A guest blog post by Kieran McCartan, Professor of Criminology, University of the West of England, Bristol and Dr Sophie King-Hill, Associate Professor in the Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham
Recently there has been a lot of debate about the Netflix show Adolescence. It tells a fictional story of a 13-year-old boy who is rejected by a female classmate and because of the influence of incel counterculture goes on to stab and kill her. The narrative of the four-episode story is that children and young people are being influenced by harmful online social media, which is radicalising them in to accepting extreme misogynistic beliefs which they then unwittingly internalise and act on. The drama touches upon how exposure to unfiltered, problematic social media may change children and young people’s perceptions of, and engagement, with each other.
The drama skirts many issues about misogyny that involve hate crime, violence against women and girls, gender-based violence and Incel culture, mental health, wellbeing, radicalisation, risk management, education, radicalisation, knife crime, counterculture, the collapse of parental engagement, issues with family systems, and growing societal disengagement.
This is where the drama falls short as an educational resource. Four hours over the episodes is not enough time to unpack these issues in any meaningful way. The programme signals the need for an informed debate and conversations about all these issues yet does not cover these in any great depth. Adolescence is not the answer to the issues posed and it is dangerous to think of it as such, for it offers no solutions. The show has sparked a national debate in the UK, with the Prime Minister stepping in to say that adolescence should be screened in schools to educate, and awareness raise with children and young people about the realities of harmful online social media and misogynistic hate crime. This sensationalist, knee jerk reaction to a range of complex and endemic problems and issues that are faced by children and young people in society is problematic. Although, across the political spectrum in the UK there is not a considered, evidence-based response to this with Kemi Badenoch, leader of the opposition, although not having seen Adolescence believes that removing phones from children and young people in schools is one of the most effective responses. It is important to remember that under the last Conversative government the issue of Relationships and Sex Education in schools was a challenging issue and unresolved debate.
The show, given its short run time and structure which includes an episode about a different aspect of the story – the arrest, the school based follow up, the risk assessment, and the consequence, delves into parts of this story but does not offer a rounded in-depth perspective. No understanding of how and why the young boy was “radicalised” into accepting Incel culture as is implied. The complex social interactions between the boy, his friends, his family, his community or the victim are not explored. This is problematic, especially if the show is to be used as a teaching and critical reflection tool in schools.
No points of intervention and what those interventions look like are offered, as this was not designed as an educational resource. What is implied is that there is a problematic online community that are out there influencing children and young people, but no explanation is given as to how or why. Additionally, the show indicates that online misogyny, Incel culture and violence against women and girls is omnipresent in the lives of children and young people and that children and young people are accepting of this. This approach takes away the autonomy and agency of children and young people. This is problematic and works against the prevention of sexual abuse and violent behaviour. A multi-level approach is needed to tackle social issues being targeted at individuals and the community and society in which they sit. In preventing radicalisation, how the individual is affected needs exploring, which cannot be done with ‘Adolescence’.
Wanting to introduce this into schools is naïve. Adolescence is a fictional story, designed for TV/streaming and therefore its content, although based in real world issues, is fictionalised. Its aim, although to raise awareness of social issues, is to increase viewership and ratings. It is important to state that teen murders are rare and that most online hate crimes and misogyny do not result in fatalities. TV shows are not always realistic and can often adapt knowledge and practice to fit the needs to the story. Which means that the evidence based, research informed and even practice consultation which may be part of the development and writing of the screenplay can get lost of the needs of the story as they can get in the get in the way of the drama.
The best example of this flaw in Adolescence is the admission in episode four that the main character is going to change their plea from not guilty to guilty. Which goes against the narrative of episode one and three, and there is no real discussion of change of heart in episode four. It seems out of place, but it wraps the story up nicely in the last episode. Which means that the psychological or behavioural change in the character is not seen and therefore learning cannot take place from their experience. The arc of the story and the story telling approach do not allow a nuanced debate about the reality of the offence committed, the thinking and motivation behind it or the best way to understand it.
‘Adolescence’ does not help understanding of Incel culture or online hate crime better. It does not help understanding knife crime and harmful behaviour between children and young people better. It sets out that children and young people are at risk but does not offer any solutions to the problem.
The UK government want to screen it in schools as a prevention and desistence tool to educate children and young people about the issues of radicalisation, online hate and synonym. Which is problematic, as this is not what it was designed to do and does not offer those insights. What does is say then? The main discussion piece from the show detracts from the main narrative, that understanding and engagement with young people is needed to better understand these issues. In episode four where the parents recognise that they could have done, and maybe should have done more, is where the real message is. The showing of adolescence in schools to GCSE and A-Level students (as its rated 15) will not help pre-teens and younger teenagers understanding and engage with these issues better and it will not help their parents understand the issues or how to engage with them better on it. In the UK it would be better to have a conversation about the reality of growing up online, the intersection between the online and offline worlds and how they impact the mental health and wellbeing og children and young people and how we as adults, and parents, can better support them in this transition. There are pockets of work being carried out that do this with young men and boys that are evidence based and well evaluated. Why is the upscaling of these not the focus.
The period of adolescence is a point of transition and liminality in the lives of children and young people how can we support them in becoming well rounded, thoughtful and critically engaged adults. By engaging with children and young people, talking and communicating directly and thoughtfully we can learn how to best fit their individual needs. This cannot be done by simply showing them a fictionalised TV show.
