Moral Panic

As a form of pseudo-disaster, moral panic is an exaggerated response to a putative social crisis. Sociologists have found it a useful concept for studying crime, deviance, social problems, collective behavior, and social movements, especially since it draws critical attention to the interplay between political elites and the media within the social construction of reality. Recent examples of moral panic analysis are varied: crack (cocaine) babies, street gangs, satanic ritual abuse in day-care centers, graffiti, flag burning, and so-called illegal aliens. As moral panic mounts over a particular problem, there is a sense of urgency to do something immediately or else society will suffer even graver consequences later, compelling social policy to undergo significant transformation in a rash attempt to diffuse the putative threat. Moral panic typically manifests as intense condemnation aimed at a particular group; correspondingly, it reinforces the social control apparatus with more legislation that produces more penalties, police, and prisons.

The five criteria of moral panic are concern, hostility, consensus, disproportionality, and volatility. The first component of moral panic is a heightened concern over the behavior of others and the consequences such conduct is believed to have on society. Sociologists insist that concern ought to be verifiable in the form of observed and measurable entities, such as public opinion polls, public commentary in the form of media attention, proposed legislation, and social movement activity. Although in many cases the level of concern does not have to reach that of fear, there must be a perception that a threat exists.

Sociologists note that moral panic also arouses hostility toward an identifiable group or category of people who, in turn, are vilified as social outcasts. Members of such groups are collectively designated as enemies of respectable society, and their behavior is seen as harmful or threatening to the values, interests, and possibly the very existence of a sizable segment of society. Unlike bona fide social problems that do not direct blame to any one group of people, such as the aftermath of natural disasters, moral panic assign blame to unpopular people who become scapegoats and folk devils. Frequently those groups blamed for a putative social problem are criminalized, pathologized, and marginalized.

To become a recognizable phenomenon, moral panic requires a certain consensus among members of society. By no means does such agreement need to be universal or even representative of the majority. Still, there must be a widespread belief that the problem at hand is real, it poses a threat to society, and something should be done to correct it. Moral panic takes form in different sizes: Some grip the vast majority of the general public while others affect smaller portions or regions of society. Another key component of moral panic is its disproportionality, in that the perceived danger is greater than the likely harm. In essence, moral panic means that there is a consensus among many members of society that a more sizable number of individuals are engaged in the behavior in question than actually are. Furthermore, the threat, danger, or damage believed to be caused by the behavior is far more substantial than a realistic appraisal could sustain. Sociologists have discovered that moral panic often breaks out after a major crisis or event. As the term volatility suggests, moral panic erupts quickly (although the problem may lie dormant for long periods of time), then subside, fade, or vanish from the collective consciousness or public psyche. Even though moral panic eventually dissipates, however, the changes made in policies and government institutions often remain, eventually becoming obsolete and inappropriate for dealing with the problem. Because moral panic occurs suddenly, policies and legislation are often made in haste, driven more by emotion than rational decision making; consequently, such laws are difficult to enforce fairly and without discrimination because of the sprawling nature of legislation. Volatility also implies that interest in the putative threat is subject to rapid decline.

...