According to certain media personalities, pundits, politicians, and clergymen, the United States faces an enemy who threatens to unravel the social fabric. That enemy has a name, and that name is antifa. In recent weeks rumors proliferated how busloads of antifa anarchists were on their way to small towns across America to spread chaos and destruction. According to right-wing pundits like Tucker Carlson and politicians (including the US President), “antifa” is public enemy number one. The media sensationalism and unwarranted public reaction to the “antifa menace” follows a classic pattern of what sociologists call a moral panic.

Moral Panics

Before jumping right into the current public hysteria over antifa, I want to take you back to a mostly forgotten sweltering summer in 1964 when groups of bored young adults scuffled in several English seaside resort towns. Records show that the fights resulted in incidental property damage and a few arrests. When asked later, store owners admitted that the youths spent more in these small hamlets than cost anyone in damages. However, the press at the time told a completely different story as headlines warned of gang wars and out of control youth. English newspapers ran stories about how delinquent rockers in their black leather jackets were warring with the fashionable and stylish, jazz and blues listening mods, and how both subcultures represented an existential threat to England. Elder statesmen and many veterans of World War II were shocked at the apparent decadence and societal disregard of the new generation of spoiled youth.

Rumors spread across England that violent youth gangs were set to invade small towns to rumble, leading police and the public to be on high alert. In nearly every instance, the day set for the rumored gang war passed without incident. Instead of clashing youth, police squads found themselves standing around public squares looking silly, with nothing to do. Police across England coordinated and made plans on how to deal with the hooligans, and politicians promised to enact laws to restore order and deal with the rise of delinquency. The threat posed by these ‘mods’ and ‘rockers’ were forgotten after a couple summers, and the public moved on to other concerns.

The entire kerfuffle would have been forgotten, had not sociologist Stanley Cohen used the exaggerated conflicts between the rockers and the mods as a case study in his 1972 book Folk Devils and Moral Panics. Cohen explained how the incident fit a recognizable pattern common to all moral panics, thus pioneering the field, which touches on our understanding of how the media functions, how social control operates, and of collective behavior.

According to Cohen, a moral panic is

… a condition or episode when a person, or group of persons emerge who become defined as a threat to societal values and interests; its nature is presented in a stylized and stereotypical fashion by the mass media; the moral barricades are manned by editors, bishops, politicians and other right-thinking people; socially accredited experts pronounce their diagnoses and solutions; ways of coping are evolved or … resorted to; and the condition then disappears.

The two major components of a moral panic are “moral entrepreneurs” and “folk devils.”  Moral entrepreneurs start the panic by exaggerating or inventing a threat. Folk devils are the demonized target of the moral entrepreneurs. Five features of a moral panic include concern about the behavior of the particular folk devils; hostility towards the folk devils; consensus among some portion of the public that the group in question poses a threat; the actions and concern are disproportionate to the actual danger; and that the public fear is short-lived (like a fad or fashion trend.)

It takes little effort to list many moral panics in recent memory. In my life-time I survived Dungeons and Dragons; the Satanic Panic of the ’80s in which parents were warned about the ritual abuse of children; the Reagan-era “War on Drugs”; alleged widespread, organized, pedophile rings; violent video games; flag burners; poisoners of Halloween candy; undocumented immigrants; the “War on Christmas;” transsexuals in bathrooms; and the perennial American boogeymen—Communists and Terrorists. During the WTO protests, the target of anxiety was the black block, during the 2016 election cycle Hillary Clinton and her emails fit the pattern, and as recent as 2019, there were the dreaded Latin American caravans. Among conspiracy-minded anti-Semites, pro-democracy philanthropist George Soros poses a danger to national sovereignty and social stability. I am sure you can easily add to the list and recognize that “antifa” is only the latest in a long series of imaginary or overblown threats to society.

Moral panics do not come out of nowhere. According to Cohen, they require the interaction of five segments of society to spread: the press, the public, law enforcement, politicians, and action groups. A lot of attention (and blame) is put on the media as a critical player in the dissemination of moral indignation. The media plays a significant role as agenda setters and determine for much of society what is acceptable. The nature of commercial news is that it must be entertaining to attract and keep an audience. Too often, being entertaining means focusing on spectacle, conflict, and manufactured outrage. Creating and amplifying the fear of folk devils sells papers and keeps viewers tuned their TVs and radios. The press overstates the seriousness posed by designated folk devils, inflates incidents, and distorts accounts.

Many politicians capitalize on moral panics to win elections and to push an agenda. It is easy to symbolically align oneself with an easy target that hardly exists. By condemning the folk devil of the moment, politicians paint themselves as siding with the angels. According to the formula of a moral panic, legislatures and other moral entrepreneurs come off as angry and righteous against the threat and stereotypically propose punitive measures to address it.

For Cohen, the dimension of public concern includes the idea that the public already has some preconceived notions about the folk devils that strikes a chord when triggered by the press. Often, the public is reacting to already existing anxieties that the target of ire symbolizes. For a moral panic to take off, it helps if the folk devil can be associated with deviancy, lack of patriotism, violence, being anti-religious, or holding the “wrong religion.” A compelling charge against a target some group seeks to demonize is also to claim that they are out to harm children.

Law enforcement often uses the perceived threat as an excuse to escalate their actions by making them more punitive. The classic argument heard by law enforcement during a moral panic is that new situations require new remedies that often entail the suspension of rights and liberties.

Action groups consist of the moral entrepreneurs who often have something to gain by campaigning against the designated folk devils. Action groups can morph into social movements or adapt as they invent new threats to profit from. Sometimes they are institutionalized and must find ways to justify their existence after the non-existent threat has passed.

Antifa

Antifa, short for antifascist, refers to a decentralized network of people who oppose fascists, racists, or otherwise extremist right-wing groups. What separates an antifa activist’s philosophy from many others is that it does not discount violence as a legitimate tactic to foster social change. Antifa cannot be described as an organization since it lacks any membership lists, has no organizational structure or designated leader, nor does it have an official headquarter.

Much (arguably most) antifa activity lies in the sphere of animal rights—even though that activity gets little press attention. Until recently, antifa activists were most known for their online activism as they doxed fascists and white supremacists—doxing refers to the practice of researching and publicly exposing the identities of individuals. They did this by taking pictures of those attending fascist and other far-right gatherings and by infiltrating the message boards of far-right organizations, then matching faces with names or investigating the real names behind online handles.

Since Charlottesville, Virginia’s Unite the Right Rally, Antifa activists have been in the spotlight for their attendance at counter-demonstrations at marches by far-right organizations. The public’s first exposure to antifa activists arose when they were filmed clashing with right-wing marchers—this early coverage associated antifa activists in the public mind with chaos and violence.

Some pundits, politicians, and law enforcement officials blame antifa for the violence and looting that occurred at several George Floyd protests. The US President announced that he was declaring antifa a domestic terrorist organization—despite him not having the authority to do so. Referring to antifa, US Attorney General Barr warned that, “There are extremist agitators hijacking protests to pursue their own separate and violent agenda.” Fox News outrage performer Tucker Carlson calls antifa, “left-wing thugs who smash windows, burn businesses, and beat up people they do not agree with.”

Fact-checkers found no evidence to support the claim that antifa aligned activists were behind property damage at Black Lives Matter marches. Washington Post fact-checkers declared, “There has not been a single confirmed episode where Antifa caused violence at the George Floyd protests in the US.” Reuters News Agency examined court records from the nationwide protests and did not find the word “antifa” in any of them. According to Reuters, eighty plus people have been charged in federal courts since demonstrations began on May 27^th, four had ties to White Nationalist groups, and zero had antifa connections. The New York Times also researched all federal arrests, and documents show there was no evidence of any antifa planned protests. With more than 14,000 people arrested across 49 cities arrested since May 27^th, none had links to antifa. The most organized activity of antifa activists at Black Lives Matter marches—according to witnesses and video evidence—is of them working as medics and picking up trash.

Who is responsible for the property damage that occurred at some of the protests? Local law enforcement and evidence point to local criminal groups, gangs, and opportunists.

Antifa and Moral Panics

If I haven’t already convinced you that the ongoing antifa hysteria is not a classic moral panic right out of textbooks, I will detail how the antifa scare fits the five characteristics of a moral panic first identified by Cohen and expanded upon by later sociologists. I hope you take note that the instigators of the antifa scare have clear political motives, which become apparent once investigated at any length.

Setting

Before going into the features of a moral panic in which the antifa scare shares, it helps to discuss the context in which moral panics arises. The literature explains that moral panics occur during a time of social stress. 2020 has been nothing but stressful. The year began with a pandemic, and after the murder of George Floyd, racial tensions exploded. The social stresses of 2020 serve as fertile ground for rumor-mongering, growth of conspiracy theories, and moral panics.

Concern

For a moral panic to exist, there must be a belief that the behavior or activity deemed deviant is likely to have a negative effect on society. In America’s very segmented news environment, it is consumers of conservative and right-wing media who are most anxious about the alleged “antifa” activities. Two observations explain why. First, right-wing press from Fox News to neo-Nazi sites like Breitbart floods their audience with vague, yet alarming pieces demonizing antifa. Curd Knupfer, a political scientist at the Freie Universität Berlin, conducted a study of right how right-wing websites cover antifa and found that the words terrorists, violence, and criminals were used the most. Such sources also often accuse antifa of violently destroying property, rioting, or looting and sometimes even attacking police or journalists. Repeating unsubstantiated, but scary sounding claims and playing frightening soundbites and looped footage of looting scare viewers and keeps them glued to their TVs and radios.

The second reason that consumers of conservative media feel most alarmed by antifa is that conservative audiences have been primed to despise specific characteristics and affiliations. According to the same German study cited above, right-wing media labels antifa as “liberals and Democrats”—who are considered godless and un-American by the far-right. By using keywords primed to trigger a very conservative audience, right-wing media easily manufactured outrage over the perceived threat of “violent antifa mobs.”

Another factor that needs to be mentioned is that the real target of antifa activists are fascists, and fascists have genuine cause to fear them, because of the consequences of being doxed. There are documented campaigns orchestrated by fascist organizations to turn public opinion away from the antifa. The campaigns entail creating fake antifa Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and other social media accounts that make antifa seem extreme and profoundly out of step with American values. A great example is a fake Facebook account that I came across the other day that advertised an antifa flag burning party. Flag burning is an activity associated with folk devils and moral panics going back many years. Another tactic used by fascists to discredit antifa activists is to provoke physical altercations with them in front of cameras. The more violent antifa activists appear, the more fascists can argue victimhood and thus score political points against their ideological foe. Such fascist tactics increase public hostility against antifa activism.

Hostility

The second feature of moral panic is that hostility towards the concerned group in question increases to the point that they become folk devils. This process happened very quickly with antifa as they first surfaced in the American news when images of them appeared among the counter protesters at now infamous Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville.

The image below created by the Washington Post graphs the number of Twitter mentions of “antifa.” The graph shows that the Twitter mentions of antifa peaked on May 31^st, the day that President Trump declared he would label them a terrorist organization. Other studies showed that most of the right-wing media got in line immediately after that date and began modeling the language used by Trump. Twitter mentions is a convenient metric that marks the day in which antifa progressed from a public worry to fully formed folk devils.

Consensus

Moral panics require that there be widespread—though not necessarily universal—acceptance that the folk devils pose a threat to society. There can be no doubt that there is a consensus within part of the American population that antifa poses a danger to society. The conservative press, numerous users of social media, various outspoken politicians, and many members of the public loudly proclaim their detest for what they call antifa. If there was doubt that some segment of society did not despise “antifa,” I encourage you to read the comments section of any news article about them.

The flipside of consensus is that the same person, group, or condition that one segment of society views as folk devils, another may lionize as folk heroes. That is undoubtedly the case of antifa activists. For many, the hysteria over “antifa” is baffling. There is a long US tradition dating from World War II of characterizing fascists as evil and worth fighting. Some argue that antifascists are continuing the fight domestically that World War II veterans won fighting abroad. This segment of American society perceives it to be un-American not to be antifascist.

Disproportionality

For a moral panic to exist, the fear aroused by the folk devils must be disproportionate to the actual threat they pose. Antifa is a fringe, decentralized network of far-left activists. Independent researchers reveal that there is no evidence that they are prime instigators in the public unrest occurring alongside the Black Lives Matter protest demonstrations. There is no objective reason for there to be widespread concern about their activities, and most of the claims made against them are unfounded. Antifa does not lead riotous mobs or travel to small towns by the busload to seed chaos. Primarily, the only people who should be concerned about antifa activism are fascists fearing exposure.

Volatility

The last distinguishing feature I will mention is that moral panics disappear nearly as quickly as they appear due to waning public interests or news reports changing to a different narrative. As I write this, the mania over antifa is still in high gear. I suspect that this particular moral panic will pass after the November US presidential elections. The US president and his allies are fueling hysteria to distract the public from his many problems and scandals. As evidenced by the image below that popped up in my Facebook feed, the president is even using his campaign against what he calls “antifa” for fundraising. Note, too, how the anti-antifa ad below is misleading. The advertisement has President Trump standing in from of masked marchers—during a pandemic! Many people, especially in social settings, are wearing masks in 2020 on account of the COVID 19 outbreak. Wearing a mask these days does not suggest allegiance to antifascist activism.

Rumors

Since the media instigated terror of brawling rockers and mods, sociologists have recognized the role of rumors during a moral panic. In the 1960s, towns across England were alarmed by rumors that youth gangs would enter their hamlets to tussle, only to be no shows. Identical rumors, this time being amplified by social media, about antifa rolling in by the busload into small towns across America are flourishing. The parallels are remarkable and show how little people have changed and of the robustness of Stanley Cohen’s theories on moral panics.

Media Literacy and Good Citizenship

I think that understanding the nature of moral panics makes one more media savvy and a better citizen. It is well understood how moral panics have been co-opted and sustained by politicians and have had long-lasting consequences. We are still living with the fall-out from the disastrous War on Drugs. The War on Terror led to the Iraq War, which destabilized the Middle East and significantly reduced America’s prestige in the world. It also ignited a wave of Islamophobia that has not subsided considerably. Non-stop coverage of Latin American caravans heading to the US distracted from the real issue of immigration, gave a boost to xenophobic legislators, and intensified prejudice against Latinos. Sadly, there is a long list of lives ruined and money wasted over the moral panics of the past, and there is no reason that our current one of antifa will be any different.

The most egregious problem with the moral panic over antifa activism is that it distracts from the genuine concerns behind the Black Lives Matter movement. Conflating antifa with the rare occurrences of violence and looting during an otherwise overwhelmingly peaceful protest is lazy reporting. It also has the effect of turning off people who might otherwise sympathize with the cause. Covering smashed windows or dumpster fires shifts focus away from the issues protesters are organizing to address. By exaggerating inconsequential protest elements like “antifa,” those opposing the Black Lives Matter movement work to effectively delegitimize the BLM cause.

Another problem that I see with the corporate and partisan media’s obsession with outrage and spectacle—often magnified by politicians and other moral entrepreneurs, is that the public falls into an epistemic crisis. That is, the public does not know what the truth is anymore. We are in the midst of a pandemic with hundreds of thousands of deaths, yet a sizable portion of the population perceives it to be another overblown media scare. By not taking the pandemic seriously, preventable deaths are occurring, and the outbreak is being prolonged. However, considering the frequency in which moral panics, big and small, occur, is it fair to blame segments of the public to be skeptical when a genuine natural disaster strike—especially, when its visibility is low, and its economic consequences so severe?

What can we do about it? I suggest we stop rewarding those who promote and profit from moral panics. Once one knows how to identify moral panics (and be able to distinguish them from genuine threats), they should be easy to spot. An essential element of any moral panic is the public, and if the public fails to fall for the hype trying to generate one, then they will never take off. Also, we need to demand more from the press. If we stop patronizing outrage performers, pundits, and opportunistic politicians who appeal to emotions and who hold little regard for facts, they will have less impact on the body politic.

If this were an academic paper, I would include the sentence that, “Further study is recommended.” This article is already long, so I omitted further elaboration on who the “moral entrepreneurs” are who promote hysteria over antifa. Also, in my research for this post, I saw nothing on the intersection of manufactured outrage and moral panics, which I think is a glaring omission in the studies of both phenomena. If you have not already read my post on manufactured outrage, I encourage you to read it now as a complement to this article.

I would love to read your thoughts in the comments section about what you think about moral panics, either the one over antifa or an older one that affected you in some way.

Suggested Reading