According to the Attributional model, characteristics of a moral panic are generally:
>Concern - There must be awareness that the behaviour of the group or category in question is likely to have a negative impact on society.
>Hostility - Hostility towards the group in question increases, and they become "folk devils". A clear division forms between "them" and "us".
>Consensus - Though concern does not have to be nationwide, there must be widespread acceptance that the group in question poses a very real threat to society. It is important at this stage that the "moral entrepreneurs" are vocal and the "folk devils" appear weak and disorganised.
>Disproportionality - The action taken is disproportionate to the actual threat posed by the accused group.
>Volatility - Moral panics are highly volatile and tend to disappear as quickly as they appeared due to a wane in public interest or news reports changing to another topic.
Another model, the Processual Model, claims there are some other factors too:
>Emergence
>Media inventory- Where the media exaggerates and symbolizes the problem as an even bigger threat than it is. Creating dispropotionality and increasing hostility and 'Folk devil' representation of the situation.
>Moral entrepreneurs- Groups or organisations speaking out about it, to influence a concensus.
>Experts- Socially accredited experts who pronounce their diagnoses and solutions.
>Resolution and coping- Reaction. If laws are insufficiant, demands for legal reform will follow.
>Fading Away- The condition dissapears, sunmerges ot deteriorates.
>Legacy- May have little or long term lasting effect. Could also produce bg changes.
We did a presentation on Moral panics in relation to raving and ecstacy:
Raving and Ecstasy
View more presentations from Helenaiscool.
We then linked the this moral panic with the processional and attributional model...
Processual model:
Emergence: Rose in late 80’s. seen as initially harmless, but then as a threat to young people. The police were initially not bothered.
Media Inventory: Raves began to be stereotyped as dangerous and causing vulnerable deaths such as Leah Betts. The dangers were exaggerated, but the media did not go into prediction and symbolism. Ecstasy was the real focus, which the police seemed initially recipient on, as they found the raves more of a threat.(caused reform?)Drug dealers were the folk devils.
Moral entrepreneurs: These were not evident in the drug rave. There were no campaign groups.
Experts: Few of these. Most who knew a lot about the drug culture were close to the pleasures themselves, and so they relied on drug minimization. The popular press condemned this.
Resolution and coping: Legal responses in 1990,1994,1997- giving police powers, increasing drug education, suppressing new age travellers etc. Debatable as to this effectiveness, as it in fact made the drug industry more lucrative and encouraged more to be aware of drugs.
Fade away: raves moved into clubs, the media interest disappeared, ecstasy declined in its consumption.
Legacy: Laws seemed not much used, and although drugs are still well known and established as a British problem.
Attribution model:
Concern: The police and media express concern about raves but the political parties are slow to act. However, unknown general concern.
Hostility: Participants were seen as folk devils and threats, and also as victims to the mythical “drug dealers”. They were portrayed as wrong and foolish.
Consensus: The politicians, media and police began to try to suppress the movement and ambiguity BUT drug and health educators saw the measures as harsh and exaggerated, and the youth media and clubbers persisted. Therefore, the consensus was fragile.
Disproportioanlity: There were 42 to deaths from ecstasy in the moral panic such as Leah Briggs, which were held up as examples. BUT these were also caused by health problems of the teenagers. Really raves and ecstasy posed a health risk. Ecstasy is not physically addictive and more likely to cause psychological than physical harm, such as panic attacks. Some of the 42 deaths associated with ecstasy up to 1995 had other causes. Most were caused when inadequate intake of fluids produced excessive body temperatures. Compared with other risks to young people or other drugs, including tobacco and alcohol, ecstasy did not warrant such a reaction. (Saunders 1995)
Volatility: Length; speed of emergence and decline. Each episode expanded and contracted rapidly but the issue as a whole persisted for nearly ten years, suggesting a serial panic, with volatile outbreaks within a longer period. Claims makers: principal claims and counter clams makers; motives and strategies; degree of success. The principal claims makers were the police, some parts of the press and politicians. Counter claims came from drug educationalists and youth culture itself. The contest was uneven when it came to passing laws but the obduracy of participants forced considerable concessions.
No comments:
Post a Comment