The day before the murder of Charlie Kirk, he taught a university class on science, religion and magic. Our class compared the judgments of Salem witches of the 1690s with the McCarthy audiences of the early 1950s, when the American democratic processes were eclipsed by the “red terror”, an alleged communist infiltration.
The objective of the class was to better understand the concept of moral panic, which consists of social epidemics of disproportionate fear in the face of real or perceived threats. This excessive fear can often lead to violence or repression against certain socially marginalized groups. Morales Panists are recurring issues in my research on the anthropology of fear and discrimination.
In our next class we would apply the concept of moral panic to a recent example of political violence. Tragically, there were many examples to choose from.
The state representative of Minnesota, Melissa Hortman, and her husband were killed on June 14, 2025, coinciding with the eighth anniversary of the shooting in the baseball of Congress, in which the head of discipline of the majority of the House of Representatives, Steve Scalise, and three other Republicans were injured.
These shootings are among at least 15 cases of high profile political violence since the representative Gabby Gifford was seriously injured in a shooting in 2011, which left five dead and 13 injured.
Seven of these violent incidents occurred in the last 12 months. Kirk’s murder was the eighth.
In most of these cases, we may never know the reasons for the perpetrator. But the general pattern of political violence coincides with the growing polarization of American society. By investigating this polarization, I have found recurring issues of segregation, dehumanization and disproportionate fear towards people with opposite opinions, both between liberals and conservatives.
Segregation and self -censorship
The first ingredient of moral panic is the segregation of a society in at least two groups, with limited contact between them and a lack of will to learn from each other.
In Salem, Massachusetts, in the seventeenth century, social divisions were old. They were mainly based on land disputes between family factions and economic tensions between village communities, based on agriculture, and urban communities, based on trade.
Among these broader groups, a growing number of widowed women had been socially marginalized to achieve economic independence after the death of their husbands in colonial wars between New England and New France. And the rumors of continuous violence led the residents of peoples and villages to avoid the American natives and the new settlers in the surrounding border areas. Salem was divided in many ways.
We move quickly until the end of World War II. It was then that the US veterans who returned used their benefits to establish themselves in suburban neighborhoods, which would soon be separated by race and social class due to zoning policies and discriminatory credit practices.
This laid the foundations for what is known as the great classification, the self -regulation of people in neighborhoods where residents shared the same political and religious ideologies. It was during the early stages of these classification processes that the case of red panic and McCarthy audiences arose.
The great classification became digital in the early 2000s, with the rise of online information and social media platforms, and algorithms that fit the particular wishes and biases of their user communities.
Consequently, it is now easier than ever for conservatives and liberals to live in worlds separated by their own choice. In these circumstances, Democrats and Republicans tend to exaggerate the characteristics of the other party based on common stereotypes.
You may be interested: the death of Charlie Kirk causes shock and pain in the ideological lines of the gene z
Dehumanization and discrimination
Deshumanization is perhaps the most crucial ingredient of social panic. This implies labeling people according to categories that deprive them of positive human qualities. This process is usually carried out by “moral entrepreneurs”: people to whom their societies grant the authority to make such statements officially, unquestionably and apparently objective.
In Massachusetts, in the 1690s, moral entrepreneurs were religious authorities that labeled people as satanic witches and murdered many of them. In Washington, in the 1950s, Morales entrepreneurs were members of Congress and expert witnesses who label people as Soviet collaborators and ruined many of their lives.
In the 21st century, moral entrepreneurs include personalities of media and influential people in social networks, as well as non -human robots and algorithms whose authority derives from the illusion of a broad consensus.
Under these conditions, many American liberals and conservatives consider their counterparts as wild, immature, corrupt or malicious. It is not surprising that the surveys reveal that the animosity between conservatives and liberals reached its highest level in the last five years since the measurements began in 1978.
To increase animosity, dehumanization can also justify discrimination against a rival group. This is demonstrated in social psychology experiments where conservatives and liberals are discriminated against each other to a greater extent that by race deciding on scholarships and job opportunities. This discrimination further encourages animosity.
Exaggerate fears
There is a thin line between animosity and disproportionate fear, which can lead to extreme policies and violent actions during a moral panic.
This fear is often manifested in perceived threats. Rachel Kleinfeld, an academic who studies polarization and political violence, affirms that one of the best ways to mobilize a political base is to make them believe that they are being attacked by the other side: “That is why ‘they want to take you away’ is such a traditional message to raise funds and promote the vote.”
In recent years, the “X” that could be taken has extended to fundamental freedoms and personal security, threats that could easily trigger a generalized fear on both sides of the political division.
But the question remains if exaggerated fears are enough to trigger political violence. Perhaps murderers like Kirk’s are simply atypical pathological cases among agitated populations but, otherwise, self -controlled? Or are they sensitive indicators of an imminent social catastrophe?
Counteract panic
We still don’t have the answer to that question. But, meanwhile, efforts are being made in higher education to reduce animosity and promote constructive interaction and debate between people with different perspectives.
A non -partisan coalition of teachers, students and staff, known as heterodox academy, promotes the diversity of views and constructive debates in more than 1,800 campus. The university where Teaching has participated in the “From Congress to Campus” program, which promotes bipartisan dialogue through the participation of former leders from different parties in constructive debates on current political issues.
These debates serve as models for constructive dialogue.
In a spirit of constructive dialogue, my class discussed whether Kirk’s murder could be explained as a product of moral panic. Many agreed that yes, and most agreed that it was probably an attack on freedom of expression, despite having strong objections to Kirk’s opinions.
The debate was passionate, but everyone was respectful and listened to each other. Witches were not found in the class that day.
*Ron Barrett He is a professor of anthropology, Macalester College
This article was originally published in The Conversation
Do you like photos and news? Follow us on our Instagram
