Moral Panics Summary

In the article, “Moral Panics: Culture, Politics, and Social Construction” the authors Erich Goode and Nachman Ben-Yehuda discuss the different perspectives of moral panics. The two perspectives are the objectivist and the constructionist. These two perspectives differ in how moral panics are to come about in a society. However, the constructionist view is more important to society than the objectivist view. According to the objectivist view, a social problem is something that is a real threat to human life (Goode and Ben-Yehuda 1994). If something does not harm a large group of people, the threat and therefore the social problem does not exist. Objectivists focus more on the concrete real (Goode and Ben-Yehuda 1994). On the other hand, the constructionists disagree with how moral panics come about. The constructionists see social problems as the “collective definition” of a condition as a problem (Goode and Ben-Yehuda 1994). If the people are not concerned about an issue than it cannot be a moral panic. “Social problems do not exist objectively; they are constructed by the human mind” (Goode and Ben-Yehuda 1994).
How can something be a moral panic if no one is concerned about the issue? For example, nearly 1.3 million people die each year due to some type of car accident, yet people use cars every day (ASIRT). People spend thousands of dollars to buy cars that have serious potential to kill them. Surely, 1.3 million people dying each year due to car accidents would be considered a threat to human life. But then why aren’t cars being made into a moral panic? Cars aren’t a moral panic because people do not see them that way. Although we know that they have the potential to kill us, most people are not afraid of them because society has not defined them as