The Good Place and its Implicit Heterosexual Agenda

When I first discovered The Good Place, I quickly fell in love with it, being hooked from the very first scene. The idea of having a show set in an unconventional conception of the afterlife was so intriguing, and it was a delight to witness the way the show constantly rewrites its own rules and status quo. Every main character and their actor worked so well for this story. I found them all so endearing.

With that being said, I had my gripes with the prominence placed on romantic and sexual attraction, and finding romance, particularly heterosexual romance. Although I hope this is simply an unfortunate by-product rather than a sinister agenda, I find it hard to ignore the ways in which the show portrays queerness as abject. I wanted to discuss this presentation in the main characters and interrogate the ways in which it is potentially problematic. It is also important to bring into question how the world around the characters is presented as heteronormative.  

I cannot help but wonder if this presentation of Eleanor’s character is deliberate from the show’s creators

The biggest point of contention is how Eleanor’s bisexuality is explored. On first watch, I loved seeing the main character of the show being explicitly depicted as not straight, and I can usually appreciate when a show refuses to shy away from a character’s queerness. However, as the show went on, and with each subsequent rewatch, I grew more uneasy. A running theme with Eleanor is her vulgarity, which is often exemplified through her frequently objectifying other people and making crude jokes about her sexual desires. In this context, it makes sense that this is not exclusive to the men around her.

However, the problem lies in the fact that Eleanor’s attraction to women is almost exclusively portrayed through these comments about physical attraction, as though that facet of her sexuality is not meant to be taken seriously. The other issue is that Eleanor’s character is the most explicit bisexuality that we see. Bisexual characters should not have to be squeaky-clean, however when your only bisexual character is morally ambiguous and sleazy, you run the risk of a harmful caricature. 

There is a discussion to be had regarding the show’s approach to the absence of romantic attraction

Then there is the matter of her relationships. Of course, her relationships with men are an aspect of her sexuality, however when her only meaningful relationships that we see—through her flashbacks and through her on and off relationship with Chidi—are with men, it raises the question of whether her attraction to women was ever meant to be taken seriously. The main allusion we get to a same-sex relationship is when Tahani turns up as her soulmate in one of the reboots, and we never see anything about the relationship.

Again, seeing fully fledged relationships of both opposite-sex and same-sex is not a requirement for ‘good’ bisexual representation. However, it does not bode well in tandem with my analysis of her problematic behaviour. I cannot help but wonder if this presentation of Eleanor’s character is deliberate from the show’s creators. However, I do not believe that good intentions would outweigh the issues which her character raises.

In the opposite direction, there is a discussion to be had regarding the show’s approach to the absence of romantic attraction. Neither Janet or Michael initially has any desires regarding romance or sex, although this changes for Janet. As it turns out, these two are also the only non-human main characters, and Michael, the character who never experiences those desires, is a literal demon. This, to me, raises questions about how we as an audience perceive aromanticism and asexuality. It does not help that Janet actually develops desires as she continuously reboots and updates; this poses rather questionable and potentially problematic messaging where the show implies that the development of romantic desire is entrenched in character development. Although the show’s rationale for this is more to do with her connection to Jason specifically as opposed to a general sense of desire, this does not mitigate potential harm. I initially wanted to defend the positioning of Michael too, stating that his repulsion to romance and sex is not necessarily a common denominator among all the demons, however I unfortunately could not find a legitimate example. 

The soulmate plot device places an unfair pressure on the pursuit of a happy ending rooted in monogamous love

Beyond the scope of questionable representation, I wanted to touch on the concept of soulmates that the show plays around with. Admittedly the idea of a soulmate, of everyone in the afterlife having that one person be determined for you, was used as a good ploy for the characters, both in terms of developing the dynamics between them all and in terms of punishing the characters. This works a lot of the time, for example with the disillusionment caused by characters believing they are with the wrong person, something we see especially in Chidi’s case, with the concept of soulmates being used to torture him.

However, throughout all the reboots and all the background couples we see, not a single same-sex relationship comes to mind, except for the snapshot of Tahani’s introduction as Eleanor’s soulmate. We see Jason be assigned a male soulmate; however, this is in the form of twin spirits instead of romance. Overall, the soulmate plot device places an unfair pressure on the pursuit of a happy ending rooted in monogamous love.

What I do find reassuring is how they subvert their soulmate storytelling device. While we constantly see Eleanor and Chidi develop a romantic connection, the show establishes that their special bond does not always coalesce as romance. Sometimes they are put together as “soulmates”, but they often are paired with other people. When it comes to Eleanor and Chidi, the soulmate element derives from them always finding each other. Sometimes there is romance, sometimes casual sex, but more often than not, their bond is solely platonic, which is treated as just as special.  

The four humans are a product of a world that places a premium on finding ‘the one’

Every time they find each other, they unwittingly enhance each other’s lives and constantly inspire each other to be the best versions of themselves, facilitating the kind of personal development that is at the heart of the show. They may have ended the show in love; however, it is not framed as an inevitability, which is refreshing to see, regardless of how much I love them as a couple. I can also appreciate how much care the show puts into the portrayal or Chidi’s relationship with Simone. Whenever he meets her before Eleanor, they develop a romance in which they truly care for each other. Miraculously, that relationship is not dramatized, and it is treated just as seriously as his romance with Eleanor. 

For a group of six characters (five excluding Michael), there are a lot of potential relationships going on. You have the main two couples being Eleanor and Chidi, and Jason and Janet, but then Jason and Tahani dated in a reboot that got a lot of screentime, Eleanor appears to fancy all of the other four at one time or another, and there is the time where Tahani thinks that she is meant to be Chidi’s soulmate. In a way, it makes sense; they are united in a fight for survival, trying to make sense of their place in the universe. In such a situation, sparks are bound to arise. In the ever-changing afterlife, all they have is each other, all they can do is care for each other, and sometimes that can get confused for romance. The four humans are a product of a world that places a premium on finding ‘the one’. Considering that they all struggled with meaningful connections in their lives—whether that be the result of internal struggles like Chidi, or familial struggles like the others—what else were they going to do when external worldly factors dissipated?