Moral Panic

Moral panic is a period of intense social anxiety that arises when a particular event, situation, person, or group is perceived and defined by society or a segment of it as a threat to societal values and interests. In this process, often fueled by mass media, the nature of the alleged threat is presented in stereotypical and exaggerated terms; a climate of fear and concern spreads throughout public opinion, and authorities are called upon—or take—various measures to address the situation. Moral panic is a phenomenon studied across many disciplines, including sociology, criminology, media studies, and cultural studies.

Media, Fear, and Exaggerated Reactions (Generated by Artificial Intelligence)

Definition and Key Characteristics

The concept of moral panic can be defined, according to Erol Mutlu, as An exaggerated social reaction to minor social deviations, amplified by the media^【1】. Researchers such as Goode and Ben-Yehuda have identified five fundamental elements that characterize moral panic:^【2】

1. Concern: The emergence of measurable anxiety that a particular group or behavior will produce negative consequences for societal well-being.
2. Hostility: Increasing hostility toward the group or category perceived as the source of the threat. During this process, those identified as the threat are labeled as “folk devils,” and society is divided into “us” (good, respectable people) and “them” (deviants, evil ones).
3. Consensus: The formation of widespread agreement within society—or at least among its influential segments—that the threat is real and serious.
4. Disproportionality: The response to the threat is disproportionate to its actual scale or the harm it causes. This is one of the most debated and criticized aspects of the moral panic concept.
5. Volatility: Moral panics can emerge suddenly and subside just as quickly. Some panics vanish without leaving a trace in social memory, while others lead to lasting legal and political changes.

David Garland adds two further elements to these five characteristics: The moral dimension of the reaction and the deviant behavior targeted as a symptom of a broader social decaysign (symptomatic)to be regarded as^【3】.

Historical Development and Theoretical Approaches

The Origin of the Concept: Stanley Cohen and “Folk Devils”

Although the term moral panic was first used by sociologist Jock Young in 1971, it was Stanley Cohen’s 1972 work Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers that gave the concept its academic and popular prominence. In this work, Cohen analyzed how minor incidents between two youth subcultures in 1960s England, known as "Mods" and "Rockers," were exaggerated by the media and transformed into a national moral panic.^【4】.

According to Cohen’s model, the process of moral panic unfolds as follows:

• A group, event, or individual is defined as a threat to societal values.

• The media presents this threat in stereotypical and stylized language.

• Moral entrepreneurs or opinion leaders—such as editors, politicians, and religious figures—erect moral barricades to condemn the situation.

• Socially recognized experts offer diagnoses and proposed solutions.

• New legal and social control mechanisms are developed or existing ones are invoked to deal with the threat.

In this process, four key actor groups play roles: mass media, moral entrepreneurs, social control culture (police, courts, politicians), and public opinion. According to Cohen, the most decisive actor among them is the mass media. Through techniques such as exaggeration, distortion, speculation, and symbolization, the media constructs specific groups as “folk devils.” Folk devils are social types that serve as a “reminder of what we must not become” and function as a definable “scapegoat” necessary for the existence of moral panic.

Cohen’s approach Howard S. Becker's "labeling theory" bears deep influences from symbolic interactionism.^【5】. This perspective shifts the focus from the deviant behavior itself to how social reactions and labeling processes surrounding that behavior are constructed.

Other Approaches

• Goode and Ben-Yehuda: These two sociologists adopted Cohen’s model but framed moral panic more as a collective behavior pattern. They defined their own criteria (concern, hostility, consensus, disproportionality, volatility) and proposed three models for the origins of panic: the grassroots model (arising from widespread public anxiety), the elite engineering model (elites consciously manipulating panic to divert attention elsewhere), and the interest group theory (specific groups imposing their own moral agendas).

• Stuart Hall and the Birmingham School: In their 1978 work Policing the Crisis, Stuart Hall and colleagues examined the panic surrounding “mugging” in 1970s Britain. From a Marxist perspective, this school viewed moral panics as ideological tools used by the state and dominant classes to conceal structural crises of capitalism and legitimize increasingly repressive control mechanisms by securing public consent. To them, panic is an exaggerated response that is disproportionate to the actual threat and serves to strengthen authority.

Applications and Examples

The concept of moral panic has been used to analyze a wide range of social phenomena. Major panic themes include:

• Youth subcultures: Teddy Boys, Mods and Rockers, skinheads, hippies, Satanists.
• Crime and violence: Mugging, pickpocketing, vandalism, football hooliganism, school shootings.
• Drug use: Use of substances such as marijuana and ecstasy.
• Sexuality and family: Single mothers, child abuse, pedophilia, internet pornography, homosexuality.
• New media and technologies: Comic books, rock music, video games, the internet and social media (particularly YouTubers).
• Pandemics: AIDS, SARS, swine flu.
• Migrants and refugees: Presentation of specific ethnic or national groups as threats.

Examples from Türkiye and the World

Mods and Rockers (United Kingdom, 1960s)

In the case central to Cohen’s analysis, minor conflicts among youths in coastal towns were portrayed by the media as “terror-inducing scooter gangs,” triggering a national panic.

Ecstasy Use (United Kingdom, 1990s)

The death of 18-year-old Leah Betts from ecstasy use, combined with pop stars’ public endorsements of the drug, generated a moral panic fueled by media coverage, leading many parents to worry: “Could my child be using too?”

Pickpocketing Incidents (Türkiye, 2000s)

Rising incidents of pickpocketing in major cities were continuously highlighted by the media, accompanied by expert opinions and the creation of a climate of fear. This panic led to amendments in the Turkish Criminal Code, reclassifying pickpocketing as “mugging” rather than “theft.”

YouTubers (Türkiye, 2018)

Some YouTubers’ content, accused of containing profanity and serving as bad examples for children, sparked widespread public debate after media coverage. Petitions from associations, calls for legal intervention by politicians, and RTÜK’s new regulations on internet broadcasting emerged as concrete outcomes of this panic.

Criticisms and Current Debates

Despite its popularity, the concept of moral panic has faced various criticisms.

The Problem of Disproportionality

The most fundamental criticism is that it is impossible to objectively measure whether a response is “disproportionate.” Critics argue that labeling a reaction as a “panic” merely reflects the analyst’s own value judgments and dismisses the legitimate moral concerns of those alarmed. For this reason, P.A.J. Waddington has claimed that the concept functions less as an analytical tool and more as a polemical one.

Changing Roles of Media and “Folk Devils”

Revisionist scholars such as Angela McRobbie and Sarah Thornton note that since the 1990s, the fragmentation of the media landscape has meant that “folk devils” are no longer as silent or marginalized as before. They now use their own media channels to defend themselves. This undermines Cohen’s model, which assumes singular, consensus-driven panics, making such panics increasingly rare.

Risk Society and the Culture of Fear

Current debates have linked the concept of moral panic to Ulrich Beck’s “risk society” and Frank Furedi’s “culture of fear” theories. According to this view, in late modern societies, anxieties are no longer primarily directed at specific “folk devils” but at more global, uncertain, and “manufactured” risks such as nuclear disasters, ecological crises, and chemical hazards. Sheldon Ungar argues that the moral panic model is inadequate for explaining these new forms of social anxiety. Figures such as Chas Critcher, however, suggest that the common denominator of folk devils is now “risk” itself, and that moral panics reflect this widespread awareness of risk.

Related Concepts

Deviancy Amplification Spiral

Media focus on a particular deviant behavior leads police to increase their control in that area. This results in more arrests and further media exaggeration of the issue. The targeted group, reacting to this labeling, may become more alienated and reinforce their deviant behavior. Thus, a vicious cycle is created.

Denial

Another concept developed by Stanley Cohen, denial is the opposite of moral panic. While moral panic is an over-reaction, denial is an under-reaction: the failure to respond appropriately to disturbing events or mass suffering.

Cultural Trauma

In contrast to moral panic, cultural trauma refers to the deep and legitimate moral wound inflicted on a society by an event. Events such as the Holocaust or slavery are described not as “panics” but as “cultural traumas,” and the legitimacy of the societal response to them is not questioned.