Moral Panic Research Paper

Moral panic What is moral panic? Moral panic is a form of collective behaviour that from one day to the other considers a certain group of people dangerous. The reasons might vary from fake rumours to real (exaggerated) facts. The period of a moral panic usually ends with social actions either in form of attacking the "other" (in the case of a Satanic Ritual) or in changing the law (pornography on the Internet).

Simon Watney ([1988] cited in Moral Panics and the Media, 2006, p. 251-252) argues that in the example of AIDS “posed a significant challenge to any moral panic model”. He proposed five major criticisms: firstly, he argues that moral panics place blame on the state as a prime mover in moral panics. Whilst this may lend itself to be true in the case of the U.K. government, it does not consider that British society was naturally prejudice against the minority groups inflicted by the virus before its arrival. Thus, the campaign to warn the public on the virus did not directly influence the public into a moral panic but was instead a factor. Secondly, “a model which separates out individual moral panics cannot appreciate how they may overlap and reinforce each other”. Thirdly, it does not recognise the significance of dominant discourse. During the 1980s, Britain had already gained a significant prejudice against these minority groups – as mentioned above – and thus it may not be useful to describe the pandemic as a moral panic as the dominant discourse of society at that time was naturally homophobic and racist. Therefore, it can be argued that HIV/AIDS only heightened the social anxiety of, for example, gay people, because the anxiety was already in place. The fourth criticism to be made by Watney (1988) is that the theory does not allow for folk devils resisting the status. Folk devils are

36). They also characterized moral panics using the following five features: “Concern”, “Hostility”, “Consensus”, “Disproportionality”, and “Volatility”, which typically occur sequentially. Moral panic itself is defined by Cohen as when “a condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests” (Burns and Crawford, 1999, p. 148). The subject and duration of a moral panic varies. It may be new or it can be something that has existed for a while but only for a certain time is it seen to be problematic. It can suddenly appear then quickly disappear or it may produce noticeable differences in law or in society (Burns and Crawford, 1999, p. 148). It can be proven both, the Burns and Crawford article entitled “School Shootings, the Media and Public Fear: Ingredients for a Moral Panic,” and the Brezina and Phipps article entitled “False News Reports, Folk Devils and the Role of Public Officials: Notes on the Social Construction of Law and Order in the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.” fully demonstrate the social reaction to the event they are describing meets the definition of a “moral panic” according to the definition by Cohen (Burns and Crawford, 1999, p. 148) and Goode and Ben-Yehuda’s five features (Steeves and Milford,

Mass hysteria is a phenomenon that transmits collective allusions of threats through a population in society as a result of rumors and fear. The Crucible by Arthur Miller accurately portrays mass hysteria that took place during the Salem witch trials of 1692. People were accused based on revenge or other malicious motives and to make the situation worse, nothing about the trials was logical. After a few people were accused, fear set into the town and everyone was viewed as a witch until proven innocent. Mass hysteria not only happened during the Salem witch trials, but right after the Twin Towers fell on September 11, 2001 as well. Mass hysteria ties into both the accusations made in The Crucible and the islamophobia that set in after 9/11.

‘Bikie gangs are like any other organisation or club. There are criminals in all walks of life’

There is debate whether youth crime is really a problem to society or just an issue that is constructed by society. It is argued that media has influenced society’s views on this matter by categorising young people as ‘folk devils’ (Banks, 2013). Certain groups, episodes and people that pose a threat to society’s values is when a moral panic takes place (Cohen, 1972). For example, this can be seen nowadays when there is no actual threat but old people get intimidated when they see large groups of young people hanging about on streets. These influences led to policy change, increasing the level of social control. This means that youth crime may be perceived as a moral panic rather than an actual problem.

A moral panic is the public’s response to problems that seem threatening to the society. Moral panics are used by the media, however people are likely to panic out of proportion due the way it is upheld.

As mentioned earlier Stanley Cohen (1972) is one of prominent sociologists that devised the term ‘moral panic’. He defined the concept as ‘A sporadic episode which, as it occurs, subject’s society to bouts of moral panic, or in other terms, worries about the values and principles which society upholds which may be in jeopardy’ (Cohen, 1987; 9). The term ‘moral panic’ was introduced by Stanley Cohen (1972) in his book entitled ‘Folk Devils and Moral Panics’.

The idea of a moral panic is personified by the term "folk devils" which are those who display acts or attitudes of defiance. However the ones who label the folk devils are likely to be the higher and more "proper" classes of society, as well as the more conservative and old-fashioned. Upon having these labels, the folk devils then conform to their labels as a rebellious act against the ones who have categorised them as such. With the media contributing to the labelling with headlines that reinforce stereotypes of phrases such as "thugs", "hooligans" and "menaces", the deviance is amplified and the panic arises (Laughey). To summarize, an endless cycle is created where society is the one who forces the defiant into creating reasons for society to

Oftenly people within a culture create its own organizing principles and definitions when certain things occur that affect a community and/or society simultaneously, one of them being moral panics. Erich Goode and Nachman Ben-Yehuda introduces us to the concept of moral panics and what they consists of in their article “Moral Panics: Culture, Politics, and Social Construction”. According to the author 's, moral panic is an exaggerated response or concern by the public to an issue that is seen as threatening the moral standards of society, however the harm exposed may be minimal to none, usually ignited by the media, higher officials, action groups and so forth . Moral panic has become a well-known word often used to categorize social problems that we are exposed to today. Here, we see some examples of the three theories: the grassroots model, the elite-engineered model, and the interest-group theory, and how they are present in our lives today.

Societies will always have problems that cause some sort of reaction from individuals who believe that their social stability is being endangered. There have been a number of moral panics which have captivated society in terror and more often than not, owing to unfamiliarity. This essay will discuss the perception of a moral panic and will look at the case of the September 11th Terrorist attack against the United States of America, which triggered a colossal conflict of morality within modern day society. This essay will also analyse terrorism as a perceived deviance, the role of the moral entrepreneur and folk devil, in order to develop a level of understanding to the causes of this particular moral panic and its effects on society.

Michael Tonry in his book “Thinking About Crime” brings up the subject of moral panics (pg 86). A moral panic as defined by Stuart Hall is as follows

Typically researchers argue that certain groups develop as social threats not because they are intrinsically threatening, but rather because the moral leaders are fortunate in their efforts to display these groups as threatening (Ben- Yehuda 1986). However, (Cornwell and Linders 2002) argue moral panic evaluation theories can be an issue because most highlight ‘panic’ rather than evaluating systematic procedures that could spark the collective reaction of seeing certain individuals and groups as a societal threat, which could be rendered into reaction against this specific counterculture.

“ Beneath an overpass of the Hollywood Freeway at 1 A.M., Mr. Masters confronted two young men who were spraying graffiti, argued with them and shot them, killing one, 18-year-old Cesar Arce,” Seth Mydans Reported from The New York Times. This quote explains a vigilante trying to stop two young men who were caught doing something illegal. The vigilante then killed one of the men for their crime. Most people consider this act of brashness to be cruel and immature. But according Seth Manydan in the new York times article, “Instantly, Mr. Masters became the latest celebrity in Los Angeles, a vigilante hero to many people, the toast of talk shows and letters to the editor”(Mydan 1). This exemplifies that even though Mr. Masters had killed someone

The message amongst social interest is decisions that are prepared to profit the world as an entire. Idyllically, social interest involves an individual who’s logical, and really considerate of the well-being of the world. These kind actions done by individual who act sincerely when dealing with social interest shows compassionate leadership. However, [s] ocial interest is typically viewed as being predictive of individuals’ adjustment, and psychological health (Ansbacher, 1968/1991; Manaster, Zeynep, & Knill, 2003). Social interest was intended for each adjusted steps, normally made by individuals, to carefully planned for the embetterment of the world. Philosopher Alfred Adler created the question whether people are truly “inborn or does