Introduction
This essay explores the intricate relationship between terrorism and moral panic within the field of criminology. Terrorism, often defined as the deliberate use of violence to create fear for political, religious, or ideological aims, has become a significant concern in modern societies (Schmid and Jongman, 1988). Moral panic, a concept pioneered by Stanley Cohen (1972), refers to the exaggerated societal reaction to a perceived threat, often amplified by media and political discourse. The purpose of this essay is to examine how terrorism serves as a catalyst for moral panic, the mechanisms through which this occurs, and the broader implications for policy and public perception in the UK context. This discussion will cover key theoretical frameworks, the role of media in shaping public fear, and the societal and political consequences of such panics. By critically engaging with these themes, the essay aims to provide a sound understanding of how these phenomena intersect and influence criminal justice responses.
Theoretical Foundations of Moral Panic and Terrorism
To understand the nexus between terrorism and moral panic, it is essential to first outline the theoretical underpinnings of both concepts. Stanley Cohen’s seminal work on moral panic describes it as a process where a condition, episode, or group is defined as a threat to societal values, leading to widespread public concern (Cohen, 1972). Typically, this involves the identification of ‘folk devils’—individuals or groups seen as responsible for the threat. In the context of terrorism, perpetrators of acts such as the 7/7 London bombings in 2005 are often framed as these folk devils, embodying a menace to national security and cultural norms.
Terrorism, by contrast, is not merely an act of violence but a communicative strategy designed to instil fear and disrupt societal order. According to Schmid and Jongman (1988), terrorism’s psychological impact often outweighs its physical destruction, as it aims to destabilise through fear. When these acts occur, or even when the threat is perceived, they can trigger a moral panic, especially if the event is rare and highly publicised. The rarity of terrorist attacks in the UK, coupled with their potential for catastrophic harm, aligns with Cohen’s assertion that moral panics often emerge around issues that are both unfamiliar and deeply unsettling to the public.
The Role of Media in Amplifying Fear
One of the primary mechanisms through which terrorism fuels moral panic is media representation. The media plays a pivotal role in constructing and disseminating narratives about threats, often exaggerating risks to capture public attention. Hall et al. (1978) argue that media outlets engage in a process of ‘signification,’ whereby events are framed in ways that amplify their perceived danger. For instance, following the 7/7 bombings, extensive media coverage in the UK focused not only on the event itself but also on broader narratives of radicalisation and cultural alienation, often portraying entire communities—particularly Muslim populations—as potential threats (Hall et al., 1978). Such portrayals can contribute to stereotyping and stigmatisation, key hallmarks of moral panic.
Moreover, the 24-hour news cycle and the advent of social media have intensified this effect. News outlets often prioritise sensationalism over nuance, repeatedly broadcasting images of violence or threat, which arguably heightens public anxiety. A study by Mythen and Walklate (2006) highlights how the media’s focus on terrorism as an ever-present danger fosters a ‘culture of fear,’ where the public overestimates the likelihood of becoming a victim. This dynamic is evident in the UK, where, despite statistically low rates of terrorist incidents, public surveys frequently indicate high levels of concern over terrorism (Mythen and Walklate, 2006). Thus, while the media serves an informative role, its tendency to amplify threat narratives often exacerbates moral panic rather than alleviating it.
Political and Societal Consequences
The intersection of terrorism and moral panic also has significant ramifications for policy and societal cohesion. Governments, responding to heightened public fear, often implement stringent security measures that may infringe on civil liberties. In the UK, the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and subsequent domestic incidents saw the introduction of legislation such as the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. These laws expanded surveillance powers and allowed for pre-emptive detentions, often justified by the need to protect the public from an ostensibly imminent threat (Hillyard, 2005). However, critics argue that such measures are disproportionate, driven more by moral panic than by evidence of widespread danger (Hillyard, 2005). Indeed, the limited number of successful prosecutions under these acts suggests a gap between perceived and actual risk.
Furthermore, moral panics around terrorism can fracture social cohesion by fostering distrust towards certain groups. The framing of terrorism as an issue predominantly associated with specific religious or ethnic communities has led to increased Islamophobia in the UK, manifesting in hate crimes and discriminatory profiling (Pantazis and Pemberton, 2009). This societal division is a classic outcome of moral panic, as it creates an ‘us versus them’ mentality, undermining community trust and integration. Addressing this requires a critical examination of how panic-driven policies and rhetoric alienate rather than unite populations.
Limitations and Critiques of the Moral Panic Framework
While the moral panic framework offers valuable insights into societal reactions to terrorism, it is not without limitations. Critics argue that the concept can oversimplify complex social phenomena by implying that public fears are always irrational or exaggerated (Garland, 2008). In the context of terrorism, some level of fear may be justified given the potential for significant harm, as seen in events like the Manchester Arena bombing in 2017. Garland (2008) suggests that labelling such reactions as mere ‘panic’ may downplay legitimate concerns and the need for protective measures. Therefore, while moral panic provides a useful lens, it must be applied cautiously, with an awareness of its tendency to generalise public responses.
Additionally, the moral panic model does not fully account for the diversity of public reactions. Not all individuals or communities respond to terrorism with heightened fear; some may exhibit resilience or scepticism towards media and political narratives. This variability underscores the need for a nuanced understanding of how fear and panic operate within different social contexts, a consideration that future criminological research should address.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the relationship between terrorism and moral panic is a multifaceted issue that significantly shapes public perception, policy, and social dynamics in the UK. This essay has demonstrated that terrorism acts as a potent trigger for moral panic, largely due to media amplification and political responses that prioritise security over proportionality. While the moral panic framework provides a robust tool for understanding these societal reactions, its limitations highlight the importance of balancing public fear with rational policy-making. The implications of this intersection are profound, as unchecked moral panics risk eroding civil liberties and exacerbating social divisions. Moving forward, policymakers and criminologists must strive to address the root causes of fear, challenge stigmatising narratives, and foster a more measured response to the threat of terrorism. Only through such efforts can societies mitigate the damaging effects of panic while ensuring genuine security.
References
- Cohen, S. (1972) Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers. London: MacGibbon and Kee.
- Garland, D. (2008) On the concept of moral panic. Crime, Media, Culture, 4(1), pp. 9-30.
- Hall, S., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J. and Roberts, B. (1978) Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State, and Law and Order. London: Macmillan.
- Hillyard, P. (2005) The ‘war on terror’: Lessons from Ireland. In: Hale, C., Hayward, K., Wahidin, A. and Wincup, E. (eds.) Criminology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 297-314.
- Mythen, G. and Walklate, S. (2006) Criminology and Terrorism: Which Thesis? Risk Society or Governmentality? British Journal of Criminology, 46(3), pp. 379-398.
- Pantazis, C. and Pemberton, S. (2009) From the ‘Old’ to the ‘New’ Suspect Community: Examining the Impacts of Recent UK Counter-Terrorist Legislation. British Journal of Criminology, 49(5), pp. 646-666.
- Schmid, A.P. and Jongman, A.J. (1988) Political Terrorism: A New Guide to Actors, Authors, Concepts, Data Bases, Theories, and Literature. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.
