Stranger Danger!

Journal of Family Strengths Volume 18 Issue 1 Critical Issues: Defining and Debunking Misconceptions in Health, Education, Criminal Justice, and Social Work/Social Services 10-23-2018 Stranger Danger! Aimee Wodda Adler University, Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/jfs Recommended Citation Wodda, Aimee (2018) "Stranger Danger!," Journal of Family Strengths: Vol. 18 : Iss. 1 , Article 3. Available at: https://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/jfs/vol18/iss1/3 The Journal of Family Strengths is brought to you for free and open access by CHILDREN AT RISK at DigitalCommons@The Texas Medical Center. It has a "cc by-nc-nd" Creative Commons license" (Attribution NonCommercial No Derivatives) For more information, please contact Article 3 Wodda: Stranger Danger! In the small town of Hawkins, Indiana, on a mild November evening in 1983, a 12-year-old boy named Will Byers was abducted by a creature from the Upside Down, an alternate/parallel reality. This scenario forms the premise of episode 1 of the Netflix throwback series Stranger Things. Advance publicity for the show featured flyers1 asking, “Have you seen this child? Age: 12 Height: 4’ 8” Weight: 102 lbs” (Kutner, 2016). This notice is reminiscent of the public awareness campaigns that appeared on milk cartons and utility bills in the midst of the “missing children” panic that rose to a fever pitch in the early to mid-1980s (Kutner, 2016). The popularity of Stranger Things indicates, among other things, that stories about missing kids continue to captivate audiences. As social and cultural historian Paula Fass observes, “For many viewers, the threat of child abduction or disappearance is scarier than any paranormal monster. Perhaps what makes Stranger Things so frightening and captivating is that it has both” (Kutner, 2016). Despite efforts to disprove the “stranger danger” myth, many Americans remain under the false impression that large numbers of children are abducted and murdered annually (Pimentel, 2012). Belief in this myth has led to the passage of legislation that not only fails to protect the most vulnerable populations of children from harm but also has created a milieu that leaves children at risk for criminalization and stigma (Bonnar-Kidd, 2010; Center on Youth Registration Reform, 2016; Schiavone & Jeglic, 2009; Shah, 2017; Stillman, 2016). To demonstrate the roots, scope, and unintended consequences of the myth, in this article I first discuss the historical origins of the myth and the conditions that fueled the spread of panic (Best, 1987). I then explain how the myth was bolstered by increased media coverage, emotional appeals by parents, and public awareness campaigns. Next, I discuss the racial element of the panic—in which a focus on “lost innocence,” largely associated in the public mind with whiteness (Bernstein, 2011; Epstein, Blake, & González, 2017; Goff et al., 2014; Ocen, 2015), means that the victimization of Black children continues to be downplayed in the media in favor of stories that “sell”—namely, those with young white girls as the victims (Liebler, 2010; Min & Feaster, 2010; Simmons & Woods, 2015; Stillman, 2007; Wanzo, 2008). In the literature review, I define terms, share statistical information about child abductions in the United States, and engage with two bodies of scholarship—constructionist critiques of the “missing children” problem and work that looks at the phenomenon through the lens of moral panic. The next section examines a variety of social, legal, and ethical 1 The flyer can be viewed at https://www.instagram.com/p/BIGgg6sDLfN/?utm_source=ig_embed. Published by DigitalCommons@TMC, 1 Journal of Family Strengths, Vol. 18 [], Iss. 1, Art. 3 implications. The final sections assert the dangers of the myth, explain the difficulties involved in debunking the myth, and argue for the need to shift from fear-based responses to more rational responses that actually work to protect the most vulnerable populations of children (e.g., those who reside in abusive homes or experience harm at the hands of those known to them) (Finkelhor, Shattuck, Turner, & Hamby, 2014; Finkelhor, Turner, Shattuck, & Hamby, 2015; Glassner, 2010; Hughes, Kitzinger, & Murdock, 2006; Sedlak et al., 2010). Early Spread of the “Stranger Danger” Myth The “stranger danger” myth is most strongly associated with heightened societal concern over what at first appeared to be an upsurge in the number of missing children in the United States and the United Kingdom during the early to mid-1980s (Best, 1993; Johnson, 1988; Kitzinger, 1999). Before the 1980s, stories about children who were abducted by strangers rarely made the national news. This changed with the highly publicized coverage of several disappearances between 1979 and the early 1980s (Best, 1987). Readers across the United States encountered news stories about kids just like their own who had disappeared and either were never found or met tragic ends. Increasing national media coverage and political attention fueled parental and societal concern about the possibility of an epidemic of missing kids (Best, 1988, p. 84). A similar phenomenon was taking place in the United Kingdom (Kitzinger, 1999). Widespread and sensational media coverage led to the mistaken impression that this type of crime was increasing—in both frequency and ferocity. As Karen Ann Joe explains, The missing children’s issue took on a highly dramatic and intensely emotional quality. This simultaneously elicited sympathy for parents and anger toward those who were not “doing something” about the problem. This emotional description of the problem, drawn from the experience of victimized parents, many of whom were the campaign leaders, dominated emerging definitions of the missing children scare; it also gave competing interest groups an opportunity to gain support for their “causes”. Ultimately an uncontested and highly symbolic image of missing children appeared. (1991, p. 39) The so-called epidemic of missing children was thought to represent a loss of innocence—for the children who disappeared and also for society. Additionally, the disappearance of young people was (incorrectly) https://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/jfs/vol18/iss1/3 2 Wodda: Stranger Danger! assumed to be related to a dramatic rise in sexual exploitation, murder, and victimization, yet media reports tended to overstate the scope of the problem (Joe, 1991, p. 42). For example, increased media coverage of sensational cases of murdered and possibly sexually violated children served to heighten the sense that child abductions by strangers were becoming increasingly common (APM Reports & Baran, 2016; Best, 1987; Fritz & Altheide, 1987; Johnson, 1988). As Jenny Kitzinger writes, Stranger-danger stories have great appeal to journalists. The random and public nature of such attacks makes every reader or viewer potentially at risk from the “pervert on the loose.” Such ca (...truncated)