Stanley CohenEdit
Stanley Cohen is best known for shaping how scholars and policymakers think about the media’s role in defining social problems. A British sociologist whose work in the 1960s and 1970s helped institutionalize the idea that crime, deviance, and social disorder are not just things that happen in society, but are constructed through public discourse, press coverage, and political rhetoric. His most influential contributions revolve around how the mass media create and amplify fears about certain groups, a process he described with the phrases “folk devils” and “moral panic.” The case most often cited is the Mods and Rockers episode, a moment in which a media storm around youth behavior seemingly outpaced the actual level of threat, illustrating a broader pattern in which sensational reporting can drive public policy and social know-how.
Cohen’s scholarship sits at a crossroads of sociology, criminology, and media studies. He argued that the way problems are reported can distort reality and push policymakers toward punitive responses that may do more to satisfy an anxious public than to address the underlying social arrangements at work. In this sense, his work can be read as a caution against letting sensational narratives dictate public policy—an argument that resonates with those who favor evidence-based governance, robust civil liberties, and a wary eye toward political opportunism that exploits fear.
Background and intellectual context
Cohen’s ideas were born into a British intellectual environment that was intensely focused on the social construction of deviance. Building on the study of how media representations shape public perception, he helped articulate a framework for understanding why certain groups are singled out as threats and how those labels become a justification for broader social control. In his most famous formulation, the media—alongside police and political actors—craft a narrative in which particular groups are portrayed as “folk devils” whose perceived menace justifies heightened enforcement and moral outrage. This process, he argued, can create a cycle in which fear begets policy responses that reinforce the very social anxieties the coverage claimed to expose.
The ideas are closely tied to debates about the role of media in society and to a conservative concern with the proper limits of state power and public discourse. While some critics later challenged every aspect of the moral panic framework, advocates argued that the framework remains a valuable tool for identifying when sensational reporting sways policy more than empirical evidence does. Key concepts central to Cohen’s work include the construction of social problems, the authority of media narratives, and the relationship between public sentiment and moves toward stricter social control. These themes continue to appear in discussions of contemporary media coverage of crime, social unrest, and youth culture, and they are frequently linked to broader discussions of media influence on policy and public opinion.
Major concepts and case studies
Folk devils and moral panic: The core idea that media representations of deviance create alarm that is disproportionate to objective risk, turning certain groups into symbols of threat. These symbols justify a political and social mobilization around punishment, policing, and regulation. Folk devils and moral panic are central to understanding how public problems are framed and acted upon.
The Mods and Rockers case: A defining example in which two youth subcultures were alleged to be on a collision course with public order, with sensational press coverage amplifying the fear of widespread violence. The episode became a touchstone for discussions about the power of media narratives to influence policy, public mood, and social risk assessment. The case is often cited in discussions of how moral panics form and how “folk devils” are constructed in real time. See Mods and Rockers for the illustrative instance and its broader implications.
Media as a social force: Cohen’s work treats media not as a neutral conduit of information but as an active agent in shaping social reality. The stories chosen, the language used, and the frames deployed by the press interact with political rhetoric and law enforcement to create a perceived crisis that can justify more stringent controls or moralizing public discourse. This line of thought is a foundational element in mass media studies and in analyses of public policy formation.
Policy implications and debates: The framework invites scrutiny of how societies respond to perceived threats and how those responses may outpace or distort actual danger. Critics have urged refinements to the theory, while supporters have used it to explain why certain policy shifts occur during periods of heightened media attention.
Controversies and debates
The ideas around folk devils and moral panics have inspired vigorous debate. Critics argue that Cohen’s framework can overstate the media’s power, underplay structural or economic factors behind crime, or neglect the agency of the groups labeled as deviants. Some note that the concept risks painting social reaction with a broad brush, potentially ignoring the legitimate concerns of communities affected by crime or public disorder. Others point to cases where public concern did align with real increases in risk, suggesting that the media’s coverage can reflect genuine problems rather than simply fabricate them.
From a vantage that favors prudent governance and civil liberties, the controversy can be framed as a debate over risk, proportionality, and the role of the state. Proponents of Cohen’s approach emphasize the need for careful scrutiny of how media frames shape public expectations and how policy responses should be tethered to solid evidence rather than to sensational narratives. This perspective cautions against overreach—such as sweeping surveillance measures, draconian penalties, or broad moralizing campaigns—when the actual threat is uncertain or exaggerated. It also underscores the importance of due process and the protection of individual rights, even when public mood is inflamed by dramatic reporting.
On the other hand, some scholars argue that the moral panic framework can become overly retrospective or misrepresent the complexities of social dynamics. They contend that not all public alarm is misdirected and that some episodes of concern reflect authentic risk, requiring measured responses that balance safety with freedoms. The ongoing dialogue around moral panics thus remains a key site for evaluating how societies translate media signals into policy choices, and how to guard against knee-jerk reactions that may produce unintended consequences.
Legacy and influence
Cohen’s work helped to institutionalize a critical lens on media effects in criminology, sociology, and cultural studies. It provided a vocabulary for discussing how public worry is manufactured and how policy can be driven by symbolic threats rather than by dispassionate risk assessment. The approach continues to inform analyses of various public concerns—ranging from youth subcultures and drug scares to issues of national security and immigration—where media narratives interact with political incentives to shape public policy.
The enduring relevance of Cohen’s ideas lies in their call for a disciplined skepticism about sensational reporting and for a careful, evidence-based approach to social policy. In contemporary discourse, the concept of moral panic is frequently invoked to critique alarmist framing in coverage of crime, social disorder, and cultural shifts, as well as to evaluate the legitimacy and proportionality of policy responses. This framework sits alongside other analytical tools in sociology and criminology for assessing the legitimacy of public concern and the appropriate scope of government action.