by Kieran Connell
IN HIS introduction to Folk Devils and Moral Panics, the classic study of the hysteria that greeted the pitched battles fought by the mods and rockers at various British seaside resorts during the 1960s, the sociologist Stanley Cohen observed that ‘societies seem to be subject, every now and then, to periods of moral panic’.
Something emerges that is widely seen to be ‘a threat to societal values and interests’. The nature of the threat 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’, before ‘socially accredited experts’ then ‘pronounce their diagnoses and solutions’.
For Cohen, moral panics are prompted by a ‘condition, episode, person or group of persons’. In the 1960s, it was the mods and rockers. In the 1970s, it has been argued, it was the punks.
More recently, you could say it was ‘chavs’ and the hooded youth who were seen looting branches of Footlocker and JD Sports during the summer riots.
Cohen called such groups, which are for a time almost unanimously vilified, and perceived as the symptom for all our societal wrongs, ‘folk devils’.
In the crazy world of the Premier League, and the perfect storm created by wall-to-wall media coverage and social networking websites, the reaction to events last weekend at Old Trafford confirmed that Luis Suarez has become a footballing folk-devil.
In reality, Suarez’s folk-devil credentials were firmly established long before the controversy with Patrice Evra and the handshake-that-never-was last Saturday lunchtime.
When he signed for Liverpool, he did not arrive as an unknown entity in the collective psyche of the football world. Two events dictated the narrative that was building up around the Uruguayan: the infamous biting incident whilst he was captain of Ajax, for which he was still serving a seven-match ban when Liverpool signed him; and, more importantly, his handball on the line during the World Cup quarter final the previous summer, which helped send Uruguay through at the expense of Ghana, a nation that many neutrals wanted to do well in the first World Cup ever to be held in Africa.
These events helped set the tone for how Suarez’s career in the UK was going to be presented.
When, for example, Alex Ferguson claimed that Suarez was ‘diving all over the place’ during a match last October (the same match at which Patrice Evra made his allegation of racism against the player), it tapped into a growing perception that Suarez was the embodiment of the ‘foreign disease’, a powerful narrative still casually repeated by pundits, commentators and fans alike in which foreigners are presented as being to blame for all the ills of the once-beautiful game.
The point of a moral panic is not so much the nature of the original folk devil – the event, action, group or individual that sparked it. Rather it is that the mass hysteria that works to exclude debate, complexity or competing interpretations.
During the clashes between the mods and rockers during the 1960s, for example, there was only one interpretation in mainstream discourse: namely that these youth, the first young generation with money to burn and things to buy, were out of control and were a symptom of what had become a permissive society.
Likewise, during last year’s summer riots, the possibility that the actions of the rioters might have something to do with mass unemployment or stringing cuts was overridden by the notion that the events were a symbol of ‘broken Britain’.
In the context of the narrative that had been built up around Suarez, when Partrice Evra made his allegation of racial abuse against him, there was only ever one possible outcome.
The moral panic that immediately followed – on the pages of tabloids, broadsheets, in the comment of television pundits, fans and even politicians – only increased when it became clear that Suarez had admitted to using the word “negro”.
It meant the subtleties of the case – in particular, the possibility that in the heat of the moment, Suarez could have been using the term with an altogether different, South American meaning – could never have been given full consideration by the FA or the independent panel that investigated the case, least of all by a media still in the grip of hysteria.
The moral panic that had developed also prevented a proper debate about the independent panel’s findings, and FA’s subsequent decision to ban Suarez for an unprecedented eight games.
Just as during the summer riots, when judges handed out custodial sentences even to people found to be talking about looting, the FA were widely commended for the severity of the punishment handed out to Suarez.
Again, the possibility that there may have been some grey areas in the case – that Evra had originally claimed Suarez used the word ‘nigger’ before withdrawing the claim, for example, or the fact the case boiled down to the word of one man against another’s – was largely ignored in favour of a celebration of the FA’s decision to once and for all drive racism out of town.
In many ways, the moral panic around Suarez reached its nadir last Saturday.
During the pre-match handshake, that embodiment of British fair play (introduced by Sky), Suarez’s decision to refuse Evra’s hand was somehow construed not as a disagreement between two players, but as a racist act.
For Alex Ferguson, speaking in the immediate aftermath of the game, the non-handshake was a sackable offence that ‘could have started a riot’.
Outraged by the initial failure of Liverpool to play their game, the media – sometimes influenced by previous partisan loyalties – were united in their anger.
As one prominent columnist put it, Liverpool had become ‘outraged by everything, ashamed by nothing’.
Finally, the politicians, as Cohen argued they would, ‘pronounced their solutions’
For George Galloway, writing on his Twitter page, ‘if Dalglish doesn’t sack Suarez, the Home Secretary should deport him’.
Liverpool’s PR department has been widely criticised for its handling of the Suarez affair. The biggest mistake was to have recognised only belatedly the severity of this moral panic.
Clearly convinced of the innocence of the player, they failed to realise that in the height of a moral panic, complexities, subtleties and grey areas – let alone the possibility of innocence – count for nothing.
Great article.
This site goes from strength to strength not only daily but hourly. What a fantastic piece of Journalism.
Kieran Connell should be rightly proud to portray such a complex issue in such a sublime way
Agreed, sort of sums up what we all know but are unable to articulate.
Good socio-cultural analogy. The villain was cast, like you say by the ear biting and the hand ball .. the former has been used in discussions I’ve had with non-reds. It’s funny how whenever I simply say biting someone’s ear doesn’t make you racist, they say, but he’s a bad un … crazy … ultimately though there’s probably more in your final para that’s fuelled this folk devil fire … inconsistent statements and lack of LFC, not just Kenny, owning the problem as a club left us dangling in the wind with only complexities in our defence… complexities like you say no one wanted to know about … now can you analyse the price tag phenomena that hangs heavy on Carroll’s shoulders in the mass media today
Why oh why people are talking about Suarez biting an ear, where is this nonsense even coming from?
He bit the guy’s shoulder, the guy was weirded out, and they hugged and laughed over that in the end.
There are plenty of videos, so easy to check:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh4D4Z8getg
Excellent stuff mate.
I’ll tell you what, this whole affair is bringing the best out of The Anfield Wrap’s writers.
Great article, sadly though very few outside of the LFC family are listening to commonsense.
Intersting stuff. Fairly sure the fairplay handshakes were nothing to do with Sky tho. They cover them yes, but they didn’t instigate them.
Sky rarely show the handshake though on the live games as they are off on their endless adverts.
Really enjoyed reading that… The Anfield Wrap putting mainstream journos to shame since 2011…
Another excellent piece ,realising day byday what a load of rubbish most of our “sports writers” peddle
Its not just sports writers but tabloids in general. People need to use such papers as the mirror or star as a source of entertainment. Not real news. Most journlists just want the scoop, not really caring for the facts and that goes for all the paper not just the back pages. The media get away with far too much. They have a huge responsibility because they have such a massive platform to air their ‘views’ and unfortunately far too many people take it as gospel.
Well done, sensible piece. The club really needs to put structure in place to better deal with this phenomena.
It’s the Ghana handball that was the clincher, because it threw essentially “liberal” people against him, with their post-colonial guilt complexes. Affected some Liverpool fans too, judging by the attitude of some on the forums and of course the Grauniad who have been shockingly bad throughout this farce…
Bang on the money,Sir !
Excellent piece and you’re quite right that this hits a particular pressure point in the public consciousness, at which point the reaction becomes hysterical and self-fuelling. You can also take it farther back, each generation or perhaps decade seeming to have its own particular devil. Motorcycle gangs in the 50s, jazz and swing in the 30s and 40s, modernism before that. Farther back, pogroms and witch-hunts.
What has changed, and in a sense it’s the dark side of something positive, is that information flows in a much more unrestricted manner nowadays. Obviously, the internet is a great enabler here, but I think traditional media really has to question its own role within these new parameters. Meaning that the public doesn’t really need to be whipped into a frenzy, it does it perfectly fine by itself. Sure, it shifts copy and clicks but also artificially creates tensions that, given the right context, could easily escalate out of control.
Excellent piece…..the comments that Ferguson made in the aftermath of the game were unbelievable….this is the same man that didn’t sack Cantona for kicking a fan….yet because Suarez didn’t want to shake Evra’s hand he needs to be sacked. I personally wished he had shook his hand, as I’m fed up with the whole debacle. I still believe in Suarez’s innocence.
Good point mkII.
Since the advent of social media, and twitter in particular, its been impossible for conventional media to break a story or have a scoop. Any significant event is marked and discussed within minutes of occurring, by a massive population of users. This is a big problem for conventional media, and particularly daily newspapers.
So there has been a massive shift from news and information, to a blur of comment, opinion and news. So what shifts papers is sensationalist positions, pandering to hysteria and prejudices that it believes its readers relates to. The Daily Mail has been doing this for years and earned the scorne poured upon it. But now all of them write like this.
So the Suarez story, rather than discussing the facts, a sensational position is much more profitable.
Top piece, Karl.
Neu, are you following me?
Ghana – World Cup semi finalists 2010.
Little bastard.
(Ha!)
Superb piece, the bar has being raised yet again on this great website!
Everything I wanted to write but didn’t have the words. Excellent description of the media sheep and self righteous.
Look on the bright side of things, you know you’re in the right when George Callaway is your opponent.
Here’s exclusive footage of the FA’s hearing on the Suarez-Evra case:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6l5Nbk11dWs#t=06m33s
The Ghana handball incident. I remember watching it live, and thinking, what a little shit. But then, when I thought about it, it occurred to me that if he had been playing for Ireland, I wouldn’t have been annoyed one bit. In fact, since he was sent off, and Ghana won a penalty that would have been the winner had it been scored, and the last kick of the game to boot — I thought, well that should have been it really, but thanks to this guy, his country still has a fighting chance, and incidentally, this guy will be an absolute hero if Uruguay go through. Which I am sure he is today and partly because of that incident.
Contrast with another very controversial handball, this time from a player who has returned to the premier league seemingly absolutely rehabilitated. This player completely got away with every bit as blatant a handball, (actually 2) and where Ghana were gifted a chance to win the world cup game, Ireland were not so fortunate. In Henry’s case, his country profited from his cheating, but unlike Suarez he escaped punishment and a ban. The hacks have been falling over themselves in their drooling over this washed up player, and nary a word about that handball and that game.
I guess the British media can forgive almost anything if you score enough goals.
Fantastic, I remember reading about moral panics in Media Studies a long time ago and thinking this furore fits the model quite neatly. You’ve confirmed my suspicions with this article.
Great article, although the “possibility of innocence” is moot as Suarez admitted his guilt. Smoke and mirrors………….
When and where did he admit it? Could you give a link please?
No, he didn’t.
Innocent till proven guilty is so out of date
Suarez was guilty as soon as the complaint was made. This is the way this country is now driven your guilty and you will be treated that way until you can prove otherwise.
Innocent just does not sell paper’s
Have to say great read and very true.
I’m not sure its that simple.
One interesting point that John Barnes has been making recently is that we still have a white establishment. We therefore have a weird situation where we have a lot of white people, ( old enough such that they are likely to be recovered racists !) who are doing all the finger pointing and stirring.
This ‘moral panic’ seems more to do with guilt and fear of ignorance – and in part I’d refer back to the ‘Hipocrisy: the English Disease’ article. By fear of ignorance I mean that insecurity that white people have of ‘not knowing what its like to be black’.
For balance I would add that black people seem to be caught out by this too. For most black people recognition of the problem of racism is an ongoing saga, and there is constant (understandable) angst over how they are portrayed in the media. So there are many that I can’t help feeling are too eager to take Evra’s side. On the other hand there are those who are uncomfortable with the fuss ( i.e. FFS call that racism?) and maybe too keen to ‘just get on with it’.
So standing back from the hysteria and the moral panic, this case has scratched at the surface of something rather uncomfortable: its like some sort of Freudian neurosis covering the fact that black and white we are all guiltily clinging onto a false concept of race – and yes I’ve nicked that from Barnes too.
Because we are WHITE people who are good and helping the poor BLACK people. Or we are BLACK people who’s heroic fate it is to suffer and try to persuade the WHITE people to be good. They are both seductive caricatures (and as a side-note it is interesting how the former could appeal to former racists).
These words and concepts are loaded in a particular way in this country – is it the same everywhere ? Martin Samuel from the Mirror claimed that Suarez use of negro was like the use of ‘darkie’ in England 20 years ago. Aside from its rather arrogant and rash implication that Uruguay is backward I wonder if this is really true. For example I suspect that in a society for whom ‘race’ is truly meaningless the idea that referring to skin colour when angry means automatic racism would itself be meaningless if not puzzlingly hipocritical.
Maybe there is a genuine fear that we’ll degenerate back to racism if we’re not tough on it. But rather than being progressive it seems that by trying to fix the errors of the past we are fixing ourselves to that past, most damagingly a past concept of ‘race’.
I’m sure it has its problems but perhaps ironically, Suarez’s culture actually points to a progressive future.
Great read,as always. George galloway asking for suarez to be deported….oh dear.hear is a man who fawned over and shook the hand of a mass murderer,then acted like a cat pretending to drink milk.
Too many pots calling the kettle black!!!
Great article, all very true.
Nice to see George Galloway chipping in. A man who pretended to be a cat on national television. His opinion is of no value.
Another brilliant piece for a brilliant website. Well said, Kieran.
Fantastic piece of writing.
I’m glad someone finally got around to highlighting the ‘moral panic’ that has swept English football iver these last few weeks.
In 10-20 years times, media students will examine this case in lectures and seminars when learning about the powerful role the media plays in driving moral panics.
If it wasn’t happening in our league to our team, it would be fascinating stuff to watch from a sociological point of view.
Moral panic? There seems to be a moral failure among all you liverpool fans over this issue. It’s like trying to reason with a religious vealots or people who have been indoctrinated into a cult.
He was banned for referencing the colour of another man’s skin. Which in this country and yes, even Uruguay can be interpreted as a racist remark. No conspiracy, no moral panic. Just facts. The reaction of club made the situation a 1,000 times worse. You brought the whole thing on yourselves. Give it a year, revisit this whole thing and realise your collective madness.
Having lived in A Coruna, Galicia (Spain) for 4 years and made friends with Argentine and Uruguayan people living there I asked whether a bottle of rum called La Negrita (feminine) had any racist overtones. The answer: not at all, it means mate , like we use it in conversation.
So you are wrong about the word being racist, and also it was a moral panic brought on by this country which directors/media PR at LFC should have been more prepared to deal with.
Although a thoroughly well written and structured article I can’t help feel its complicating the past few months unnecessarily.
I am a Man United fan who finds himself somewhat in the middle of all the hysteria from both sides. Suarez is most definitely not a racist and should not be portrayed as such. He is however a keen practitioner of the dark arts in football/sport. That is, he uses any means possible to win football matches and is quite unrepentant about it. Other players have dived, feigned injury and sledged opponents (Man U has had their fair share) but I can’t help but feel Liverpool’s unconditional support of him and his cultural ignorance has led him to think hes untouchable.
On another day his blasting the ball at the United bench could have resulted in a lengthly ban, imagine if Rooney did it at Anfield. There would have been a riot.
On that fateful day I firmly believe Evra was more annoyed about Suarez (intentionally in my view) kicking him on the knee and goading him about it. You could say Evra used the over-sensitive system to get his own back on Suarez who was lets remember using his dark arts trying to get a fellow professional sent off. As we say here in Norn Iron, I think Suarez should just take his oil and move on using it as a motivation. He is top quality.
I’ll bet you pound to a penny that Evra will be quietly moved on to another club in a couple of years…
RodtheFierce-
People using dark arts to gain advantage over their opponents in football?
When did you discover this? How long has it been going on?Any proof that they prospered?
Um, yeah theres tons. Here one that sticks out for me –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3iUDg6JEo0
The fa disciplanary panel has 99.5 %.successfull conviction rate,meaning if they charge you,your guilty and they don’t require concrete evidence! How on earth was suarez meant to defend himself?
Brilliant article, keep up the good fight TAW!
Excellent article.
I’ve attempted several long-winded responses but ultimately the whole sorry episode could easily be summed up as:
English FA and media parade their anti-racism credentials by punishing man for being foreign!