Deconstructing culture-bound syndromes

Ethnopsychiatry comprises a large field of literature written from diverse perspectives, disciplines and orientations. Its status as an interdiscipinary activity presents formidable obstacles to researchers interested in comparative problems and the development of generalizations. These difficulties can be demonstrated by even a cursory examination of the material written on what has come to be called 'culture-bound syndromes'. In spite of the considerable body of specific studies written about these 'ethnic psychoses', as Devereux termed them. debates continue to swirl over how to define them, whether they are manifestations of psychopathology. and. by implication, the degree to which the categories of Western psychiatric nosology are readily transferable to other cultural and historical settings. This paper does not attempt to play the role of broker between universalists and particularists. If anything I favor the particularist position with respect to the impossibility of directly applying diagnostic categories across cultural boundaries. On the other hand I would not deny that there are universal processes which take their form through complex interaction with particular cultural, historical and social settings. The goal of showing how general forms can only be realized in particular settings is a vital one for anthropology, and the literature on culture- bound syndromes illustrates the problems involved. The problems can be severe. but no more so than those facing any observer of an exotic cultural setting. Because I perceive parallels between problems of translation in social and anthropology in general and the issues that have emerged in discussions of culture-bound syndromes, I seek to return to basic issues in this essay to examine some aspects of culture-bound syndromes that should be examined before assertions about pathology are made. While it can be shown that the very idea of culture- bound syndromes is controversial it cannot be argued that the literature discussing them has been significant for modern psychiatric practice. The DSM. the Burke's peerage of psychiatric disorders, does not include either the concept of the culture- bound syndrome or any of its specific instances in the compendium (l)*. The reasons for this omission are not difficult to discern. The vantage point of Western scientific medicine defines culture bound syndromes as forms found in other societies and at other times. The descriptions of Anorexia and Bulemia found in DSM III, for example. do not note either that the incidence or popularity of diagnosis of these syn- dromes is recent. Yet Raymond Prince has been able to show that the historical specificity of these syn- dromes could easily qualify them for status as culture-bound (see his paper in this issue). Thus we can say that while academic ethnopsychiatry debates the culture-bound/universal distinction, it has made little impact on psychiatric practice. This is un- fortunate. The concept of culture-bound syndromes raises questions of cultural and historical variation that are generally not addressed in clinical psychiatry, a positivistically oriented field which aims to explain all behavior in terms derived deductively from its

Background: Immigrants have great risk for psychiatric disorders under cultural impact. Increasing cross-cultural stress-related psychiatric problems can be expected due to increasing international communications contemporarily. Psychiatrists need to be familiar to the diverse manifestations of immigrants' psychopathology. Case Report: A Haitian male postgraduate student developed transient psychotic symptoms which were apparently related to cross-cultural stress and resembled those of bouffee delirante, which is a variant of acute and transient psychotic disorder and is regarded as a culture-bound syndrome in DSM-IV. Conclusion: We review literature and discuss immigrants’ paranoid reaction, culture-bound syndrome, historical concepts of bouffee delirante, and application of cultural formulation in clinical practice. We wish that these viewpoints can decrease the chance of having inaccurate diagnosis and giving suboptimal intervention caused by difficulties in interpreting the immigrants' psychopathology.

The present volume contains papers which describe certain of the phenomena usually classified as “culture-bound psychiatric syndromes”, or as “culture-bound syndromes” with “psychiatric” understood. Both terms have long been used to refer to sets of remarkable individual experiences and/or behaviors which some observer has considered to be psychopathological, hence the medical rubic, “syndrome”. Unlike the categories of standard Western psychiatric nosology, culture-bound syndromes are restricted to specifiable peoples and locales, hence the term “culture-bound”. Thus their full explications require description not only of the behaviors and experiences which are considered deviant, but also of the ways those behaviors and experiences are embedded in specific social systems and cultural contexts.

Classifications in psychiatry can result in the reification of hypothetical approaches, arbitrary categorisation and social injustice. This article applies a social constructivist approach to critique the DSM-5 as a neurobiological model of psychiatric diagnosis which ignores psychosocial factors such as poverty, unemployment and trauma as causes of mental distress. It challenges the universality of psychiatric diagnosis and proposes that cultural psychiatry's framing of ‘culture-bound syndromes,’ or ‘cultural case formulation’ guidelines, is oversimplified. Use of the DSM in the South African context risks perpetuating injustice by labelling and stigmatising people who have in the past been racially stigmatised by apartheid. In culturally diverse South Africa, psychiatric diagnosis should take into account alternative explanatory models that provide a more balanced view of the complex and dynamic relationship between biological and sociocultural forces in the manifestation of psychopathology.

Culture-bound syndromes articulate not only personal predicament but also public concerns about core structural oppositions between age groups or the sexes. They have a shared meaning as public and dramatic representations in an individual whose personal situation demonstrates these oppositions, and they thus occur in certain well-defined situations. 'Culture-bound syndromes of the dominant culture' is perhaps a misnomer, for we have found them largely among women. Theories of the relationship between culture and psychopathology have assumed that the notion of 'culture' and the domain of 'psychopathology' are distinct despite many studies of small-scale 'tribal' communities which do not make Western separation between these two notions. Biomedicine offers a powerful and unquestionable legitimate inversion of everyday behaviour. It will not be surprising, therefore, to find that many of 'culture-bound syndromes' are already included in psychiatric nosologies and that others lie hidden in the fringes of general medicine.

Studies on development-induced displacement and resettlement (DIDR) across the world have revealed a range of negative outcomes for resettlers’ livelihoods. DIDR studies have faced conceptual challenges and limited understanding of the post resettlement and livelihood reconstruction process. Previous studies have tended to overlook the full range of impacts that resettlement projects have on the ability of displaced persons to maintain their livelihoods and have tended to focus on short-term livelihood strategies rather than improve future livelihoods. In addition, the key DIDR frameworks fail to understand the complexities inherent in the resettlement process which is often contextualised in different economic, political, social and cultural settings (De Wet, 2006). This research seeks to understand the livelihood reconstruction processes for four ethnic groups including Kinh group (ethnic Vietnamese) and three other minority groups (Bahnar, Jarai and Ro Ngao groups) who were directly affected by the construction of the Yali Falls Dam in the Central Highlands of Vietnam from the late 1990s. In doing so, this research proposes an adapted framework for understanding, monitoring and enhancing livelihood resilience of resettled people in Vietnam. This research is addressed through three major research questions: 1. How has the Yali Falls Dam resettlement project affected the resettled ethnic groups’ livelihoods? 2. How and why do the subsequent livelihood strategies and outcomes differ among the ethnic groups? and 3. What key modifications to the existing DIDR frameworks could be made to improve resettlement program planning and implementation? This research employed both quantitative and qualitative methods to answer these research questions and gain insights into the resettlement complex. Methods included structured household interviews with 397 resettled households from the four ethnic groups, and in-depth interviews with 19 key informants from the local authorities in the district and communes, as well as with resettled people. In addition, participant observations and photos were also taken to complement the data and analysis. The research reveals the following key findings. First, impacts of the Yali Falls resettlement project were unevenly distributed among the four resettled ethnic groups. The three ethnic minority groups, who had traditionally led predominantly subsistence lifestyles have suffered high rates of poverty, food insecurity and debt. However, the Kinh group have been able to recover and develop their livelihoods after the resettlement. Second, a range of formal and informal coping livelihood strategies have emerged and been applied by the different ethnic groups. The ethnic minority groups (Bahnar, Jarai and Ro Ngao) have tended to apply more informal and unsustainable coping strategies, while the Kinh group have improved their livelihoods with the majority of households employing development strategies. The differentiation in livelihood strategies is driven by several key factors including land rights and land holding changes, social differentiation and social networks involved in the resettlement process. Third, examination of the resettlement process and its outcomes through the lenses of the DIDR frameworks and the sustainable livelihoods framework reveals several strengths and weaknesses of the existing frameworks which are explored. This study found that the four stage framework (Scudder and Colson, 1982) does not hold true for Vietnam’s resettlement projects. The risk and livelihoods reconstruction framework (IRR) (Cernea, 1997) showed its strengths in predicting impoverishment risk outcomes of the Yali resettlement project and other projects in Vietnam. However, it has limitations in terms of providing an understanding of the process for and driving factors behind livelihood strategies. The case of Yali also provided additional risks such as power inequities among the resettled people, financial risk and education disruption which are missing in the IRR framework. This research also found the routine and dissonant culture framework (Downing and Garcia-Downing, 2009) is illustrative in explaining the religious conversion of the Jarai group from an animist group into Catholic, Buddhist, and Protestant religions. This research makes several key contributions to the DIDR and livelihoods research fields. It has shown how to apply an adapted livelihood framework with a focus on livelihood capitals to understand the impacts of a resettlement project. It has revealed several driving factors involved in the complexities of the resettlement process which are embedded in historical and social settings. This research has also proposed an adapted framework for understanding, monitoring and enhancing livelihood resilience of the resettled people in Vietnam based on the data and an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the key DIDR frameworks. The adapted framework with a focus on livelihood capitals, consideration of social differentiation and usage of a process-based approach not only provides a comprehensive understanding of the resettlement process but also suggests interventions to improve the resettled people’s livelihood resilience in the long-term.

Culture-bound syndromes are patterns of abnormal behavior that occur exclusively within certain cultural groups. This topic brings into consideration the question, just what constitutes a mental disorder? Culture-bound syndromes often involve bizarre behavior that in the West might defy categorization. It is important to take into account an individual’s ethnic and cultural context in evaluating whether a mental disorder really exists. Deviant behavior in one cultural setting might be acceptable, even praiseworthy, in another. For example, for Native Americans it is normal to hear voices when alone, whereas this could be diagnosed as schizophrenia by conventional psychiatrists. A widespread culture-bound syndrome is running amok, also known as longlong, whereby the individual will become very agitated and run about, stealing things, trampling crops, chasing people and demanding things to be given to him. In Papua New Guinea longlong is regarded as an institutionalized means for reduction of tension, a temporary escape from unbearable situations. Another culturebound syndrome, lulu, is characterized by a generalized shaking of the body, distorted mental perceptions and bizarre behavior. Arctic hysteria is similar to running amok, and is found mainly among the Inuits of North America; it involves screaming, tearing off clothing and running naked into the snow. Bebainan is a type of anxiety or hysteria characterized by feelings of confusion, dizziness, trembling, blurring of vision, a cold sensation spreading through the body, a vacant feeling, and a loss of desire or will. Hwa-Byung seems localized among Koreans and Korean-Americans and is similar in symptoms to bebainan, but may also include physical symptoms such as there heart palpitations, headaches, chronic indigestion, poor appetite, and vomiting of blood. Taijin-kyofu-sho, common in Japan where saving face is so important, is a kind of phobia in which people are fearful of offending others in social situations through awkward behavior, imperfect body features, or imagined shortcomings. Koro is prevalent in Asia and India and involves intense anxiety, for men, that the penis will recede into the body and possibly cause death, and for women that the vulva and the nipples will recede. Susto or “soul loss” is a highly prevalent among Mexicans and Latin Americans, and is a kind of nervous breakdown, perhaps triggered by a frightening or traumatic event. The soul is said to literally be expelled from one’s body, and one might immediately start to feel “ill from fright.” A related syndrome is ataques de nervos, accompanied by weakness dizziness and disorientation. Similarly, saldero involves anxiety, depression, crying, poor concentration, insomnia, etc. Latah, confined mainly to Malaysia, involves lewd, disorganized outburst in public. Piot, a syndrome unique to Papua New Guinea, usually affects an entire family and occurs when a guest arrives or leaves the home; symptoms include headaches and an unusual lassitude. Windigo psychosis, among the Northern Algonkian Indians, was a compulsion to commit cannibalism, despite norms against it, and despite the individual’s personal sense of repugnance in the act. Pica and geophagia are found in diverse cultures, and involves a compulsion to eat unsuitable or unusual things, such as wood, clay, stones, ashes, hair, plaster or laundry starch.

Foreword to Issue 4.1 (2021) of JPR.

The Journal of Perpetrator Research (JPR) is an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed, open access journal committed to promoting the scholarly study of perpetrators and perpetration of political and mass violence, terrorism, and genocide.JPR does not confine its attention to any particular geographical region or historical period - instead, it fosters scholarly discussions about perpetrators and perpetration across the broader continuum of political and mass violence. The journal's mission is to provide a forum for scholarship taking place within a broad range of fields including history, criminology, law, forensics, sociology, anthropology, philosophy, psychology, political science, memory studies, cultural studies, literary studies, film and media studies, museum studies, and education. In providing an interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary space, the journal moves academic research on perpetrators and perpetration beyond, and between, disciplinary boundaries. JPR not only addresses issues related to perpetrators and perpetration in the past but also responds to present challenges. Fundamental questions informing the journal include, for example, questions of terminology, motivation, ideology, agency, processes and dynamics, as well as questions of prevention: Who or what is a perpetrator? How is such a label applied and by whom? How do such labels evolve? What drives people to commit acts of mass violence and genocide and how do these acts unfold? What measures can be taken to identify potential perpetrators before they act, and what can be done to prevent mass violence from occurring? What can be done to rehabilitate perpetrators after the fact? Another set of questions informing JPR pertains to the status and significance of the perpetrator as a discursive formation in legal, political, historical, philosophical, and cultural settings. How do societies come to terms with acts of perpetration and with the perpetrators themselves? What role does the figure of the perpetrator play in the popular imagination? How do representations of perpetrators change over time and across geographical and cultural boundaries as well as across different media, genres, and traditions? Finally, JPR is also interested in exploring questions of theory and method. What are the ethical and moral implications of studying perpetrators? How do ethical considerations influence the methodological and theoretical criteria of the inquiry? How does one address the inherent ambiguity, limitations, and contentiousness of labels such as “perpetrator,” and the strategic and political implications of their application?

The Journal of Perpetrator Research (JPR) is an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed, open access journal committed to promoting the scholarly study of perpetrators and perpetration of political and mass violence, terrorism, and genocide. One of the journal’s aims is to engage critically with the very concepts of “perpetrator” and “perpetration”.JPR fosters scholarly discussions about perpetrators and perpetration across the broader continuum of political and mass violence without confining its attention to any particular geographical region or historical period. The journal's mission is to provide a forum for scholarship taking place across a broad range of fields including history, criminology, law, forensics, sociology, anthropology, philosophy, psychology, political science, memory studies, cultural studies, literary studies, film and media studies, museum studies, and education. JPR was created with the explicit aim of providing an inter- and cross-disciplinary space for the study of perpetrators and perpetration, including critical reflections on theories, methods, and approaches beyond, and between, and across disciplinary boundaries. JPR not only addresses past and present issues related to perpetrators and perpetration. Fundamental questions informing the journal include, for example, questions of terminology, motivation, ideology, agency, processes and dynamics, as well as questions of prevention: Who or what is a perpetrator? How is such a label applied and by whom? How do such labels evolve? What drives people to participate in mass violence and how do their crimes unfold? What measures can be taken to identify potential perpetrators before they act, and prevent them from committing crimes? What can be done to rehabilitate perpetrators after the fact?Another set of questions informing JPR pertains to the status and significance of the perpetrator as a discursive formation in legal, political, historical, philosophical, and cultural settings. How do societies come to terms with acts of perpetration and with the perpetrators themselves? What role does the figure of the perpetrator play in the popular imagination for different audiences? How do representations of perpetrators change over time and across geographical and cultural boundaries, as well as across different media, genres, and traditions? Finally, JPR is also interested in exploring questions of theory and method. What are the ethical and moral implications of studying perpetrators? How do ethical considerations influence the methodological and theoretical criteria of the inquiry? How does one address the inherent ambiguity, limitations, and contentiousness of labels such as “perpetrator,” and the strategic and political implications of their application in different contexts internationally?We seek innovative work on any aspect of the study of perpetrators and perpetration, both broader theoretical and methodological interventions into the field and work centering on more specific case studies and examples. Because of the journal’s interdisciplinary and global scope, all contributions should be written with an interdisciplinary and international readership in mind.We also invite proposals for special issues or special sections clustered around a particular topic or theme. If you would like to propose a special issue or section, please contact one of the editors.

The Journal of Perpetrator Research (JPR) is an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed, open access journal committed to promoting the scholarly study of perpetrators and perpetration of political and mass violence, terrorism, and genocide.JPR does not confine its attention to any particular geographical region or historical period - instead, it fosters scholarly discussions about perpetrators and perpetration across the broader continuum of political and mass violence. The journal's mission is to provide a forum for scholarship taking place within a broad range of fields including history, criminology, law, forensics, sociology, anthropology, philosophy, psychology, political science, memory studies, cultural studies, literary studies, film and media studies, museum studies, and education. In providing an interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary space, the journal moves academic research on perpetrators and perpetration beyond, and between, disciplinary boundaries. JPR not only addresses issues related to perpetrators and perpetration in the past but also responds to present challenges. Fundamental questions informing the journal include, for example, questions of terminology, motivation, ideology, agency, processes and dynamics, as well as questions of prevention: Who or what is a perpetrator? How is such a label applied and by whom? How do such labels evolve? What drives people to commit acts of mass violence and genocide and how do these acts unfold? What measures can be taken to identify potential perpetrators before they act, and what can be done to prevent mass violence from occurring? What can be done to rehabilitate perpetrators after the fact? Another set of questions informing JPR pertains to the status and significance of the perpetrator as a discursive formation in legal, political, historical, philosophical, and cultural settings. How do societies come to terms with acts of perpetration and with the perpetrators themselves? What role does the figure of the perpetrator play in the popular imagination? How do representations of perpetrators change over time and across geographical and cultural boundaries as well as across different media, genres, and traditions? Finally, JPR is also interested in exploring questions of theory and method. What are the ethical and moral implications of studying perpetrators? How do ethical considerations influence the methodological and theoretical criteria of the inquiry? How does one address the inherent ambiguity, limitations, and contentiousness of labels such as “perpetrator,” and the strategic and political implications of their application?

The Journal of Perpetrator Research (JPR) is an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed, open access journal committed to promoting the scholarly study of perpetrators and perpetration of political and mass violence, terrorism, and genocide. One of the journal’s aims is to engage critically with the very concepts of “perpetrator” and “perpetration”.JPR fosters scholarly discussions about perpetrators and perpetration across the broader continuum of political and mass violence without confining its attention to any particular geographical region or historical period. The journal's mission is to provide a forum for scholarship taking place across a broad range of fields including history, criminology, law, forensics, sociology, anthropology, philosophy, psychology, political science, memory studies, cultural studies, literary studies, film and media studies, museum studies, and education. JPR was created with the explicit aim of providing an inter- and cross-disciplinary space for the study of perpetrators and perpetration, including critical reflections on theories, methods, and approaches beyond, and between, and across disciplinary boundaries. JPR not only addresses past and present issues related to perpetrators and perpetration. Fundamental questions informing the journal include, for example, questions of terminology, motivation, ideology, agency, processes and dynamics, as well as questions of prevention: Who or what is a perpetrator? How is such a label applied and by whom? How do such labels evolve? What drives people to participate in mass violence and how do their crimes unfold? What measures can be taken to identify potential perpetrators before they act, and prevent them from committing crimes? What can be done to rehabilitate perpetrators after the fact?Another set of questions informing JPR pertains to the status and significance of the perpetrator as a discursive formation in legal, political, historical, philosophical, and cultural settings. How do societies come to terms with acts of perpetration and with the perpetrators themselves? What role does the figure of the perpetrator play in the popular imagination for different audiences? How do representations of perpetrators change over time and across geographical and cultural boundaries, as well as across different media, genres, and traditions? Finally, JPR is also interested in exploring questions of theory and method. What are the ethical and moral implications of studying perpetrators? How do ethical considerations influence the methodological and theoretical criteria of the inquiry? How does one address the inherent ambiguity, limitations, and contentiousness of labels such as “perpetrator,” and the strategic and political implications of their application in different contexts internationally?We seek innovative work on any aspect of the study of perpetrators and perpetration, both broader theoretical and methodological interventions into the field and work centering on more specific case studies and examples. Because of the journal’s interdisciplinary and global scope, all contributions should be written with an interdisciplinary and international readership in mind.We also invite proposals for special issues or special sections clustered around a particular topic or theme. If you would like to propose a special issue or section, please contact one of the editors.

The Journal of Perpetrator Research (JPR) is an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed, open access journal committed to promoting the scholarly study of perpetrators and perpetration of political and mass violence, terrorism, and genocide. One of the journal’s aims is to engage critically with the very concepts of “perpetrator” and “perpetration”.JPR fosters scholarly discussions about perpetrators and perpetration across the broader continuum of political and mass violence without confining its attention to any particular geographical region or historical period. The journal's mission is to provide a forum for scholarship taking place across a broad range of fields including history, criminology, law, forensics, sociology, anthropology, philosophy, psychology, political science, memory studies, cultural studies, literary studies, film and media studies, museum studies, and education. JPR was created with the explicit aim of providing an inter- and cross-disciplinary space for the study of perpetrators and perpetration, including critical reflections on theories, methods, and approaches beyond, and between, and across disciplinary boundaries. JPR not only addresses past and present issues related to perpetrators and perpetration. Fundamental questions informing the journal include, for example, questions of terminology, motivation, ideology, agency, processes and dynamics, as well as questions of prevention: Who or what is a perpetrator? How is such a label applied and by whom? How do such labels evolve? What drives people to participate in mass violence and how do their crimes unfold? What measures can be taken to identify potential perpetrators before they act, and prevent them from committing crimes? What can be done to rehabilitate perpetrators after the fact?Another set of questions informing JPR pertains to the status and significance of the perpetrator as a discursive formation in legal, political, historical, philosophical, and cultural settings. How do societies come to terms with acts of perpetration and with the perpetrators themselves? What role does the figure of the perpetrator play in the popular imagination for different audiences? How do representations of perpetrators change over time and across geographical and cultural boundaries, as well as across different media, genres, and traditions? Finally, JPR is also interested in exploring questions of theory and method. What are the ethical and moral implications of studying perpetrators? How do ethical considerations influence the methodological and theoretical criteria of the inquiry? How does one address the inherent ambiguity, limitations, and contentiousness of labels such as “perpetrator,” and the strategic and political implications of their application in different contexts internationally?We seek innovative work on any aspect of the study of perpetrators and perpetration, both broader theoretical and methodological interventions into the field and work centering on more specific case studies and examples. Because of the journal’s interdisciplinary and global scope, all contributions should be written with an interdisciplinary and international readership in mind.We also invite proposals for special issues or special sections clustered around a particular topic or theme. If you would like to propose a special issue or section, please contact one of the editors.

The Journal of Perpetrator Research (JPR) is an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed, open access journal committed to promoting the scholarly study of perpetrators and perpetration of political and mass violence, terrorism, and genocide. One of the journal’s aims is to engage critically with the very concepts of “perpetrator” and “perpetration”.JPR fosters scholarly discussions about perpetrators and perpetration across the broader continuum of political and mass violence without confining its attention to any particular geographical region or historical period. The journal's mission is to provide a forum for scholarship taking place across a broad range of fields including history, criminology, law, forensics, sociology, anthropology, philosophy, psychology, political science, memory studies, cultural studies, literary studies, film and media studies, museum studies, and education. JPR was created with the explicit aim of providing an inter- and cross-disciplinary space for the study of perpetrators and perpetration, including critical reflections on theories, methods, and approaches beyond, and between, and across disciplinary boundaries. JPR not only addresses past and present issues related to perpetrators and perpetration. Fundamental questions informing the journal include, for example, questions of terminology, motivation, ideology, agency, processes and dynamics, as well as questions of prevention: Who or what is a perpetrator? How is such a label applied and by whom? How do such labels evolve? What drives people to participate in mass violence and how do their crimes unfold? What measures can be taken to identify potential perpetrators before they act, and prevent them from committing crimes? What can be done to rehabilitate perpetrators after the fact?Another set of questions informing JPR pertains to the status and significance of the perpetrator as a discursive formation in legal, political, historical, philosophical, and cultural settings. How do societies come to terms with acts of perpetration and with the perpetrators themselves? What role does the figure of the perpetrator play in the popular imagination for different audiences? How do representations of perpetrators change over time and across geographical and cultural boundaries, as well as across different media, genres, and traditions? Finally, JPR is also interested in exploring questions of theory and method. What are the ethical and moral implications of studying perpetrators? How do ethical considerations influence the methodological and theoretical criteria of the inquiry? How does one address the inherent ambiguity, limitations, and contentiousness of labels such as “perpetrator,” and the strategic and political implications of their application in different contexts internationally?We seek innovative work on any aspect of the study of perpetrators and perpetration, both broader theoretical and methodological interventions into the field and work centering on more specific case studies and examples. Because of the journal’s interdisciplinary and global scope, all contributions should be written with an interdisciplinary and international readership in mind.We also invite proposals for special issues or special sections clustered around a particular topic or theme. If you would like to propose a special issue or section, please contact one of the editors.

This article examines Hipster Hitler, a 2011 webcomic by James Carr and Archana Kumar, where the figure of Adolf Hitler is amalgamated with a generic version of a contemporary hipster, with the apparent purpose of turning both Hitler and hipsters into targets of ridicule. We engage with contemporary scholarship on the representation of Holocaust perpetrators—particularly Adolf Hitler—to examine the implications of a perpetrator of such magnitude becoming so familiar that a few strokes of the pen make him not only immediately recognizable, but also a usable go-to villain whose utilization as a means of generating humorous reactions runs the risk of separating him from his deeds. As the comic appears to emphasize the randomness and shallowness of Hipster Hitler’s horrifying deeds, we ask whether this particular comedic angle can produce valuable engagement with the mechanisms that enabled the relentless and precise work of annihilation orchestrated during Hitler’s regime.