In early 2025, Netflix’s Adolescence, a fictional mini-series, took Britain by storm, amassing 96 million views and sparking a heated debate about online misogyny, incel culture, and the influence of social media on youth. The show, created by Stephen Graham and Jack Thorne, follows a 13-year-old boy who, radicalized by online misogyny and figures like Andrew Tate, murders a female classmate. While the series was lauded by critics—The Times called it “complete perfection”—its cultural impact quickly spiraled into what can be described as a textbook moral panic. Drawing on sociological frameworks from Stanley Cohen and Erich Goode and Nachman Ben-Yehuda, let’s explore how the reaction to Adolescence fits this model.
What Is a Moral Panic?
A moral panic occurs when a perceived threat to societal values is exaggerated, leading to widespread fear, hostility, and often disproportionate policy responses. Cohen’s model outlines stages: a perceived threat, media amplification, moral entrepreneurs driving the narrative, public reaction, and policy changes. Goode and Ben-Yehuda’s attributional model identifies five characteristics: concern, hostility, consensus, disproportionality, and volatility. The reaction to Adolescence checks all these boxes.
The Perceived Threat and Media Amplification
Adolescence tapped into existing fears about the radicalization of young boys through online spaces. The show’s narrative, inspired by real-life UK murders like Ava White’s in 2021 and Elianne Andam’s in 2023, framed incel ideology, red-pill theories, and influencers like Andrew Tate as a generational crisis. Media outlets amplified this fear, with glowing reviews and widespread coverage. The show’s creators appeared “everywhere,” pushing for screenings in schools and a crackdown on social media. A striking image from an X post by @StarkNakedBrief—a child watching multiple TVs displaying a distorted face—symbolized the cultural anxiety about technology’s corrupting influence on youth, a recurring theme in moral panics.
Moral Entrepreneurs and the Role of Elites
Moral entrepreneurs, as Cohen defines them, are those who drive the panic by framing a threat to societal values. Here, Graham and Thorne, alongside Labour politicians like Prime Minister Keir Starmer, played this role. Starmer endorsed screening Adolescence in schools, calling it a “documentary or drama” (a curious misstep), while Labour MPs like Anneliese Midgley raised the issue in Parliament. The government’s involvement was deep: state-funded entities like Into Film+ and Tender (with £3.4 million in funding) facilitated the rollout, and Warp Films, the show’s producer, had received government grants. This aligns with Goode and Ben-Yehuda’s elite-engineered model, where authorities amplify a threat to push their agenda—in this case, Labour’s focus on misogyny laws and the Online Safety Act, possibly to distract from other issues like Islamist terrorism (75% of MI5’s caseload).
Disproportionality: The Data Doesn’t Match the Hysteria
A hallmark of moral panic is disproportionality, where the reaction far exceeds the actual threat. The X thread highlights that only 9 incel-related cases were referred to the UK’s Prevent program in 2023/2024 (2% of total cases), and a 2023 Savanta survey found just 15% of white youth viewed Andrew Tate favorably, compared to 41% of Black and 31% of Asian respondents. Moreover, the real-life murders cited by the show’s creators weren’t directly linked to incel ideology or Tate—White’s murder involved a Snapchat dispute, and Andam’s stemmed from a personal conflict. Despite this, the government and media framed incel-driven violence as a sweeping crisis among white youth, a narrative the data doesn’t support.
Public Reaction and Policy Overreach
The public reaction was polarized but largely supportive of action. With 96 million views, Adolescence captured widespread attention, and Starmer’s push to screen it in schools reflected public pressure to “do something.” Critics, however, like Kemi Badenoch, questioned the narrative, facing accusations of neglecting her duty for not watching the show. The policy response was swift: by March 31, 2025, Starmer backed school screenings, facilitated by state-funded programs. This contrasts with the BBC’s Three Girls (2017), a drama about the Rochdale grooming scandal, which was never mandated for schools despite being based on documented events—a sign of selective panic.
Volatility and Cultural Symbolism
Moral panics are often volatile, flaring up quickly and fading just as fast. The reaction to Adolescence exploded within weeks of its March 13 premiere, with governmental action by the end of the month. The X thread calls this “hysteria,” suggesting it may not sustain itself as data and critics challenge the narrative. Culturally, the show’s focus on a white incel boy—despite one real-life case involving a Black teenager—reflects a tendency to scapegoat a specific demographic as the “folk devil,” a common feature of moral panics. The X post’s image of a child overwhelmed by TVs underscores this fear of technology, echoing past panics over video games or TV violence.
Conclusion: A Constructed Crisis?
The reaction to Adolescence fits the moral panic model through its exaggerated concern, hostility toward young white males as the “folk devils,” broad but not universal consensus, disproportionate response, and rapid escalation. It aligns most closely with the elite-engineered model, with Labour and state-funded entities amplifying the issue to advance their agenda. However, the limited data on incel-driven violence and critiques of the show’s racial framing suggest this panic is more constructed than grounded in reality. As with past moral panics, the hysteria around Adolescence reveals more about societal anxieties—about technology, youth, and gender dynamics—than about the actual threat it claims to address. Only time will tell if this panic leads to meaningful change or fades into the background, another chapter in the history of societal overreaction.
Leave a Reply