The idea of moral panic is one of the many socialist ideologies that have been subject of discussions and critical research by social scholars and scientists over the years. Moral panic has had its fair share of all-inclusive definitions, but perhaps the most revered one by social researchers is Stanley Cohen’s (1972). He indulges us with the idea that moral panic is sort of like an idealized scar in society, an unsettling social occurrence that offsets the socio-cultural balance, often triggered by what he labels as folk devils. In simplistic terms, it is the feat of social unrest that occurs when media realms publicize a certain strain of deviant behavior, causing the public to “worry”. Scholars have chipped in strongly from this angle, and there have been numerous ideologies surrounding what transpires around the moral panic scene. The most reflected upon aspect is deviance – moral panic is generally associated with deviant behavior, and its primary channel of distribution is the media. Jumping onto the tracks from a constructionist perspective, there are a couple of powerfully compelling ways of looking at moral panic. First, scholars such as Goode & Ben-Yehuda (2009) have argued that for moral panic to be sufficiently attributed, it needs to be characterized by hostility, concern and disproportionality. Now, hostility is associated with folk devils – a person or group of persons who come onto the mass media limelight on accord of their deviant behavior, and hence triggering moral panic. However, the constructionist theorist will want to argue out differently in accordance to the extent that defines deviance, and the approaches used by mass media to fuel the same. Best (1995) argues that not all harmful situations can be quantified as social problems.
Therefore, it is highly likely that the mass media, the main claims-maker in the moral panic disposition, fuels the negativity and perilous nature of deviant behavior. The term hostility as used by Goode & Ben-Yehuda (2009) refers to the element of posing danger, and the appositions of resentment and enmity. From a constructionist viewpoint, it would be a good starting point to question what triggers the deviance. The general theory of crime structures deviance in a way that makes us believe that the actor of a deviant activity ignores the negative long-term consequences of performing it, both from a social and from a stately point of view. Constructionism therefore seeks to treat deviance as an act that appears threatening to the society, but is instead an indulgence that ignores the consequential attributes enforced by the rules of society and the laws of the land. Scholars have also looked into the specifics of deviance and have come up with varied responses. Cohen (1972) posits that as moral panic deviance receives more media attention, the offenders/deviant individuals seemingly intensify their deviant behaviors – Cohen calls it “deviance amplification”. The constructionist theory then deconstructs this ideology so that, instead of throwing the blame ball to the deviant individuals, the media is held accountable for the reason that publicizing deviant behavior amplifies it rather than repressing it. Further, the theory of signification spirals as asserted by Hall et al (1978), holds that society places a deviant event higher up the intensity scale if that event is likened to another that is of a relatively higher magnitude. A constructionist theorist would argue that society is oftentimes, if not always, biased by stereotypic positions. What the media rules as deviant, and to what extent it is socially damaging, then the society will most likely be swayed in that direction, hence evoking moral panic which could easily be avoided in fundamental critical thought environments.
Discussion Questions
In the wake of moral panic, who is to be blamed the most and why? The society, the deviant individual(s), or the powerful influencers e.g. politicians?
Society tends to build heavily on cases of moral panic. Does this disproportionality (over-concern on basic deviance) resort to unforeseen negative impacts?
Being that mass media is the fuel to moral panic, should law enforcement act on the behest of the media towards moral panic eradication?
Should moral panic be an issue of subjectivity or objectivity?
Should claims-making have stricter legal grounds or should it just be an open ended concept provided it does not stir up disagreements?
References
Best, J. (1995). Typification and social problems construction. Images of issues: Typifying contemporary social problems, 1-16.
Cohen, S. (2002). Folk devils and moral panics: The creation of the mods and rockers. Psychology Press.
Goode, E., & Ben-Yehuda, N. (2010). Moral panics: The social construction of deviance. John Wiley & Sons.
Hall, S., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J., & Roberts, B. (2013). Policing the crisis: Mugging, the state and law and order. Palgrave Macmillan.
Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. R. (1994). The generality of deviance. Transaction Publishers.
