Introduction
This essay explores the intricate relationship between terrorism and moral panics within the field of criminology. Terrorism, often understood as the use of violence or intimidation to achieve political, ideological, or religious goals, has become a prominent global issue in recent decades. Concurrently, moral panics—defined by Cohen (1972) as exaggerated societal reactions to perceived threats—frequently emerge in response to terrorist acts, shaping public perception and policy. This essay aims to examine how terrorism triggers moral panics, the role of media in amplifying these reactions, and the broader implications for social control and civil liberties. By drawing on academic literature and relevant examples, the discussion will highlight key mechanisms behind this phenomenon, while acknowledging limitations in fully addressing the complexities of global terrorism.
Understanding Terrorism and Moral Panics
Terrorism, as a concept, is inherently complex and contested. While it generally involves violent acts aimed at instilling fear, definitions vary across legal, political, and academic contexts. The UK’s Terrorism Act 2000, for instance, defines terrorism as actions designed to influence the government or intimidate the public for political, religious, or ideological causes (UK Parliament, 2000). Such acts, often targeting civilians, create a sense of vulnerability that extends beyond immediate victims, impacting entire societies.
Moral panics, on the other hand, occur when a condition or group is perceived as a threat to societal values, leading to heightened fear and disproportionate responses. Cohen (1972) introduced this term in his seminal work on youth subcultures, describing how media and authorities amplify concerns, creating ‘folk devils’ or scapegoats. In the context of terrorism, these panics manifest as widespread fear of further attacks, suspicion of specific communities, and calls for stringent security measures. The interplay between terrorism and moral panics is evident; a single terrorist incident can ignite a cycle of fear, media sensationalism, and policy overreaction, often overshadowing rational assessment of the actual threat.
The Role of Media in Amplifying Fear
The media plays a pivotal role in shaping public perceptions of terrorism, often acting as a catalyst for moral panics. News outlets, driven by the need for sensational stories, tend to focus on the dramatic and catastrophic aspects of terrorist incidents, amplifying fear beyond the scale of the actual risk. For example, the 7/7 London bombings in 2005, which killed 52 people, received extensive media coverage, with repetitive imagery and rhetoric framing the event as a profound threat to national security (Jackson, 2009). Such reporting, while informative, often distorts public understanding, presenting terrorism as an ever-present danger despite statistical rarity compared to other risks like road accidents.
Indeed, Altheide (2006) argues that the media constructs a ‘discourse of fear,’ where terrorism is portrayed as a pervasive, uncontrollable force. This discourse not only heightens public anxiety but also legitimises extreme policy responses, such as invasive surveillance or anti-terror legislation. While the media’s role is undeniably influential, it is worth noting that not all coverage is alarmist; some outlets strive for balanced reporting. However, during moments of crisis, sensationalism often prevails, contributing to a moral panic that can marginalise vulnerable groups, such as Muslim communities in the UK, who are frequently stereotyped as potential threats (Mythen and Walklate, 2006).
Social and Political Consequences of Moral Panics
The moral panics surrounding terrorism have tangible consequences for society and governance. One immediate outcome is the erosion of civil liberties through the introduction of stringent security measures. Following the 9/11 attacks in 2001, for instance, the UK government implemented a series of counter-terrorism laws, including extended detention periods without charge under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (Walker, 2009). While these measures were justified as necessary for public safety, critics argue they disproportionately target certain communities and undermine fundamental rights, such as privacy and freedom of movement.
Furthermore, moral panics can exacerbate social divisions by fostering suspicion and hostility towards perceived ‘outsiders.’ In the UK, post-9/11 and 7/7 narratives often linked terrorism with Islamic extremism, leading to increased Islamophobia and hate crimes against Muslim individuals (Mythen and Walklate, 2006). This process of ‘othering’ aligns with Cohen’s concept of folk devils, where a group is demonised to explain societal fears. The consequence is not only social fragmentation but also a failure to address the root causes of terrorism, such as political grievances or socio-economic inequality.
Critiquing the Moral Panic Framework
While the concept of moral panic is useful in understanding societal reactions to terrorism, it is not without limitations. Critics argue that the framework can oversimplify complex issues, reducing nuanced threats to mere media-driven hysteria. For instance, Garland (2008) suggests that moral panics imply a temporary overreaction, yet fears surrounding terrorism often persist due to the genuine, recurring nature of the threat. Moreover, not all responses to terrorism are irrational; enhanced security measures, while sometimes excessive, can be pragmatice responses to real dangers.
Additionally, the moral panic model may underplay the agency of individuals and communities in resisting dominant narratives. Public opinion is not always uniformly swayed by media portrayals, as evidenced by grassroots movements challenging anti-terror policies or advocating for interfaith dialogue. Therefore, while moral panics provide a valuable lens for analysis, they must be applied cautiously, recognising the multifaceted nature of terrorism and societal response.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the relationship between terrorism and moral panics is a critical area of study within criminology, revealing how fear-driven reactions shape societal and political landscapes. This essay has demonstrated that terrorism, amplified by media sensationalism, often triggers moral panics, resulting in heightened public fear, restrictive policies, and social division. While the media plays a central role in this process, the consequences—such as eroded civil liberties and increased prejudice—highlight the broader implications of unchecked panic. However, limitations in the moral panic framework remind us to approach such analyses with nuance, acknowledging both the real threats posed by terrorism and the capacity for reasoned societal responses. Ultimately, understanding this dynamic is essential for developing balanced counter-terrorism strategies that protect security without sacrificing fundamental values. This discussion underscores the need for continued research into how fear, media, and policy intersect in the context of modern threats.
References
- Altheide, D. L. (2006) Terrorism and the Politics of Fear. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 6(4), pp. 415-439.
- 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.
- Jackson, R. (2009) Writing the War on Terrorism: Language, Politics and Counter-Terrorism. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
- Mythen, G. and Walklate, S. (2006) Criminology and Terrorism: Which Thesis? Risk Society or Governmentality? British Journal of Criminology, 46(3), pp. 379-398.
- UK Parliament (2000) Terrorism Act 2000. UK Government Legislation.
- Walker, C. (2009) Blackstone’s Guide to the Anti-Terrorism Legislation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
