Moral Panic and Its Consequences
As the numbers and ramifications of child sexual abuse and crime rise, the phenomenon of Moral Panic is likely to grow in importance. The phenomenon has been around for a few decades, and was exacerbated by the Albert Fish crimes, which included murder, mutilation, and cannibalism. These crimes fueled the second wave of moral panic, which was bolstered by a series of sexually motivated child murders in 1937 and the ‘Horror Week’ of 1949. Similarly, the third wave of moral panic came on the heels of a rising public awareness of ritualistic satanic abuse and false accusations of day care centres. These cases, combined with the recovered memories of children, are enough to make anyone feel uneasy.
Whether a person feels moral panic or not is a matter for debate. While some scholars have argued that moral panic has no place in our society, others have questioned its broader scope and consequences. Some argue that moral panic is a product of political and media campaigns, while others question whether it is appropriate to apply this theory to situations that do not directly involve moral issues. Most notably, the media magnifies such threats by portraying the villains as amoral and intolerant of the moral majority. This media coverage of a perceived threat produces a high level of social anxiety and often causes the government to react in response to the outcry. Further, the response of governments to such threats is often self-interested, since it gives legitimacy to their agenda and increases their power.
While moral panic is often an exaggerated, false perception of a social issue, it is nonetheless an ongoing phenomenon. The early 2000s were a prime example of moral panic. While Islamic extremists represented a tiny fraction of the Islamic population in the United States, they faced significant racism. In a similar vein, President George Bush recognized this and attempted to calm it. Media panic exaggerated the threat posed by Muslims.
A moral panic is a reaction to an underlying issue and can occur in a variety of contexts, including popular culture and policy. Moral panics can affect many aspects of society, from politics to the criminal justice system. However, they are often not as dangerous as they might appear and can have valuable intellectual benefits. They can protect us from the perils of dangerous anxiety, as well as from the hucksters who prey on this condition.
In a more recent example, the War on Drugs has been the source of a moral panic. It began in the 1970s, peaking in the early 90s, when politicians and the media jockeyed to be toughest on crime and drug use. In reality, the war on drugs exacerbated the problem and fueled the social fear of drugs. The War on Drugs was partially caused by a series of moral panics, as drug use declined in the 1980s while public fear of drugs rose.
While the concept of moral panic remains a common phenomenon in modern societies, it has generated considerable scholarly interest. Some critics say the term ‘panic’ is loaded with presuppositions, which is inaccurate. Other critics argue that the concept has been misinterpreted and that it is a result of a culturally constructed perspective. The term panic, however, is still a legitimate and necessary part of the moral panic.