User:Fsu slacker

Moral Outrage
Moral Outrage is a sociological term, closely related to moral panic. Moral outrage itself is a fairly recent sociological term, coming about in the last couple of decades. The term mainly came about from the works of Erving Goffman, and it is used to describe the strong and extremely influential feelings that come about when a large group of people feel that a particular occurrence, group, movement or event is morally wrong. And usually, a large societal reaction occurs. Sometimes violently. Possibly changing the social constructs of a given society. These feelings are usually manifested through the backing of some medium, and used to influence a mass of people.

But to understand the concept of a moral outrage, you must first understand some of the components that go hand in hand with it. Moral outrage can be directly related to moral panics, the media, and Moral entrepreneur (sociology)s. A moral panic occurs when a condition,episode,person or group of persons emerge and becomes a threat to societal values and interests. . Moral panics are usually the precursor to moral outrage. Also, moral panic and outrage are most commonly instigated by moral entrepreneurs who use power and influence to produce rage in a social society to press and enhance their own interests. The ability for these entrepreneurs to cause controversy has become a much larger problem in the last few decades due to the globalization of mass media. As Goffman noted, by presenting themselves through the media, they hope to created and maintain a supportive climate for their efforts to mobilize their constituency and influence their target. The media is such an easily available forum for people in our times, that its effect quickly spreads throughout communities. As small as a town or as large as creating an outrage around the globe. These outrages are obviously usually concerned with some type of moral value. Some value that is being deviated against the social norm.

But moral outrage differs from moral panic. The key distinction between the two is that panic has to do mostly with a threat. A feeling that a certain person or a group of persons could potentially threaten the social norms of a society. Moral outrage occurs when a society is outraged, and feels that they have been attacked, whether it be indirect or directly. And as stated earlier, the effect is compounded by the effect of moral entrepreneurs and the medias portrayal of the event or occurrence. Moral outrage has been seen in this country to persuade action against a plethora of movements. Rock and roll, homosexuality, television to name a few. And more currently, things such as violence in video games, music icons such as Emineim, and even our current occupation of Iraq.

To further discern between the two, a good example of a panic would be the red scare. Although society felt threatened, there was never any retaliation, i.e., nuclear war or real moral outrage. On the other hand, the events of 9/11 left American society feeling outraged that they had been attacked and their society violated. Fuel was further added to the fire by the non stop media coverage, and the emergence of moral entrepreneur figures, such as President Bush. He used the people's anger to re-enforce the need to retaliate, swiftly and quickly. This spiraled into protests, mass chaos, attacks on Muslim Americans, and eventually the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. We see groups intending on swaying masses to push their cause represented in the media every single day. From anti-immigration to religious fanatics. In the past decade, acts of violence coinciding with moral outrages have been more frequent, not only in our society. Much of the violence and animosity towards Western culture may be attributed to moral outrage. Much of fuel for jihad stems from the narrow spectrum of media that is actually shown to the people. To them, much of what they see is a direct violation of their social norms, and even though not every American believes our involvement in the Middle East is right, they still perceive it as a direct attack.

But moral outrage is not simply a term used to depict hatred for something, complimented by acts of violence or terrorism. Good things can come about from a society's outrage at a moral plight. For instance, the Darfur conflict. Societies around the world have been outraged at the genocide occurring in Darfur. And have taken positive action to help out the plight of the people there. A London based magazine recently expressed outrage at the denial of victims seeking asylum from countries where conflict and atrocities of civil war were occurring. They argued that turning away these people, some of whom were already on the brink of death from AIDS, was in a direct violation of societal norms that would be given to other people. . The end result of any moral outrage perceived by a society may ultimately result in some change of the social construct of said society.

Whenever a society becomes more enmeshed, and has a higher collective conscience, the probability that moral panics, followed by moral outrages will occur is increased. Compounded with the recent globalization of media, moral outrage will continue to be a present player in current sociology. The problem is not getting caught up and confused. As society advances, more and more groups or individual entrepreneurs use the media to try and sway society to their cause. This is going to be a very dangerous thing in the near feature. As columnist Thomas Sowell concluded, " Does anyone remember any such moral outrage at the killings of Asian Americans during the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles as there is now about the murder of gay Matthew Shepard or the murder of the abortion doctor Barnett Slepian? Moral outrage is one of the essential ingredients of a civilized society, but we have become dangerously selective -- and politically correct -- about what outrages us.' Moral outrage and the occurrences that accompany it will continue to present nations around the world with problems