EMMYS WATCH 2025 — Adolescence: Think Pieces and Cultural Dialogue
/‘Emmys Watch 2025’ showcases critical responses to the series nominated for Outstanding Drama, Outstanding Comedy, and Outstanding Limited Series at that 77th Primetime Emmy Awards. Contributions to this theme explore critical understandings of some series nominated in these categories.
Adolescence is probably going to do very well at this year’s Emmys. It has been nominated for 13 awards including Outstanding Limited Series or Anthology and broke viewership records for Netflix with 66.3 million views in two weeks. The series was widely praised for performances from Stephan Graham, Erin Doherty, Ashley Walters, and Owen Cooper (all of whom are also nominated) as well as its ‘innovative’ use of long-takes and ‘real-time’ storytelling to explore deeply confronting subject matter.
It is hard to deny the cultural impact of Adolescence. In the weeks following its release came a surge of lengthy editorials, features, and think pieces from outlets such as The Guardian, Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), The New York Times, and The Conversation. In their Emmy coverage this year, the The New York Times described Adolescence as a “hit Netflix series turned water-cooler talker” (2025). The show certainly raises important questions—sexism (violent or not) is a terrible cultural problem that can have a wide range of devastating effects. In this respect, the final scenes of the series are confronting: Eddie (Stephan Graham), sobbing in his son’s bed, wonders what we could have done differently. As an audience, we are also forced to consider this question without being told a clear answer.
eddie approaches his son’s room in episode 4 of adolescence
eddie in his son’s room in episode 4 of adolescence
If Adolescence is to win big, it’s almost guaranteed that acceptance speeches will stress the importance of the on-going dialogue and conversations that came from the show. It is precisely these public conversations—and television’s role in public discourse—that I am interested in. These conversations are what will likely endure in our collective memory, perhaps more so than the show itself. However, I cannot help but feel that these conversations that were had around Adolescence were subsumed into a more simplistic rhetoric about social media restriction.
The paratexts generated by a TV show are in some cases as important as the programme itself. In his work on True Detective (2014), Michael Albrecht makes this very case. He analysed the lively public debates about whether the show was plainly misogynist or if it was, instead, a layered critique of misogyny. This played out in outlets like The Guardian, The New Yorker, and Jezabel. For Albrecht, this question is of secondary importance to the discussions the show prompted. He suggests that,
Conversations that at one point might have been confined to the academy or to leftist enclaves ascend to the mainstream through the convergence of multiple media and the confluence of a multiplicity of voices. True Detective thus became a discursive point of convergence for problematising masculinity and the ways in which prestige television intersects with discourses of toxic masculinity. (2020, p. 23)
Albrecht’s work echoes valuable insights about the often-underappreciated role that paratexts and news coverage play in television’s contribution to cultural discourses. In fact, this insight is even more pronounced in the programming logics of streaming platforms such as Netflix. There is an observable pattern of short-lived ‘buzzy’ programmes—typically limited series that are provocative and culturally resonant—that receive short but intense bursts of attention on social media and in the press. Take, for example, recent programmes such as Baby Reindeer (2024), Inventing Anna (2022) or Monster: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story (2024). It is possible that more people have read about Adolescence than have watched it the full way through.
In the case of Adolescence, these cultural discourses have extended to policy makers and world leaders. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer talked openly about the ‘difficulty’ he had watching the show (Youngs, 2025). Both he and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese suggested that it should be shown in secondary school as an educational tool against the ‘manosphere’. A statement from Starmer’s office states that the show will “help students better understand the impact of misogyny, dangers of online radicalisation and the importance of healthy relationships”.
These deep-seated cultural problems around violence, misogyny, and masculinity are not new, and they are certainly not easy to ‘fix’. Starmer said as much when he discussed the show—“[there is no] silver bullet response” or “policy lever that can be pulled.” Additionally, in various press engagements, co-showrunner Jack Thorne was careful to stress that there is no “one reason” Jamie Miller is the way that he is. Rather, it is constellation of complicated social, cultural, and personal factors. However, the show comes at a critical time when governments across the world are seriously considering social media bans for young people. Something that is sold to voters as a kind of silver bullet.
In Australia, my writing context, young people (under 16 y/o) will soon be banned from using social media (with adults required to undertake age-verification). Similar social media restrictions are also being considered in countries such as the United Kingdom, Norway, France, Italy, and the United States. In fact, showrunner Jack Thorne is often cited as an advocate for these types of bans with headlines such as “Adolescence writer suggests social media ban for kids” (BBC), and “Adolescence Has People Talking. Its Writer Wants Lawmakers to Act” (NYT). It is in this global context that we might worry that Adolescence has been dangerously integrated into panics about violent youth, and discourses that oversimplify dangerous, everyday cultural misogyny as easily ‘fixable’ through social media restriction.
Indeed, writers often praised Adolescence for its layered exploration of youth crime, and illumination of danger that social media poses to teenagers. Articles from The Conversation (AU & UK), The Guardian, and The ABC commended the programme for identifying the true depths of toxic male communities and the way that they are influencing teenage boys. In an article for The Conversation (AU), Kate Cantrell and Susan Hopkins suggest that Adolescence exposes the “darkest corners” of “incel culture and male rage.” They suggest that,
At the centre of the show’s broken heart is a devastating truth: the most dangerous place in the world for a teenager is alone in their bedroom. Trapped in the dark mirror of social media, Jamie—like a growing number of teenage boys—turns to the digital ‘manosphere’ and the grim logic of online misogynists. (Cantrell & Hopkins 2025)
Indeed, teenage boys were often described as especially susceptible to online radicalisation in coverage. In review of Adolescence published by The Guardian, Michael Hogan writes that,
Adolescence lays bare how an outwardly normal but inwardly self-loathing and susceptible youngster can be radicalised without anyone noticing. His parents recall Jamie coming home from school, heading straight upstairs, slamming his bedroom door and spending hours at his computer. They thought he was safe. They thought he was doing the right thing. It’s a scenario which will ring bells with many parents.
While much of this discussion does highlight the insecurities and vulnerabilities that come along with the normative, heterosexist embodiments of masculinity, there is also a sense of urgency. There is an understanding that problems identified in Adolescence have been building for years and have now reached a boiling point. We are invited to view violent misogyny as something intrinsically connected to social media and the internet. In this sense, there is an implication that it is solvable through restriction and regulation.
As such, I can’t help but feel as though there is something missing in the conversations that have surrounded Adolescence so far. Its forecasted Emmys successes signal something of a victory lap for not just the show, but for a kind-of nobility and honesty to incite such pressing cultural discourse: and therein lies a risk that turning to television to drive policy debate paints an incomplete picture. In the case of Adolescence, we risk sweeping up complicated and controversial social media bans into the show’s ongoing applause.
Of course, social media can pose risks to young people. However, misogyny was not invented there, and the roots of Jamie’s are embedded into our society. It is important that we remember that gendered violence, above all else, is a cultural problem. An element of the Adolescence which I found particularly interesting was its focus on the mundane and ordinary aspects of the Miller’s life. Through spending time with them, we saw glimpses of just how pervasive and normalised sexism is in the everyday. By framing Adolescence through the urgent lens of social media bans, we lose an opportunity to consider something deeper. That is, a deeper reflection on the place of gender and masculinity in our society.
References
Albrecht, M 2020, ‘You ever wonder if you’re a bad man?: Toxic masculinity, paratexts and think pieces circulating around season one of HBO’s True Detective.’ Critical Studies in Television, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 7-24.
Cantrell, S, Hopkins K 2025, “Adolescence is a technical masterpiece that exposes the darkest corners of incel culture and male rage”, The Conversation, March 19. Available at https://theconversation.com/adolescence-is-a-technical-masterpiece-that-exposes-the-darkest-corners-of-incel-culture-and-male-rage-252390
Hogan, M 2025, “Unnervingly on-the-nose: Why Adolescence is such powerful TV that it could save lives”, The Guardian, March 17. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2025/mar/17/adolescence-netflix-powerful-tv-could-save-lives
Lemer, J, Ketibuah-Foley, J 2025 “Adolescence writer suggests social media ban for kids”, BBC, 21 March. Available at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3vwye69yxwo
Marshall, A 2025 “Adolescence has people talking. Its writer wants lawmakers to act”, The New York Times, March 24. Available at https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/24/arts/television/adolescence-netflix-smartphones.html
Razik, N, Gallagher, A 2025, “Why Anthony Albanese wants all Australian kids to watch Adolescence”, SBS News, 28 April. Available at https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/pm-praises-adolescence-and-says-australias-gendered-violence-response-isnt-working/pu2w4js02
Taylor, D 2025, “Adolescence Earns 13 Emmy Nominations, Including Nod for Owen Cooper”, The New York Times, 15 July. Available at https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/15/arts/television/adolescence-netflix-emmy-nominations.html
Youngs, I 2025, ‘Adolescence hard to watch as a dad, Starmer tells creators’, BBC, 1 April. Available at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx28neprdppo
Biography
Alexander Beare (He/him) is a Lecturer in Media at the University of Adelaide. His research specialises in streaming television, audience cultures, and gender. He is the author of The New Audience for Old TV (Routledge 2024) and has published with Television and New Media, Critical Studies in Media Communication, and Critical Studies in Television.