Legitimacy and consensus in moral panic theory ?

Since its introduction, the moral panic concept has had a significant impact on efforts to problematize social phenomena. However, there have been calls for a more critical moral panic theory to address the changing nature of modern social life. This paper proposes one way that moral panic theory can be reconceptualized. I argue that, for some moral panics, including a Weberian-inspired consideration of legitimacy adds explanatory power to moral panic theory. The value of this approach is that it brings into clearer focus the way that complex relationships between elite social actors can influence the construction of a moral panic. I further argue that situating legitimacy in moral panic theory enables modification of Goode and Ben-Yehuda's (1994a; 2009) moral panic criteria, which are consensus, concern, hostility, disproportionality and volatility. Here I focus on the modification of consensus to 'consensus-making,' illustrated using a content analysis of media reports about performance-enhancing drugs in elite sport. The content analysis provides evidence of consensus-making in the World Anti- Doping Agency's (WADA) efforts to generate ongoing support for their legitimacy as the necessary antidoping response.