International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, Vol. 6, No.

2, March 2013, 1125-1137

Folk devils without moral panics: discovering concepts in the sociology of evil
____________________________________________________________________________

Steven J. Hayle1

Abstract

In this theoretical ‘think piece’, I question whether Stanley Cohen’s (1972) ‘folk devil’ and ‘moral
panic’ concepts are as inseparable as current sociological and criminological research suggests.
Thus far, the vast majority of crime and deviance scholars have treated the folk devil as just one
sub-part of the moral panic concept, rather than considering it to be a distinct concept.
Consequently, the social processes leading to the creation of folk devils have been largely under-
theorized compared to the social processes underlying moral panics. I propose that folk devils and
moral panics be conceptualized as two distinct social phenomena. I present evidence from news
articles published in the Toronto Star, Canada’s largest circulated newspaper, which illustrates
how individuals can be labeled as folk devils when moral panics are not taking place. I conclude
by considering how a distinct, folk devil research program can contribute to studies in the
sociology of ‘evil’.

Introduction

It has been four decades since the publication of Stanley Cohen’s (1972) now classic text, Folk Devils and
Moral Panics. During this time, social scientists have invoked Cohen’s the moral panic concept to explain
a diverse array of social phenomena including societal reactions to: muggings; gang violence; drug use;
and corporate crime. In the opening chapter of his book, Cohen (1972) explains that a moral panic
involves a situation where:

…a condition, episode or group of persons becomes 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 more often) resorted to; the condition then disappears, submerges, and or deteriorates and
becomes more visible [Cohen, 1972:9].

In subsequent years, various scholars have provided similar definitions of moral panics. Hall and his
colleagues (1978) define moral panics as “official” reactions to events that are “out of all proportion to
the actual threat offered” (p.16). Goode and Ben- Yehuda (1994) understand moral panics to be periods of
“…strong, widespread (although not necessarily universal) fear or concern that evil doings are afoot, that
certain enemies of society are trying to harm some or all of the rest of us” (p.11). Social scientists agree
that a key feature of moral panics is distortion. This occurs when media sources “exaggerate, grossly, the
seriousness of events” (Cohen, 1972:31; see also Hall et al., 1978; Goode and Ben-Yehuda, 1994). Cohen
(1972) explains that such distortions can involve “...sensational headlines, the melodramatic vocabulary
and the deliberate heightening of those elements in the story considered as news” (p.31). In more recent
years, the moral panic concept has undergone rigorous critique (see McRobbie and Thornton, 1995;

1
Steven J. Hayle, steven.hayle@utoronto.ca

1125
International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, Vol. 6, No.2, March 2013, 1125-1137

Ungar, 1992; Waddington, 1986). Despite considerable interest in the merits and viability of Cohen’s
(1972) moral panic model, surprisingly little attention has been paid, exclusively, to his folk devil concept.
Cohen (1972) defines folk devils as “social types” that serve as “visible reminders of what we
should not be”2 (p.10). Hall and colleagues (1978) define the folk devil as such:

He is the reverse image, the alternative to all we know: the negation. He is the fear of failure that
is secreted at the heart of success, the danger that lurks inside security, the profligate figure by
whom Virtue is constantly tempted, the tiny, seductive voice inside inviting us to feed rations
[p.16].

Furthermore, Goode and Ben-Yehuda (1994) understand the folk devil to be the “evil party” responsible
for an action, or the “personification of evil” (p.28). Examples of folk devils that Cohen provides include
members from several different youth sub-cultures: Teddy Boys; Mods, Rockers; Hells Angels;
Skinheads; and Hippies (Cohen, 1972). Cohen (1972) connects his two concepts by noting that moral
panics develop in response to the behaviour of folk devils.
Until now, the vast majority of crime and deviance scholars have assumed that folk devils exist
only during times of moral panic. In turn, they have treated the folk devil as just one sub-part of the moral
panic concept, rather than as a separate and distinct concept. As a result, the social processes that
undergird folk devils have been given short shrift compared to the social processes that underlie moral
panics. The consequence of this is that folk devils have remained largely under-theorized. In this
theoretical ‘think piece’, I question whether folk devils and moral panics are as tightly bound as previous
research suggests. I propose that we break from current tradition by not thinking about folk devils as
being contingent upon moral panics. Instead, I suggest that we understand folk devils and moral panics to
be two separate social phenomena. I present evidence which suggests that individuals can be labeled as
folk devils regardless of whether or not a moral panic is taking place.
In the first part of this paper, I review social scientific literature on ‘evil’ and highlight some of
the current limitations within the sociology of evil. This is important for demonstrating how and why the
folk devil concept can be instrumental for advancing research in the social construction of ‘evil’. Next, I
illustrate how social scientists have, so far, treated moral panics and folk devils as two concepts as
inseparably linked. This will lead into a discussion of the negative consequences of theoretically
interlocking these concepts. Drawing on excerpts from news articles in the Toronto Star, the largest
circulated newspaper in Canada, I illustrate how it is possible for folk devil labeling, herein referred to as
folk devilling, to occur without moral panics (thestar.com). I conclude by considering how a distinct, folk
devil research program can advance studies in the sociology of ‘evil’.

The Sociology of Evil

Contemporary social scientists have displayed a marked interest in the phenomenon of ‘evil’. In
particular, social psychologists have investigated the causes and consequences of evil behaviour,
questioning how and why people act evil (Baumeister, 1998; Miller, 2004; Mikulincer and Shaver, 2012).
For example, Zimbardo (2004) investigates how situational factors like “environmental anonymity” can
encourage otherwise “good” people to take part in “evil” activities such as vandalism (p.33).
Psychologists who study evil share an interest in how factors related to the individual, such as thoughts
and personal desires, are causally linked to evil behaviour.
In contrast, far less interest has been paid to how people come to be perceived as ‘evil’. The more
limited social scientific research on evil-labeling has been conducted primarily by social psychologists

2For the purposes of this paper, the term folk devil will always be used to denote those who are labelled as folk devils. The term
does not refer to any characteristics or behaviours of the person themselves, but rather it refers to how the person is perceived by
others. This is consistent with Cohen’s definition of folk devils (Cohen, 1972:10).

1126
International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, Vol. 6, No.2, March 2013, 1125-1137

(Baumeister, 1997; Duntley and Buss, 2004; Levine, 1997). Baumeister (1997), for example, introduces
the concept of the “myth of pure evil”, defining it to be a “composite of images” that represent the way
members of society think about “evil” (p.74). He suggests that the following notions make up the core of
the myth: 1. Evil is something “other” or “outside” of what we are; 2. Evil represents the “antithesis of
order, peace, and stability”; 3. Evil involves the deliberate infliction of harm on other people; 4. Evil
people derive pleasure from inflicting harm on others; 5. Evil people are characteristically egotistical; 6.
Evil has been the same way since time immemorial; 7. The victim of evil is good; and 8. Evil people have
trouble maintaining control over their emotions (Baumeister, 1997:73-74). Baumeister emphasizes that
the myth of pure evil is a cognitive labeling tool that is subscribed to by those categorizing other people
as evil.
Similarly, Levine (1997) proposes that there is widespread belief among members of society that
the following traits or behaviours are characteristic of a “truly evil soul”: 1. Evil people deliberately plan
and carry out plans to inflict harm on good people; and 2. Evil people experience and express no guilt or
remorse for their actions (p.617). Baumeister (1997) and Levine’s (1997) social psychological research is
insightful because indicates how members of Western society mentally represent ‘evil’ to themselves.
In comparison, sociologists have been largely silent on questions of ‘evil’. Wolff (1969) laments
that sociologists have neglected the important question of ‘What is evil?’ He appeals to sociologists to
develop of a research program in the “sociology of evil”, and he proposes that sociological insight can be
gained from uncovering the “social sources” of “conceptions of evil”, as well as learning more about the
“social” and “political” consequences of being labeled “evil”.
Alexander (2003) argues that, for the most part, social scientists have, “...been unsuccessful in
addressing evil” (p.109). He explains that “evil” is relegated to the margins of social science and treated
as a ‘residual category’ of human behaviour (Alexander, 2003:109). Societal values are understood to
represent “orientations to the good”, whereas “deviations” from these orientations are considered to be
“evil” (Alexander, 2003:109). Alexander (2003) proposes that a more elaborate model of ‘social good and
evil’ that does not just treat “evil” as a residual category of social activity is needed.
Whilst social scientists have questioned what psychological processes and motivations explain
the cognitive construction of ‘evil’, sociological research into the social construction of ‘evil’ has been
largely neglected. Although sociologists have devoted attention to understanding the social construction
of various forms of negative labels such as ‘deviant’, ‘criminal’, ‘addict’, and ‘mentally ill’, they have, for
the most part, shied away from studying ‘evil’ as a social construct. Consequently, we know very little
about how the social construction of ‘evil’ compares and contrasts to the social construction of other
forms of ‘deviance’ such as criminality, mental illness, addiction, or juvenile delinquency. As mentioned
above, folk devils have come to be conceptualized as the embodiment of ‘evil’ in the sociological and
criminological literature. However, due to the poverty of research into the folk devil model, its’ potential
utility for the sociology of evil has yet to be fully realized. Folk devils have been treated as just one of
many variables in the moral panic model, even though both of these concepts emerged from two separate
theoretical canons.

The Origins of Cohen’s (1972) Moral Panic and Folk Devil Concepts

When tracing folk devils and moral panics back to their theoretical origins, it becomes clear that these two
concepts refer to two separate phenomena. Cohen’s (1972) moral panic concept can be directly linked to
the literature on claims making, whereas his folk devil concept can be connected to research on labeling.

Moral Panics and Claims-Making

During the “skeptical revolution” in criminology (see Cohen, 1972:12) scholars extended the symbolic
interactionist process of situation-defining to their studies of crime and deviance (see Blumer, 1969 and
Mead, 1934). They noted that certain members of society advocate for changes in the law that will
advance their own subjective moral codes. Becker (1963) discusses the activities of the moral

1127
International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, Vol. 6, No.2, March 2013, 1125-1137

entrepreneur, for whom “...the existing rules do not satisfy him because there is some evil which
profoundly disturbs him”. (pp.147-148). It is evident that Cohen (1972) concurs with Becker’s (1963)
understanding of moral entrepreneurship since he defines moral panics as occurrences where events,
individuals and groups become defined as threats to societal values and interests (Cohen, 1972).
Similarly, Gusfield (1967) investigates a form of moral entrepreneurship which he refers to as a
symbolic crusade (p.177). He looks specifically at how legislators can enact laws that publicly confirm
their “social ideals and norms”. The activities of these lawmakers take on symbolic value as they elevate
the moral values of one group while downgrading the moral codes of another. Gusfield’s (1967) influence
on moral panic theory is most clearly seen in Cohen’s (1972) discussion and explanation of how
politicians engage in the “manning of moral barricades” (p.9). For Cohen (1972), society’s protection of
“moral barricades” ensures that those laws created to uphold agreed upon ‘ideals’ and ‘norms’ are
maintained.
Cohen (1972) notes that, during a moral panic, the seriousness of the perceived threat of a
situation is out of proportion with the reality of the threat. Before this, however, Wilkins also wrote about
how events become distorted by society members. Wilkins (1965) notes that societal concern over
juvenile delinquency arises from society member’s second-hand knowledge about juvenile delinquency
(p.136). Fear of crime is the result of knowledge received from various social agencies including the news
media (Wilkins, 1965:136-137). He suggests that certain groups may be exaggerating the threat of social
problems in order to promote their own “value systems” (Wilkins, 1965:138-140). This observation, of
course, is further elaborated by Cohen (1972) in his discussion of media exaggeration and distortion.
Although it is evident that Cohen’s (1972) moral panic concept is firmly rooted within the claims-making
literature, his folk devil concept originates from a related, but distinct theoretical tradition.

Folk devils and labeling theory

Whereas moral panics can be linked to claims making research, folk devils are connected to theories of
labeling and stigmatization. Cohen’s (1972) folk devil can be seen as an example of a secondary devianti3.
Lemert (1951) proposes that “deviant” acts be classified as primary deviance when they are understood to
be the product of a “socially acceptable role” (p.75). In contrast, he classifies as secondary deviance those
acts that are repetitive, highly visible, and that invoke a strong, negative societal reaction (Lemert,
1951:76).
Klapp (1962) presents an analysis of deviance that had important bearing on Cohen’s
development of the folk devil. He takes to task distinguishing between villains and pure villains (Klapp,
1962:50). While he explains that villains can sometimes be confused with heroes if they exhibit qualities
of both typical villains and heroes, for Klapp (1962), “A pure villain lacks redeeming traits that confuse
him with a hero” (p.50). Cohen’s model was influenced by Klapp (1962) in the sense that, like pure
villains, folk devils are void of any positive or redeeming qualities4.
What can be gleaned from this brief scholarly review is that Cohen’s (1962) folk devil and moral
panic models came out of two interrelated, but nevertheless, distinct strands of symbolic interactionist
theory. Yet, since the publication of Cohen’s (1962) book, the vast majority of sociologists and
criminologists have treated folk devils as only one sub-unit in the moral panic concept.

Why Folk Devils Are Ignored: The Folk Devil-Moral Panic Dialectic

Folk devils and moral panics have both been conceptually linked by a number of scholars. Recall that
Cohen (1972) defines moral panics as instances in which individuals or groups come to be labeled as a

3To be clear, I am not suggesting that folk devils are synonymous with secondary deviance (referring to the label and not the
person), but rather that folk devils are a distinct type of secondary deviant
4 To be clear, however, I am not suggesting that folk devils are exactly the same as pure villains. Unlike folk devils, pure villains

are not intended to be representative of ‘evil’.

1128
International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, Vol. 6, No.2, March 2013, 1125-1137

threat to societal values. Those who become labeled as threats to societal interests, he submits, are folk
devils. Furthermore, Goode and Ben-Yehuda (1994) understand folk devils to be essential to moral panics
(pp.33-38). The authors claim that, in order for a moral panic to exist, all five of the following criteria
must be satisfied: 1. There must be an increased level of concern over the actions of a group of people; 2.
There must be a higher level of hostility directed toward this group of people; 3. There must be a general
consensus within society that this group poses a legitimate and serious threat; 4. The perceived threat of
this group must be disproportionately higher than it actually is; and 5. Societal reaction to this group must
be volatile, meaning that it arises suddenly and disappears just as quickly5 (Goode and Ben-Yehuda,
1994:33-38). The authors posit that people become folk-devilled when a higher level of hostility is
directed toward them compared to those who pose an equal, if not greater, threat (Goode and Ben-
Yehuda, 1994, pp.33-38). Therefore, like Cohen (1972), Goode and Ben-Yehuda (1994) see folk devils as
the outcome of moral panics.
It is useful to conceive of this moral panic-folk devil connection as dialectical. Dialectical
theorization involves treating two concepts or principles as reciprocally related to one another (Ritzer and
Goodman, 2004). Indeed, dialectical logic can be an invaluable tool for better understanding how and
why moral panics and folk devils are related to each other. Evidence clearly shows that in order for a
moral panic to take place there must be a folk devil. In this respect, moral panics and folk devils are
dialectically related. However, evidence also suggests that there does not necessarily need to be a moral
panic in order for folk devils to exist. Thus, the two concepts ought to be read as both related and
separate. However, I argue that treating moral panics and folk devils as dialectically related can lead to
the false conclusion that folk devils and moral panics are always interconnected. Indeed, in her 2011
study of Muslim boys in England, The New Folk Devils: Muslim Boys and Education in England, Shain
asserts that; “The folk devil concept needs to be read in interaction with the notion of moral panic”
[emphasis added] (p.xi). Put another way, folk devils and moral panics can never be investigated as
separate phenomenon. This interlocking of theoretical concepts can result in several negative
consequences, to which I now turn.

Consequences of the folk devil-moral panic dialectic

Conceptualizing folk devils and moral panics as dialectically related to each other has led to several
negative consequences. These include the following: 1. Folk devils are poorly defined; 2. Folk devils are
under-theorized and under-examined; 3. Folk devils are confused with other types of ‘deviants’6; and 4.
Folk devil concepts are judged based on the success of moral panic models. To begin, the greater focus on
moral panics has resulted in the folk devil concept remaining poorly defined. In comparison to folk devils,
moral panics have been clearly and comprehensively explicated in the sociological literature. This is
evidenced by Goode and Ben-Yehuda’s (1994) conceptual scheme in which they lay out five specific
criteria (consensus; hostility; disproportionality; concern; and volatility) that can be used to identify and
distinguish moral panics from actual, legitimate concerns. As well, Cohen (1972) devotes much of his
text to establishing the hallmark features of moral panics. For example, he devotes an entire chapter to
discussing three social processes that occur during a moral panic: exaggeration and distortion; prediction;
and symbolization (Ch. 2: pp.27-44). Distortion involves societal exaggeration of the seriousness of
events (Cohen, 1972:31). Prediction involves the assumption that what has happened in the past will
inevitably happen again (Cohen, 1972:38). Symbolization entails the stereotyping of individuals (Cohen,
1972:40). I make note of this in order to illustrate that Cohen (1972) dedicates a significant portion of his
book to clearly outlining the characteristic features of a moral panic.
I argue that, in contrast to moral panic explanations, we have only short and vague definitions to
work with for making sense of folk devils. For example, Cohen (1972), who first introduced the folk

5For the purposes of this paper, I will draw primarily on this conceptual scheme (as well as Cohen’s explanation of moral panics)
in order to question whether folk devils exist outside of moral panics.
6 For the purposes of this paper, ‘deviants’, like folk devils, refer to those labelled as deviant.

1129
International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, Vol. 6, No.2, March 2013, 1125-1137

devils, provides surprisingly little direction on how to fully understand his concept. He states that folk
devils are social types that serve as visible reminders of what we should not be; however, he does not
unpack this definition any further. Furthermore, he is not clear on what exactly he means by the phrase
“…what we should not be”.
Hall and colleagues’ (1978) definition of folk devils is similarly vague and unfocussed. Consider
some of the phrases he uses to define the folk devil: “the alternative to all we know”; “the negation”; “the
profligate figure by whom Virtue is constantly tempted”. When Hall and colleagues claim that the folk
devil is the reverse image of “all we know”, one must question what, exactly, the authors mean by “all
that we know”? Is it possible for a social construct to oppose everything known to every human being?”
Thus, Hall and colleague’s (1978) definition fails to bring us closer to a more concrete understanding of
what, exactly, a folk devil label is?
Lastly, Goode and Ben-Yehuda’s (1994) definition of the folk devil as an “evil party” is more
clear and concise than the definitions discussed above. They distinguish folk devils from other social
types by classifying them as “evil”. However, Goode and Ben-Yehuda (1994) fail to clearly define what
‘evil’ is. Without a clear definition ‘evil’, or more importantly, what members of society believe is ‘evil’,
it is difficult to explain exactly what or who a folk devil is. In consequence, scholars do not have any
concrete guidelines to use when empirically defining, assessing, comparing and/or distinguishing folk
devils from other ‘deviant’ social types.
Second, Cohen’s the folk devil concept has been under-conceptualized since its' theoretical
development has been almost entirely limited to studies of moral panic. Folk devils are rarely of interest
to criminologists or sociologists unless they pertain directly to moral panics. Indeed, after conducting an
online search of peer-reviewed journal articles using the University of Toronto’s library database, I was
able to find only two studies in which the authors invoked the folk devil concept without also discussing
moral panics7. The prevailing opinion of scholars seems to be that folk devils are only important during
times of moral panic.
For example, Levi (2009) devotes significant attention to folk devils in his study of moral panics
and white collar crime. He explains that, although businesspersons and corporations are generally held in
high esteem, white-collar criminals do, at times, become labeled as folk devils (Levi, 2009). He explains
that the criminalizing of high status white collar offenders can be “cathartic” for since it involves people
demonizing others who are similar to themselves (for example, hardworking, successful, entrepreneurial),
in order to re-assert “moral boundaries of the self” (Levi, 2009:65). However, Levi’s (2009) discussion of
corporate folk devils is part of a larger effort to apply the moral panic concept to corporate crime. He
suggests that, although people are less likely to fear white collar crime in the same way that they would
street crime, public reactions to crimes such as identity fraud and investment fraud have, at times,
exploded into moral panics (Levi, 2009). He argues that, when white collar crime becomes personified by
certain individuals who are well known in society, a media outcry and panic can ensue (Levi, 2009:50).
This is particularly the case if the crimes appear to represent a society that is changing and becoming “less
moral” (Levi, 2009:50).
Similarly, Adjzenstadt (2009) highlights how single mothers on welfare became targeted as folk
devils during the country’s transition into a “market-oriented mode of government” (p.68). The
government painted single mothers out to be “lazy” and “unproductive”, and accused them of abusing the
welfare system (Adjzenstadt, 2009:78). Once again, however, the title of her paper, “Moral panics and
neo-liberalism”, makes it abundantly clear that the author’s main intention is to demonstrate that the
Israeli government’s actions constituted a moral panic (Adjzenstadt, 2009:68). Adjzenstadt (2009) argues
that the Israeli government launched a moral panic by depicting single mothers as a threat to the currently
existing economic, social and political structure of their country. These two studies represent
contemporary examples of how folk devils have been dealt with in criminology and sociology. The most

7
For this library search, I retrieved all peer-reviewed articles that contain the words ‘folk devils’ and/or ‘folk devil’ but that do
not contain the words ‘moral panic’ or ‘moral panics’. This search was grounded in the assumption that any studies invoking the
moral panic concept would have to, at some point, make explicit reference to the term ‘moral panic’.

1130
International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, Vol. 6, No.2, March 2013, 1125-1137

contemporary literature suggests that folk devils are only important insofar as they can be used to either
prove or disprove the existence of moral panics.
The fact that folk devils have been left relatively un-theorized has led to a third negative
consequence; namely that folk devils often become confused with other ‘deviants’. For example, in Hier’s
(2011) recent attempt at “tightening the focus” of moral panics, he refers to folk devils as those
individuals who are “unable” or “unwilling” to exercise “individual autonomous action” (p.539).
However, this explanation conflates folk devils with ‘risk subjects’, or those who pose a danger to society
if they are left to manage their own affairs unsupervised (Hannah-Moffat, 2004).
Consider also McRobbie and Thornton (1995), who consider folk devils to be members of
marginal groups who are, today, more empowered in contemporary society than they were at the time
Cohen (1972) was researching the Mods and Rockers affairs. Here, however, folk devils become
synonymous with marginalized persons. McRobbie and Thornton (1995:566) explain that folk devils “can
and do fight back” against media processes of demonization. Beyond this, however, the authors provide
little direction on how to understand or conceptualize folk devils.
The consequence of this confusion of concepts is that the folk devil loses its intended meaning
and is stripped of its’ most important features. The folk devil no longer represents the “personification of
evil”. Recall from Baumeister (1997) and Levine (1997) that, in Western society, ‘evil’ is understood to
denote a very specific set of human characteristics and behaviours, including: egotism; remorselessness;
and a desire to harm others. These unique qualities are believed to be what separates ‘evil’ people from
non-‘evil’ people. By this logic, folk devils, who are the personification of ‘evil’, must also be
distinguishable from others on account of these features and qualities.
McRobbie and Thornton (1995) and Hier (2011) define folk devils in a way that highlights their
‘deviant’ qualities but ignores their ‘evil’ characteristics. “Risk subjects” and the socially marginalized
are two categories of people who are considered ‘deviant’. However, I suggest that only a portion of these
‘deviants’ will go on to being labeled as ‘evil’, since it is a label that is reserved for those believed to be
the most malicious of wrongdoers. By defining folk devils as ‘deviants’, we conflate these two distinct
concepts, and lose sight of the important quality of ‘evil’.
Lastly, in recent decades the folk devil concept has been reformulated and reformatted by a
number of scholars. However, it is evident that these revisions have been made primarily with the goal of
furthering moral panic theories. This is problematic since it means that, in each case, the success of a
revised folk devil concept is tied to, and affected by, the success of a revised moral panic concept.
For example, McRobbie and Thornton (1995) take issue with Cohen’s (1972) notion of society as
a unified and consistent, monolithic whole. They suggest that society is, instead, heterogeneous and
multi-vocal. They believe that moral panics often afflict only certain groups of people, rather than an
entire society. Also, recall that McRobbie and Thornton (1995) provide a reformulated explanation of folk
devils- individuals who have the ability to defend themselves and fight back against those trying to
stigmatize them. However, a careful reading of the authors’ argument reveals that their re-theorization of
the folk devil is directly contingent upon their reformatted moral panic concept. They explain that folk
devils can fight back through the use of media sources that are sympathetic to their circumstances. This
can only happen in a heterogeneous society where not every journalist, newspaper, and magazine is
gripped by moral panic. The implication of this is that McRobbie and Thornton’s (1995) folk devil
concept cannot be further conceptualized without first accepting the central tenets of their moral panic
concept.
As well, Hier (2011) considers folk devils to be “irresponsible others”, or those “unable” or
“unwilling” to exercise authority (p.528). However, once again, his re-conceptualization of folk devils is
dependent on his definition of moral panics as volatile crises in moral regulation. Hier understands moral
panics to be dialectically related to long-term everyday moral regulation. He suggests that, for the
majority of the time, fears and anxieties surrounding future potential risk serve to motivate people into
engaging in personal risk management techniques (Hier, 2011). These strategies involve surveying and
managing “irresponsible others” (Hier, 2011). He argues that, when “responsibilization” strategies fail,
routine discourses of individual risk management become transformed into “collective representations of

1131
International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, Vol. 6, No.2, March 2013, 1125-1137

harm” (Hier, 2011). These collective representations take the form of a defensive reaction against what is
perceived to be an immediate threat- hence, a moral panic (Hier, 2011). Therefore, for Hier, moral panics
represent an inverted form of everyday moral regulation against risky persons. Those risky persons who
are targeted for risk management become labeled folk devils during moral panics. What this means,
however, is that in order to adopt Hier’s (2011) definition of folk devils, we must also accept his
conceptualization of moral panics.
In brief, the consequence of intermixing folk devils with moral panics is that: the importance of
the folk devil is downplayed; folk devils are typically confused with other ‘deviants’; folk devils are not
yet adequately defined; and the success of folk devil concepts are reliant on the success of moral panic
concepts. Because sociologists and criminologists have come to understand folk devils as restricted to
moral panics and indistinguishable from other ‘deviants’, scholars have overlooked the potentially
significant contributions that a full-fledged folk devil research program can make to sociology, and in
particular, the sociology of ‘evil’. In order resolve this dilemma, I argue that the folk devil concept must
be theoretically separated from the moral panic concept. I propose that this can be best accomplished by
paying closer attention to situations where folk deviling occurs independently from moral panics.

Investigating Folk Devils Without Moral Panics

Moral panic scholars such as Cohen (1972), Goode and Ben-Yehuda (1994), and Hall and colleagues
(1978) all stress that a necessary pre- requisite for a moral panic is a folk devil. They agree that you
cannot have moral panic without a folk devil. However, a question that has not yet been posed is whether
you can have a folk devil without a moral panic. I will devote the rest of this paper to highlighting
newspaper content which suggests that folk devils and moral panics are independent and separate
phenomena. I will present some examples of situations where folk deviling has occurred without a moral
panic, using Toronto Star newspaper articles as empirical data. I draw on five newspaper articles that I
deliberately selected for the purposes of illustrating circumstances under which folk devil labeling can
occur outside of the context of moral panics. I chose to invoke a purposive sampling strategy, which
involves the non-random selection of cases (Altheide, 1996). I intentionally searched for articles in which
either the author, or someone quoted in the article, used labels that denote ‘evil’ (such as ‘evil’, ‘wicked’,
or ‘devil’) to describe a certain individual or group of people. The aim of this analysis was not to study
the prevalence or incidence of folk devilling, but rather to illustrate how folk devilling can occur outside
of moral panics. Purposive sampling was deemed sufficient for this investigation (as opposed to random
sampling) since it was not necessary to generate a probability sample representative of the overall
population of newspaper articles. We instead want to carry out an in-depth study of several instances of
this unique social process.
To begin, violent murderers are sometimes referred to as ‘evil’, or compared to the devil. In 2010, for
example, Shivonne Clarke, a Toronto woman whose husband, Jahmeel Spence, was shot to death, told the
Star that, “There are just evil people out there that take away good people [empahsis added]” (Rush,
2011:A18). One year later, when an individual was arrested for Spence’s murder (along with the murder
of four other people), Detective Sergeant Hank Idsinga explained to the Star that, “The callousness of the
murders was really shocking...If these allegations are proven in court, he is an evil man. To rationalize
why he did some of the things he did, I'm at a loss... I really am [emphasis added]” (Rush and Aulakh,
2011:A1).
In both cases, Spence’s alleged killer was denoted as a folk devil with the word ‘evil’. Although
societal reaction to the murder may have met a number of important moral panic criteria (for example,
hostility, volatility, and concern), it did not appear to satisfy the criterion of either disproportionality or
consensus. There are no indications that these murders elicited a significantly disproportionate amount of
news publicity in the Star. When glancing at the coverage of murders in Toronto in 2010, up to this date,
eight articles have been written about Spence’s murder, whereas five articles have been written about the
murder of Tyrone Bracken on November 20th; five articles were written about the murder of Sealand

1132
International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, Vol. 6, No.2, March 2013, 1125-1137

White on October 9th; five articles have been written about the murder of Jermaine Derby on October 9 th;
and five articles were written about the jail murder of Kevon Phillip on January 2nd (Star, 2010).
Hence, although more articles were written about Spence than any of the other murder victims,
the difference is small, and hence it is very difficult to conclude that this difference symbolizes any form
of disproportionate reaction that constitutes moral panic. Furthermore, two of Spence’s articles covered
several homicide victims including Spence, and another article was written about the number of
homicides in Toronto that year, not focusing solely on Spence. In each of these three articles, roughly
equal attention was paid to all of the victims. There was no other evidence of exaggeration and/or
distortion in any news article written about Spence from either the Star. Since Cohen (1972) argues that
exaggerated and/or distorted news reportage is a necessary condition for moral panics; this suggests that a
moral panic did not develop from Spence’s death. Regardless however, the murderer was folk-devilled;
hence folk-deviling can occur separately from moral panics.
Second, the Star provides illustration of incidents where individuals are folk-devilled, even when
there is no evidence of society-wide consensus surrounding the use of the label. For example, Canadian
Prime Minister Stephen Harper was quoted by the Star as claiming that the federal New Democratic Party
(NDP) had an “agenda” to “disintegrate our society”, and that; “The NDP (federal New Democratic
Party) is the kind of proof that the devil lives and interferes with the affairs of men” (Harper, 2011:A8)8.
Harper (2011:A8) was referring, specifically, to a Halifax NDP member of parliament who travelled to
Washington, DC in to voice their opposition to Alberta petroleum being shipped to the US via the
Keystone XL Pipeline. By suggesting that the devil was involved in the NDP’s affairs, the prime minister
had folk-devilled the NDP party.
Whilst there is evidence to suggest that Mr. Harper’s reaction to the NDP meeting was, indeed,
hostile and volatile, the Washington meeting does not appear to have generated a moral panic. To date,
only two articles have been published by the Star referring to the meeting. Only one has been written by
the Globe and Mail, and no articles have been published by the National Post (Canada’s two other
national newspapers) (Chase, Wingrove and Tait, 2011:A5; Harper, 2011:A8; Whittington, 2011:A9).
Also, neither of these articles make any reference to a significantly large group of people who believe that
what the NDP had done was wrong and dangerous. Hence, this event does not appear to have garnered a
disproportionately large amount of media attention compared to other events. Although we have proof
that one person, Mr. Harper, folk devilled the NDP, there is no evidence of widespread consensus over his
concern regarding the NDPs actions.
Social psychological research confirms that it is typical for only one person to perceive someone
else as being ‘evil’. Baumeister (1997:72) argues that part of the ‘evil’ image is the notion of intentional
harm. He reports that victims of harm are likely to perceive those who harmed them as having done so
intentionally. This implies is that, oftentimes, only one person will label someone as ‘evil’, since nobody
else will have been harmed in the same way. If an individual is folk devilled by only one person, then a
moral panic has not taken place since there needs to be a consensus of opinion regarding the label from a
significantly large group of people. Lastly, there are numerous Star references to serial
killers or political criminals that involve folk deviling. For instance, Debbie Mahaffy had the following to
tell the press when she visited the house where her daughter, Leslie, was brutally raped and murdered by
Paul Bernardo (and his accomplice Karla Hamolka) over fifteen years earlier; “The house is not evil; the
ground on which it stands is not evil. But two evil people lived there. Two evil souls who have left this
place, and who are now in another place, the place where they belong” (Anonymous, 2010:IN1). Another
example comes from an article regarding Adolf Hitler9. Here, a writer for the Star comments that

8 The NDP is the official opposition federal political party in Canada.

1133
International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, Vol. 6, No.2, March 2013, 1125-1137

I don't think the Star or the Canadian Jewish Congress would object to seeing [Adolf Hitler]
quoted in an academic treatise about the Nazis. The objection in this case seems to lie in the fact
that Hitler's remark was printed on its own, outside any context and without any explanation of
why it was there. These men have been quoted because they are important political figures, as
was Hitler. Most Canadians know that Hitler was evil and it is not necessary to preface every
mention of the man with an elaborate denunciation [Monastyrskyj, 1994:C3].

Bernardo, Hamolka, and Hitler were all folk-devilled; however, it is not possible to connect these
specific instances of labeling to moral panics. To be clear, I am not disputing whether or not moral panics
ever did develop around these people and their crimes. But if they did occur, then these moral panics
would have erupted and then fizzled out years before these two articles were written. The first article
regarding the Nazis was written forty-nine years after the Second World War had ended. This particular
article could not have represented any volatile fear or anxiety surrounding Hitler since the dictator had
been dead for nearly forty years. Furthermore, the author in no way alluded to any fear or anxiety
surrounding political crime or the Nazis. Instead, the author’s concern surrounded whether or not it was
appropriate to use one of Hitler’s political quotations in an academic piece. In the case of Mahaffy’s
reference to Bernardo and Hamolka’s “evil souls”, it is fairly obvious that her statement is not grounded
in any volatile fear or anxiety toward either Bernardo or Hamolka, nor serial murderers in general. The
article was written fifteen years after the murder of Mahaffy’s daughter. At this time, Bernardo was
serving an indeterminate life sentence with no chance of parole. There was no discussion of Hamolka,
suggesting that the folk devilling was not fuelled by any concern or fear that she might re-offend.
Consequently, in these two instances folk devilling occurred separately from moral panics. In summary,
there are numerous examples from the Star which demonstrate that folk deviling can take place outside of
moral panics.

Future Directions: Toward a More Developed Sociology of Evil

The analysis presented above highlights how important it is for deviance scholars to treat folk devils as
the focal point of their studies. An important first step that must be taken is the establishment of a more
focused definition of folk devils. I have suggested that previous definitions allude to folk devils being
inherently evil. Thus, I propose that ‘evil’ needs to be fully incorporated into any definition of folk devils
and folk deviling. Without recognition of this characteristic, folk devils and folk deviling are at risk of
being conflated with more general forms of deviance labeling that have already been extensively
researched. As excerpts from the Star illustrate, identifying someone as ‘evil’ or connecting them to the
devil is a qualitatively different exercise compared to denoting someone as ‘criminal’, ‘delinquent’,
‘deviant’, or ‘sick’. The folk devil construct can be an invaluable tool for describing, analyzing and
explaining the societal mechanisms that undergird instances when members of society are defined,
specifically, as ‘evil’.
Once a clear definition is crafted, a classificatory scheme for identifying and explaining folk
devils must be developed. Researchers can use Goode and Ben-Yehuda’s (1994) moral panic criteria to
carry out detailed analyses in order to conclude whether or not a moral panic has taken place. However,
criteria such as these do not, as of yet, exist for studying folk devils. Therefore, there is greater potential
for researchers to misidentify (or overlook) folk devils than there is for researchers to misidentify moral
panics. Outlining exactly what this classification scheme should look like is, unfortunately, beyond the
scope of this paper. It will require extensive research into folk devils that is not tied to investigations of
moral panics.
Research on folk devils will greatly enhance our understanding of the social construction of
‘evil’. Currently, we do not know whether or not, and how, the consequences of being categorized as
‘evil’ may be similar or different from the consequences of being labeled any other type of ‘deviant’ such
as criminal, delinquent, or mentally ill. Does this label carry the same weight as that of a ‘criminal’ label?

1134
International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, Vol. 6, No.2, March 2013, 1125-1137

Does it carry the same consequences as that of a criminal record? Do the consequences vary based on
who the labeler is (such as a police officer, a judge, the newspaper, the mayor, the prime minister)?
Furthermore, we do not know whether or not certain social characteristics of an individual (such
as race, class, gender, age) can impact the likelihood of being typified as ‘evil’. These are important
empirical issues that need to be sorted out in the sociological study of evil. Collaboration among
sociologists, criminologists and psychologists interested in evil needs to be stimulated in order to further
develop ‘evil’ as a relevant social scientific concept.
I suggest that the model can be a valuable tool for empirically investigating social processes
behind ‘evil’ labeling. The folk devil model has not yet been sufficiently developed in order for its utility
in the sociology of evil to be fully realized. Because Cohen’s (1972) two concepts have been interlocked
in the criminological and sociological literature, the folk devil has been overshadowed by its status as a
sub-component of the moral panic concept. Hence, in order for the folk devil to be of use to sociologists
of evil, it must first be theoretically divorced from the moral panic model.
Deviance sociologists and criminologists can make significant contributions to the sociology of
evil through a well-developed research program on folk devils. A strong research program on folk devils
can lead to the development of a more “elaborate” model of “social good and evil”, which is what
Alexander (2003) believes is most lacking in the sociology of evil. At the same time, scholars of the
sociology of evil can be of great service to folk devil academicians by providing important insight (from
multiple different disciplinary perspectives) on how ‘evil’ is recognized and understood in society. Such
information will be invaluable for social scientists attempting to refine and improve current definitions
and explanations of folk devils. Accomplishing these necessary tasks will, without question, move us
closer to a more developed theory of folk devils, and a more full-fledged sociology of evil.

References

Alexander J. (2003). The meanings of social life: a cultural sociology. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Altheide, D. (1996). Qualitative Media Analysis. USA, Sage Publications, Inc.
Ajzenstadt M. (2009). “Moral Panic and Neo-Liberalism: The Case of Single Mothers on
Welfare in Israel”. The British Journal of Criminology 49(1): 68-87.
Baumeister R. (1997). Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty. New York: W.H. Freeman
Becker, H. (1963). Outsiders. The United States of America: The Free Press of Glencoe.
Brezina T. and Phipps Jr., HE. (2009). “False News Reports, Folk Devils, and the Role of Public
Officials: Notes on the Social Construction of Law and Order in the Aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina”. Deviant Behavior 31(1): 97-134.
Blumer H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. United States of America:
University of California Press.
Cohen S. (1972). Folk Devils and Moral Panics. Great Britain: MacGibbon and Kee Ltd.
Duntley J. and Buss D. (2004). The Evolution of Evil. In: Miller A (eds) The Social Psychology
of Good and Evil. New York: The Guilford Press, pp.21-50.

Feeley MM and Simon J. (1992). “The New Penology: Notes on the Emerging Strategy of
Corrections and its Implications”. Criminology, 30(4): 449-474.
Goode E. and Ben-Yehuda, N. (1994). Moral Panics: The Social Construction of Deviance.
Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: Blackwell Publishers.

1135
International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, Vol. 6, No.2, March 2013, 1125-1137

Gusfield J. (1967). “Moral Passage: The Symbolic Process in Public Designation of Deviance”.
Social Problems, 15:175-188.
Hall S, Critcher C, Jefferson T, Clark J and Roberts B. (1978). “Policing the Crisis: Mugging,
the State, and Law and Order”. London, Great Britain: The Macmillan Press Ltd.
Hannah-Moffat K. (2004). “Criminogenic Need and the Transformative Risk Subject:
Hybridizations of Risk/Need in Penality”. Punishment and Society 7: 29-51.
Hier S. (2003). “Risk and panic in late modernity: implications of the converging sites of social
anxiety”. The British Journal of Sociology, 54(1): 3-20.
Hier S. (2011). “Tightening the focus: moral panic, moral regulation and liberal government”.
The British Journal of Sociology, 63(3):523-541.
Klapp O. (1962). Heroes, Villains and Fools: The Changing American Character. Englewood
Cliffs New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.
Lemert E. (1951). Social Pathology: A Systematic Approach to the Theory of Sociopathic
Behaviour. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc.
Levi M. (2009). “Suite Revenge? The Shaping of Folk Devils and Moral Panics about White
Collar Crimes”. The British Journal of Criminology, 45(1): 48-67.
Levine, S. (2007). “The Development of Wickedness--From Whence Does Evil Stem?”
Psychiatric Annals, 27(9):617-623.
McRobbie A. and Thornton S. (1995). “Rethinking ‘Moral Panic’ for Multi-mediated Social
Worlds”. The British Journal of Sociology, 46(4): 559-574.
Mead GH. (1934). Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mikulincer M. and Shaver PR. (2012) The Social Psychology of Morality: Exploring the Causes
of Good and Evil. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Miller A. (2004). The Social Psychology of Good and Evil. New York: The Guilford Press.
Ritzer G. and Goodman D. (2004). Sociological Theory, Third Edition. New York: McGraw
Hill.
Shain, F. (2011). The New Folk Devils: Muslim boys and education in England. Trentham
Books, UK.
Ungar S. (1992). “The rise and (relative) decline of global warming as a social problem”. The
Sociological Quarterly, 31(2): 165-185.
Waddington PAJ. (1986). “Mugging as a Moral Panic: A Question of Proportion”. The British
Journal of Sociology, 37(2): 245-259.
Wilkins L. (1964). Social Deviance. USA: Tavistock Publications, Ltd.
Zimbardo. PG (2004). “A Situationalist Perspective on the Psychology of Evil: Understanding
How Good People Are Transformed into Perpetrators”. In: Miller A (eds) The Social Psychology
of Good and Evil. New York: The Guilford Press, pp.21-50.

Newspaper References

Acharya, T. (2010). “Family loses second son to murder; Dead man's brother slain in 1996 at just 15
outside subway station”. The Toronto Star, 13, September, GT1.

Anonymous. (2010). “The horror and the spectacle of the murder trial of Paul Bernardo continue to haunt,
15 years on; Dates and details blur mercifully with time but tougher moments stay etched in your soul,
writes reporter Jim Rankin who covered the case for the Star”. The Toronto Star, 4, September, IN1.

Chase, J. Wingrove, J. and Tait C. (2011). “Redford makes case for larger share of health-care transfers”.
The Toronto Star, 18, November. A5.

1136
International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, Vol. 6, No.2, March 2013, 1125-1137

Harper T. (2011). “Bizarre attack over NDP trip to Washington”. The Toronto Star, 18, November, A8.

Monastyrskyj M. (1994). “Outrage over Hitler quotation is mind- boggling”. The Toronto Star, 19,
February, C3.

Rush C. (2011). “Families display 'patience, courage'”. The Toronto Star, 20, October, A18.

Rush C. (2011). “Accused Toronto serial killer laughs at murder charges; Lawyer says client confident as
police describe ‘evil’ man who gunned down 4 victims”. The Toronto Star, October 20th, A1.

Powell B and Doolittle R. (2007). “Two suspects charged in slaying of boy, 11”. Toronto Star, 24, July,
A1.

Whittington, L. (2011). “U.S. border deal prompts questions on privacy, cost; Agreement doesn’t take
into account existing trade ‘harassment,’ Bob Rae says” The Toronto Star, 9 December, A10.

Websites

The Toronto Star. www.thestar.com. Last retrieved on Friday, May 25th, 2012.

1137