Explain Cohen's Theory Of Moral Panic

This assignment explores Cohen's theory of moral panic in relation to the construction of child abuse. I discuss two main ways in which the notion of "folk devils" help us to better understand the construction of child abuse, through the understanding of high profile cases to the non-static nature of child abuse within society and child protection in social services. I draw on two pivotal cases in the face of moral panic and the evolution of child protection, Peter Connelly (Baby P) and Victoria Climbié. The essay also looks at the history and changes of society's view of child abuse, as well as policy and legislation changes to child protection in Britain.

This essay will explore Cohen's theory of moral panic, focusing on

the idea of "folk devils" and how this helps us understand the construction of child abuse. The essay outlines the construction of child abuse and protection and how this has evolved over the years. It also provides two ways in which Cohen's "folk devils" theory provides a better understanding of child abuse cases, how these affect society and social services and provides answers for questions such as the nature of high profile cases.

Cohen's (1972) theory of moral panic encompasses a range of different societal aspects, all of which relate to the construction of child abuse. Cohen identifies five stages which take place in order to create a moral panic, in which every stage presents itself in almost any public child abuse case. These stages usually take place chronologically. The first step is the warning, which is when a threat is identified, often among professionals. From this comes impact. This step is pinnacle in the theory of moral panic, and what happens here sets the tone to the public and usually how they will react to the threat. At this point, the response from the media is often over-exaggerated and disproportionate to the actual severity of the situation. With this comes public concern as the media contorts the factual evidence and information, making the threat seem imminent. This provokes a response from authorities and policy makers, which in turn either leads to panic receding or if it continues, societal changes are made in order to ease alarm.

Along with this, Cohen embeds the idea of ‘folk devils' throughout his theory.

During public cases of child abuse, folk devils are usually extremely prevalent throughout the media. Folk devils are groups of people who are blamed and are portrayed as a threat to society for a certain immoral occurrence, such as high-profile cases of child abuse. The media are one of the main subjects that are labelled as "moral entrepreneurs" in Cohen's theory, along with politicians, policy makers and police chiefs. Moral entrepreneurs are groups of people or authorities who have the power and ability to identify the "folk devil" in certain cases. They then continue present this group in a very particular, negative and stereotypical fashion, while exaggerating the scale of the threat. (Cohen, 2011). Folk devils can be any different groups of people, but within child abuse cases, two of the most commonly portrayed groups as folk devils are social workers and lower-class parents. This theory and the deconstruction of the process of moral panics is extremely beneficial in helping us understand the social construction of child abuse, and the way society's attitudes have changed towards

it.

Looking at the evolvement and ever-changing nature of child abuse, the policies surrounding it and the laws and legislation changes made in the past years is crucial in order to have a basic understanding of its construction.

Since the foundation of the NSPCC in 1884, society's definition and understanding of child abuse has fluctuated massively, making it clear that child abuse, as a whole, is a social construct. Moving to 1894, the definition of child abuse broadened further when the "children's charter", which allowed police forces to enter a home if it was suspected that a child was facing maltreatment, was extended. It recognised the severity of mental cruelty, and it also became illegal to neglect a sick child of medical attention (Hann and Fertleman, 2016). In 1968, under the creation of the Social Work (Scotland) Act, social work departments took over welfare, health and probation committees. The responsibility of the investigation of child abuse was then also shifted to local authorities, which was a huge development in the recognition of child abuse as it was no longer purely the responsibility of the police, it became a duty of the local authority to uphold child protection. The 1970's brought forward a whole new perspective on child abuse, as different types of abuse were recognised. Prior to this, child abuse was widely understood to be physical mistreatment of children, but the law was changed in order to define other types of abuse such as neglect, sexual

abuse and emotional abuse (Corby, 2006).
Looking at more recent times, the introduction of Getting it Right for Every Child (GIRFEC) in 2008, brought forth a new outlook of child protection and who is responsible for the well-being of children in Scotland. This guide emphasised the importance of collaboration and the idea that people at every level across all agencies and sectors are responsible for the well-being of Scotland's children (Scottish Government, 2010). However, as child abuse is constructed, the definition of it is still very much debatable. This is evident in the difference of Scotland and UK's view on the smacking of children. In 2017, the Scottish government announced plans to and the smacking of children completely, while the rest of the UK still allows parents to smack children as long as it does not exceed "reasonable chastisement" (BBC News, 2017).

Focusing on Cohen's theory of moral panics, one way in which his notion of the "folk devils" helps us understand the construction of child abuse is through the explanation of why some child abuse cases become extremely high profile while many others do not. In 2015/16 alone, 276 Serious Case Reviews (SCR) were undertaken due to a child's death being deemed sudden and unexplained, while another 186 were undertaken in the same timeframe when the child died of a mysterious trauma (Department for Education, 2016). However, only a handful of child deaths caused by abuse were reported in the media during this time. Cohen explains this by emphasising the idea that moral entrepreneurs are able to link individual issues, to a much wider societal concern by providing disproportionate evidence which threatens society's common values (Cohen, 2011).

A pivotal event when looking at "folk devils" in child abuse cases is that of Peter Connelly, widely known as Baby P. In 2007, Peter Connelly died due to over 50 injuries after being abused over an eight-month period. The Sun was the main moral entrepreneurs of this case, in which they targeted two main groups of people: social workers and "underclass" parents. These two groups became the folk devils of this case, The Sun and other tabloid newspapers making daily sweeping statements in their headlines such as "A Damning Report Will Today Prove These 4 Social Workers Betrayed Baby P… Have They No Shame?" and comments from The Times (as cited in Cunningham and Cunningham, 2016) which place blame on the welfare state: "The welfare state has created some communities with no morality," (The Times, 2008, p37). Cohen's theory suggests that reason some cases become high profile while others don't is due to the idea that what happens during the moral panic of one case, sets the tone for a wider range of other cases and societal concerns. For example, when social workers are said to be at fault for the death of Baby P, whenever common sense values are threatened in future cases of child abuse, social workers will automatically be condemned for the situation as society now views them to be incompetent and deviant.

Cohen's theory of moral panics and "folk devils" help our understanding of the non-static nature of child abuse and protection as a social construct. As discussed previously, legal policies, legislation and society's definitions surrounding child abuse are ever-changing. Cohen's theory helps us understand why this is through the different stages of his theory. The last stage, after the moral entrepreneurs have chosen a "folk devil" and the public feel their common values are being threatened, comes changes to the face of child protection, implementing strategies, legislation and policies in order to ease the public's panic and alarm (Cohen, 2011).
The case of Victoria Climbié inspired a huge shift in the way local authorities protect children. In Victoria's serious case review, recommendations and suggestions were made which included essential multi-agency working and better communication among social care workers. This was followed by the Every Child Matters (2003) initiative and the Children Act 2004, both emphasising the importance of communication and collaborative working (Victoria Climbié Death Inquiry, 2007). It is clear here that one high profile case of child abuse can influence massive changes in the way social services work in order to protect children. Why then, when 50,000 children in the UK are said to have been identified as needing protection from abuse (Essau et al., 2017), is it mainly the high-profile cases which boost change among services for child protection? When looking at Cohen's theory, he would suggest that this is due to the moral panic which comes from the "folk devils" and supposed threat on common values. This panic forces professionals to review their current practice and determine ways it could be made better, in order to ease hysteria and public outcry.

To conclude, Cohen's theory of moral panic and "folk devils" is helpful in helping us understand the construction of child abuse on many levels. Cohen's theory provides an understanding of the reason for few high profile cases in an abundant amount of very similar ones, while also contributing the overall interpretation of the ever-evolving nature of child abuse and protective services. I have touched upon aspects of Cohen's theory such as moral entrepreneurs and the different stages of a moral panic.