Search

This article provides a comprehensive survey of the use of the term `moral panic' from its coinage in 1972 until the present day. It traces the evolution of the term in academic sociology and criminology, its adoption by the media in the mid- 1980s and its subsequent employment in the national press. It shows how and why the term changed its meaning, and how far its use in academic discourse affected its use in the media. The article traces the development of `moral panic' in the media, where it was first used pejoratively, then rejected for being pejorative, and finally rehabilitated as a term of approval. It explains why the term developed as it did: how it enabled journalists to justify the moral and social role of the media, and also to support the reassertion of `family values' in the early 1990s. The article concludes by considering the relationship between `moral panic' and moral language in general. This is a more speculative analysis of the term, drawing on the work of moral philosophers and attempting to predict how `moral panic' may develop in the future. `Moral panic', I suggest, is an unsatisfactory form of moral language which may adversely affect the media's ability to handle moral issues seriously. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents an analysis on supervisory behavior and its effect in an English factory under controlled structural situation. The crucial problem is to expand the analytical system of the psychological variables, frustration, aggressive feelings, aggression, and self-esteem by including the structural variables, normative expectations of authority and the normative expression of emotions. Close and punitive supervision are not frustrating in themselves but will become frustrating when they violate subordinates normative expectations of authority. The less traditional and the more conditional the subordinate's normative expectations of authority, the smaller the range of deviation from their conception of ideal supervisory behavior which they can tolerate without becoming frustrated. And given conditional receptivity, it is more likely that supervisory behavior itself will be included in the subordinate-supervisor bargain. The greater the inclusion of supervisory behavior, the less subordinates will allow the supervisor to behave closely and punitively without themselves becoming frustrated.