Culture-bound syndrome

A culture-specific syndrome is characterized by:

• categorization as a disease in the culture (i.e., not a voluntary behaviour or false claim)
• widespread familiarity in the culture
• complete lack of familiarity or misunderstanding of the condition to people in other cultures
• no objectively demonstrable biochemical or tissue abnormalities (signs)
• recognition and treatment by the folk medicine of the culture

Some culture-specific syndromes involve somatic symptoms (pain or disturbed function of a body part), while others are purely behavioral. Some culture-bound syndromes appear with similar features in several cultures, but with locally specific traits, such as penis panics.

A culture-specific syndrome is not the same as a geographically localized disease with specific, identifiable, causal tissue abnormalities, such as kuru or sleeping sickness, or genetic conditions limited to certain populations. It is possible that a condition originally assumed to be a culture-bound behavioral syndrome is found to have a biological cause; from a medical perspective it would then be redefined into another nosological category.

The American Psychiatric Association states the following:[3]

The term culture-bound syndrome denotes recurrent, locality-specific patterns of aberrant behavior and troubling experience that may or may not be linked to a particular DSM-IV diagnostic category. Many of these patterns are indigenously considered to be "illnesses," or at least afflictions, and most have local names. Although presentations conforming to the major DSM-IV categories can be found throughout the world, the particular symptoms, course, and social response are very often influenced by local cultural factors. In contrast, culture-bound syndromes are generally limited to specific societies or culture areas and are localized, folk, diagnostic categories that frame coherent meanings for certain repetitive, patterned, and troubling sets of experiences and observations.

The term culture-bound syndrome is controversial since it reflects the different opinions of anthropologists and psychiatrists.[4] Anthropologists have a tendency to emphasize the relativistic and culture-specific dimensions of the syndromes, while physicians tend to emphasize the universal and neuropsychological dimensions.[5][6] Guarnaccia & Rogler (1999) have argued in favor of investigating culture-bound syndromes on their own terms, and believe that the syndromes have enough cultural integrity to be treated as independent objects of research.[7]

Guarnaccia and Rogler demonstrate the issues that occur when diagnosing cultural bound disorders using the DSM-IV. One of the key problems that arise is the "subsumption of culture bound syndromes into psychiatric categories",[7] which ultimately creates a medical hegemony and places the western perspective above that of other cultural and epistemological explanations of disease. The urgency for further investigation or reconsideration of the DSM-IV's authoritative power is emphasized, as the DSM becomes an international document for research and medical systems abroad. Guarnaccia and Rogler provide two research questions that must be considered, "firstly, how much do we know about the culture-bound syndromes for us to be able to fit them into standard classification; and secondly, whether such a standard and exhaustive classification in fact exists".[7]

It is suggested that the problematic nature of the DSM becomes evident when viewed as definitively conclusive. Questions are raised to whether culture-bound syndromes can be treated as discrete entities, or whether their symptoms are generalized and perceived as an amalgamation of previously diagnosed illnesses. If this is the case, then the DSM may be what Bruno Latour would define as "particular universalism". In that the Western medical system views itself to have a privileged insight into the true intelligence of nature, in contrast to the model provided by other cultural perspectives.[8]

Some studies suggest that culture-bound syndromes represent an acceptable way within a specific culture (and cultural context) among certain vulnerable individuals (i.e. an ataque de nervios at a funeral in Puerto Rico) to express distress in the wake of a traumatic experience.[9] A similar manifestation of distress when displaced into a North American medical culture may lead to a very different, even adverse outcome for a given individual and his or her family.[10] The history and etymology of some syndromes such as brain-fog syndrome, have also been reattributed to 19th century Victorian Britain rather than West Africa.[11]

In 2013, the DSM 5 dropped the term culture-bound syndrome, preferring the new name "cultural concepts of distress".[12]

Globalisation is a process whereby information, cultures, jobs, goods, and services are spread across national borders.[18] This has had a powerful impact on the 21st century in many ways including through enriching cultural awareness across the globe. Greater level of cultural integration is occurring due to rapid industrialisation and globalisation, with cultures absorbing more influences from each other. As cultural awareness begins to increase between countries, there is a consideration into whether cultural bound syndromes will slowly lose their geographically bound nature and become commonly known syndromes that will then become internationally recognised. Anthropologist and psychiatrist Roland Littlewood makes the observation that these diseases are likely to vanish in an increasingly homogenous global culture in the face of globalisation (and industrialisation).[19] Depression, for example, was once only accepted in western societies; it is now recognised as a mental disorder in all parts of the world. In contrast to Eastern civilizations such as Taiwan, depression is still much more common in Western cultures like the United States. This could indicate that globalisation may have an impact on allowing disorders to be spread across borders, but these disorders may remain predominant in certain cultures.

The fourth edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders classifies the below syndromes as culture-bound syndromes:[20]

The fifth edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders classifies the below syndromes as cultural concepts of distress, a closely related concept:[21]

The 10th revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) classifies the below syndromes as culture-specific disorders:[1]

Though "the ethnocentric bias of Euro-American psychiatrists has led to the idea that culture-bound syndromes are confined to non-Western cultures",[22] within the contiguous United States, the consumption of kaolin, a type of clay, has been proposed as a culture-bound syndrome observed in African Americans in the rural south, particularly in areas in which the mining of kaolin is common.[23]

In South Africa, among the Xhosa people, the syndrome of amafufunyana is commonly used to describe those believed to be possessed by demons or other malevolent spirits. Traditional healers in the culture usually perform exorcisms in order to drive off these spirits. Upon investigating the phenomenon, researchers found that many of the people claimed to be affected by the syndrome exhibited the traits and characteristics of schizophrenia.[24]

Some researchers have suggested that both premenstrual syndrome (PMS) and the more severe premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD), which have currently unknown physical mechanisms,[25][26][27] are Western culture-bound syndromes.[28][29] However, this is controversial.[28]

Tarantism is an expression of mass psychogenic illness documented in Southern Italy since the 11th century.[30]

Morgellons is a rare self-diagnosed skin condition reported primarily in white populations in the United States.[31] It has been described by a journalist as "a socially transmitted disease over the Internet".[32]

Vegetative-vascular dystonia can be considered an example of somatic condition formally recognised by local medical communities in former Soviet Union countries, but not in Western classification systems. Its umbrella term nature as neurological condition also results in diagnosing neurotic patients as neurological ones,[33][34] in effect substituting possible psychiatric stigma with culture-bound syndrome disguised as a neurological condition.

Refugee children in Sweden have been known to fall into coma-like states on learning their families will be deported. The condition, known in Swedish as uppgivenhetssyndrom, or resignation syndrome, is believed to only exist among the refugee population in Sweden, where it has been prevalent since the early part of the 21st century. In a 130-page report on the condition commissioned by the government and published in 2006, a team of psychologists, political scientists, and sociologists hypothesized that it was a culture-bound syndrome.[35]

A startle disorder similar to latah, called imu (sometimes spelled imu:), is found among Ainu people, both Sakhalin Ainu and Hokkaido Ainu.[36][37]

A condition similar to piblokto, called menerik (sometimes meryachenie), is found among Yakuts, Yukaghirs, and Evenks living in Siberia.[38]

The trance-like violent behavior of the Viking age berserkers – behavior that disappeared with the arrival of Christianity – has been described as a culture-bound syndrome.[39]

• Kleinman, Arthur (1991). Rethinking psychiatry: from cultural category to personal experience. New York: Free Press. ISBN 978-0-02-917441-8. Retrieved 8 January 2011.
• Landy, David, ed. (1977). Culture, Disease, and Healing: Studies in Medical Anthropology. New York: Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-02-367390-0.
• Launer, John (November 2003). "Folk illness and medical models". QJM. 96 (11): 875–876. doi:10.1093/qjmed/hcg136. PMID 14566046.
• Simons, Rondald C; Hughes, Charles C, eds. (1985). The Culture-Bound Syndromes: Folk Illnesses and Anthropological Interest. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Co. ISBN 978-90-277-1858-7. Retrieved 9 September 2010. Paperback ISBN 90-277-1859-8
• Rebhun, L.A. (2004). "Culture-Bound Syndromes". In Ember, Carol R.; Melvin Ember (eds.). Encyclopedia of Medical Anthropology: Health and Illness in the World's Cultures. New York: Klower Academic/Plenum Publishers. pp. 319–327. ISBN 978-0-306-47754-6. Retrieved 9 September 2010. (Note: Different preview pages result in the full chapter being viewable from the title link).
• Kirmayer, L. J. (2001). "Cultural variations in the clinical presentation of depression and anxiety: implications for diagnosis and treatment". Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. 62: 22–30. PMID 11434415.
• Bures, Frank (2016). The Geography of Madness: Penis Thieves, Voodoo Death, and the Search for the Meaning of the World's Strangest Syndromes Hardcover. Melville House. ISBN 978-1612193724.

• Psychiatric Times – Introduction to Culture-Bound Syndromes(registration required)
• Skeptical Inquirer – Culture-bound syndromes as fakery