Moral Panic

[Figleaf]

Found this while surfing ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic

...a reaction by a group of people based on the false or exaggerated perception that some cultural behavior or group, frequently a minority group or a subculture, is dangerously deviant and poses a menace to society.

It certainly seems to describe many of the subjects we discuss here, as well as the tone taken by some participants. It goes on to say ...

...a moral panic is specifically framed in terms of morality and is usually expressed as outrage rather than unadulterated fear. Moral panics (as defined by Stanley Cohen) revolve around a perceived threat to a value or norm held by a society normally stimulated by glorification within the mass media or 'folk legend' within societies. ...A factor in moral panic is the [']deviancy amplification spiral['], the phenomenon defined by media critics as an increasing cycle of reporting on a category of antisocial behavior or other undesirable events.

It gives some examples. No doubt we can think of many more that have come and gone here. What strikes me is that so often these moral panics can be the subject of deliberate manipulation. I'm always surprised how little recognition the manipulation itself draws.

Here's another source:

http://www.mediaknowall.com/violence/moralpanicnotes.html

[August1991]

I am sceptical of any text which uses the term "framed" to describe the background of a debate.

I am even more sceptical of any writer who implies that other people are dupes or fools but the writer is not.

People use information the same way they use any good or service. Panics and bubbles in financial markets happen but the text above doesn't provide any useful insight into the phenomenon.

[Figleaf]

I am sceptical of any text which uses the term "framed" to describe the background of a debate.

I'd give that up if I were you. Since that term is creeping into discussions all over the place, you'll soon find you can't believe anything.

I am even more sceptical of any writer who implies that other people are dupes or fools but the writer is not.

I thought that was pretty much why anyone wrote anything.

[Charles Anthony]

I thought that was pretty much why anyone wrote anything.

Most members of the media write to earn a salary. Very few writers can survive without paying their bills.

People use information the same way they use any good or service. Panics and bubbles in financial markets happen but the text above doesn't provide any useful insight into the phenomenon.

Interestingly, the second link actually proves this point -- probably unwittingly by its author.

An event occurs and, because of its nature, the media decide it is worthy of dramatic coverage

yadda yadda yadda

This satisfies the public who feel they are empowered politically by the media.

This is just a convoluted way of describing a market.

the text above doesn't provide any useful insight into the phenomenon.

I agree.

I followed the links and found that it was still muddled. From the second link, the concept hinges around how one defines "morally sensitized" which is what the public is supposed to do in a moral panic. However, nowhere is that defined.

A heat wave occurs and, because of its nature, the media decide it is worthy of dramatic coverage.

People go to the store and buy air-conditioners but target polluting industry as the cause of the event. Laws are passed against polluting and against industry. As a result, the cost of supplying air-conditioners rises. There is also a fringe group that develops which wants to outlaw the reporting of bad news but this latter group is out-numbered by the "morally sensitized" majority.

This satisfies the public who feel they are empowered politically by the media.

It certainly seems to describe many of the subjects we discuss here, as well as the tone taken by some participants.

I think I know who you mean (some are just drive-bys while others just keep going and going outlasting the EveryReadyBunny) but "moral panic" is not how I would describe those participants. I would simply describe them as individually hysterical.

[Figleaf]

I would agree that they are individually hysterical, but they aren't all that individual in their themes. In fact, the way they run in packs seems to provide support to the moral panic interpretation. Same-sex marriage is a case in point.

[Mad_Michael]

I would agree that they are individually hysterical, but they aren't all that individual in their themes. In fact, the way they run in packs seems to provide support to the moral panic interpretation. Same-sex marriage is a case in point.

Yes, these types are "individuals" the way all those teens who fight with their parents about the right to dress themselves to express their individuality - in a way identical to all of their friends.

And just what is the difference between a individual experiencing "hysteria" and one experiencing "moral panic"? I respectfully submit that there is no appreciable diffence there.

And indeed, the far more interesting topic is to discuss how these particular 'moral panics' are fostered, facillitated and propagated - to what purpose and for whose benefit?

[Figleaf]

I would agree that they are individually hysterical, but they aren't all that individual in their themes. In fact, the way they run in packs seems to provide support to the moral panic interpretation. Same-sex marriage is a case in point.

Yes, these types are "individuals" the way all those teens who fight with their parents about the right to dress themselves to express their individuality - in a way identical to all of their friends.

And just what is the difference between a individual experiencing "hysteria" and one experiencing "moral panic"? I respectfully submit that there is no appreciable diffence there.

And indeed, the far more interesting topic is to discuss how these particular 'moral panics' are fostered, facillitated and propagated - to what purpose and for whose benefit?

I think your final paragraph suggests the answer to your second paragraph ... the fostered, facilitated and propagated qualities are what makes moral panic different from individual hysteria.

It is tempting to ascribe the fostering of moral panics to one or another side of the political spectrum, but in considering examples, I was able to think of several that seemed driven by or played into both right and left hobbyhorses.

[Slavik44]

It is kind of strange that we are talking about an Individual experiencing moral panic, when by definition that isn't possible really possible, it is a poor proposition. A moral panic consists of widespread fear or concern over a particular issue that is seen as a threat to public interests/values. If only one person is hysterical about an issue...then by definition it is not widespread. However, we could see that individual as a part or by-product of a moral panic. In other words take one of these hysterical people, that we are talking about. What do their posts consist of....Usually a piece of highly sensationalized text, that has a kernel of truth to it. Are these people hysterical...probably, on an individual level. As a whole could they be a part of the moral panic? Absolutely, they may be the public that is concerned...maybe they are acting like a mini media outlet, or moral entrepreneur and focusing attention to the issue or trying to bring it to light, maybe even give us a "solution".

Anyways trying to define moral panic as being individual is just wrong. It would be like describing me as Vancouver. I might be a Vancouverite, I might be apart of Vancouver, but I sure as hell am not Vancouver. Just a small little piece of it.

August also raised an interesting point when he talked about framed...however, I would argue that the issue is dependent on how you define Social problems to begin with. Are they entirely real? Objective? A violation of norms? Or would you instead see them as being constructed an issue is defined collectively as a problem. Obviously in wikipedia, they editors took an entirely constructive view when describing moral panics. But that is wikipedia, it gives a nice little summary that is usually on target, but I wouldn't condemn something, just because the wikipedia article had some holes in it.

We can sort of see this when we look at the theories surrounding the creation of moral panics....

1. Grass roots

Takes a more objective view, argues that Moral Panics originate within the general public. Involves the attitudes and beliefs of a large and broad sector of society. A real and present threat exists. The concern is wide spread and genuinely felt. This may be expanded upon by the media and the police. The issue may be stirred up by politicians, but it had to be in existence in the first place.

2. Elite Engineered Model

Has moral panics being created by small powerful groups, create a campaign to generate and sustain public fear. The problem identified not extremely harmful to society, but it is not benign either. These issues then focus attention away from other bigger problems in society.

3. Interest Group Theory

This theory argues that Moral Entrepreneurs launch Moral crusades and sometimes these crusades turn into moral panics...this is done to ensure that laws are implemented and/or remain. Such people genuinely believe that what they are doing is a noble cause.

[Figleaf]

Interesting points, Slavik. The three categories of moral panic formation do appear to cover the range. I strikes me though that each individual example or moral panic is likely to comprise elements of any or all of the three, like strands of a braid.