Thoughts about the Netflix drama Adolescence

Glyn Hudson-Allez

A hot topic of conversation at the moment comes from watching the excellent Netflix drama Adolescence, written by Jack Thorne and Stephen Graham. The first episode covers “the knock” as the police raid the home of a 13-year-old lad Jamie suspected of murder, his processing at the police station, and how dad, played by Stephen Graham, completely believes the boy’s (played by Owen Cooper) protestation of innocence, despite the knife crime being caught on CCTV. The next episode focuses on his school and how teenagers have their own communication via emojis on social media. It introduces the nuances of bullying and taunts between the children via their smart phones, and how sexually competent they are, or whether they are ‘incels’: a person who wants a romantic/sexual relationship, but is unable to get one. This is considered a derogatory jibe and as it came from a girl that Jamie was attracted to, leading to a misogynist backlash from the shamed young man. The third episode interestingly covers (from my point of view, anyway) the assessment of the boy by the forensic psychologist in order to provide a report for the court. She does not sit and fill out copious actuarial instruments, but tries to just sit and listen to what he has to say, and needless to say the dark side of his misogyny flares up in emotional dysregulation. The final episode looks at the ripple effect on the family of the whole event, as how they have to come to terms with the knowledge that Jamie is going to plead guilty to murder in finally admitting his hand in it. It also mirrored the bullying in the school yard using their worst insult: insel. In the neighbourhood against the father, the bullying led to ‘nonse’ being sprayed across his work van, suggesting the worst possible insult: someone sexually interested in children. It was a compulsive piece of television, excellently directed by Philip Barantini.

This film raised two issues for me: first, as many have identified, the danger of social media and smart phones to adolescents as the contemporary method of bullying and ‘outing’ of your peers who may upset you. Jack Thorne has said that he would like to see under 16s banned from having smartphones following the Australian proposals, especially at school, although the danger time for adolescents with smart phones is more likely to be at home in the evening in their bedrooms. However, I feel that for this generation of children, it is locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. Most of these 13-year-old children, rather than being sexually naive as adults would like to think, have being viewing pornography since the ages of 8-10 when their neural sexual template comes online. And even the astute parent who tries to prohibit their children from seeing such grossly distorted sexual activity with parental prohibitions and time limits on the children’s phones, can’t prevent their child going to school and another child thrusting a smartphone in their face saying “take a look at this!”. This online pornography is vandalising the development of their sexual template, leading to unrealistic expectations about sex, and much of online pornography objectifies and uses violence against women and young men. Research tells us that 52% of indecent images of children online have been self-produced; some of it will be the result of coercion, but much of it is kids being kids and enjoying exploring their sexuality, not understanding the dangers of the technology they hold in the palm of their hands.

The second issue it raised for me also focuses on the dangers to young adolescents, but I would change the storyline of the Netflix drama. Jamie is in bed in the early hours when the family get ‘the knock’ from the police, but it is not Jamie they have come to arrest, but his dad. It has been discovered that dad has been looking at images of teenage girls online. Jamie is in tears with his mum and his sister, as the house is searched while dad has been taken away in handcuffs. Jamie’s phone, laptop and x-box have also been seized amongst other electronic devices. Jamie looks out of the window, still sobbing, as he watches dad, his hero, being driven away in the police car whilst neighbours gather around their gate gossiping and speculating about what has gone on. Jamie is encouraged by his distraught mum to go to school as normal, only to find himself being shunned by most of his friends as news of his dad’s arrest is announced by one of the neighbours on Facebook. Some kids laugh at him, taunting that if his dad is a ‘pedo’, he must be too. He feels sick and wretches in the toilets, only to be cornered by bullies who punch him and tell him that he and his family need to leave town. Not making it till lunchtime, Jamie runs back home from school, only to find two strange women in the house talking to his mother. They identify themselves as social workers who tell his mother that his father will not be allowed back home; that he has to find himself somewhere else to live while Jamie is under 18. They start asking difficult questions:

“Do you know what your father has done, Jamie? Let us explain it to you”.

”Has your father ever touched you, Jamie, or done anything that you didn’t want him to do?”

“Does your father ever make you feel uncomfortable?”

“No! No! NOOO!” Jamie screams. “I love my dad. We go to football together and do jobs in the garden.”

“Well,” comes the stern reply. “I am sorry to say, Jamie, that will now stop. You won’t be allowed to be alone with your father until you are 18 years old.”

Jamie runs from the room to his bedroom and cries himself to sleep. He is woken in the night to hear noises outside, and creeps down, only to find the words ‘pervert’ and ‘pedo’ spayed with red paint across the front of the house.

In this scenario, which is unfortunately very common, as 750 men a month are getting the knock for this in the UK, this whole family is traumatised not only by what dad has done, but by the system and how society responds to this. Jamie will feel alienated from his friends, as will his mother and sister, as the rumour-mongers whisper about guilt by association. As soon as Jamie gets his technology returned, he will be back online searching to find what his dad was looking at, and so history will repeat itself in the next generation.