Culture-bound syndromes: a re-evaluation

Abstract

EDITORS' INTRODUCTION For over a century, cultures in traditional societies were seen as providing exotic and esoteric clinical conditions, which were not ‘seen’ in other cultures. The history of clinical anthropology followed two different routes in Western Europe and North America. By and large in the colonial times the anthropologists studied the ruled populations, whereas in North America the focus was on native and aboriginal groups. As a result, the clinicians who went to work in the colonies decided that certain conditions occurred only as a result of civilizations and that the colonialized people could possible not suffer from these. On the other hand, conditions were seen ‘exclusively’ in certain ethnic groups and were a result of under development of the brain and the behaviour was uncivilized. Amok, seen in the Malay archipelago, was criminalized by the British. Consequently, a previously acceptable social behaviour was criminal behaviour and all those who suffered from it were sent to prison. There is clear evidence that a similar response is seen in other cultures but not seen as criminal. Using amok among other so-called culture-bound syndromes, Bhugra and colleagues set the scene on the development of the concept of culture-bound syndromes. They argue that all psychiatric syndromes are affected by culture and are within this boundedness. Running amok in the Far East is no different from individuals taking guns and shooting randomly and indiscriminately at school children. Latah has similar hyperstartle response in other cultures. Dhat or semen-loss anxiety as seen in culture-bound manner in the Indian subcontinent has been historically reported in so-called developed countries.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 18 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.