Compare and contrast Cohen’s study of disorderly behaviour with that of Hall et al.
This essay will explore the construction of disorder in society and the role of the media in shaping public opinions about social disorder. It will examine the theories of Stanley Cohen and Hall et al. and will identify the different approaches and key research issues concerning disorderly behaviour. The essay will show how the media constructs and defines antisocial behaviour through the portrayal of folk devils which creates moral panic.
The concept of folk devils and moral panic was explored by Stanley Cohen (1973) in his case study of mods and rockers of the 1960’s. The Mods and Rockers were two opposing British youth gangs that engaged in fighting and vandalism at seaside towns in the 1960’s.Cohen’s research focused on how this the media’s portrayal of events provoked a mood of public fear and outrage throughout society, labelling the two groups as folk devils.
Folk devils have been depicted as mindless, evil and deviant beings with their behaviour completely different to that of normal people. These deviants have been blamed for all the wrongs in society and have been punished brutally. This characterisation has been central to Cohen’s theory with the role of the media inciting moral panics with the dramatization and construction of Folk devils. (Kelly and Toynbee, 2009, p370)
Stanley Cohen, Suggests the UK media’s representation of the antisocial behaviour of the British youths played a major role in fostering irrational fears in the population thus creating a moral manic; the fear that it created was totally exaggerated to the behaviour exhibited. Moral panic is a reaction to a perceived threat or challenge presented by either a group or an individual which may be seen as a challenge to current social norms. ( ‘The making of order and disorder’ 2009, CD 3).
The characterisation of social disorder has been identified throughout history; Aristotle acknowledged the problem of unruly youths and antisocial behaviour as far back as 350 BCE. He was reported to have said ‘unruly youths not having any respect for their elders, mocking authority, bad mannered and intimidating their teachers’. This suggests that the older generations of times past have had a key part in defining antisocial behaviour. (Brake, as cited in Kelly and Toynbee, 2009, p362.)
Disorderly conduct or ‘anti-social behaviour has changed historically, however it has been every generation’s inclination to view the past as an age of morality and to contrast it with today’s social problems in contemporary society. Cohen’s study of the media’s depiction of folk devils and moral panic proved significant and research since have used these concepts in the media’s depiction of young people in relation to disorderly or anti-social behaviour In recent years
Hall et al’s. Analysis of media coverage of street crime in the 1970’s builds on the Cohen’s study of folk devils and moral panics. Just like Cohen, Hall et al. suggested that the media’s dramatization of disorderly behaviour contributed and constructed a widespread conviction that society was in crisis. But Hall focuses more on the inequalities within society especially regarding the division between the poor and the dominant classes. Hall’s, theory suggests that the media and the law protect the interests of the powerful and the rich. (Kelly and Toynbee, 2009, p370)
Sociologist Geoffrey Pearson wrote that in nineteenth century England, gangs of girls wandered the streets terrifying the public with their violent disorderly behaviour. Pearson points out the historical link between recent events and that of the past and this could be compared with the recent media’s portrayal of the drunken and delinquent behaviour of ladettes’ and a Judge’s fear of the arrival of the ‘female mugger’. (Pearson as cited in Kelly and Toynbee, 2009, p363.)
Stanley Cohen and Hall et al. agreed that street violence occurred but both were concerned how the media dramatized it and characterised it as a deepening moral crisis and how the public views were altered as a result of it. There has been much media attention concerning muggers, hoodies, lager louts and ladettes. The publicity fuelled public fear and outrage and amplified the view and that something needs to be done which led to politicians demanding more law enforcement, tougher laws and sentencing.
Moral panic although socially constructed has an actual impact in society. Moral panic concerning street crimes for example; muggings has resulted in a biased ratio of stop and search of young black men by the police force as the police viewed them as threatening. This caused an undercurrent of tension in many cities throughout Britain. This draws further on Cohen’s theory with a recent reaction to moral panic with the growth of anti- social behaviour orders. (ASBO’s) (Cohen as cited in Kelly and Toynbee, 2009. P 363)
Local authorities and police officers can apply to the court for Anti- social behaviour orders (ASBO’s) which are court orders that can ban individuals from continuing with their disorderly behaviour. The ASBO is not a criminal offense but a breach of it is, punishable by a fine or prison sentence. ASBOs were designed to tackle anti- social behaviour. Police had powers to move on and break up groups who were possibly harassing others. The police and local authority could also ban people from particular areas or presenting specific behaviours for example drinking alcohol in public. (Kelly and Toynbee, 2009. P 364)
Hall et al’s work on street crime and policing the crisis examined the concept of moral panic and used it to express more generally a broader social context looking at the differences between classes, social structure and the inequalities within society. For example, the mods and the rockers were constructed as dangerous and a threat to society, similarly were the mugger or street robber. Whereas corporations’ that are responsible for the early deaths of 24,000 people in Britain each year are not criminalised in the same. (‘The making of order and disorder’ 2009, CD 3).
Hall et al suggest that the influential and the rich in society define criminal or disorderly behaviour and that the state protects their interests to such a degree that their actions are not defined in the same way as the lower classes. The corporations that pollute the atmosphere with toxic emissions breach the law regularly will not be subject to the same criminal justice as the ‘folk devil’, street robber, etc. This is the because of the way in which the construction of who or what is dangerous is manipulated and shaped by political interests and the dominant classes( ‘The making of order and disorder’ 2009, CD 3).
One of the limitations of Hall et al’s study was that it focused primarily on the state and the media’s influence on defining anti- social behaviour without considering the role of other institutions or groups. Cohen’s research however, did not offer the reason as to why the media created folk devils or initiated new moral panics. Both Cohen and Hall et al, failed to address the reasons behind how the public selected what to read, listen or watch in the media.
Huesmann et al. (2003) conducted a longitudinal study to illustrate the media’s portrayal of violence causes violent and aggressive behaviour in adulthood. The first study was in 1977 where 577 children were interviewed and tested to collect information on their patterns of Television viewing. In 1991, the 2nd follow up study was completed. 398 people from the original study were re-interviewed to establish whether the aggressive behaviour of some of the adults confirmed a correlation with the violent television viewing as children.
Huesmann et al claimed that there was a correlation between media violence and aggressive behaviour; however they were unable to establish which factor involved led to the change in the other. One argument could be, the aggressive adults in the study were already aggressive children and as a consequence viewed more television violence (Kelly and Toynbee, 2009, p 373.)
Huesmann et al’s findings were based several principles; observation of specific behaviours, namely exposure to violence on TV from an early age increased the possibility of a child behaving similarly viewing aggression as an acceptable way of life. However Huesmann et al research failed to explain the relationship between watching violence and aggressive behaviour and failed to take into consideration other variables, for example, Neurophysiological abnormalities, socioeconomic poverty, beliefs and attitudes supporting violence, drug abuse and other significant factors. (Kelly and Toynbee, 2009, p 374.)
In conclusion, there are more similarities than differences between the work of Cohen and Hall et al. Although a key difference is the role that each theory attributes to the media. For example, Cohen’s moral panic view suggests that the media‘s representation of disorderly behaviour contributed to a widespread conviction that society was in crisis. Similarly, Cohen and Hall et al. both view the media as helping to construct and define anti-social behaviour through the portrayal of folk devils. However Hall et al’s view focused more on how the class differences and inequalities within society are hidden through the media dramatization of disorderly behaviours. Finally Huesmann et al. theory, suggesting that there was a correlation between media violence and aggressive behaviour adulthood was not supported satisfactorily as they failed to take into consideration other variables.
References
Kelly ,B. and Toynbee,J. (2009)’Making disorder on the street’, in Taylor, S., Hinchliffe,S., Clarke, J. and Bromley, S.(eds)Making Social lives, Milton Keynes, The Open University.
‘The making of order and disorder’ (2009) ‘Making Social Lives’ (Audio CD 3) The Open University.