By Kieran McCartan, PhD., & Sophie King-Hill, PhD.
Editor’s note: This blog follows up on Sophie King-Hill's last week’s blog on the Netflix show Adolescence. It was originally posted on the UWE Bristol research and enterprise blog. Kieran.
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 into 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 raise awareness 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.
