Essay On Moral Panic

According to Good & Nachman (2009), a moral panic is a scare about a threat or supposed threat from deviants or “folk devils” a category of people who, presumably, engage in evil practices and are blamed for menacing a society’s culture, ways of life, and central values (2). Often times, there is hostility displayed towards these “folk devils,” as in the case of youth from 1995 that were referred as “stone-cold predators” and portrayed as “dangerous,” with no respect for others lives, and no sense of future. The claims generated by the mass media (e.g., newspaper, television, magazines) about the youth and young people in America was out of proportion to the actual threat, which was intended to generate extreme fear and concern in mass public and, perhaps, collectively tried to get the public to take action by contacting their political representatives, demand legislation, and for believers to persuade friends and neighbors to join them in the movement to denounce the evil doings of these so called “superpredators” (“folk devils”) at the time.

In order to capture a clear understanding of this topic, we must understand a core concept that contributed to the “excitement” that was stirred up during this moral panic, deviance.

By factoring in the importance of deviance in this discussion in conjunction with other themes, such as moral entrepreneurs and the labeling theory, we can demonstrate the impact and legacy this particular moral panic had on U.S. society. Through a wide array of forces at play both on the macro and micro level, we can analyze the effects the “superpredator” moral panic had towards social stability, social change, and the moral boundaries within U.S. society. Ultimately, by scrutinizing the different elements and processes that catapulted this moral panic into the public eye, we can build on the current knowledge of the social construction of deviance, power, and social exclusion pertinent to our

society.

II. Data

Deviance draws the line between what’s acceptable and not acceptable behavior, depending on the context. This concept is particularly important because it helps communities maintain some type of social order by highlighting what’s considered moral and immoral behavior and, is often times reinforced through various policing agents. According to Erikson, deviance in itself is dynamic and changes as people “explore their own universe and find new limits” (Erikson 14). In this case, anybody that defies “normative” behavior is considered deviant, as they are going against what’s been set as moral behavior by those in positions of authority (e.g., policymakers, political representatives, police). While we no longer hold public events to discourage “deviant behavior” it is practiced and reinforced in the mass media (e.g., TV, radio), which outlines normative behavior of a society by presenting a deviant behavior and later its consequences (Erikson 13). In doing so, the media has created opportunities for political moral entrepreneurs to advance their cause and benefit while the moral panic lasts. Thereby, through “media framing” the mass media has been able to provide content that supplied context and suggested that real issue was about the crime myth of juvenile “superpredators” through the use of “selection, emphasis, exclusion, and elaboration” (Muschert 354). Altogether, the excitement generated over this framework helped reaffirm moral correctness within U.S. society and denounced the evil doings of “folk-devils” that threatening the very fabric of society. Ultimately, “folk-devils” are publicly scrutinized because of the perceived threat they have towards a society’s way of life and, under certain circumstances the hostility towards these “evildoers” becomes out of proportion to the actual threat claimed.