the voices are frightening and anxiety-provoking. At this stage, the voice hearer often goes into denial of the experience. 2. The Organisational Phase: This is where the person accepts the voices, and tries to understand them. 3. The Phase of Stabilisation: This is where the voices are accepted as a part of oneself, where they have a positive influence, and when the voice hearer is able to choose between following the advice of the voices or his or her own ideas. These people are able to say "I hear voices, and I am happy for that".
I thought that it was a good book, but my main criticism of it, was that it was too much of a social or group approach and analysis, and it didn't focus enough on the actual individual psychological process of recovery. The social and group research was interesting and enlightening, but I would have liked to have read more personal approaches and perspectives.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment