So far the previous two chapters have indicated that the existence of a heroin epidemic in the town of study, and the successful application of Becker's model to the epidemic. Meeting the criteria set out in Becker's moral crisis production model indicates that a basis for a moral crisis is evident, and so this chapter is a natural progression in that it looks at whether the crisis has been accomplished, and if so to what extent.
When measuring its success one can again follow the framework proposed by Becker himself, who stated that in order for a moral crisis to be achieved the crisis entrepreneur (agent) must fulfil several key requirements. What this chapter will aim to produce is evidence that shows the extent to which the crisis agents have met three of these ‘factors’, and consequently suggest the extent to which the panic has been a success. Due to numerous constraints all six of the factors cannot be explored.
The first of these factors is the need for the crisis agent to transform the activity, heroin use, from being a conventional one engaged in by ‘normal’ people into an ‘extraordinary’ activity engaged in by abnormal people. To achieve this goal the agent must break the bond between the ordinary citizen and the deviant; they have to show that heroin users are not the same as the normal, law-abiding mass. Instead they must portray these people to be a threat to existing moral schemas, and that its by-product (heroin related crime) is a threat to social order.
Perhaps the best place to start is by analysing the communication channel used by the agents, the local newspaper. Journal articles throughout the late 1990s have channeled the threat posed by heroin users through the use of language, linking the headlines featuring ‘ADDICTS’ with terms such as ‘MUGGED,’ ‘STOLE,’ ‘JAIL’ and ‘EVIL.’ The paper has also created headlines that set the addicts/users of the town apart from the general population; with ‘HEROIN SUBCULTURE’ being the prime example. However, linking heroin use with street crime was not the only way to break the bonds between the normal citizen and the ‘deviant,’ the use of the institution of the family also played a key role. ‘MY SON IS A HEROIN ADDICT’ and ‘HEROIN KILLED BOY’ were two full page articles based around heroin use destroying the institution of the family, which plays on the emotions of the public and helps shape their negative attitudes towards heroin users. To see one of societies fundamental institutions being torn apart by heroin is an image that would evoke strong feelings in most people.
According to Parker etal (1988) heroin users themselves were also responsible for ‘mobilising the drug crisis,’ afterall the majority of those one communicated with through this research agreed to the reality of heroin usage increasing. Furthermore Parker added that they also provide the ‘media with vivid/exaggerated accounts of how many people were taking drugs.’ This is apparent in the interviews conducted, both the addict and the user agreed that the number of heroin users had hugely increased over the past 5 years. As for exaggerations, according to the heroin addict there is ‘more than an epidemic, the whole town needs to be locked up.’ Whilst interviewing the heroin user and addict one found that they were keen to tell me stories and experiences they had whilst using heroin, giving the impression that they wanted to shock and startle.
Similarly ex-addicts were also said to be vital in breaking the bond between the ‘normal’ person and the heroin user, they provided ‘horror stories’ from their lives, yet also set an example to the rest of society in showing that once you are ‘clean’ you are normal again, you can be accepted. The interview with the ex-addict in this research clearly demonstrated this point, she stated that once she had come of heroin she felt accepted again, even her own brother ‘began to accept her.’ It was also interesting to note that she frowned upon heroin users, in a sense she ‘looked down’ upon them.
What we can conclude from this first area is that it is evident that moral crisis agents succeeded in breaking that bond between the heroin user and the rest of the public, even the heroin users themselves acknowledged the fact. The methods they employed to achieve this feat occurred largely through the use of the local paper, which linked heroin use to crime, immorality and the breakdown of the family.
The second factor identified by Becker was the requirement of the crisis agent to depict the heroin epidemic as non-self regulating, that is it will not diminish unless the audience themselves take action. To asses the success in this area we can again turn to evidence presented within the agents communication channel, whose function was to unite the mass against crime and heroin abuse. The best example of this was a front page article which headlined ‘PROVE YOU WANT TO BEAT CRIME IN XXXXXX,’ and included. . .
“Please ring the phone line-whatever your view-and help provide the home
office with a simple message, XXXXXX wants to beat crime.”
Essentially the paper was acting as a moral crusader, with the sole aim of uniting the public in the fight against crime (the mass against the few).
Similar headlines aimed at uniting the public in its attitudes towards heroin and consequent actions were apparent-‘HORROR AS YOUNGSTER FINDS DRUG SYRINGE,’ and ‘APPEAL TO CLOSE OFF DRUG WASTELAND’ are two other key examples. This could be aimed at stirring public emotion and inducing some sort of collective reaction to the problem.
The question as to whether the communication channel had formed its own consciousness so to speak, that is whether it had become a crisis agent in its own right, needs further investigation. However, evidence to support the view that it was acting on behalf of the crisis agents was visible at certain times, most notably the support offered for the law enforcement agent. ‘POLICE WANT RESIDENTS TO FORM CRIME FIGHTING UNITS’ and ‘POLICE PRAISE PUBLIC EFFORTS’ are two key examples. What such articles aimed to achieve was the uniting of the public against crime, and ultimately heroin related crime, the public were needed to help reduce crime and heroin use.
The interviews conducted threw up similar stances. The crisis agents held a collective belief that education was the key to fighting the epidemic in the long term, yet one got the impression that in the short term arrests, imprisonment and the uniting of the public were needed to control the epidemic.
Thirdly, the agents needed to ‘formulate the motives’ of the deviant in a way that explains why a reasonable person would turn to heroin. They had to show that anyone could be susceptible to taking the drug, and with the ‘availability’ and ‘cheapness’ of heroin effectively we are all in danger. To accommodate this pre-requisite Becker believed that terms such as ‘misinformation’ and ‘curiosity’ were used, afterall any normal person that new the consequences of taking the drug would go nowhere near it. This contradicted the view that within an increasingly hedonistic society people just wanted to take the drug for fun or pleasure.
To assess the validity and subsequent success in this area the interviews conducted with the crisis agents and heroin/ex-heroin users offered the relevant information. Collectively, it seemed that the agents were keen on terms associated with ‘misinformation,’ as a crisis unit they all agreed that misinformation played a significant role in the motives of the deviant taking heroin, particularly young people, yet they all had different versions as to the other types of motives formed by the deviant. The heroin user and indeed the addict tended to look towards the curiosity phenomenon; it was not so much that they were misinformed (even though all agreed that they had no decent drug education in schools) but that they were ‘intrigued by it.’ For the addict. . .
“When I first saw it, putting it onto the foil, powder running into a blob of oil,
and running it down to see how many lines I could get out of a bag. That was what
interested me.”
(AA: Pp. 56. 9.8)
It would seem that Becker’s terms were indeed adopted in the search for creating motives, and although they took centre stage numerous other motives were also adopted. It was also interesting to note that heroin users identified ‘boredom’ as a major reason for turning to heroin, perhaps being a pointer in indicating that many heroin addicts are indeed unemployed.
Consequently we are left with evidence that clearly indicates that a certain degree of success had be obtained throughout each of the three factors identified. Having already established the grounds needed for a moral panic, what this collection of evidence aims to show is the extent to which the moral panic has been a success. Due to the limited time and scale this study can only offer a snapshot of the available evidence, and so to state that the panic has been a huge success would be neither valid nor reliable. However one can state that the evidence provided shows that the moral panic has shown clear signs of success.
Copyright(C) 2007
- 2025. All rights reserved.