Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Culture-Bound Syndromes: Understanding and Classification - Prof. Sharma, Cheat Sheet of Psychology

An in-depth analysis of culture-bound syndromes, which are psychiatric and somatic symptoms that are considered diseases within specific societies or cultures. The inclusion of culture-bound syndromes in the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (dsm) and international classification of diseases (icd-10), as well as common examples such as latah, amok, pibloktoq, susto, koro, and dhat. The document also explores the role of culture in shaping the meanings and expressions of various emotions, as well as the differences in symptom presentation across cultures.

Typology: Cheat Sheet

2021/2022

Uploaded on 04/16/2024

alice-cadwell
alice-cadwell 🇮🇳

1 document

1 / 5

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
PROJECT WORK – 3
CULTURE BOUND SYNDROME
Culture-specific syndrome or folk illness is a combination of psychiatric and
somatic (body) symptoms that are considered to be a recognizable disease only
within a specific society or culture. There are no objective structural or
functional alterations of body organs or functions and the disease is not
recognized in other cultures.
The term culture-bound syndrome was included in the fourth version of the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).
Within the ICD-10 (Chapter V) framework culture-specific disorders are
characterized by:
1. Categorization as a disease in the culture.
2. Widespread familiarity in the culture.
3. Complete lack of familiarity or misunderstanding of the condition to
people in other cultures.
4. No objectively demonstrable biochemical or tissue abnormalities.
5. The condition is usually recognized and treated 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. The term culture-bound syndrome is controversial since it
reflects the different opinions of anthropologists and psychiatrists.
Culture-bound syndromes are classified on the basis of common etiology:
magic, evil spells, or angry ancestors so clinical pictures may vary.
Projection is a common ego defense mechanism in many non-Western cultures.
Guilt and shame are often projected into cultural beliefs and ceremonies. Guilt
and shame are attributed to other individuals, to groups, or to objects, and may
involve acting out, blaming others, and needing to punish others. Projection is
also seen in magic and in supernatural perspectives of existence. This leads to
projective ceremonies and may lead to illness when the ceremonies are not
performed.
Cultural psychoses are difficult to define. In cultural syndromes, hallucinations
may be viewed as normal variants. Delusions and thought disorder must be
pf3
pf4
pf5

Partial preview of the text

Download Culture-Bound Syndromes: Understanding and Classification - Prof. Sharma and more Cheat Sheet Psychology in PDF only on Docsity!

PROJECT WORK – 3

CULTURE BOUND SYNDROME

Culture-specific syndrome or folk illness is a combination of psychiatric and somatic (body) symptoms that are considered to be a recognizable disease only within a specific society or culture. There are no objective structural or functional alterations of body organs or functions and the disease is not recognized in other cultures. The term culture-bound syndrome was included in the fourth version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Within the ICD-10 (Chapter V) framework culture-specific disorders are characterized by:

  1. Categorization as a disease in the culture.
  2. Widespread familiarity in the culture.
  3. Complete lack of familiarity or misunderstanding of the condition to people in other cultures.
  4. No objectively demonstrable biochemical or tissue abnormalities.
  5. The condition is usually recognized and treated 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. The term culture-bound syndrome is controversial since it reflects the different opinions of anthropologists and psychiatrists. Culture-bound syndromes are classified on the basis of common etiology: magic, evil spells, or angry ancestors so clinical pictures may vary. Projection is a common ego defense mechanism in many non-Western cultures. Guilt and shame are often projected into cultural beliefs and ceremonies. Guilt and shame are attributed to other individuals, to groups, or to objects, and may involve acting out, blaming others, and needing to punish others. Projection is also seen in magic and in supernatural perspectives of existence. This leads to projective ceremonies and may lead to illness when the ceremonies are not performed. Cultural psychoses are difficult to define. In cultural syndromes, hallucinations may be viewed as normal variants. Delusions and thought disorder must be

reevaluated within a particular cultural setting. A culture may interpret abnormal behavior as relating to some kind of voodoo or anger and may regard the symptoms as normal even though symptoms are consistent with schizophrenia. In the past, it was believed that culture-bound syndromes only occurred in the country or region of origin. However, with significant population movements and the tendency for immigrants to remain within their culture (though they have moved to a new country), culture-bound syndromes have been observed in other parts of the world. As with many culture-bound syndromes, there may be significant overlap with DSM-IV psychiatric diagnoses. The study of culture-bound syndromes has gained respectability from the scholarly works of pioneers such as Yap who alleged that: It has long been known that there are, in certain cultural groups, peculiar aberrations of behavior which are regarded by them as abnormal. Over the years a number of terms taken from indigenous languages have crept into the psychiatric literature to denote these conditions, but many of them do not point to novel or distinct forms of disorder unknown elsewhere. Some are simply generic terms for “mental disorders” without definite meaning, others refer only to healing rituals, and still others to supernatural notions of disease causation. Some common culture-bound syndromes include the following:  Latah: Originating from Malaysia and Indonesia, Latah refers to the exaggerated startle response followed by odd behaviors. The afflicted person typically responds to a frightening stimulus with an exaggerated startle or jump, sometimes throwing or dropping a held object, uttering some improper word, or matching the words or movements of people. The pattern is a highly stereotypic, culturally labeled state which, though contravening the social norm, is differentiated from insanity.  Amok: Amok refers to the sudden mass assault taxon indigenous to Malayo- Indonesians, but may find parallel instances of indiscriminate homicide in other parts of the world. It is defined as “an acute outburst of unrestrained violence associated with homicidal attack, preceded by a period of brooding, and ending with exhaustion and amnesia” It is believed to have originated from the cultural training for warfare of the early Javanese and Malays which was intended to terrify the enemy into believing that they could expect no mercy and could save themselves only by flight.

  1. Culture and society shape the meanings and expressions people give to various emotions.
  2. Cultural factors determine which symptoms or signs are normal or abnormal.
  3. Culture helps define what comprises health and illness.
  4. It shapes the illness behavior and help seeking behavior. So, it would not be erroneous to conclude that cultural influence on psychiatric disorders includes conditions other than CBS. The current version of DSM-IV has included the cultural underpinnings of the presentations of various mental and behavioral conditions in the text descriptions of the individual disorders. Also, it has incorporated the description of the CBS and the outline for assisting the clinicians in systematic evaluation of these conditions in its glossary section. This approach highlights the acceptance of the importance of the cultural variables in shaping the psychiatric conditions and their management. Similarly, ICD-10 has described some of these conditions in the chapter F4. Authors like Wig (1994) and Littlewood (1996) have proposed the change in the current diagnostic classifications to shift the conditions currently included under the rubric of CBS to the group considered to be more widely prevalent. One could easily draw the parallels from other psychiatric conditions considered to be prevalent all over the globe. Although these psychiatric disorders would be classified under the same diagnostic categories, there could still be differences in their manifestation and presentation in different cultures. These differences are shaped by the locally prevalent cultural beliefs, attitudes and knowledge among other factors. The patient of paranoid schizophrenia would be harboring a delusional belief of being persecuted against. However, it would not be surprising to find a variation in the content of this delusion. Such variations are shaped by the cultural and individual differences, part of which is governed by the knowledge and the understanding of the condition. This would not change the diagnosis, although one would need to be aware of the local cultural nuances for the better understanding and the management of the case. With the increasing globalization, the ‘culture bound’ cases are being seen by the clinicians in different cultures and geographical regions. Separately categorizing CBSs is unlikely to improve the management of these conditions. Rather, such an approach could impede the understanding of these conditions as researchers from other cultures and countries might consider it irrelevant to study these conditions because of their ‘culture specificity’.

CONCLUSION

There is a need to reconsider CBSs in the light of the available literature. Relabeling and inclusion of these manifestations in the mainstream diagnostic categories in the upcoming revisions of the diagnostic manual would pave way for a better understanding and management of these conditions.