Moral Panic and Moral Entrepreneurs

(posted by John Birkimer)

Timothy Rutten, a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, wrote a piece recently that was also carried in the Louisville Courier-Journjal. In this article he suggested that some of the wilder notions being paraded about in our political conversations may well be examples of what were termed “moral panics” by social scientists in the US and Britain back in the 1970′s. Here is some of what he

Back in the early 1970s — an era whose tumult we yet may come to regard as benign — social scientists here and in Britain coined the term “moral panic” to describe what can happen when groups of people are seized by an exaggerated fear that other people or communal forces threaten their values or way of life. The scholars described those who promoted the panic’s spread as “moral entrepreneurs” — a term that takes on a deep resonance when you consider the commentators and politicians who have attached themselves, and their interests, to the “tea party” and its attendant movements.

In the midst of moral panic, inchoate indignation stands in for reason; accusation and denunciation supplant dialogue and argument; history and facts are rendered malleable, merely adjuncts of the moral entrepreneur’s — or should we say provocateur’s — rhetorical will. As we now also see, a self-interested mass media with an economic stake in the theatricality of raised and angry voices can transmit moral panic like a pathogen.

Looking around the United States in the summer of 2010, hysterical moral panic seems an apt description of our fevered political condition.

I was impressed by these concepts. I have recently returned from North Dakota, where my wife and I visited a large chain bookstore in Minot. As I made my way through a very nice selection of books on a variety of topics, I suddenly encountered a whole section of books wildly critical of and attacking most of the efforts of the Obama administration, efforts some of which are already successful and some yet to be so. I have lost the memory of some of the book titles, but they were generally shrill, inflammatory, and likely to provoke great concerns in some who read them. I have other reasons to know that the political climate in North Dakota is pretty conservative, so temporarily wrote off that experience to that political climate. Not long after returning to Louisville, however, Sharleen and I again visited a large (but different) chain bookstore here. Sure enough, to my surprise, there too was a very similar section of books, shrill and inflammatory and concern-provoking.

When I encountered Timothy Rutten’s column I quickly put the concepts of moral panic and moral entrepreneurs together with those bookstore sections. Moral panic surely does seem to describe much of the poltical condition in our country at this time. Folks who doubt President Obama’s birthplace, folks who believe he is trying to introduce socialism to this country, folks who fear that illegal immigrants are a great economic threat, some who believe the government is taking over health care, others with any number of similar or even more extreme fears, seem to be caught in what Rutten and others called “moral panic”. These ideas appear highly implausible, but are held as quite true by many.

What most struck me in all this was the role of the “moral entrepreneurs” who are clearly, as Rutten suggested, acting as provacateurs. They are gaining economic profit from their rantings and ravings, and doing so to the peril of honest debate and sincere efforts to understand and deal with the complex issues and forces out and about in our society. While some engage in great effort to clarify and elucidate, these provacateurs mislead, confuse, and, for economic or other gain, interfere with the efforts of the sincere to solve some of the vexing problems facing us.

The media that feature these “moral entrepreneurs” obviously profit from their efforts and further confuse reality, thus further reducing the ability of those who sincerely attempt to understand and deal with the complex issues to succeed. Both the “moral entrepreneurs” and the media that feature them would appear then to be committing and participating in a great evil, working against the successful solution of major problems our society faces.

We generally hold those who successfully improve the workings of our society to be deserving of honor and praise. How should we hold those who knowingly work against society’s good?

(I recognize that there are likely some who sincerely beleive some of what I have called implausible ideas and who write books and appear in other media to convince others of those notions. My comments here are directed not at these, but instead toward those who cynically exploit the gullible for fame or profit, and the media who knowingly and equally cynically present there books and appearances for profit. “What does it profit a man to gain the whole world….?”)

Advertisement