A national conversation on masculinity, violence and family
The recent Netflix drama series Adolescence has sparked a national conversation and widespread and debate. Even the Prime Minister has publicly stated that he is watching the show with his teenage children, reinforcing its social and cultural impact. Interpretations of the show’s significance spans various themes—from the state of contemporary masculinity to the impact of social media discourses and ‘incel’ culture. Viewers have also reacted strongly to the depiction of knife crime and the implications for real-world fears about youth violence. Some responses have focused on the show’s depiction of parenting and familial dynamics. However, despite widespread discourse about ‘fatherlessness’ as a root cause of young men’s struggles, Jamie is not fatherless. On the contrary, the bond he shares with his father is emotionally significant and subverts the trope. This is made stark in contrast with DI Luke Bascombe, who ignores a message from his own son and later reveals difficulty connecting with him.
Some have also sought to draw connections between Adolescence and current political climates, both in the UK and the US, where strongman personas and reductive narratives of masculinity often go unchallenged. Yet the show resists such simplicity, offering not a solution, but a mirror held up to the broader socio-political and cultural anxieties surrounding boys and manhood today.
More than one cause: Challenging the scapegoats
We’d argue that the show’s power lies in its ability to bring together multiple, fluid factors that contribute to harmful behaviours, rather than offering a singular, simple root cause or scapegoat. On the surface it seems Jamie comes from a normal, supportive family and on multiple occasions he is described as bright and intelligent. This challenges dominant narratives that attempt to attribute responsibility to one overarching issue—be it digital technology, absent or problematic male role models, or societal misogyny. Instead, Adolescence illustrates the complexity of how extreme incidents emerge from a web of influences that may not, in isolation, be sufficient causes.
Following its release, there have been calls to use the show as an educational tool, with some, including the Prime Minister, advocating for screenings in schools to ‘raise awareness’ or ‘wake up’ young people—particularly boys—to the realities of contemporary gender dynamics. However, we urge caution against uncritical, didactic uses of media in classrooms, as we have previously argued regarding the teaching of sexual consent to young people. If only it was that simple.
The show offers a mirror to society, not a solution. Unfortunately, using Adolescence as a ‘shock tactic’ risks reinforcing a top-down educational approach in which adults seek to impose their predetermined messages onto young people, rather than engendering critical engagement or genuine dialogue. Similarly, we resist its use as a means to instill fear—or guilt—in parents about their children’s digital and social worlds.
What boys are really telling us
While concerns about media influences on boys are understandable, we critique the alarmist notion that young men en masse are absorbing and internalising extreme misogynistic or violent ideologies. The narratives in Adolescence depict the sharp end of boarder societal issues—which are thankfully rare—rather than a universal crisis of masculinity. While media plays a role in shaping attitudes, it is essential to recognise that most young people do not develop such harmful outlooks, and fear-based approaches risk distorting public understanding and policymaking.
That is not to say there is no problem. On a more nuanced level, there is growing evidence that boys and young men are struggling with questions of identity, relationships and belonging. In our own work, we have found that adult-led efforts—whether from parents, educators or campaigners—to guide boys in navigating these issues and promoting gender equality often misfire. Teenage boys frequently encounter school-based sessions on topics like consent, relationship abuse and patriarchy that position them as potential perpetrators and automatic beneficiaries of male privilege. These framings can feel alienating, particularly when they do not align with boys’ lived experiences. Many of the boys we’ve spoken with do not feel powerful. Instead, they describe feeling confused, insecure and under constant scrutiny. In such a context, the messaging of the manosphere—though deeply flawed—can appear coherent and validating.
This requires adults to critically reflect on the discursive loops we may be sustaining. The so-called ‘crisis of masculinity’ is now too often laid at the feet of social media or online influencers, when in fact our own narratives may inadvertently be contributing to the problem. If boys are repeatedly told they must change their behaviours, that any discomfort they express is a sign of entitlement or resistance, and that they risk punitive consequences for missteps, it is perhaps unsurprising that some begin to question their relationships and social roles. Influencers who claim that boys are being unfairly targeted—or that girls and women pose a threat—can gain traction precisely because they provide an alternative story, however problematic. We must therefore move beyond simply critiquing the manosphere and work to disrupt the cycles that make its narratives so compelling—including those we may be reinforcing ourselves. If we continue to frame boys as a problem to be fixed, we risk making them feel homogenised, oversimplified and fundamentally misunderstood.
Listening first: The safe uncertainty approach
Rather than just critiquing particular media sources or ideologies, we recommend engaging young people iteratively in exploring the challenges they experience and their interpretations of the messages they encounter—including those from the adults in their lives. This has led us to develop our safe uncertainty approach, which avoids assuming that there are singular ’causes’ that can be isolated, managed and eradicated. Instead, it creates safe(r) spaces for young people to explore the issues they face and to receive meaningful guidance. This does not mean that adults need to have all the answers, in fact, exactly the opposite. Ideally, young people should leave with more questions than when they arrived as they learn to challenge the messages they have been fed.
We certainly do not believe that simply critiquing those we may be concerned about (e.g., individual online influencers) will suffice – these are symptoms, not causes and merely an iteration of a deeper problem embedded in our society. Instead, we need to engage with young people’s concerns and explore why, how and to what extent different narratives resonate with them. We need to understand their perspectives, rather than assuming we know and imposing the solutions from the top down. By doing so, we can learn from young people what they need to develop safely, ethically and positively, rather than prescribing what we think they ought to believe, think and do.
Shifting the frame: Embracing safe uncertainty
A safe uncertainty response is enacted through a commitment to dialogue, exploration and critical engagement rather than prescriptive teaching and standardised PowerPoints. It requires educators, parents and practitioners to resist the urge to provide definitive answers and instead create physical and metaphysical spaces where young people can articulate their experiences, reflect on their feelings about the conflicting messages they hear, and collaboratively navigate difficult topics. This approach prioritises open-ended conversations that recognise and value young people’s agency and insights, rather than assuming they passively absorb media or ideological influences. It also acknowledges the importance of working alongside young people, rather than imposing top-down interventions, engendering a sense of co-construction in meaning-making.
From fear to resilience
When faced with things that scare us as human beings, it is only natural for us to seek a sense of certainty and easy solutions. Ironically, this is what is offered by the so-called ‘manosphere’. However, for useful change to happen, we sometimes need to embrace uncertainty – including admitting that childhood is not risk-free – and instead of trying to eradicate risk, we shift our position to providing young people with the tools they need to manage it. By adopting a safe uncertainty approach, we move from reacting to perceived moral crises towards developing sustained, reflective engagements with young people that help them critically navigate their social worlds. Rather than reducing complex issues to clear-cut problems with singular solutions, this model equips young people with the skills to engage with ambiguity, question dominant narratives and develop a resilient sense of self in relation to the challenges they face.
Reading between the lines
Ultimately, safe uncertainty acknowledges the fears and complexities of adolescent masculinity and the broader social ecologies in which young people form their identities. Rather than reducing Adolescence to a cautionary tale that serves existing anxieties, we should consider how it reflects the push and pull factors shaping young people’s experiences—within families, peer groups, online spaces and wider cultural contexts. If you look closely, the show is scattered with messages of masculinities and its inherent insecurities. There is a reason, for instance, why Jamie is scared of needles, why DI Bascombe’s biceps are bursting through his shirt, why the insults Ryan receives when he is knocked down by Eileen are about the size of his penis…
Engagement with Adolescence should therefore not be about reinforcing pre-existing concerns but about interrogating how young people navigate contemporary challenges, what support structures they need, and how educational, familial and policy responses can move beyond reactionary solutions towards more nuanced, contextually grounded approaches. The fact we are talking about it is the point – the dialogue, like the show, doesn’t need a neat resolution. Life is not like that.