However, Goode and Ben- Yehuda (1994) rejected Cohen’s view that a moral panic went through a series of stages. Instead they presented five elements present in a moral panic; Firstly, Concern- where there is a heightened public concern that the behaviour of a particular group is a threat to social order; Hostility- increased hostility towards a group by the media leads to member being seen as “folk devils”; Consensus- influential people, known as ‘moral entrepreneurs’, lead a campaign against the group that leads to a general disagreement about its behaviour; Disproportionality- the reaction is out of proportion to the harm caused by the group; Volatility- moral panics come and go quickly as interests move onto other issues.
Cohen’s study of moral panics used integrationist methodology. He observed seaside fights between two youth subcultures, the mods and rockers, and examined the media response. He argued that the media labelled the mods and rockers in a negative and stereotyped way and as a result they came to be seen as “folk devils”. This means that they became a threat to society’s values and interests. Cohen highlighted the role of the media in in defining the situation and argued that they had created a greatly exaggerated picture of the conflict between mods and rockers. In support of this, the film ‘Juno’, released in 2007 in the USA, was reported in the media as glorifying teenage pregnancy when 17 girls in an American high school became pregnant in one year.
However, opponents of this view argue that the high rate of pregnancies in the school was more to do with social factors affecting the town than the influence of the film. The media even created the term “Juno Effect” to describe the films impact on teenage pregnancies.
Integrationists are interested in the way in which groups and events come to be defined as deviant through the process of stereotyping and labelling involved in moral panics. They use the concept of the “deviancy amplification spiral” to illustrate the effects of labelling and the self-fulfilling prophecy on those identified as deviant. Jewekes (2004) refers to the way in which raising social reaction to an event results in the “deviants” involved becoming increasingly marginalised. This means that they will be drawn further to criminal behaviour.
However, critics of interactionism argue that it fails to explore the power relations behind the labelling process. Neo Marxists see a need to investigate who has the power to define deviance and to explain why some groups come to be identified as “folk devils” in the first place.
Hall et al in 1995 expressed his view from a Marxist perspective and believed that moral panics serve an ideological function to support capitalism. Referring to the emergence of the ice of the term “mugging” in the UK, he argued that it was applied to young working-class black men to cause division between black and white members of the working class. In addition the moral panic took attention away from economic problems caused by capitalism and allowed laws to be introduced that could be used to repress other groups that opposed capitalism.
But such Marxist views are criticised for failing to acknowledge that moral panics can be the product of real concerns in society. They are also seen to take an over-conspirational view where members of the ruling class get together and decided on a course of action that creates a moral panic when there is no evidence of this having occurred.
by
tanya20 (student)
