so since a lot of people clearly DO need to be spoon fed everything, and that the Duffers clearly overestimated their audience...
The Stranger Things finale is radically non-conformist, actually
(or: what show were some of you watching)
A lot of people keep insisting the finale of Stranger Things was about āsettling,ā āplaying it safe,ā or āforcing conformity.ā
That reading only works if you define conformity as ādidnāt give me my specific ship or explanation.ā If you look at what the characters actually choose, the finale is doing the opposite of conformist storytelling.
So letās go through it. Slowly. Clearly. No subtext gymnastics required.
1. Staying in Hawkins is NOT framed as failure
Conformist narrative says:
Success = leaving your hometown, never looking back.
Staying can be a choice, not a trap.
Steve stays. Not because he ācanāt escape,ā but because he builds a life there. He has a stable career. He's saving for a house. He WANTS to be there now.
Mike stays and becomes a writer, literally creating stories where he grew up.
Will stays, but now in a town that is much safer and in a body that is no longer hiding.
Lucas and Max stay and live, not just survive.
Hawkins stops being a punishment zone and becomes reclaimed ground. That alone breaks one of the most entrenched coming-of-age tropes in TV.
2. College is explicitly NOT treated as a moral requirement
Conformist narrative says:
College = growth/success, no college = stagnation.
College is a tool, not a virtue.
Nancy drops out of college. This is never framed as failure or regression. But as a choice she is not ashamed of.
Steve never goes and is still shown as fulfilled, competent, and future-oriented.
Robinās path is undefined, which is especially radical for a queer character.
Jonathan goes to NYU, but not as a reward arc, just because itās right for him.
Dustin goes to college but stays emotionally and geographically connected to the people that matter to him.
No hierarchy. No ārightā path. No punishment for opting out.
3. Romance is not treated as the highest form of fulfillment
Conformist narrative says:
Everyone must pair off to be complete.
Some people pair off. Some donāt. None are lesser.
Only two relationships are framed as implicit endgame:
Lumax (earned, repaired, forward-looking)
Jopper (adult, chosen, stable)
Everyone else is intentionally left open:
Steve is single and content.
Dustin is unpaired and uninterested in forcing it.
Nancyās future is undefined.
Robinās relationship status is not treated as a narrative endpoint.
This is a rejection of compulsory coupledom, not an endorsement of it.
4. Queerness is affirmed without being reduced to one outcome
Conformist narrative says:
Queerness must end in one sanctioned relationship or it doesnāt count.
Queerness is allowed to begin, not just conclude.
Will is canonically queer and ends the show happy, flirted with, reciprocated, supported.
His first love does not erase his future.
He keeps Mike in his life without losing himself.
Dustin is left intentionally open to queer readings.
Nancy is framed in a way that leaves queerness possible without declaration.
Queer-platonic intimacy is centered and treated as life-defining.
Queerness is not punished, not tragic, not sacrificed for ānormalcy.ā
5. Masculinity is rewritten, not reasserted
Conformist masculinity says:
Men prove worth through conquest, dominance, and stoicism.
Men build worth through care, maintenance, and choice.
Steveās future is coaching kids, teaching sex ed, planning continuity.
Mike is a writer, not a leader-hero archetype. He is the storyteller now.
Jonathan reconciles rather than competes.
Emotional intimacy between men is normalized and sustained into adulthood.
at no point is any of this male intimacy downplayed, devalued or undercut. This show very impressively managed to avoid the "no homo" bullshit entirely.
No re-masculinization. No āman upā ending. No regression. Just growth. Softness where trauma has been.
6. Chosen family is prioritized over biological or hierarchical roles
Conformist narrative says:
You outgrow friendships, especially unconventional ones.
You maintain what matters.
Steve and Dustin explicitly recommit as best friends (singular, chosen).
Their bond survives age gaps, college, adulthood, and crisis.
The older teens commit to not letting their relationships fade.
The story ends where it began: at a D&D table, with community passed forward.
Thatās not nostalgia. Thatās a philosophy of living.
And if you really think the Core 4 wouldn't absolutely stay in touch and make the same commitment that the older group does, then idk what to say. Because of course they would?
7. The villain is not redeemed, and trauma is not an excuse
Conformist redemption narratives say:
Every villain is secretly a victim who deserves absolution.
Will offered Henry grace.
Henry explicitly states he could have resisted and chose not to. And recommits to that choice.
He is held accountable for that choice in no uncertain terms.
Joyce kills him.
No moral softening. No last-minute absolution.
That is an ethical stance, not a safe one.
8. Ambiguity is used as respect, not cowardice
Conformist endings explain everything to avoid discomfort.
Leaves futures unwritten.
Thatās not laziness. Thatās trusting the audience to live beyond the frame.
So no, this ending is not āpure conformity.ā
compulsory adulthood scripts
compulsory heteronormativity
compulsory success narratives
intimacy without hierarchy
If you didnāt see that, you werenāt watching a story.
You were watching for a verdict.
Some of us saw a world where people get to live without being forced into shape.
And thatās not conformist.
Thatās the entire point.
dailybridgerton
jbbartram-illu
tangentwithtanner
titsay
dededos
ellievsbear
romaincrisis
