Untitled Flashcards Set
Associated with moral panic is Stanley Cohen
Jock Young (1971) studied drug use in inner-city London, in which he explored how the media amplified the activities of young drug users and how media amplification created public fear and indignation. He coined the term ‘moral panic.’
Both young scholars in Britain
Social, political, cultural changes in 70’s
Also influenced by label theory
Jock would go out and see what was happening then look at the media reflection of it (drug users)
Found huge contradictions between what he witnessed and what was portrayed
Published article, saying London is on the verge of moral panic with drug users
We stigmatize a group of people, push them out, don’t know much about them, story getting fabricated in media and so forth
Drug use= moral issue
Now seen as a medical/health issue (pathological)
Sick person
Need a psychologist, drug treatment
Return of neo-conservatism- drugs are a choice
“Say no to drugs
Back then, moral issue
People who used drugs = immoral
Drug use = a choice
This fear fuels the intervention of the CJS and in the process creates “fantasy crime wave”
Not real
Created by social agents
Cohen also set out to study the activities of groups of young people in Britain in the 1960’s called “Mods and the Rockers”
Wondering why media is reporting on this group/drawing their attention
Cohen advanced the theoretical framework for “moral panic.”
Cohen’s Study
Cohen’s Text: Folk Devils and Moral Panic: The creation of the Mods and Rockers
Creation, meaning they did not exist as an entity itself
Based on events that occurred in the 1960s—clashes between two groups of youth
Media construction of the groups “mods” and ”“rockers”—two groups of young people with certain style however, the media constructed and attributed certain characteristics to these and then highlighted/sensationalized their differences in terms of their clothing/hair styles
The nature of how they act/present themselves present a threat to traditional ways of living to people in britain in 60’s
Did not call themselves Mods and Rockers
Mods- more so teen fashion, scooter, “classy”, said did not say/did a lot of shopping, didn’t understand hard work, consumer mentality
Rockers- Black, leather, motorbike—give “bad boy” vibe
Both groups differ from 50’s style
Women dressing, wearing pants or mini skirts, eyeliner, big hair
Less modest than before
Way people dress = representing something
Cohen saying the Mod’s and Rocker are associated with characters created by the media
Why Moral?
Pinpoint the decline of moral fibre, ethical awareness, good behaviour, rule and regulations/norms of society
No ethical awareness within individuals
Foundational values being shaking by the groups of people by the way they present themselves
Mods and Rockers representing consumerism, breakdown of women roles in society and “hardworking.”
Acts seen as deviant
Why Panic?
“a sudden excessive feeling of alarm or fear… affecting a body of persons and leading to injudicious effort to secure safety” (Garland, 2008, pg.10)
Moral Panic of Mods and Rockers
Moral fabric of UK falling apart
Conscious collectivity by Durkinham- norms bind us and society together, without that it falls apart
Cohen (1973) in a study set out a paradigm for understanding the origin and nature of moral panic
At some point, two groups come across one another, brawl happens, police come
Cohen asked why to each group and they said they didn’t know why they had started it, just that they were two groups that were supposed to hate one another
His study shows how exaggerated media reports (initially about these groups and later) about clashes between rival young people created a moral panic about rise in youth crime
The media reports about the young people's style, modes of transport, hairstyle, appeared to suggest that these were symbolic of young people's deviant traits
News media predicted even more serious acts of deviance
Low level delinquency among a diffuse group of young people reconstructed as a major social problem (Cohen, 1972)
Ex: Zero tolerance rule in schools (for aggression)
Regardless of what kind of aggressive behaviour students getting suspended
Once you have a policy in place, especially as kids, you make it easy for people not to be allowed to defend themselves/gain second chances
Prepares ground to label kids
Outcry from the public to do something
Application of label theory
Defining Moral Panic
Cohen defines moral panic as:
“Condition, episode (ex, 9-11), person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interest”
Its’ nature is presented in a stylized and stereotypical fashion by the mass media
The moral barricades are manned by editors, bishops, politicians and other right-thinking people
Socially accredited experts pronounce their diagnoses and solutions
Ways of coping are evolved or (more often) resorted to;
The conditions then disappears, submerges or deteriorates and becomes more visible (Cohen 1972, 1)
Modern Examples- Tide pods, video games causing violence (school shooting)
Cohen used the term to characterize the response of the media, public and agents of social control
Distinguishable social types
Ex. School shooters (Isolators/loners, “gothic” style, white male teens, listen to rock music, etc.)
Folk Devils: Visible reminders of what we should not be
Symbols of recent social change; scapegoat
Agents of social control amplify in crisis
Mar 17, 2025
Moral Panic Theory
According to Moral Panic Theory several factors must be present for societal attention to an issue to constitute a moral panic:
Concern: some reported conduct or event sparks anxiety
Media reporting
Ex: International Students being blamed for housing crisis, government looked to to fix the issue as media reports it
Hostility: the perpetrators and portrayed as “folk devil” the personified symbol of the supposed problem- cultural scapegoats whose conduct appalls onlookers
Need someone to blame in moral panic
Scapegoat: take the group of people and make them the folk devil because we don’t want to face other issues within the society
Issues complicated, blaming a group = easier
Simplistic explanation to a complex problem
Consensus: the negative social reaction is broad an unified; public sensitization to the issue- the fear that a “cherished way of life in in jeopardy”
Disproportionality: the extent of the conduct by deviants, or the threat it poses are exaggerated, so are the punitive social control responses
Reaction by public exaggerated
Actual threat to the reaction not proportionate
Volatility: the media reporting and the associated panic emerges, context gives a panic the power to the influence law and social control (youth culture defying the traditional norms)
Example- 9/11
Professors who spoke against USA sending troops to Afghanistan meer weeks fired
Folk devils: Middle eastern men
As soon as identified became folk devil
Context gives panic power: Canada passes anti-terrorism act when nothing had even happened in canada
Context so powerful you go with the flow and believe it
Moral Entrepreneur: individuals in positions of authority and power who frame the act/conduct of the group as problem, threat, foe, concern, impurity, immorality etc. to be eradicated, contained, purged, eliminated, prevented, by restoring to legal and law enforcement measures
Appear on the media
Have talking points → saying the same “simplistic” stuff over and over again
Subculture and Moral Panic
Four Subculture Targets
Those who commit “serious” criminal acts
Those who stray from organizational procedures or conventional workplace codes of conduct
Those who adopt styles of behaviour or dress different from conventional society
Miscellaneous groups who fail to conform to traditional conservative ideals and values
Ordinary event presented as an extraordinary occurrence
Deviancy amplification spiral
Moral discourse established by journalist and experts
Casual demonization of wrong-doers
Moral panic clarifies sociteral moral boundaries creating consensus and concern
Moral panic occurs during periods of rapid social change and heightened wider social anxieties about risk
“Risk society” emerges in 1990’s
Probability of risk or threats that could possibly happen in the future
Imagined reality based on certain calculations
Want to predict and now future occurrence
The more you live in the risk society the easier it is to construct moral panic
Usually the young that are targeted
Metaphor for the future
Mar 19, 2025
Impact and Contribution of Labelling Theories
Developed the premise that crime, deviance and criminal law are socially constructed
Role of power entities in our society
Critical Conflict Theories later
Caused criminologist to question the middle-class values they had assumed in describing deviance
Consensus? Homogenous society?
None in society
Many social groups, each with rules
Society = Heterogenous
Provoked critical examination of criminal justice agencies, and how they process individuals
Role of the police, judiciary, and corrections
Why do we have prisons
The process of deviance, how it comes to be
Human process
Suggested criminal and social policies might have unintended consequences
Can be dire
Effectively humanized deviance (Munice and Fitzgerald, 1981)
“Deviance could no longer be viewed simply as a pathological act that violated consensual norms, but as something created in a process of social interaction, in which some people who commit deviant acts come to be known as deviants whereas others do not
Things like white collar crimes
Shortcoming of the labelling theories
Hard to study (Stigma is easy, but other concepts hard)
How they get labeled itself
Primary and secondary deviance also
Measure and quantify
Ignore structural forces in society and their impacts
Gender inequalities, economic disparity, patriarchy
Policy Implications of Labelling Theory
Diversion Movement
This refers to all those efforts to divert individuals, primarily youth but also adults, who are suspected of or have been charged with a minor offenses, from the full and formal process of the juvenile or adult justice system
Deinstitutionalization
The removal of juveniles from jails, detention, centers, and institutions. Closure of asylum
Status offences (runaways, homeless, etc)
Youth being held in facilities, CJS trying to act as parents
After label theory, many of these closed
Decriminalization
Removing of status offences from the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system
Net-Widening (Adverse effect)
Unintended consequences of these programs
A problem that occurs when offenders who would have been released from the system are placed in a program simply because a program exists
The reach of CJS intensified
Have bigger reach
Programs outside CJS- embedded in communities
Police having awareness of these programs, instead of giving ticket or warning, they send them to the programs
Not good- LT saying you should let them go, not put them in programs placing them into the CJS system in a different way then before
De-Medicalization
Closure of asylums, everyones on medications