Analysis Of Moral Panics: Culture, Politics, And Social Construction

In the article, “Moral Panics: Culture, Politics, and Social Construction” the authors Erich Goode and Nachman Ben-Yehuda discuss two different perspectives of moral panics. Each perspective give a different way of looking at how moral panics are portrayed to come about in society. The Objectivist perspective and the Constructionist perspective show how people view moral panics. However, the Constructionist perspective is more important and valuable to society than the Objectivist perspective.
According to the Objectivist view, a social problem is something that is a real threat to human life (Goode and Ben-Yehuda 1994). That meaning, if something does not harm a large group of people, the threat and therefore the social problem does not

exist. Objectivists focus more on the concrete, real (Goode and Ben-Yehuda 1994). Social problems are the result of a variety of dysfunctions within a society (Goode and Ben-Yehuda 1994). These dysfunctions come from social disorganization, role and value conflicts and a violation of norms (Goode and Ben-Yehuda 1994). The quality of life according to Objectivists must be lessened on a large scale for the social problem to be prominent. On the other hand, the Constructionists disagree with how moral panics originate.
The Constructionists refer to a social problems as the “collective definition” of a condition as a problem (Goode and Ben-Yehuda 1994). Whether people are concerned about an issue or not is really the deciding factor. When people are not concerned about an issue, the issue has no importance and thus cannot ever be a moral panic. “Social problems do not exist objectively; they are constructed by the human mind” (Goode and Ben-Yehuda 1994).
With that being said the moral panics are all made up by the people in society. For example, nearly 1.3 million people die each year due to some type of car accident (ASIRT), yet people use cars every day. People spend thousands of dollars to buy cars that have serious potential to kill them. It is without question that, 1.3 million people dying each year due to a vehicle would be considered a threat to human life. But then why aren’t cars being made into a moral panic? Looking at this example using the Constructionist perspective, cars are not a moral panic since people do not see them that way. Although we know that they have the potential to kill us, most people are not afraid of them, for society has not defined them as such.
Ebola on the other hand was at one point a moral panic in America. Statistics state that only about ten thousand people contracted Ebola in a numerous amount of countries (Nebehay 2014). Only about five thousand people essentially died from the disease (Nebehay 2014). Though, a large amount of people died from Ebola, ten times more people die each year from car accidents than they did from the disease. Ebola became a moral panic, while cars still haven’t. The only explanation is through the Constructivists view. The fact that people collectively defined Ebola as a threat made it a moral panic. Despite the statistics about Ebola and car accidents, people chose to make Ebola an important issue than cars.
Objectivists would say that cars are a social problem because they cause a threat to human life. Constructivists would say that cars are not a social problem because we haven’t collectively defined cars as a threat. Therefore, the Constructivist perspective is more important and valuable because it is more realistic. It is more relatable since it is more true to the way the people in the world actually view things. Objectivists’ views can become moral panics when society deems them such.