Moral Panics

Linking structuralism and labelling When studying power and status in society, we can see that some groups have the power to define particular subcultures, and present them as a threat to society. “Folk Devils and Moral Panics” was a study by the sociologist Stanley Cohen. He was interested in the way that the media and politicians (moral entrepreneurs) have the power to influence the way that people in society are viewed, and label certain subcultures and behaviours as problems

Mods vs Rockers Cohen’s original study was focused on the media reaction to a few fights that took place in Clacton on Easter Monday in 1964. This relates to issues of age identity and discrimination in society. Remembering that “teenage” is a fairly new social phenomenon and is generally seen by more powerful middle age groups to be a threat to their power. Two youth groups – “The Mods” and “The Rockers” clashed in the seaside town, there were a few fights. However the media vastly exaggerated the events of the day referring to it as a “Day of Terror” and using language like “battle” and “riot”

Simplification and stigmatization Cohen argued that the amount of media attention these fights got was way out of proportion to their actual “newsworthiness”. He believed that the media assumed that the people who buy newspapers would agree that this was a threat to social order, and was a sign of the decline in morality of the young – society decaying. Middle aged people would be threatened by the growing power, influence and rebelliousness of the young. So the groups were labelled as “mods” and “rockers” by the media and presented in a distorted and stereotyped fashion as a threat to law and order. The media called for them to be punished by the police and courts

Folk Devil Moral panics require the creation of a “folk devil” which is a caricature or stereotype of a deviant. They may focus particularly on dress and behaviour – which helps the public and police to identify them more easily. The media present the argument that perpetrators of deviant acts are immoral, selfish and evil. The causes of the deviancy are simplified. They use the common sense approach rather than the sociological approach Steps need to be taken in order to control their actions There will be even more problems if the group is not constantly watched over.

Publicising the behaviour But the media attention also has the effect of drawing attention to the subculture, and more people may join it. People around the country start to notice it in their area – behaviour which they may not have questioned before suddenly has a label

Manufacturing Consent The values that the folk devil is questioning does not necessarily constitute universal beliefs on the part of society, however Press reports it as if it is a consensus – as if we all believe this, and so we should be outraged at this group who are wilfully rebelling Common underlying message in news: Society is deteriorating, not what it used to be, decline in morals, religions, lack of respect for authority, disintegration of family values Politicians seen as “family doctor” who identify solutions

Moral panics erupt very quickly, but also subside quickly when newspaper editors feel like the people have had enough and won’t buy more newspapers – they have to move on to the next thing The public are so wound up by the media that they start to demand action from politicians and police The police respond by over-policing, and politicians label group as subversive with view to exploit public fear so that they can step in to provide the “solution” (“tough on crime”, “3 strikes and you are out”)

Deviancy Amplification So the deviancy is “amplified”, this means it happens more often and more visibly. More people are drawn to the behaviour Those labelled become more entrenched People around the country notice it more

Social Exclusion Increased attention leading to amplification validates media’s initial concern – everyone is so interested so they must have been right for highlighting it in the first place. It has become a self- fulfilling prophecy Society outlaws the group The target group feels alienated, and so the labelling process begins to work as they go deeper within themselves and live up to the labels more.

According to Cohen, there are five stages to a moral panic Someone, something or a group are defined as a threat to social norms or community interests; The threat is then depicted in a simple and recognizable symbol/form by the media; The portrayal of this symbol rouses public concern; There is a response from authorities and policy makers; The moral panic over the issue results in social changes within the community.

Some terrible laws (in the sense of them being poorly thought out) have been put in place thanks to moral panics – for example the Dangerous Dogs Act – which was enacted after a couple of people were attacked by Pit Bull Terriers – these dogs were banned in the UK. But all dogs could attack, banning a breed does no deal with the problem.

Moral panics can change society Sometimes the moral panic erupts, with all the horror and anger etc. but after a while the behaviour becomes normalised, and part of mainstream culture – this may be as the generation who were part of the subculture become middle aged. It can also be a way of removing power from a subculture

Key terms Moral Panic Folk Devil Deviancy Amplification Moral Entrepreneur Simplification and Stigmatization

Evaluation - Strengths Cohen’s theory has been useful in showing how certain groups in society (within the dominant culture) have greater power and status and are able to label subcultures and deviant behaviour.

Strengths A strength of Cohen’s work is that it has made it easier to explain how the powerful groups in society can introduce control legislation which is generally poorly thought out and would probably be rejected under normal circumstances. Britain has become the “most watched” democratic nation on earth – with one CCTV camera for every 11 people. This growth in CCTV has gone largely unchallenged due to moral panics surrounding the Jamie Bulger murder and the threat of home grown terror.

Strengths

Strengths Cohen’s theory is useful in explaining how the media and moral entrepreneurs are involved in the process and exert power in society.

Even more strengths Essentially for a sociological theory, Cohen’s work is applicable beyond the original study of Mods and Rockers. There has been a similar pattern across a large number of moral panics Ecstasy/Rave culture Satanic ritual child abuse Terrorism Immigration

Weaknesses There have also been criticisms of Cohen’s work. Jewkes (2004) argued that there are different levels of deviancy and this is not accounted for in Cohen’s work. It is unfair to compare the moral panic about cannabis to child sex abuse –and so a negative reaction to some problems may well be justified. Perhaps the recent “panic” following the Jimmy Saville case, which has led to many more survivors of abuse coming forward to speak about their experiences, has been positive and cathartic for society, in dealing with a problem that has been hidden for so long?

Also there is the argument that morality is not fixed – and what might have been a panic in the 1970’s, may be completely different from a moral panic in 2016 – the moral climate changes over time, which is not accounted for in Cohen’s work.

More weaknesses A significant criticism of Cohen has been that moral panic theory doesn’t seek to explain what caused the behaviour in the first place – only why people continue to do it. This has beena problem with labelling theory in general

Weaknesses Another British sociologist, Stuart Hall, said Cohen had the wrong end of the stick really. He said that the media creates moral panics in order to show how the present political and criminal justice system can solve the problem and make us feel safe. Panic is whipped up in order to be quickly soothes. This produces comfort and complacency among the people rather than panic. People don’t feel the need to change the system

Finally Furthermore – Cohen treats the media as if it is just one entity – rather than a variety of different individuals and groups, each of whom have different viewpoints and agendas. And moral panic theory seems to assume that we are all quite easily manipulated by the media, and prone to believe everything we are told. We know in actual fact that many people are very sceptical of journalists – particularly in the most reactionary “tabloid” newspapers, and we are mostly aware of the political biases, so tend to apply filters as we consume media.