What the Fork?: The Good Place as a Hybrid of High and
Low Culture
Eleanor Shelstrop lived a terrible life and
behaved, by most standards, immorally. When she dies, she finds herself
mistakenly in “The Good Place” (think: heaven) as a result of a clerical error.
In an attempt to avoid being sent to her actual afterlife destination, the
aptly named “Bad Place”, Eleanor asks one of her friends to teach her how to be
a good person. So the show thus follows Eleanor as she tries to learn moral
philosophy posthumously so she can fit in in the good place without being
discovered as someone who doesn’t belong.
While I could go on about the entertaining plot
twists of Michael Schur’s NBC sitcom, The
Good Place, and the hilarious, nail-biting inter-character dynamics, the
philosophical undertones of the show also mark a fascinating intersection
between “high” and “low” culture. Particularly in the scenes where the
characters directly engage with well-renowned philosophical texts, The Good Place transforms issues of
‘high culture’ (in this case, philosophy) into a popular comedic medium.
High culture, as discussed by Storey (2009), could
be defined as fitting “formal complexity”, having “moral worth”, or by the
“critical insight provided” (pg. 6). Philosophy meets all of these metrics and
is considered by most to be a key example of “elite” high culture. High culture
is intended to be “difficult” to maintain its status as “exclusive” (Storey,
2009, pg. 6)
Popular culture, in contrast to high culture, is a
“hopelessly commercial culture” or a culture of the masses (Storey, 2009, pg.
8). Cable TV shows fit into this definition by primarily existing with the goal
to entertain and reach a wide audience. The
Good Place melds together comedy that we enjoy watching in our leisure time
with these more complicated ideas that are often reserved for academic study.
The most direct example of this is when one of the
main characters, Chidi, tries to explain the trolley problem but then after failing to address it in a classroom
setting, finds himself literally driving a trolley cart toward people stuck on
the tracks. Phillipa Foot’s famous display
of utilitarianism versus deontology is a widely discussed concept in ethical
studies, but the show hilariously makes the abstract theory into something
concrete, real, and gruesome.
Schudson (1987) states that the study of popular
culture occurs in three main locations: the production, the content, and the
audience reception (pg. 495). The content of sitcom often addresses ethical
concepts but tailors them to a more dispersed audience. By changing philosophy
to a more palatable (and arguably, entertaining) medium, in this case a
familiar comedy, The Good Place makes
philosophy digestible to a layperson who might not have the ability to access
it otherwise.
An investigation of the production of The Good Place indicates that Schur
didn’t stumble upon this hybrid of high and low culture accidentally. With
inspiration from shows like Lost,
Schur went as far as to hire two philosophical advisors, professors Todd May and
Pamela Hieronymi (Quintana 2018).
Schur’s decision to bring ethics into pop culture
is a brilliant and effective strategy to reach a larger audience. Schur has a
reputation for making successful feel good comedies, with The Office and Parks and
Recreation being a draw for much of his viewership. Whether you know a lot
or a little about philosophy to begin with, the show appeals to you. The Good Place entertains its audience
precisely because it operates at the intersection of “high” and “low” culture.
Schudson’s dilemma about the study of popular
culture rises in response to hybrid artifacts of “high” and “low” culture:
“this insight relativizes or democratizes works of art and raises questions
about the distinction that universities have made between high culture and
popular or mass culture.” He also notes that “ the tendency is to relativize
the concept of culture, to whittle away at the props that maintain some
elements of culture as higher than others” (Schudson, 1987, pg. 499).
By allowing the core ideas of ethics to be more readily accessible
in a “low culture” format, Schur allows for deeper critical thought about the
philosophy at hand. Not only does his work “democratize” the work of
philosophy, but it also gives more people the opportunity to engage with it as
an active audience. This is not to
say that Schur necessarily changes the audience’s outlook on the world
(Schudson would be rather cynical of that) but instead he forefronts universal
human discussions that ethical studies raise, though they were typically
reserved just for academic study. With its large viewership, The Good Place provides the opportunity
for laypeople to be exposed to philosophy and perhaps even engage with it.
When we as an audience are able to understand the
basic premise of the trolley problem in an entertaining way that continues to
capture our attention, we can spend our time engaging with the more complex
parts of ethics that the show raises.
The Good Place hooks its audience with its familiar comedy style, but unlike
other shows which may present the philosophy in a more nuanced manner, Schur
chose to make philosophy the premise of his sitcom. Morality, as it is
addressed in the show, is a profoundly human dilemma. Schur rids the
exclusivity and difficult status of ethics and allows more people to engage
with such universal questions.
References
Schudson, M.
(1987). The new validation of popular culture. In J. Storey (Ed.) Cultural
theory and popular culture, pp. 495-503. Athens, GA: University of Georgia
Press.
Storey, J. (2009). What is popular culture? Cultural
Theory and Popular Culture, pp. 1-16.
Quintana, C. (2018). Meet
the Philosophers Who Give ‘The Good Place’ Its Scholarly Bona Fides. Retreived
from https://www.chronicle.com/article/Meet-the-Philosophers-Who-Give/242462
Tamara I really enjoyed this review of The Good Place. Although I have watched a handful of episodes, I never really thought about this approach to the show and how it allows for “”high culture”such as philosophy and morality to be discussed on a television network that can be streamed for free online. I agree that this marries the forms of ‘high and low culture that we’ve discussed based on our readings from Schudson, The use of jokes that revolve around swearing, drugs, and bodily injury does assimilate it to the properties of ‘low culture.’ This makes me agree with your points about how it’s meant to appeal to the “common” person’s standard of humor and culture, and I think that the average viewer would appreciate how a show that’s essentially about the structures of religion and morals still doesn’t shy away from the factors of common television entertainment. I also think that it relates to some of the ideas we’ve seen from Walter Benjamin about the advantages of distribution. The Good Place essentially duplicates ‘high culture’ works and allows them to be distributed to a larger demographic, and therefore guarantees that their message and value can reach more people than the original would have been able to.
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited
Schudson, M. (1987). The new validation of popular culture. In J. Storey (Ed.) Cultural theory and popular culture, pp. 495-503. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
Storey, J. (2009). What is popular culture? Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, pp. 1-16.
Benjamin, Walter. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Penguin Books, 2008, 57.
I really enjoyed reading your analysis of The Good Place. The fusion of high and low culture and the complexity that it adds to the definition of pop culture is something that I also discussed in my blog post. I made an argument similar to that of John Storey’s (2006) sixth definition of pop culture, that postmodernism no longer recognize the distinction between high and low culture (p. 13), and I think this applies to The Good Place as well. In fact, it is the interaction between high and low culture that makes the show so appealing. By presenting core ideas of philosophy in a sitcom setting, an artifact of high culture is made more readily accessible to, and easily approachable by the mass. Your analysis of The Good Place also reminded me of Walter Benjamin’s (1936) argument about the democratizing potential of the loss of aura. With no doubt, the show brings its audience closer to philosophy, even though some may argue that it lost its aura by being presented in and distributed by a sitcom. You made a good point about how even though the show brings philosophy more readily accessible to the audience, it was not produced with an intention to change the audience’s outlook on the world. To my understanding, what the audience thinks of the ethics presented in the show is none of the producer’s interest; rather, the purpose of the show is to encourage its audience to engage with such philosophical problems, in a manner that is non-exclusive and pleasurable. Though I have never watched the show myself, your analysis really sparked my interest in the show.
ReplyDeleteRuijun Liu
References:
Benjamin, Walter. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Penguin Books, 2008, 57.
Storey, J. (2006). Cultural theory and popular culture. an introduction. Harlow: Pearson Prentice Hall.
I want to start by saying that, as someone who has never seen a single epidote of The Good Place, your blog post has convinced me that I need to start watching it (as soon as finals are over and out of the way). I’m a huge fan of shows that mix high and low brow humor, and by extension high and low culture, because they are accessible enough to everyone, but there are still in-jokes that reward the intellectually inclined. That is exactly the kind of interplay between high and low culture that Michael Schudson talks about in his seminal article, “The New Validation of Popular Culture.” According to Schudson, the popularization of high culture, which had once been reserved for the elite, is far more common than we have been led to believe. Interplay goes both ways, and of course there exists a push towards teaching popular culture at elite universities (not unlike the University of Pennsylvania) as if it was high culture. There is much more overlap today because the definitions are so broad. This concept is exemplified by pop culture artifacts like The Good Place, which succeed in blurring the line between what is meant for the masses and what is meant for those who will understand the heavier concepts that they present. It’s interesting to think about how two people watching the same show could get two wildly different experiences out of the same media, that there are multiple layers to understanding such a common form of entertainment. It is clear from this post that Schur takes this into consideration, and uses it to his advantage, in all his shows, especially The Good Place.
ReplyDelete-Ethan Kaufman
I really enjoyed your analysis of The Good Place. Specifically, I thought you did a wonderful job of explaining the concept of the show for someone who had never seen it before. Furthermore, I did not need to understand the nuances of the show to also understand your analysis.
ReplyDeleteI thought your examination of the role of sitcom culture coincided very well with our class’ lecture on Emily Nussbaum’s criticism of sexual harassment on television, specifically in sitcoms. I thought back to the clip we watched of a female character being secually harrassed with a laugh track in the background and how disturbing that was to watch. It is these complicated and thought provoking scenes in comedic setting which you contrast to Storey’s analysis of pop culture being a “hopelessly commercial culture.” Are programs concerned with the content they are putting out and the image they present/represent, or is their main goal to make money?
You compared the show very well to Schudson’s argument that culture is created in three different stages being production, content, and reception. The fact is that disturbing mistakes are made in all three stages of creating popular culture and it is unfortunate when no one is able to catch those mistakes before the world sees them.
I am curious to know if you think sitcoms are “high” or “low” culture? Personally, I believe that comedy is an element of pop culture that often blurs the lines. This did not always used to be true, however, I feel like everybody loves to laugh, regardless of what type of culture they are inherently interested in.
ReplyDeleteBefore reading your blog post, I never thought of The Good Place as an analogy for high and low culture. I loved the show and did notice its educational component. During the show, I felt as if I were learning about ethics with Eleanor. But, I love how your blog post explains the director’s motives. I was happily surprised when I learned that he hired to philosophical advisors. I agree with your analysis. Although many don’t have access to a background in philosophy, Schur properly explains it within the show. Viewers do not need outside knowledge to understand the moral dilemmas the show tackles. Therefore, viewers aren’t deterred or frustrated by not understanding the background. With his interesting incorporation of typically complex philosophical issues, the viewership can interact and analyze his material. This clarity will also expand the audience now that more people understand the show. Other shows cover complicated topics and require a certain educational level accessible to few. Although The Good Place didn’t need to provide a philosophical context, the director decided to make the text understandable for “low” culture (Storey, 2009). According to Storey’s distinction between high and low culture, philosophy can be viewed as high culture due to its difficult “elite” manner. An understanding of philosophy is open to all, however, Schur broke boundaries with The Good Place. He turned a high culture topic into a piece of popular culture for everyone. He opened the show to anyone who wished to watch it. There isn’t a level of intellect required to watch the program. Thank you for this insightful post.
Nola Riina
References
Storey, J. (2009). What is popular culture? Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, pp. 1-16.
ReplyDelete