Adolescence - It takes a village
Netflix drama series, Adolescence, is genius television which treats its subject with subtlety and addresses the subject’s complexity with passion. Why do some people seem to have believed the takeaways were so reductive and simple?
For the second week in a row, I’ll be discussing the merits of Stephen Graham. By now, I’m sure you’ve either heard about or watched his new hit Netflix drama series, Adolescence.
The series follows the story of Jamie, a teenage boy who has murdered his female classmate. Over four masterfully filmed episodes—each captured in a single uninterrupted take—we witness how those close to Jamie are affected by his actions and, perhaps, how they may have played a part in what transpired. While some have dismissed Adolescence as merely a well-received work of fiction, it is important to remember that Graham took inspiration from two real-life cases in the UK where teenage boys killed teenage girls.
This is not a whodunnit. The series doesn’t ask who—it asks why. Why did this happen?
The show has sparked a considerable debate. It has been widely acclaimed across the world and, here at home, has initiated vital conversations—within families, the public sphere, and even in politics. The constant stream of headlines has been remarkable to witness, as I genuinely believe this is a piece of genius television.
However, that central question—why did this happen?—is getting lost in the discourse.
Reading Martha Gill’s recent article in The Guardian was, quite frankly, infuriating beyond words. Her perspective is so far off the mark that it is baffling—but also telling. Her condescending tone is not only unhelpful; it is part of the problem.
She chooses to focus on the influence of social media and harmful figures like Andrew Tate. Now, while this is indeed a central theme of the series—it explores the underworld of incel culture, the manosphere, and even the sinister meanings behind seemingly innocent emojis—the show does indeed delve into online influencers. In the final episode, his parents deliver a line that will resonate with many: “He was in his room. We thought he was safe. We thought we were doing the right thing,” referencing Jamie’s unrestricted access to the internet.
Social media can be incredibly harmful to young people. Having unlimited access to all information—and, more importantly, every opinion, no matter how poisonous—is destructive. Yes, the internet offers immense opportunities for learning, but that is not the full package, unfortuantly. Figures like Andrew Tate are abhorrent; their ideologies and rhetoric are repulsive. However, they are merely symptoms of a larger problem, not its root cause.
Gill overlooks this. She dismissively argues that better education and more youth clubs for boys won’t solve the issue and instead implies that removing social media will. To her, this is simply a matter of impressionable boys being led astray, with no need for deeper analysis. She quotes the show’s creator, stating that the key difference between himself and Jamie was that he read a book at night while Jamie scrolled the internet (a quote taken woefully out of context). Oh, how I would love to live in Gill’s simplistic world Boys, just read a goddamn book and stop complaining. That is, in essence, what she’s saying. There’s nothing wrong with you. There’s nothing this world owes you. There’s nothing to acknowledge beyond your poor pre-bedtime reading choices.
This elitist mindset exacerbates the problem. A whole demographic is being disregarded, and their struggles go far beyond excessive screen time.
If we are to quote the creators of the show, they have repeatedly stated that Adolescence examines the bigger picture. It takes a village to raise a child—so how does that village contribute to a situation like Jamie’s? What influences drive a boy towards the manosphere?
We learn that Jamie has extremely low self-esteem. His father, despite his efforts to bond with him through sport, never truly connects with his son. Perhaps the implication here is that, for generations, failing to be interested in sport was seen as unacceptable. One episode delves into Jamie’s school environment—its brutality, the shouting, the bullying, the desperate struggle to get through the day unnoticed. How does our education system contribute to boys like Jamie heading down dark paths? How do politics and social movements make boys like Jamie feel alienated? The show also touches on the role models in his life, what masculinity looked like in his family, and how those ideals have—or have not—evolved over time. All of these factors hint at a far more complex web of influences behind a catastrophic event.
The online world plays a role in Jamie’s story, but to suggest that it is the cause is naïve.
Bringing this back to real life, we live in a society that has, for too long, dismissed young males. They have been forgotten. That is why figures like Andrew Tate exist and why they maintain such strong influence. This is not to suggest that all boys are like Jamie—far from it—but ignoring the struggles of young men is a grave mistake.
Social media and the digital world are undoubtedly significant factors in this discussion, but when it comes to boys and young men who feel disconnected from society, we must examine the full picture. More importantly, we must acknowledge that there is a problem.
So, what should we be looking at beyond social media?
Poor mental health. Male suicide rates are rising, with men in the poorest communities being 2.5 times more likely to take their own lives than those in affluent areas. Social disconnection and loneliness are increasing. Men are less likely to be in relationships than their parents’ generation, earning less, and struggling to buy homes. Class plays a significant role here—we have built a society that places immense value on university degrees while underfunding and undervaluing vocational training, apprenticeships, and trade schools. Especially in Scotland, there is a clear hierarchy of education, with universities sitting at the top. What message does this send to those in blue-collar jobs? That they are less valued?
Politics has done little for them. There are rarely policies or messages aimed at this demographic.
There is an identity crisis.
What does masculinity mean in today’s society? We hear constant discussions about toxic masculinity, but have we gone too far in branding masculinity itself as a problem? Masculinity is not inherently bad. However, the new wave of male role models—whether they be influencers, YouTubers, politicians, or athletes—does not always offer a healthy blueprint for young boys to follow.
At times, we have fallen into an unhelpful men vs women mentality, which serves no one. Promoting gender equality for women is not the issue. The problem arises when some believe that in order to uplift women, men must be disparaged. This is difficult to articulate, as women have not yet achieved complete equality. However, there has been a cultural power struggle that has left some men feeling ostracised. Once again, class is central to this discussion. By avoiding talking about class, we allow assumptions about male privilege to dominate discourse, further alienating those who do not feel privileged at all.
If you have a society that in every aspect is pushing you out, boxing you in, and giving you little space you’re going to burst out with a vengeance.
Social media can reinforce and amplify resentment, spreading dangerous ideologies. However, in any form of radicalisation, it is rare for a well-adjusted individual to be transformed simply by watching harmful content. There is always a pre-existing vulnerability—an initial thought, a first doubt, an environmental push—that sets them on the path towards extremism.
Adolescence is a powerful, thought-provoking piece of drama with exceptional performances. But what does it say about our society that it took a Netflix series to initiate this conversation? The rise of harmful online subcultures is nothing new. Andrew Tate and his ilk have been influencing young men for years. The growing crisis among young men has been well-documented for over a decade. So, while I firmly believe in the power of art to inspire change, I have to ask—why was it left to Netflix to get us talking?
This is not to say that all young men, all social media users, or all who feel excluded will turn to extremism. But when you combine these elements, can they create something dangerous? This is a demographic that needs inclusion, and support.
So why is this conversation not happening?
Reading Martha Gill’s article, it all becomes clear. Boys are simply told to cut it out and read a book instead.
