M/C Journal

Do-It-Yourself Barbie in 1960s Australia

Donna Lee Brien — Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0000

Introduction

Australia has embraced Barbie since the doll was launched at the Toy Fair in Melbourne in 1964, with Mattel Australia established in Melbourne in 1969. Barbie was initially sold in Australia with two different hairstyles and 36 separately boxed outfits. As in the US, the initial launch range was soon followed by a constant stream of additional outfits as well as Barbie’s boyfriend Ken and little sister Skipper, pets, and accessories including her dreamhouse and vehicles. Also released were variously themed Barbies (including those representing different careers and nationalities) and a seemingly ever-expanding group of friends (Gerber; Lord, Forever). These product releases were accompanied by marketing, promotion, and prominent placement in toy, department, and other stores that kept the Barbie line in clear sight of Australian consumers (Hosany) and in the forefront of toy sales for many decades (Burnett). This article focusses on a thread of subversion operating alongside the purchase of these Barbie dolls in Australia, when the phenomenon of handmade ‘do-it-yourself’ intersected with the dolls in the second half of the 1960s.

Do-It-Yourself

‘Do-it-yourself’ (often expressed as DIY) has been defined as “anything that people did for themselves” (Gelber 283). The history of DIY has been researched in academic disciplines including sociology, cultural studies, musicology, architecture, marketing, and popular culture. This literature charts DIY practice across such domestic production as making clothes, furniture, and toys, growing food, and home improvements including renovating and even building entire houses (Carter; Fletcher) to more externally facing cultural production including music, art, and publications (Spencer). While DIY behaviour can be motivated by such factors as economic necessity or financial benefit, a lack of product availability or its perceived poor quality, and/or a desire for customisation, it can also be linked to the development of personal identity (Wolf and McQuitty; Williams, “A Lifestyle”; Williams, “Re-thinking”). While some mid-century considerations of DIY as a phenomenon were male-focussed (“Do-It”), women and girls were certainly also active at this time in home renovation, house building, and other projects (‘Arona’), as well as more traditionally gendered handicraft activities such as sewing and knitting.

Fig. 1: Australian Home Beautiful magazine cover, November 1958, showing a woman physically engaged in home renovation activities.

Australia has a long tradition of women crafting (by sewing, knitting, and crocheting, for instance) items of clothing for themselves and their families, as well as homewares such as waggas (utilitarian quilts made of salvaged or other inexpensive materials such as old blankets and grain sacks) and other quilts (Burke; Gero; Kingston; Thomas). This making was also prompted by a range of reasons, including economic or other necessity and/or the pursuit of creative pleasure, personal wellbeing, or political activism (Fletcher; Green; Lord, Vintage). It is unsurprising, then, that many have also turned their hands to making dolls’ clothes from scraps of fabrics, yarns, ribbons, and other domestic materials, as well as creating entire dolls’ houses complete with furniture and other domestic items (Benson).

In the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, many Australian dolls themselves were handmade, with settlers and migrants importing European traditions of doll-making and clothing with them (Cramer). In the early twentieth century, mass-produced dolls and clothing became more available and accessible, however handmade dolls’ clothes continued to be made and circulated within families (Elvin and Elvin, The Art; Elvin and Elvin, The Australian). An article in the Weekly in 1933 contained instructions for making both cloth dolls and clothes for them (“Home-Made”), with many such articles to follow. While the 1960s saw increased consumer spending in Australia, this research reveals that this handmade, DIY ethos (at least in relation to dolls) continued through this decade, and afterwards (Carter; Wilson).

This making is documented in artefacts in museum and private collections and instructions in women’s magazines, newspapers, and other printed materials including commercially produced patterns and kits. The investigation scans bestselling women’s magazine The Australian Women’s Weekly (the Weekly) and other Australian print media from the 1960s that are digitised in the National Library of Australia’s Trove database for evidence of interest in this practice.

Do-It-Yourself Barbie Doll

Patterns for Barbie clothes appeared in Australian women’s magazines almost immediately after the doll was for sale in Australia, including in the Weekly from 1965. The first feature included patterns for a series of quite elaborate outfits: a casual knitted jumpsuit with hooded jacket, a knitted three-piece suit of skirt, roll-necked jumper and jacket, a crocheted afternoon dress, tied with a ribbon belt and accessorised with a knitted coat and beret, and a crocheted full length evening gown and opera coat (“Glamorous”). A sense of providing the Weekly’s trusted guidance but also a reliance on makers’ individuality was prominent in this article. Although detailed instructions were provided in the feature above, for example, readers were also encouraged to experiment with yarns and decorative elements.

Fig. 2: Crocheted and knitted ‘afternoon ensemble’ in “Glamorous Clothes for Teenage Dolls” feature in the Weekly, 1965.

Another richly illustrated article published in 1965 focussed on creating high fashion wigs for Barbie at home. The text and photographs guided readers through the process of crafting five differently styled wigs from one synthetic hair piece: a “romantic, dreamy” Jean Shrimpton-style coiffure, deep-fringed Sassoon hairdo, layered urchin cut, low set evening bun, and pair of pigtails (Irvine, “How”). Again, makers were encouraged to express their creativity and individuality in decorating these hairstyles, with suggestions (but not directions) to personalise these styles using ribbons, tiny bows and artificial flowers, coloured pins, seed pearls, and other objects that might be to hand.

Fig. 3: Detailed instructions for creating one of the wigs.

Three Barbie dolls (identified as ‘teen dolls’ rather than by the brand) were featured on the cover of the Weekly on 5 January 1966, for a story about making dolls’ outfits from handkerchiefs (Irvine, “New”). This was framed as a “novel” way to use the excess of fancy hankies often received at Christmas, promising that the three ensembles could thriftily and cleverly be made from three handkerchiefs in a few hours. The instructions detail how to make a casual two-piece summer outfit accessorised with a headscarf, a smart town ensemble highlighted with flower motifs cut from broderie anglaise, and a lavish evening gown. Readers were assured this would be an engaging, “marvellous fun” as well as creative activity, as each maker needed to individually design each garment in terms of working with the individual features of the handkerchiefs they had, incorporating such elements as floral or other borders, lace edging, and overall patterns such as spots or checks (Irvine, “New”). The long-sleeved evening gown was quite an ambitious project. The gown was not only fashioned from a fine Irish linen, lace-bordered hankie, meaning some of the cutting and sewing required considerable finesse, but the neckline and hemline were then hand-beaded, as were a circlet of tiny pearls to be worn around the doll’s hair. Such delicacy was required for all outfits, with armholes and necklines for Barbie dolls very small, requiring considerable dexterity in cutting, sewing, and finishing.

Fig. 4: Cover of The Australian Women’s Weekly of 5 January 1966 featuring three Barbie dolls.

Only two issues later, the magazine ran another Barbie-focussed feature, this time about using oddments found around the home to make accessories for Barbie dolls. Again, the activity is promoted as thrifty and creative: “make teen doll outfits and accessories economically—all you need is imagination and a variety of household oddments” (“Turn”). Included in the full coloured article is a ‘hula’ costume made from a short length of green silk fringe and little artificial flowers sewn together, hats fashioned from a bottle top and silk flower decorated with scraps of lace and ribbon, a cardboard surfboard, aluminium foil and ice cream stick skis, and miniature ribbon-wound coat hangers. This article ended with an announcement commonly associated with calls for readers’ recipes: “what clever ideas have you got? … we will award £5 for every idea used” (“Turn”). This was a considerable prize, representing one-third of the average minimum weekly wage for full-time female workers in Australia in 1966 (ABS 320).

Fig. 5: Brightly coloured illustrations making the Weekly’s “Turn Oddments into Gay Accessories”, 1966, a joyful read.

This story was reinforced with a short ‘behind the scenes’ piece, which revealed the care and energy that went into its production. This reported that, when posing the ‘hulagirl’ on a fountain in Sydney’s Hyde Park, the doll fell in. While her skirt was rescued by drying in front of a fan, the dye from her lei ran and had to be scrubbed off the doll with abrasive sandsoap and the resulting stain then covered up with make-up. After the photographer built the set (inside this time), the shoot was finally completed (“The Doll”).

A week later, the Weekly advertised a needlework kit for three new outfits: a beach ensemble of yellow bikini and sundress, red suit with checked blouse, and blue strapless evening gown. The garment components, with indicated gathering, seam, stitching, and cutting lines, were stamped onto a piece of fine cotton. The kit also included directions “simple enough for the young beginner seamstress” (“Teenage Doll’s”). Priced at 8/6 (85¢ in the new decimal currency introduced that year) including postage, this was a considerable saving when compared to the individual Mattel-branded clothing sets which were sold for sums ranging from 13/6 to 33/6 in 1964 (Burnett). Reader demand for these kits was so high that the supplier was overwhelmed and the magazine had to print an apology regarding delays in dispatching orders (“The Weekly”).

Fig. 6: Cotton printed with garments to cut out and sew together and resulting outfits from the Weekly’s “Teenage Doll’s Wardrobe” feature, 1966.

This was followed by another kit offer later in the year, this time explicitly promoted to both adult and “little girl” needleworkers. Comprising “cut out, ready to sew [material pieces] … and easy-to-follow step-by-step instructions”, this kit made an embroidered white party dress with matching slip and briefs, checked shorts and top set, and long lace and net trimmed taffeta bridesmaid dress and underclothes (“Three”). Again, at $1.60 for the kit (including postage), this was much more economical (and creative) than purchasing such outfits ready-made.

Fig. 7: Party dress from “Three Lovely Outfits for Teenage Dolls” article in the Weekly, 1966.

Making dolls’ clothes was an educationally sanctioned activity for girls in Australia, with needlecraft and other home economics subjects commonly taught in schools as a means of learning domestic and professionally transferable skills until the curriculum reforms of the 1970s onwards (Campbell; Cramer; Issacs). In Australia in the 1960s, Barbie dolls (and their clothing and furniture) were recommended for girls aged nine-years-old and older (Dyson), while older girls obviously also continued to interact with the dolls. A 1968 article in the Weekly, for example, praised a 13-year-old girl’s efforts in reinterpreting an adult dress pattern that had appeared in the magazine and sewing this for her Barbie (Dunstan; Forde). It was also suggested that the dolls could be used by girls who designed their own clothes but did not have a full-sized dressmaker’s model, with the advice to use a Barbie model to test a miniature of the design before making up a full-sized garment (“Buy”).

Making Things for Barbie Dolls

By 9 February 1966, the ‘using oddments’ contest had closed and the Weekly filled two pages with readers’ “resourceful” ideas (“Prizewinning”). These used such domestic bits and pieces as string, wire, cord, cotton reels, egg cartons, old socks, toothpicks, dried leaves, and sticky tape to create a range of Barbie accessories including a mob cap from a doily, hair rollers from cut drinking straws and rubber bands, and a suitcase from a plastic soap container with gold foil locks. A party dress and coat were fashioned from an out-of-date man’s tie and a piece of elastic. There was even a pipe cleaner dog and cardboard guitar.

A month later, fifty more winning entries were published in a glossy, eight-page colour insert booklet. This included a range of clothing, accessories, and furniture which celebrated that “imagination and ingenuity, rather than dollars and cents” could equip a teen doll “for any occasion” (“50 Things”, 1). Alongside day, casual, and evening outfits, rainwear, underwear, jewellery, hats, sunglasses, footwear, a beauty case, hat boxes, and a shopping trolley and bags, readers submitted a skilfully fashioned record player with records in a stand as well as a barbeque crafted from tiny concrete blocks, sun lounge, and deckchairs. Miniature accessories included a hairdryer and lace tissue holder with tiny tissues and a skindiving set comprising mask, snorkel, and flippers. The wide variety of negligible-cost materials utilised and how these were fashioned for high effect is as interesting as the results are charming.

Fig. 8: Cover of insert booklet of the entries of the 50 winners of the Weekly’s making things for Barbie from oddments competition, 1966.

That women were eager to learn to make these miniature fashions and other items is evidenced by some Country Women’s Association groups holding handicraft classes on making clothes and accessories for Barbie dolls (“CWA”). That they were also eager to share the results with others is revealed in how competitions to dress teenage dolls in handmade outfits rapidly also became prominent features of Australian fetes, fairs, agricultural shows, club events, and other community fundraising activities in the 1960s (“Best”; “Bourke”; “Convent”; “Fierce”; “Frolic”; “Gala”; “Guide”; “Measles”; “Parish”; “Personal”; “Pet”; “Present”, “Purim”; “Successful”; “School Fair”; “School Fair Outstanding”; “School Fete”; “Weather”; Yennora”). Dressing Barbie joined other traditional categories such as those to dress baby, bride, national, and bed dolls (the last those dolls dressed in elaborate costumes designed as furniture decorations rather than toys). The teenage doll category at one primary school fete in rural New South Wales in 1967 was so popular that it attracted 50 entries, with many entries in this and other such competitions submitted by children (“Primary”). As the dolls became more prominent, the categories using them became more imaginative, with prizes for Barbie doll tea parties (“From”), for example. The category of dressing Barbie also became segmented with separate prizes for Barbie bride dolls, both sewn and knitted outfits (“Hobby and Pet”) and day, evening, and sports clothes (“Church”). There is no evidence from the sources surveyed that any of this making concentrated on producing career-focussed outfits for Barbie.

Do-It-Yourself Ethos

A do-it-yourself ethos was evident across the making discussed above. This refers to the possession of attitudes or philosophies that encourage undertaking activities or projects that involve relying on one’s own skills and resources rather than consuming mass-produced goods or using hired professionals or their services. This draws on, and develops, a sense of self-reliance and independence, and uses and enhances problem-solving skills. Creativity is central in terms of experimentation with new ideas, repurposing materials, or finding unconventional solutions to challenges. While DIY projects are often pursued independently and customised to personal preferences, makers also often collaboratively draw on, and share, expertise and resources (Wilson).

It is important to note that the Weekly articles discussed above were not disguised advertorials for Barbie dolls or other Mattel products with, throughout the 1960s, the Barbies illustrated in the magazine referred to as ‘teen dolls’ or ‘teenage dolls’. However, despite this and the clear DIY ethos at work, women in Australia could, and did, make such Barbie-related items as commercial ventures. This included local artisanal dressmaking businesses that swiftly added made-to-measure Barbie doll clothes to their ranges (“Arcade”). Some enterprising women sold outfits and accessories they had made through various non-store venues including at home-based parties (“Hobbies”), in the same way as Tupperware products had been sold in Australia since 1961 (Truu). Other women sought sewing, knitting, or crocheting work specifically for Barbie doll clothes in the ‘Work wanted’ classified advertisements at this time (‘Dolls’).

Conclusion

This investigation has shown that the introduction of the Barbie doll unleashed more than consumer spending in Australia. Alongside purchases of the branded doll, clothes, and associated merchandise, Australians (mostly, but not exclusively, women and girls) utilised (and developed) their skills in sewing, knitting, crochet, and other crafts to make clothes for Barbie. They also displayed significant creativity and ingenuity in using domestic oddments and scraps to craft fashion accessories ranging from hats and bags to sunglasses as well as furniture and many of the other accoutrements of daily life in the second half of the 1960s in Australia. This making appears to have been prompted by a range of motivations including thrift and the real pleasures gained in crafting these miniature garments and objects. While the reception of these outfits and other items is not recorded in the publications sourced during this research, this scan of the Weekly and other publications revealed that children did love these dolls and value their wardrobes. In a description of the effects of a sudden, severe flood which affected her home south of Cairns in North Queensland, for instance, one woman described how amid the drama and terror, one little girl she knew packed up only “her teenage doll and its clothes” to take with her (Johnstone 9).

The emotional connection felt to these dolls and handcrafted clothes and other objects is a rich area for research which is outside the scope of this article. Whether adult production was all ultimately intended to be gifted (or purchased) for children, or whether some was the work of early adult Barbie collectors, is also outside the scope of the research conducted for this project. As most of the evidence for this article was sourced from The Australian Women’s Weekly, a similarly close study of other magazines during the 1960s, and of whether any DIY clothing for Barbie also included career-focussed outfits, would add more information and nuance to these findings. This investigation has also concentrated on what happened in Australia during the second half of the 1960s, rather than in following decades. It has also not examined the DIY phenomenon of salvaging and refurbishing damaged Barbie dolls or otherwise altering and customising their appearance in the Australian context. These topics, as well as a full exploration of how women used Barbie dolls in their own commercial ventures, are all rich fields for further research both in terms of practice in Australia and how they were represented in popular and other media.

Alongside the global outpouring of admiration for Barbie as a global icon and the success of the recent live action Barbie movie (Aguirre; Derrick), significant scholarship and other commentary have long criticised what Barbie has presented, and continues to present, to the world in terms of her body shape, race, activities, and career choices (Tulinski), as well as the pollution generated by the production and disposal of these dolls (“Feminist”; Pears). An additional line of what can be identified as resistance to the consumer-focussed commercialism of Barbie, in terms of making her clothes and accessories, seems to be connected to do-it-yourself culture. The exploration of handmade Barbie doll clothes and accessories in this article reveals, however, that what may at first appear to reflect a simple anti-commercial, frugal, ‘make do’ approach is more complex in terms of how it intersects with real people and their activities.

References

“50 Things to Make for Teen Dolls.” The Australian Women’s Weekly 9 Mar. 1966: insert booklet.

Aguirre, Abby. “Barbiemania!” Vogue 24 May 2023. 7 Apr. 2024 <https://www.vogue.com/article/margot-robbie-barbie-summer-cover-2023-interview>.

“Arcade Sewing Centre [advertising].” The Australian Jewish News 29 Apr. 1966: 15.

‘Arona’, ed. The Practical Handywoman. Melbourne: Arbuckle, Waddell, c.1946.

Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS]. Year Book Australia 1967. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1968. <https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/1301.01967>.

Barbie. Dir. Greta Gerwig. Warner Bros., 2023.

Benson, Wendy, Robyn Christie, Robert Holden, and Catriona Quinn. Dolls’ Houses in Australia 1870–1950. Sydney: Historic Houses Trust of NSW, 1999.

“Best Teenage Doll.” Western Herald 28 Jul. 1967: 5.

“Bourke Parents and Citizens Association.” Western Herald 10 Jun. 1966: 2.

Burke, Sheridan. Sydney Quilt Stories, 1811–1970 Elizabeth Bay House. Sydney: Historic Houses Trust, 1998.

Burnett, Jennifer. “The History of Barbie in Australia—The Early Years.” 2007. Reprinted in Dolls Dolls Dolls 18 Jul. 2016. 7 Apr. 2024 <https://dollsdollsdolls.net/2016/07/18/the-history-of-barbie-in-australia-the-early-years>.

“Buy a Doll.” The Australian Women’s Weekly 5 Oct. 1966: 57.

Campbell, Craig. “Home Economics incl. Domestic Science, Domestic Arts and Home Science: Australia 1888–2010.” Dictionary of Educational History in Australia and New Zealand. Sydney: Australian and New Zealand History of Education Society, 18 Apr. 2022. 7 Apr. 2024 <https://dehanz.net.au/entries/home-economics-incl-domestic-science-domestic-arts-and-home-science>.

Carter, Nanette. “Man with a Plan: Masculinity and DIY House Building in Post-War Australia.” Australasian Journal of Popular Culture 1.2 (2011): 165–80.

“Church Fete a Success.” The South-East Kingston Leader 20 Nov. 1969: 1.

“Convent School Fete Highly Successful.” Western Herald 3 Nov. 1967: 3.

Cramer, Lorinda. Needlework and Women’s Identity in Colonial Australia. London: Bloomsbury, 2019.

“CWA Query Decimals.” Port Lincoln Times 10 Mar. 1966: 16.

Derrick, Ruby. “Barbie-Mania Australia.” Ad News 20 Jul. 2023. 7 Apr. 2024 <https://www.adnews.com.au/news/barbie-mania-australia-the-ultimate-brand-campaign>.

“Do-It-Yourself: The New Billion-Dollar Hobby.” Time 2 Aug. 1954: cover.

‘Dolls’. “Wanted [advertising].” Port Lincoln Times 25 Aug. 1966: 27.

Dunstan, Rita. “The Happy Dress.” The Australian Women’s Weekly 31 Jan. 1968: 16–17.

Dyson, Lindsay. “Buying Toys for Children.” The Australian Women’s Weekly 13 Dec. 1967: 53.

Elvin, Pam, and Jeff Elvin, eds. The Art of Doll Making: Australian & International, 1&2 (1994).

Elvin, Pam, and Jeff Elvin, eds. The Australian Doll Artists Magazine, 1 (1993).

“‘Feminist Nightmare’: Full-Size Barbie Dreamhouse Set to Open.” The Sydney Morning Herald 14 May 2013. 8 Apr. 2024 <https://www.smh.com.au/traveller/travel-news/feminist-nightmare-full-size-barbie-dreamhouse-set-to-open-20130514-2jj2h.html>.

Fletcher, Marion. Needlework in Australia: A History of the Development of Embroidery. Melbourne: Oxford UP, 1989.

“Fierce Winds Knock Show Flower Entries.” Port Lincoln Times 10 Oct. 1968: 16.

Forde, Ann. “A Very Happy Doll.” The Australian Women’s Weekly 20 Mar. 1968: 7.

“Frolic, Pet Show at Mission.” Port Lincoln Times 27 Apr. 1967: 16.

“From Port Elliot.” Victor Harbour Times 20 Jan. 1967: 6.

“Gala Day Aids Salt Creek School.” The South-East Kingston Leader 15 Dec. 1966: 1.

Gelber, Steven M. Hobbies: Leisure and the Culture of Work in America. New York: Columbia UP, 1999.

Gerber, Robin. Barbie and Ruth: The Story of the World’s Most Famous Doll and the Woman Who Created Her. New York: HarperCollins, 2009.

Gero, Annette. Historic Australian Quilts. Sydney: Beagle P/National Trust of Australia, 2000.

“Glamorous Clothes for Teenage Dolls.” The Australian Women’s Weekly 24 Nov. 1965: 56–59.

Green, Sue. “Knitting in Australia.” PhD. Diss. Melbourne: Swinburne U of Technology, 2018.

“Guide and Brownie Doll Show and Carnival.” Western Herald 28 Jul. 1967: 1.

“Hobbies Party.” The Coromandel 23 Jun. 1966: 7.

“Hobby and Pet Show Aids Cubs.” Port Lincoln Times 20 Jul. 1967: 11.

“Home-Made Toys in Fabric.” The Australian Women’s Weekly 9 Dec. 1933: 41.

Hosany, Sameer. “The Marketing Tricks That Have Kept Barbie’s Brand Alive for over 60 Years.” The Conversation 8 Mar. 2023. 7 Apr. 2024 <https://theconversation.com/the-marketing-tricks-that-have-kept-barbies-brand-alive-for-over-60-years-200844>.

Irvine, Jenny. “How to Make: Five Wigs for Teenage Dolls.” The Australian Women’s Weekly 29 Dec. 1965: 12–13.

———. “New Use for Gift Hankies.” The Australian Women’s Weekly 5 Jan. 1966: 23–25.

Isaacs, Jennifer. The Gentle Arts: 200 Years of Australian Women’s Domestic & Decorative Arts. Sydney: Lansdowne, 1987.

Johnstone, M. “Kitchen Furniture Floated from Wall to Wall.” The Australian Women's Weekly 5 Apr. 1967: 9.

Kingston, Beverley. My Wife, My Daughter and Poor Mary Ann: Women and Work in Australia. Melbourne: Nelson, 1975.

Lord, Melody, ed. Vintage Knits. Canberra: National Library of Australia, 2022.

Lord, M.G. Forever Barbie: The Unauthorized Biography of a Real Doll. New York: Avon Books, 1995.

“Measles Affected Doll and Toy Show.” Windsor and Richmond Gazette 22 Sep. 1965: 19.

“Parish School Fete Most Successful.” Western Herald 15 Nov. 1968: 9.

Pears, Alan. “In a Barbie World” The Conversation 17 Jul. 2023. 7 Apr. 2024 <https://theconversation.com/in-a-barbie-world-after-the-movie-frenzy-fades-how-do-we-avoid-tonnes-of-barbie-dolls-going-to-landfill-209601>.

“Personal.” Western Herald 19 Aug. 1966: 12.

“Pet Show Raises $150 For Scouts.” The Broadcaster 22 Nov. 1966: 2.

“‘Present’ Problems Solved.” The Coromandel 20 Oct. 1966: 3.

“Primary School Fete Raises $356.38.” The Berrigan Advocate 28 Feb. 1967: 3.

“Prizewinning Teenage Doll Ideas.” The Australian Women’s Weekly 9 Feb. 1966: 29, 31.

“Purim Panto.” The Australian Jewish Herald 25 Feb. 1966: 17.

“School Fair.” Western Herald 9 Jun. 1967: 4.

“School Fair Outstanding Success.” Western Herald 21 Jun. 1968: 1.

“School Fete.” The Biz 6 Nov. 1963: 10.

Spencer, Amy. DIY: The Rise of Lo-Fi Culture. London: Marion Boyars, 2008.

“Successful ‘Gala Day’ Held for Kindergarten.” The South-East Kingston Leader 7 Apr. 1966: 3.

“Teenage Doll’s Wardrobe.” The Australian Women’s Weekly 26 Jan. 1966: 17.

“The Doll Fell In!” The Australian Women’s Weekly 19 Jan. 1966: 2.

“The Weekly Round.” The Australian Women’s Weekly 9 Feb. 1966: 2.

Thomas, Diana Mary Eva. “The Wagga Quilt in History and Literature.” The Social Fabric: Deep Local to Pan Global: Proceedings of the Textile Society of America 16th Biennial Symposium 19–23 Sep. 2018. Vancouver: Textile Society of America, 2018. 7. Apr. 2024 <https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/tsaconf/1117>.

“Three Lovely Outfits for Teenage Dolls.” The Australian Women’s Weekly 9 Nov. 1966: 37.

Trove. National Library of Australia 2024. 7 Apr. 2024 <http://trove.nla.gov.au>.

Truu, Maani. “The Rise and Fall of Tupperware’s Plastic Empire and the Die-Hard Fans Desperate to Save It.” ABC News 16 Apr. 2023. 7 Apr. 2024 <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-16/tupperware-plastic-container-inspired-generations-of-fans/102224914>.

Tulinski, Hannah. “Barbie as Cultural Compass: Embodiment, Representation, and Resistance Surrounding the World’s Most Iconized Doll.” Hons. Diss. Worchester: College of the Holy Cross, 2017.

“Turn Oddments into Gay Accessories.” The Australian Women’s Weekly 19 Jan. 1966: 3.

“Weather Crowns Tenth Lock Show Success.” Port Lincoln Times 29 Sep. 1966: 15.

Williams, Colin C. “A Lifestyle Choice? Evaluating the Motives of Do-It-Yourself (DIY) Consumers.” International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 32.5 (2004): 270–78.

———. “Re-Thinking The Motives of Do-It-Yourself (DIY) Consumers.” The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 18.3 (2008): 311–23.

Wilson, Katherine. Tinkering: Australians Reinvent DIY Culture. Clayton: Monash UP, 2017.

Wolf, Marco, and Shaun McQuitty. “Understanding the Do-It-Yourself Consumer: DIY Motivations and Outcomes.” Academy of Market Science Review 1 (2011): 154–70.

“Yennora Pupils’ Show Results.” The Broadcaster 25 Jul. 1967: 2.

Saving the Planet with Barbie?

Eva Boesenberg — Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0000

In 2019, Mattel introduced a series of Barbie dolls in connection with National Geographic which included a Polar Marine Biologist, an Entomologist, a Wildlife Photojournalist, and a mostly "made from recycled ocean-bound plastic" Barbie ("Mattel Launches Barbie Loves the Ocean") followed in 2021. One year later, the company issued an "Eco-Leadership Team" composed of a Conservation Scientist, a Renewable Energy Engineer, Chief Sustainability Officer, and Environmental Advocate. This can be understood as an attempt to introduce children to the urgency of ecological issues and communicating to them the importance of research into climate change in an age-appropriate manner. Yet, despite the pedagogical opportunities the dolls might offer, I argue that their introduction and presentation primarily represents an instance of greenwashing, "the act or practice of making a product, policy, activity, etc. appear to be more environmentally friendly or less environmentally damaging than it really is" (Merriam-Webster).

In order to support my thesis, I will analyse four issues: first, I will have a closer look at the way in which the four "Eco-Leadership" dolls express ecological concerns. I will then turn to the material Barbie is made of, plastic, and examine its environmental impact together with Mattel's "The Future of Pink Is Green" campaign. Next, I will discuss the conspicuous consumption Barbie models, focussing on the Malibu Dream House. I will address how this is entangled with settler colonialism in the fourth and final part.

Eco-Leadership Barbie?

The "Eco-Leadership" set, billed as "2022 Career of the Year" collection, consists of four dolls. They come in a cardboard box so that the toys are not immediately visible, and their accessories are stored in a paper bag inside. On the one hand, this makes the dolls less appealing, depriving the potential consumers of visual pleasure. On the other hand, this generates an element of suspense, much like a wrapped present. In keeping with Mattel's slogan "The Future of Pink Is Green", the colour pink is toned down, even though each doll sports at least one accessory in this colour. The toys are sold as a team, thus perhaps suggesting that "eco-leadership" is a collaborative project, which departs from the emphasis on individualism otherwise suggested by Barbie packaging. In their promotional material, Mattel mentions that all of the professional fields the dolls represent are male-dominated ("Barbie Eco-Leadership Team").

The combination of the careers featured makes a telling statement about Mattel's framing of ecological issues. First, there is a Conservation Scientist with binoculars and a notebook, implying that she is undertaking research on larger animals, presumably endangered species. Such a focus on mammals tends to downplay structural issues and the "slow violence" that affects ecological systems, as Arno Hölzer has argued (65). She is joined by a Renewable Energy Engineer with a solar panel, referencing the least controversial form of "green energy". Significantly, this is the classic blond Barbie. Together, these two dolls suggest that science and technology will find solutions to current ecological crises, global warming, et cetera (not that such issues are explicitly mentioned).

The third doll is advertised as Chief Sustainability Officer. "She works with a company or organization to make sure their actions and products are economically, environmentally and socially sustainable", as Mattel puts it ("Barbie Eco-Leadership Team"). Here, businesses are portrayed not as the source of environmental pollution, but as part of the solution to the problem. While this is not entirely false, this particular approach to environmental issues is severely limited, firmly remaining within a neoliberal, capitalist ideology. It reflects what Dan Brockington and Rosaleen Duffy, following Sklair, term "mainstream conservation", which "proposes resolutions to environmental problems that hinge on heightened commodity production and consumption" (4). In this context, a company's promotion of "ethical consumption" "achieves its ethically positive results by not counting various aspects of the production and consumption of its commodities" (9). Finally, there's the Environmental Advocate – not activist (the term was probably too controversial). She is always mentioned last. Her poster reads: "Barbie loves the earth", possibly the most inane ecological slogan ever devised. It is made of plastic.

Acquainting children with ecological issues in an age-appropriate manner is an important task. Playing environmental advocate, or scientist, might certainly be more educational in terms of ecological issues than many of the other career options the "I can be anything" series features. But the absence of a politician in the set, for instance, speaks volumes. The "recipe" for sustainability the dolls embody only requires a heavy dose of science and technology, whipped up by well-meaning entrepreneurship, with a little love for the planet sprinkled on top.

One gets a prettier picture if one looks at the toys from different perspectives. The group is rather diverse, with a Black Conservation Scientist, an Environmental Advocate of Asian descent, and a Chief Sustainability Officer that might be Latinx, and "curvy". Again, though, there is a glaring omission. Indigenous people are not included, despite the fact that, due to environmental racism, they are among the communities most dramatically affected by environmental pollution. Benjamin F. Chavis Jr., who coined the term "environmental racism," defined it as

racial discrimination in environmental policy-making, enforcement of regulations and laws, the deliberate targeting of communities of color for toxic waste disposal and the siting of polluting industries … , [and] the history of excluding people of color from the mainstream environmental groups, decision-making boards, commissions, and regulatory bodies. (Chavis 3)

The consequences for Native Americans were and are severe. By 1999, Winona LaDuke notes,

317 reservations … [were] threatened by environmental hazards … . Reservations have been targeted as sites for 16 proposed nuclear waste dumps [and] [o]ver 100 … toxic waste [sites] … . There have been 1,000 atomic explosions on Western Shoshone land in Nevada, making the Western Shoshone the most bombed nation on earth. (LaDuke 2-3)

The absence of an Indigenous doll in the Barbie "Eco-Leadership Team" is also noteworthy considering the long history of Native American and First Nations resistance to habitat destruction and environmental degradation, from nineteenth-century Lakota Little Thunder and Anishnaabe leader Wabunoquod (LaDuke 3, 5) to the #NoDAPL movement (Gilio-Whitaker 1-13). Following Robin Wall Kimmerer, one could even argue that sustainability, or "beneficial relations between people and the environment", are integral to Native (here: Potawatomi) culture (Kimmerer 6).

On a very different note, any ecological consideration of Barbie dolls must also address their material properties. According to Mattel, the four dolls "are made from recycled plastic … , wear clothing made from recycled fabric and are certified CarbonNeutral® products" ("Barbie Eco-Leadership Team"). This does not apply to the heads and the hair, however – arguably the most distinctive parts of the toys. This had already been the case with the "Barbie Loves the Ocean" series ("Mattel Launches Barbie Loves the Ocean") – apparently, this is not an issue that can easily be fixed. In other words, only some components of the dolls are manufactured from recycled plastic. Further, in 2022, over 175 different Barbie dolls circulated, of which at least 166 were not made from recycled plastic (Google). To speak of "eco-leadership" is thus rather misleading. To further examine this, I want to have a closer look at the materials the dolls consist of.

Life in Plastic…

For a while now, it has become common knowledge that "life in plastic" might not be so "fantastic" after all, Aqua's song notwithstanding. Plastic pollution of the oceans is a huge problem, killing birds, whales, and other seaborne animals; so are non-biodegradable plastic landfill, neo-colonial waste export, the detrimental health effects of phthalates in plastic, and so on (Moore, Freinkel). But what James Marriott and Mika Minio-Paluello call the uneven "distribution of violence" during the transformation of fossil fuel into plastic is less well known. Oil production and transport are frequently militarised, they show, with company interests taking precedence over human rights (173-74, 176). Heavily guarded pipelines cut through traditional grazing and farming areas, endangering people's livelihoods as well as local ecosystems (Marriott and Minio-Paluello 176, 178-79). To the consumers who buy the plastic produced from this oil, such violence is invisible, not least because production processes and their environmental consequences are actively screened from view by fossil fuel companies and local governments (173-74). "Although these social and environmental impacts are inherent within its constitution, the plastic product in its uniformity is seemingly wiped clean of all that violence and disruption", the authors conclude (181).

Where these matters have rarely been discussed in academic research on Barbie, they garnered significant public interest around the time the movie was released in 2023. That the film itself received the Environmental Media Association (EMA) gold seal (Plastic Pollution Coalition) did not lay such concerns to rest. "After the movie frenzy fades, how do we avoid tonnes of Barbie dolls going to landfill?", Alan Pears asked in The Conversation. Waste Online highlighted the "Not-So-Pretty Side of Plastic Toys", Tatler headlined "How Barbie is making climate change worse", and in Medium, Eric Young even aimed to show "How To Save The World from the Toxicity of Barbie!" (with an exclamation rather than a question mark).

Based on a 2022 study by Sarah Levesque, Madeline Robertson, and Christie Klimas, Pears noted that "every 182 gram doll caused about 660 grams of carbon emissions, including plastic production, manufacture and transport" (Pears 2). According to Duke Ines, CEO of Lonely Whale, a campaign devoted to protecting the oceans, "80% of all toys end up in a landfill, incinerators, or the ocean" (Mendez 3). Discarded toys make up around 6% of all plastic in landfills (Levesque et al. 777). There are estimates that, by 2030, in the US emissions from plastic production will supersede those from coal (Pears 2).

Mattel seems to have recognised the problem. In 2021, the company announced its "The Future of Pink Is Green" campaign as part of its "goal to use 100% recycled, recyclable or bio-based plastic materials and packaging by 2030" ("Mattel Launches" 2). The efforts include educational vlogger episodes and Mattel PlayBack, a toy return program aimed at recycling materials in toy production.

With Barbie, this is difficult, though. As Dorothea Ruffin and others have noted, the dolls are composed of different kinds of plastics. The heads consist of hard vinyl, with water-based spray paint used for the eyes; the torso is manufactured from ABS (acrylonitrile butadiene-styrene), the arms of EVA (ethylene-vinyl acetate), and the legs of polypropylene and PVC (polyvinyl chloride) (Ruffin 2). This makes recycling difficult, perhaps even unfeasible. So in effect, I agree with environmental educator Kristy Drutman that Mattel's eco-friendly self-presentation currently qualifies as greenwashing (Mendez 2). With Lyon's and Maxwell's description of the practice as "selective disclosure of positive information about a company's environmental or social performance, without full disclosure of negative information on these dimensions, so as to create an overly positive corporate image" (9) as reference point, it becomes clear that Mattel's strategy perfectly fits this pattern. Their recycling efforts concern only a small number of the Barbie dolls they produce, and even those are only partly fashioned from salvaged material. Both the release of the "Eco-Leadership" set and the "The Future of Pink Is Green" campaign seem designed primarily to bolster the company's reputation.

Conspicuous Consumption and the Malibu Dream House

A central component of the problem is the scale of plastic toy consumption, as Levesque et al. observe. Mattel sells around 60 million Barbies annually (Ruffin 2). This amounts to over one billion dolls since 1959 (ETX Daily UP 2). What the scientists call "the overproduction and purchase of toys" (Levesque et al. 791) testifies to the continued centrality of "conspicuous consumption", the demonstrative, wasteful squandering of resources which, as Thorstein Veblen already noted in 1899, signifies and produces social distinction (Veblen 53; cf. 43-72). As he argued, "an unremitting demonstration of ability to pay" (Veblen 54) was and is central for upholding not only one's social standing, but also one's self-esteem. This is at the core of Mattel's business model: stimulating repeated purchases by issuing and marketing ever-new, "must-have" dolls, clothing, and other accessories. These tend to normalise an upper-class lifestyle, as Barbie's sports car, horse, and dream house attest.

The Malibu Dream House, part of the Barbie universe since 1962, plays a specific role in this context. It symbolises fun, conspicuous leisure, and glamour. With its spectacular beaches, its exclusiveness, and its proximity to Hollywood celebrity culture, Malibu represents the apex of social aspiration for many people. Houses are also sexy, as Marjorie Garber observes in Sex and Real Estate. "Real estate today has become a form of yuppie pornography. … Buyers are entering the housing market with more celerity (and more salaciousness?) than they once entered the marriage market" (Garber 3, 4). The prominence of the house in the Barbie movie is thus not incidental.

Malibu is among the most expensive locations in the US. The median property value is US$4.25m. Due to its beachfront location, its "iconic design" and "cultural value", local brokerage Ruby Home estimated that "the price of the doll's DreamHouse [could be] an eye-watering $10 million" (McPherson). With the understatement typical of the profession, the author of the article writes: "unsurprisingly, Barbie’s home would only be available to high-net-worth buyers".

This does more than reinforce classism. The richest segment of the global population also has an inordinately large carbon footprint and overall negative impact on climate change. According to Oxfam, the richest 1% produced 16% of global consumption emissions in 2019. The propagation of Malibu Dream House living thus does not exactly rhyme with "eco- leadership".

Barbie and Settler Colonialism

The wasteful, environmentally detrimental lifestyle of the very wealthy is part and parcel of US settler colonialism. Unlike other forms of colonialism, settler colonialism attempts to replace the Indigenous population. The term does not only signify a devastating past but names an ongoing process, since Native people have not in fact "disappeared". Lorenzo Veracini puts it succinctly: "settler colonialism is not finished" (Veracini 68-94). As Patrick Wolfe famously wrote, "'settler-colonial state' is Australian [and US] society's primary structural characteristic rather than merely a statement about its origins… . Invasion is a structure not an event" (163).

Malibu is traditional Chumash territory. The name derives from the Ventureño Chumash word Humaliwo, meaning "where the surf sounds loudly" (Sampson). The Chumash were forcibly deprived of their land by the Spanish Mission system in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Deborah A. Miranda has movingly detailed the traumatic effects of this violence in her memoir Bad Indians. But the Chumash are not gone. In fact, the Wishtoyo Chumach Foundation, whose mission it is to "protect and preserve the culture, history, and lifeways of Chumash and Indigenous peoples, and the environment everyone depends on", runs Chumash Village, "with a goal of raising awareness of Chumash people's historical relationship and dependence upon the natural environment as a maritime people", right in Malibu (Wishtoyo Chumach Foundation).

None of this is mentioned by Mattel or the Greta Gerwig movie, which does not only signal a missed opportunity to demonstrate "eco-leadership". Rather, such an omission is typical for settler colonial culture. In order to buttress their claim to the land, settlers try to write Indigenous people out of North American history through a strategy White Earth Ojibwe scholar Jean O'Brien has called "firsting", that is, claiming the European settlers were there first, they "discovered" something, etc. The opening of the movie is a classic example. To the voiceover of "since the beginning of time – since the first little girl ever existed", it shows not Native inhabitants, but European American children in vaguely historical, possibly nineteenth century settler clothing. At other points, Barbie's and Ken's cowboy outfits, their glaring whiteness, references to Davy Crockett and, as Stentor Danielson mentioned in their presentation on "Barbieland's Fantasy Ecology: Terra Nullius on the Pink Beach" at the conference "'You Can Be Anything': Imagining and Interrogating Barbie in Popular Culture", to the Black Hills aka Mount Rushmore, clearly mark them as settlers.

J.M. Bacon has coined the term "colonial ecological violence" to reference the ways in which environmental degradation and settler colonialism are inextricably intertwined (59). Effectively combatting environmental pollution thus also requires addressing settler colonial economic, social, and cultural structures. As Dina Gilio-Whitaker has forcefully argued, the success of environmental justice movements in the US, especially vis-à-vis the fossil fuel industry, may depend on building coalitions with Indigenous activists. Some of the most promising examples actually come from California, where beaches have been protected from corporate development because sacred Native sites would have been negatively affected (148). "It may well be that organizing around Native land rights holds the key to successfully transitioning from a fossil-fuel energy infrastructure to one based on sustainable energy", Gilio-Whitaker concludes (149). "Effective partnerships with allies in the environmental movement will provide the best defence for the collective well-being of the environment and future generations of all Americans, Native and non-Native alike" (162). This is a far cry from any policy Mattel has so far advertised, not to mention implemented.

Conclusion

In different respects, the promise of "Eco-Leadership" Barbies rings hollow. Not only do they suggest an extremely limited understanding of environmental concerns and challenges, Mattel's breezy pronouncements are clearly at odds with its simultaneous boosting of conspicuous consumption, let alone the focus on financial profit generally characteristic for its managerial decisions. In light of the enormous environmental problems generated by the manufacturing and disposal of the dolls, the waste-intensive upper-class lifestyle Barbie outfits and accessories promote, and finally the de-thematising of capitalism and settler colonialism both in Mattel's Barbie discourses and the 2023 Barbie movie, the company's attempts to project an ecologically conscious image seem primarily designed to capitalise on an increasing awareness of ecological problems in Mattel's target audience, rather than constituting a serious reconsideration of its unsustainable corporate strategies.

References

Bacon, J.M. "Settler Colonialism as an Eco-Social Structure and the Production of Colonial Ecological Violence." Environmental Sociology 5.1 (2019): 59-69.

Brockington, Dan, and Rosaleen Duffy. "Introduction: Capitalism and Conservation: The Production and Reproduction of Biodiversity Conservation." In Capitalism and Conservation, eds. Dan Brockington and Rosaleen Duffy. Wiley Online Books, 2011. <https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444391442.ch>.

Chavis, Benjamin F., Jr. “Foreword." In Confronting Environmental Racism: Voices from the Grassroots. Ed. Robert Bullard. Boston: South End P, 1993. 3–5.

Checker, Melissa. Polluted Promises: Environmental Racism and the Search for Justice in a Southern Town. New York: New York UP, 2005.

Danielson, Stentor. "Barbieland's Fantasy Ecology: Terra Nullius on the Pink Beach." Presentation at the conference "'You Can Be Anything': Imagining and Interrogating Barbie in Popular Culture", University of New England, 26 Mar. 2024.

ETX Daily UP. "How Barbie Is Making Climate Change Worse." Tatler Asia, 7 Aug. 2023. 16 Feb. 2024 <https://www.tatlerasia.com/power-purpose/sustainability/barbie-plastic-waste>.

Freinkel, Susan. Plastic: A Toxic Love Story. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2011.

Garber, Marjorie. Sex and Real Estate: Why We Love Houses. New York: Pantheon Books, 2000.

Gilio-Whitaker, Dina. As Long as Grass Grows: The Indigenous Fight for Environmental Justice, from Colonization to Standing Rock. Boston: Beacon P, 2019.

Google. "How Many Different Barbies Are There 2022?" 11 May 2022. 17 May 2024 <https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=Barbie+how+many+2022+releases%3F>.

Gordon, Noah. “Barbie and the Problem with Plastic.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 20 July 2023. 16 Feb. 2024 <https://carnegieendowment.org/2023/07/20/barbie-and-problem-with-plastic-pub-90241>.

Merriam-Webster. “Greenwashing.” N.d. 5 May. 2024 <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/greenwashing>.

Hölzer, Arno. "Aesthetic Strategies of the WWF – Reinforcing the Culture-Nature Dichotomy." MA thesis. Berlin: Humboldt University, 2018.

Kimmerer, Robin Wall. Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge, and the Teaching of Plants. Milkweed Editions, 2013.

LaDuke, Winona. All Our Relations: Native Struggles for Land and Life. Chicago: Haymarket Books, 1999.

Levesque, Sarah, Madeline Robertson, and Christie Klimas. “A Life Cycle Assessment of the Environmental Impact of Children's Toys.” Sustainable Production and Consumption 31 (2022): 777–93.

Lyon, T.P., and A.W. Maxwell, "Greenwash: Corporate Environmental Disclosure under Threat of Audit." Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 20 (2011): 3-41.

Marriott, James, and Mika Minio-Paluello. “Where Does This Stuff Come From? Oil, Plastic, and the Distribution of Violence.” Accumulation: The Material Politics of Plastic. Eds. Jennifer Gabrys, Gay Hawkins, and Mike Michael. London: Routledge, 2013. 171–83.

Mattel. "Barbie Eco-Leadership Team (2022 Career of the Year Four Doll Set)." Product Description. N.d. 28 Jan. 2024 <https://creations.mattel.com/products/barbie-eco-leadership-team-2022-career-of-the-year-four-doll-set-hcn25>.

———. "Barbie Sustainability / The Future of Pink Is Green." 11 Apr. 2024. 29 Jan. 2024 <https://shop.mattel.com/pages/barbie-sustainability>.

———. "Mattel Launches Barbie Loves the Ocean; Its First Fashion Doll Made from Recycled Ocean-Bound* Plastic." 10 June 2021. 16 Feb. 2024 <https://corporate.mattel.com/news/mattel-launches-barbie-loves-the-ocean-its-first-fashion-doll-collection-made-from-recycled-ocean-bound-plastic>.

———. "The Future of Pink Is Green: Barbie Introduces New Dr. Jane Goodall and Eco-Leadership Team Certified CarbonNeutral® Dolls Made from Recycled Ocean-Bound Plastic." 12 July 2022. 29 Jan. 2024 <https://corporate.mattel.com/news/the-future-of-pink-is-green-barbie-introduces-new-dr-jane-goodall-and-eco-leadership-team-certified-carbonneutral-dolls-made-from-recycled-ocean-bound-plastic>.

McPherson, Marian. "Barbie's Malibu DreamHouse Would Command $10M — If It Was Real." Inman Select, 5 July 2023. 2 Mar. 2024 <https://www.inman.com/2023/07/05/barbies-malibu-dreamhouse-would-command-10m-if-it-was-real/>.

Méndez, Lola. “There’s a Recycled Barbie Now, But Are Plastic Toys Really Going Green?” Live Kindly 2024. 16 Feb. 2024. <https://www.livekindly.com/plastic-toys/>.

Miranda, Deborah A. Bad Indians: A Tribal Memoir. Berkeley, CA: Heyday, 2013.

Moore, Charles, and Cassandra Phillips. Plastic Ocean: How a Sea Captain's Chance Discovery Launched a Determined Quest to Save the Oceans. New York: Avery, 2011.

O'Brien, Jean. Firsting and Lasting: Writing Indians Out of Existence in New England. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 2010.

Oxfam International. “Richest 1% Emit as Much Planet-Heating Pollution as Two Thirds of Humanity.” 20 Nov. 2023. 28 Feb. 2024 <https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-emit-much-planet-heating-pollution-two-thirds-humanity>.

Pears, Alan. “In a Barbie World … after the Movie Frenzy Fades, How Do We Avoid Tonnes of Barbie Dolls Going to Landfill?” The Conversation 17 July 2023. 16 Feb. 2024 <https://theconversation.com/in-a-barbie-world-after-the-movie-frenzy-fades-how-do-we-avoid-tonnes-of-barbie-dolls-going-to-landfill-209601>.

Ruffin, Dorothea. “Is Life in Plastic Recyclable after All?” Plastic Reimagined 3 Aug. 2023. 26 Mar. 2024 <https://www.plasticreimagined.org/articles/is-life-in-plastic-fantastic-after-all-the-aftermath-of-barbie>.

Sampson, Mike. ''Humaliwo: Where The Surf Sounds Loudly.'' California State Parks, n.d. 5 May 2024 <https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=24435>.

Veblen, Thorstein. The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Dover Publications, 1994 [1899].

Veracini, Lorenzo. The Settler Colonial Present. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.

Waste Online. “From Pink Paint to Landfills: Barbie's Blockbuster Movie and the Not-So-Pretty Side of Plastic Toys.” 10 Aug. 2023. 16 Feb. 2024 <https://wasteonline.uk/blog/barbies-blockbuster-movie-and-the-not-so-pretty-side-of-plastic-toys/>.

Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation. 2022. 28 Feb. 2024 <https://www.wishtoyo.org/>.

Wolfe, Patrick. Settler Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology: The Politics and Poetics of an Ethnographic Event. London: Cassell, 1999.

Young, Eric. “How to Save The World from the Toxicity of Barbie!” Medium 18 July 2023. 16 Feb. 2024 <https://medium.com/@eric3586young/how-to-save-the-world-from-the-toxicity-of-barbie-5a09f02d4438>.

From Doll to Screen

Emma Carroll Hudson — Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0000

Barbie was the largest worldwide film release of 2023, dominating the box office with over $1 billion in earnings (PRNewswire). The reported marketing budget was over $150 million, which was greater than the $145 million spent on making the film (Adekaiyero). While marketing and public relations (PR) differ in approach and goals, the overall goal for Barbie was evident in the campaign: get fans excited for the film release. The number of collaborations, events, and advertisements executed for the Barbie campaign was extensive, with the convergence of traditional and digital media interplaying seamlessly. The vast majority of PR and marketing professionals were talking about the campaign as a superior example for the field to follow for the purposes of fuelling a passionate target audience. This article examines the public relations strategies that heightened fan interest in Barbie and reaffirms Barbie as a cultural icon. By analysing the most noteworthy components of the Barbie campaign that were highlighted in articles and PR blog posts, valuable insights are shared regarding how audience participation cultivates the success of cultural phenomena. These insights underscore the symbiotic relationship between PR practitioners and fans.

PR’s Role in Barbie

The film industry recognises the pivotal role PR plays in getting people to the theatre, especially in a post-COVID-19 world where it is estimated that only eight percent of US citizens go often to the theatres as of 2022, with over half never going to the movie theatres (Statista Research). Another factor that has affected movie-going trends is the accessibility of streaming services. A poll from HarrisX found that two-thirds of US adults prefer to wait for movies that premiere in theatres to be released on streaming (Maglio).

It’s also becoming clear that the ‘Barbenheimer’ opening weekend is a box office standout, as 2024 box office numbers are predicted to drop by over one billion dollars (D’Alessandro). This was determined by the movies that have come out as of March 24, with anticipated titles like Madame Web and Argyle tanking, and Dune: Part Two being the best thus far with an $80 million at the box office (Carras). That is less than half of what Barbie made on opening weekend at $162 million (Fischer). Evidently, the hype around ‘Barbenheimer’ is a topic that continues to be investigated, as reports of fan anecdotes and fan made content continue coming out (D’Alessandro).

Before ‘Barbenheimer’ became the plan for fans, the PR for Barbie started before production began. Presumably, those outside of PR and marketing professions assume that trailers are the starting point for promoting a film, but it starts at the beginning of the film’s creation, when rumours and press releases come out revealing who is going to work on the project (Qiang). At the 2021 CinemaCon, Warner Bros made the announcement that a live-action Barbie movie would come to theatres in the summer of 2023 (Soares). The film’s director and main star, Greta Gerwig and Margot Robbie, were signed onto the project in 2020, and the full cast list was shared in 2022, which built excitement with fans because of the names attached to the project indicating the star power interest (Murphy).

Pre-production is key in starting to build excitement for any movie, but how Barbie approached pre-release with its trailers continued to build the mystery surrounding the movie’s plot. The first teaser trailer was released as part of the series of trailers ahead of Avatar: The Way of Water (2022) – a highly anticipated sequel since Avatar broke all-time box office records in 2009 (Soares; Romano). Then, on 4 April 2023, character posters were released alongside the second trailer, which still didn’t reveal much about the plot, but did incorporate snippets of dialogue that were indicative of a more PG-13 sense of humour (Soares). The character posters quickly became the Internet’s new favourite meme because of the taglines that gave some insight into the Barbies and Kens in the movie (Hudgins). Joining in on the trend didn’t require Photoshop; Warner Bros. partnered with PhotoRoom to create the interactive barbieselfie.ai generator, which was used over 13 million times since it was released on April 3 – a day ahead of the character posters (Barr).

In PR and marketing campaigns, earned media success is the goal, meaning that the social media buzz happens organically. Movie trailer spots and particular partnerships, as sometimes partners will pay to collaborate more on one side of the deal, are examples of paid media, which is most of what the marketing budget supports. In an interview with Variety, Josh Goldstine, Warner Bros. president of global marketing, used the terms ‘earned media’ and ‘paid media’ to talk about the different elements of the Barbie campaign (Rubin). These terms are rooted in the public relations lexicon of the PESO (paid media, earned media, shared media, and owned media) model, and evolve as multimedia channel opportunities expand (Detrich). Understanding where media types fit in the PESO Model ensures that a PR campaign has a holistic approach in reaching its target audience, or rather, ‘publics’, as a way of identifying consumers as co-creators (Pieczka).

For context, the PESO Model was coined by Gini Detrich in 2014, and it became popularised because it is a comprehensible, yet high-level framework categorising converged media (Brandpoint). Applying this model helps better understand the strategy and goals of PR, marketing, and advertising campaigns, and in the case of Barbie, figuring out where certain campaign comments fit in the model allows outsiders a means to ascertain the audience mapping. The terms ‘audience’ and ‘publics’ are often treated as synonymous in describing a group of consumers, but in the PR field, the key difference is that the former is passive in receiving PR messages, while the latter describes having an active response (Knighton and Wakefield). Having “an active response” means being invited or motivated to take action as part of two-way communication (Knighton and Wakefield), and fans can use social media to voice their excitement and participate in unplanned trends, with ‘Barbenheimer’ being a prime example.

Appealing to fans as the intended public of the Barbie campaign was crucial. The selfie AI generator was only the beginning in a series of earned media efforts. Barbie had over one hundred brand deals licenced before the movie was released in late July, with the licencing for products ranging from clothing brands to entertainment and lifestyle (Addley). All of the pink collaborations reignited Barbiecore as a fashion trend (Dockerman). Mattel having multiple partnerships enabled the notice around Barbie to have a life of its own as fans (Rubin). Essentially, the role of PR in Barbie aligns with what Barbie represents, which is to give the public a combination of empirical and imaginative thought to take action (Pieczka), or in other words, ‘you can be anything’ with Barbie.

Fig. 1: PESO model of Barbie campaign milestones.

Fan Engagement: All Things Barbiecore

Fan engagement is becoming an increasing focus of contemporary PR campaigns. The idea of what a “fan” is can vary but we have an inherent idea or assumption of what it means based on our standpoint, and academic definitions tend to revolve around being an “enthusiast” or “cultist” and “follower” (Hills). The research on the intersection of public relations and fandom is growing, as the need to better understand fandom audiences is pertinent to ideas of what being a fan means as an identity.

Academic works that specify the relationship between fandom and public relations are actualised in two editions co-edited by Hutchins and Tindall (2016; 2021). The current state of PR theories does not recognise fan motivations that occur within fandom, meaning that two-way communication has altered the responses that are gathered from target audiences (Hutchins and Tindall). In the case of Barbie, the earned media response is indicative of great success, such as having over 7 million social media mentions in 2023 and over 227 million engagement actions (Galliot). Conversation surrounding ‘Barbiecore’ outfit ideas alone saw over 11 million views on TikTok (Smith).

For movies, generating fan engagement is an obvious need. There are instances in the entertainment industry wherein movie fans or television fans mobilise out of passion to see certain ideas or wants fulfilled (Fraser and Buckler). The 2023 Writers Guild of America Strike taught the industry and the public many things about writing, wages, and AI, and how the strike relates to fan passions is that fans want to see quality, authentic writing, which AI cannot achieve (Lawler). The reveal of Greta Gerwig being part of Barbie as co-screenwriter and director made fans confused, yet excited, since Gerwig is well-known for feminist-centric movies (Dockterman). Fans love to support passionate creators who put thoughtful effort into the stories and characters, and with creating the first-ever live-action Barbie movie, the high feels to fill in were massive.

Barbie has been around for sixty-five years and is one of the most recognisable toys on a global scale with 99 percent awareness (Weitzman). Though having over one hundred brand deals for promoting the movie can garner great fan appeal, having those deals does not promise success without consideration of what fans want. Barbie and Mattel have a long history, and the film “doesn’t miss a beat” – enabling the film to become enriched by acknowledging both Barbie’s successes and polarising feminism (Lord). The movie premiere showed how Barbie was more than a doll, with a sea of pink outfits going to watch the movie, the fan response was more than the marketing team hoped for in setting its goals (Rubin).

Though the exact sales numbers on how the different licences succeeded or not are unavailable, the social media conversation and in-person dress-up were strong indicators of success beyond the numbers, as fans wanted to talk about Barbie and what the doll and movie meant to them (Keegan). The approach in doing so is not directly asking fans to get creative; it is an implicit open invitation for the public to contribute to the discourse (Piezka). Associate professor at Boston University, Amy Shanler, explains that Barbie is a well-executed campaign because “the best PR isn’t when you do your own Public Relations. It’s when other people are doing it for you” (qtd. in Laskowski).

Barbie’s Fan Engagement Techniques

In examining the Barbie campaign, the key ideas to note are: fulfilling the PESO Model, appealing to fan knowledge of Barbie (including the doll’s controversies), and leaving room for imagination. This draws on articles analysing the PR strategy by PR practitioners who are currently active in the field, along with insights from online articles with direct marketer interviews. The PESO Model, despite not being a long-standing PR framework, is the most widely used and talked about application not only for building PR campaigns but for being able to dissect major campaigns from the outside looking in. By applying the PESO Model to what is known about the Barbie campaign, not only are all aspects of the model met, but it is impactful in how strongly the Barbie identity and message are implemented.

As mentioned, Barbie is a highly recognisable toy, and most people are familiar with Barbie dolls. Appealing to fan knowledge about Barbie, encompassing all of the positive and negative aspects of the doll, was an enjoyable factor of the movie. And in the weeks leading up to the movie, the mystery of the plot was alluring, yet fans were excited to see what Barbie lore would be included. Arguably, the most impactful aspect of a PR campaign is having strategies that can potentially inspire a public (target audience) to mobilise. ‘Barbenheimer’ was not part of the marketing plan, and neither was dressing up in Barbiecore to see the film, but because of the overwhelming success in earned media and shared media, these trends came to fruition and will be remembered as part of what made Barbie a global success.

While Barbie had a massive marketing budget, the success that the campaign saw was rooted in fan engagement. The structure of the campaign, with its numerous collaborations, trailers that gave everything visually but nothing plot-wise, star-studded cast, and activities to involve fans like the selfie AI generator and wearing pink to automatically become a Barbie, built an unflappable excitement for a wide-ranging audience. Looking ahead, the PR and marketing industries can utilise the Barbie campaign as an example of fan collaboration by giving fans the tools to become co-creators. To be a successful campaign, knowing the converged media types that are necessary to implement for a diverse fan audience is essential in creating further accessibility. This means that employing the PESO Model structure ensures great reach, whether or not the campaign is backed by Mattel’s budget. The Barbie campaign was loud and unapologetically pink, and such authenticity is what makes fans empowered to embrace Barbie as a cultural icon. The excitement generated for Barbie can’t be easily replicated for other movies or products in terms of massive marketing budgets, but the core of appealing to fans can be studied and taken into consideration for future campaigns. The makings of success for Barbie are in how the campaign gave fans the tools to become collaborators in the campaign.

References

Addley, Esther. “From Airbnb to Xbox: Brand Barbie Goes for Big Bucks with 100 Partnerships.” The Guardian, 1 July 2023. <https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/jul/01/from-airbnb-to-xbox-brand-barbie-goes-for-big-bucks-with-100-partnerships>.

Adekaiyero, Ayomikun. “‘Barbie’ Reportedly Had a $150 Million Marketing Budget – More than the Movie’s Actual Budget.” Business Insider, 24 July 2023. <https://www.businessinsider.com/barbie-had-150-million-marketing-budget-2023-7>.

Barr, Aaron. “‘Barbie’ AI Selfie Generator Goes Viral with 13m Users.” Marketing Dive, 27 July 2023. <https://www.marketingdive.com/news/barbie-ai-selfie-generator-13m-users /689191/>.

Beckett, Lois. “How Did Barbie Do It? Warner’s Head of Marketing on Creating a ‘Pink Movement.’” The Guardian, 28 July 2023. <https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/jul/28/warner-bros-marketing-head-josh-goldstine-barbie-pink-movement>.

Brandpoint Staff. “Peso Model for PR: Paid, Earned, Shared, Owned Media.” Brandpoint, 5 Apr. 2024. <https://www.brandpoint.com/blog/earned-owned-paid-media/>.

Carras, Christi. “Oscars Mark Last Hurrah for ‘Barbenheimer’ as 2024 Box Office Faces Uncertain Future.” Los Angeles Times, 9 Mar. 2024. <https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2024-03-09/oscars-2024-barbie-oppenheimer-box-office>.

D’Alessandro, Anthony. “Domestic Box Office Expected to Drop by $1 Billion in 2024 amid Fewer Films & Waning Moviegoer Sentiment. But 31 Tentpoles Provide Hope.” Deadline, 31 Dec. 2023. <https://deadline.com/2023/12/box-office-2024-predictions-movies-cinemas-1235682149/>.

Dietrich, Gini. “A 2024 Peso ModelTM Primer for Communicators.” Spin Sucks – Professional Development for PR and Marketing Pros, 28 Mar. 2024. <https://spinsucks.com/communication/pr-pros-must-embrace-the-peso-model/>.

Dockterman, Eliana. “All the Barbie Partnerships, from Crocs to Burger King.” Time, 13 July 2023. <https://time.com/6294123/barbie-partnerships-crocs-burger-king/>.

Dockterman, Eliana. “How Barbie Came to Life.” Time, 27 June 2023. <https://time.com/6289864/barbie-time-cover-story/>.

Gaillot, Ann-Derrick. “Barbie vs. Oppenheimer in Social Media Numbers.” Meltwater, 13 Mar. 2024. <https://www.meltwater.com/en/blog/barbie-oppenheimer-social-media>.

Hills, Matt. Fan Cultures. Routledge, 2005.

Hudgins, Ryan. “Barbie Posters Have Become the Internet’s New Favorite Meme.” TODAY, 5 Apr. 2023. <https://www.today.com/popculture/movies/barbie-posters-internets-new-favorite-meme-rcna78348>.

Keegan, Matthew. “How Barbie Has Sustained as One of the Most Successful Toy Brands of All Time.” Campaign Asia, 9 Aug. 2023. <https://www.campaignasia.com/article/how-barbie-has-sustained-as-one-of-the-most-successful-toy-brands-of-all-time/485675>.

Laskowski, Amy. “Why Are We Obsessed with Barbie? And Why Is Barbie Still Here?” Boston University, 19 July 2023. <https://www.bu.edu/articles/2023/why-are-we-obsessed-with-barbie/>.

Lawler, Kelly. “Exclusive: Survey Says Movie and TV Fans Side with Striking Actors and Writers.” USA Today, 4 Aug. 2023. <https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2023/08/02/sag-aftra-wga-hollywood-strikes-fans-side-with-actors-and-writers-survey/70506956007/>.

Lord, M.G. Forever Barbie: The Unauthorized Biography of a Real Doll. 30th ed. Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2024.

Maglio, Tony. “Two-Thirds of U.S. Adults Would Rather Wait to Watch Movies on Streaming.” IndieWire, 20 Mar. 2024. <https://www.indiewire.com/news/analysis/movies-on-streaming-not-in-theaters-1234964413/>.

Murphy, Chris. “A Complete History of the ‘Barbie’ Movie.” Vanity Fair, 12 Apr. 2023. <https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2023/04/a-complete-history-of-the-barbie-movie>.

Pieczka, Magda. “Looking Back and Going Forward: The Concept of ‘the Public’ in Public Relations Theory.” Public Relations Inquiry 8.3 (2019): 225–244. <https://doi.org/10.1177/2046147x19870269>.

“Public Relations and Participatory Culture Fandom, Social Media and Community Engagement.” Eds. Amber Hutchins and Natalie T.J. Tindall. Routledge, 2016. DOI: 10.4324/9781315766201.

Qiang, Rico. “How Does Public Relations Work in the Film Industry.” Boston University, 19 Apr. 2022. <https://www.bu.edu/prlab/2022/04/19/how-does-public-relations-work-in-the-film-industry/>.

Romano, Nick. “James Cameron Has Now Directed 3 of the 5 Highest-Grossing Movies Ever.” Entertainment Weekly, 27 Jan. 2023. <https://ew.com/movies/james-cameron-directed-3-of-5-highest-grossing-movies-ever-avatar-the-way-of-water/>>.

Rubin, Rebecca. “Inside ‘Barbie’s’ Pink Publicity Machine: How Warner Bros.. Pulled off the Marketing Campaign of the Year.” Variety, 12 Nov. 2023. <https://variety.com/ 2023/film/box-office/barbie-marketing-campaign-explained-warner-bros-1235677922/>.

Smith, Emily. “The Barbenheimer Phenomenon: What Social Data Tells Us.” Brandwatch, 3 Aug. 2023. <https://www.brandwatch.com/blog/barbenheimer/>.

Soares, Isabella. “‘Barbie’: Release Date, Cast, Trailer, and Everything You Need To Know.” Collider, 17 Dec. 2023. <https://collider.com/barbie-movie-release-date-cast-trailer/>.

Statista Research. “U.S.: Post-Pandemic Moviegoing Frequency 2022.” Statista, 29 June 2023. <https://www.statista.com/statistics/1316061/post-pandemic-moviegoing-frequency-us/>.

Wakefield, Robert, and Devin Knighton. “Distinguishing among Publics, Audiences, and Stakeholders in the Social Media Era of Unanticipated Publics.” Public Relations Review 45.5 (2019). <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101821>.

Warner Bros. Home Entertainment. “The Highest Grossing Film of 2023 Worldwide: Barbie.” PR Newswire, 5 Sep. 2023. <https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-highest-grossing-film-of-2023-worldwide-barbie-301917178.html>.

Weitzman, Sarah. “Barbie: From Doll to Global Empire.” Fox School of Business, Temple University, 19 July 2023. <https://www.fox.temple.edu/news/2023/07/barbie-doll-global-empire>.

Unveiling Ken

Revna Altiok — Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0000

Introduction

"Barbie has a great day every day, but Ken only has a great day if Barbie looks at him", states the narrator in Barbie (2023). Directed by Greta Gerwig, the film not only claimed the title of the highest-grossing film of the year but also prompted its audience to reconsider a character they had previously mostly overlooked; another one of Barbie’s many accessories: Ken. Ken's identity as Barbie's companion is fundamentally dependent upon the presence and recognition of his more prominent female counterpart. This highlights Ken's secondary role, where he serves as a supporting figure to Barbie's idealised existence. Akin to a Manic Pixie Dream Boy (MPDB) overshadowed by Barbie, we realise Ken’s lack of identity. Throughout the film, Ken, initially depicted as identity-less, embarks on a journey of self-discovery, challenging the confines imposed by white patriarchy, although it doesn’t seem that way at first. This article will first establish Ken's MPDB status, highlighting traits such as (a) seeking to elevate and challenge the main character’s beliefs, (b) harbouring both gentleness and deviousness, while also engaging in playful yet mildly destructive mischief, (c) acting as a catalyst for change, (d) exhibiting a desire to escape, disappear, or transform, leaving valuable lessons behind, and (e) existing solely within the perception of or for the benefit of the main character. Subsequently, it will follow his journey, ultimately examining how a humanoid doll undergoes healing particularly concerning gender issues. Through the deconstruction of his narrative, this article aims to uncover the underlying power dynamics at play and to explore how Ken's transformation contributes to broader conversations surrounding gender fluidity and representation. By doing so, the article will provide an understanding of Ken's role and contribution to the feminist cause, while also offering insights into the broader cultural significance of the film.

Manic Pixie Dream Girl

In contemporary discourse, the term MPDGirl has gained recognition following its coinage by Nathan Rabin: “that bubbly, shallow, cinematic creature that exists solely in the fevered imaginations of sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace life and its infinite mysteries and adventures” (Rabin, "The Bataan"). It rapidly gained eminence within popular culture, precipitating a widespread societal fixation on the quest for mining more MPDGs, up to the point where Rabin himself voiced his regret about coining the term ("I’m Sorry"). However, the MPDG was already a presence among us. As Laurie Penny states in the article "I Was a Manic Pixie Dream Girl", “Like scabies and syphilis, Manic Pixie Dream Girls were with us long before they were accurately named”. Additionally, Gouck contends that “the Pixie is a descendant of the Classical Muse and also has roots in the Pygmalion myth” (527). Thus, tracing from these foundational mythical and ancient iterations to contemporary relatives such as the Earnest Elfin Dream Gay (EEDG) and the “Magical Negro”, popularised by Spike Lee, reveals a diverse family tree.

Although various writers for online platforms have declared the demise of the MPDG (Eby; Harris; Stoeffel), the trope constantly found ways to revive itself. Harris, in her 2012 article "Is the Manic Pixie Dream Girl Dead?", claimed that the trope has been turned on its head with later iterations like Ruby Sparks, “depicting a writer (Paul Dano) whose idealistic, winsome female character comes to life and challenges patriarchal notions of what women actually want”. Tannenbaum, on the other hand, suggested that the MPDG isn’t dead but just evolved through a loophole: the tragic backstory. This article contends that as long as a concept remains in circulation, it cannot die. Thus, even this article itself contributes to the preservation of the phenomenon in question.

Manic Pixie Dream Boy

In 2012, Molly Lambert introduced a notable extension of the MPDG archetype: the MPDB. Lambert described the MPDB as a character who uplifts the heroine's self-confidence through comfort, inspiration, and nurturing support, without expecting anything in return.

He … tamps down her … temper while appreciating her quirks … . He’s a nerd, but not an angry … one. He’s handsome, but he has no idea … . His … hobbies might be immature … but it doesn’t extend to his emotions … . He’s a selfless, responsible Peter Pan. (Lambert)

The likening of the MPDB to a selfless and responsible Peter Pan is flawed. One of the main reasons that make Peter Pan Peter Pan is that he doesn’t want to become an adult and be burdened with responsibilities. Additionally, the notion of the MPDB wanting nothing in return is flawed, as the MPDB's actions are usually driven by a fixation obsession rather than genuine altruism. Consequently, rather than epitomising selflessness, the MPDB defined by Lambert aligns more closely with an idealised EveryWoman’sDreamBoy archetype. In 2015, Anna Breslaw introduced another definition, labelling the MPDB as a “self-mythologizing ‘free-spirited’ dude”; however, it still remains unclear and unsatisfactory.

Since its inception, there has been a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of the MPDB. Originally rooted in a female-centric trope, it requires careful interpretation. When the definitions of the MPDB are applied as previously stated, it effectively transforms into an archetype that conventionally represents many women's ideal. However, unlike the MPDG, who is characterised by her eccentricity, the previous definitions of the MPDB reject this norm. Drawing inspiration from figures such as Peter Pan, Puck, King Kong, the Amphibian Man, the Beast, and Edward Scissorhands, the MPDB embodies a blend of comfort and chaos. This dichotomy is exemplified in Ken, who fulfills the role of comfort and chaos for Barbie, yet finds himself unwanted and unneeded.

The real MPDB is defined by five core features that distinguish it from the misinterpreted notion often associated with the trope.

a) The MPDB seeks to elevate and challenge the main character’s beliefs:

Ken consistently tries to alter Barbie’s perceptions, as evidenced by his persistent attempts to reshape her opinion of him beyond superficial interests. This is exemplified by his pursuits beyond conventional activities, such as his daring act of running into the plastic waves, a seemingly unprecedented action that surprises, shocks, or scares those around him.

b) The MPDB harbours both gentleness and deviousness, while engaging in playful yet mildly destructive mischief:

Ken exhibits a dual nature, demonstrating kindness and charm towards Barbie while simultaneously harbouring ulterior motives, including a deep-seated desire to become Barbie's romantic partner. This complexity in character can be likened to the “nice guy syndrome”, where benevolent actions may mask underlying intentions. Furthermore, upon his return to build patriarchy, this desire is accentuated, showcasing his multilayered personality.

c) The MPDB acts as a catalyst for change:

Ken serves as an important force in instigating transformation, as demonstrated by the significant shifts that occur in both Barbieland and Barbie's life due to Ken's presence. His actions challenge Barbie's beliefs, whether intentionally or inadvertently, leading her to perceive new perspectives and undergo personal growth.

d) The MPDB exhibits a desire to escape, disappear, or transform, leaving valuable lessons behind:

Throughout Ken's MPDB journey, his inclination towards escapism, disappearance, or transformation becomes evident. While his initial desire to accompany Barbie may stem from romantic aspirations, it is also fuelled by the rivalry among the Kens. Once Ken realises there is more than Barbieland and he can want different things, he expresses his desire for change. As Ken evolves and heals, he undergoes a transformation, ultimately becoming a changed entity, yet leaving behind significant lessons that pave the way for the transformation of Barbieland and Barbie.

e) The MPDB exists solely within the perception of or for the benefit of the main character:

Ken’s presence is exclusively crafted within the perspective of, or to serve the needs of, the main character. According to a 2017 GQ article, Michael Shore, the head of Mattel's global consumer insights at the time, states that, “Ken was really viewed as more of an accessory in Barbie’s world, to support the narrative of whatever was happening with the girls” (qtd. in Weaver). This perspective reinforces Ken's role as arm candy within Barbie's world, serving as a complement to her endeavors at a ratio of about 1:7 (Weaver). This aspect highlights the trope's function as a narrative construct intended to support and shape the protagonist's storyline and growth.

The MPDB Ken

Ken (Ryan Gosling) makes his debut appearance in the Barbie movie at the eight-minute mark. While the narrative primarily revolves around Barbie, Ken's introduction is a subtle but significant moment. As Barbieland unfolds before us, Ken's delayed entrance, as another inhabitant of Barbieland, draws attention. Barbie is everywhere, but where is Ken? Amidst the cheerful exchanges of “Hi Barbie, Hi Ken”, Ken's behavior stands out—he doesn't reciprocate the greeting with other Kens, he only greets Barbie. Ken's omission from acknowledging his fellow Kens seems like a deliberate choice—a denial of their existence, perhaps suggesting that he perceives himself as the sole Ken of significance in Barbieland. His exclusive greeting to Barbie highlights this notion; in his world, Barbie is paramount, and other Kens are unimportant in comparison. We understand that there is a rivalry going on between the Kens; there is no Kenship, mainly between Ken (Gosling) and Ken (Simu Liu).

The same evening at the party, while all the Barbies wear complementary yet distinct clothes, the Kens are dressed uniformly in identical outfits. This lack of individuality strips them of identity, claims Roche, “it is a training, an element in the education of controlled individual power ... designed to shape the physique … of [an] individual” (228-9). Uniforms shape individuality into collectivity and thus cause a lack of identity. The white and gold motifs on Kens’ jumpsuits may symbolise collectivity. They are a team; they are minds that have never been shaped before, they are accessories. The 'K' emblem on their jackets further emphasises their lack of identity. Costume designer Jacqueline Durran “imagined Gosling’s character as ‘almost like an accessory’ where his main function is to just be there and match her look. The Kens could all be dressed the same because there wasn’t meant to be anything distinct about them” (Zemler, "Dressing Barbie"). This point is even more highlighted in a scene where Barbie and Ken are in the car going to the real world, where Ken has another jumpsuit that is covered with the letter “B”. In the absence of the other Kens he is even more of an accessory, and even wearing something with his initials is denied, he is Barbie’s property.

Contact with Patriarchy

Barbie and Ken enter the real world, and interestingly, while throughout the travel sequence, Barbie is in front of Ken, leading Ken, in the shot where they enter the real world, Ken is in front of Barbie. Ken, for the first time alone, somehow ends up at Century City: “it is the antithesis of Barbieland”, says Greenwood, “there is an homage to the male construction industry and the male gaze” (Zemler, "On Location"). Men who are passing him say “excuse me, sir, thanks man, what’s up bud”. This new world that he encounters in Century City is giving him an identity. For the first time, he is something more than an unwanted MPDB. He is sir, he is man, he is bud. Since the Kens exist as a second-class species whose sole purpose is to cheer the Barbies on, he cannot comprehend his actual yearning, he thinks common decency (someone saying excuse me) is what patriarchy is. A fish out of water, the manic pixie Ken creates a pastiche of everything he encounters to assume this new identity: male presidents, mini-fridges, golf, a fur coat, and even horses. His first interaction with horses is through two police officers riding horses. Believing that horses are an important part of patriarchy, Ken wearing a cowboy outfit too, internalises the bond between horse and man. Pickel-Chavelier, in a study about horse stories, states that “the horse has been a fundamental element in the evolution of Western civilization” (120). Robinson argues that historically “the human-horse relationship was male-dominated, reflecting the horses’ role as a work tool and the traditional placing of power and power sources under the control of men” (44). Thus, the rider has been considered to have “increased power and an increased sense of power” while evoking “a sense of inferiority and envy” in pedestrians (Robinson 43). Studying the human-horse relationship through the American mounted police, Lawrence claimed that the mounted police have close relationships with their horses. Robinson states that “the officers spend much time with their animals each day and develop a sense of trust” (43). Ken's admiration of horses likely symbolises his evolving understanding of masculinity and power dynamics within patriarchy. Being introduced to horses as symbols of authority and control, he understands them as companions embodying strength, loyalty, and trust. This explains how he understands masculinity as a realm where power is defined by mutual respect and partnership, rather than dominance, which is also probably the reason why he loses interest in patriarchy when he realises it’s not about horses.

Nicholas, in their article "Ken’s Rights?", claims that “radicalization … is often motivated by feelings among … men of being left behind by a feminist world or system that doesn’t value them. This then leads them to long for an imagined natural order of patriarchy where women are back in their place and men regain their entitlements”. Ken’s frustration leads him to introduce patriarchy to his fellow Kens, envisioning a transformation of Barbieland into a new Century City. This shift reflects Ken’s Manic Pixie healing journey: rather than being solely an MPDB, Ken slowly constructs an identity under patriarchy for himself. Drawing from Connell's perspective on hegemonic masculinity, which posits that masculinity is always constructed in response to subordinated masculinities, we see how Ken's desire for change extends to altering the very fabric of Barbieland, from its constitution to its name, renaming it Kendom. This name change holds significance, echoing the concept of “Inceldom” within the larger misogynist ecosystem of the Manosphere, where men perceive themselves as deprived of love and intimacy due to feminist ideals.

In addition to incels, the ‘Manosphere’ is comprised of Men’s Right Activists, Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), AND Pick-Up Artists (PUAs). Each of these groups subscribe to the same underlying philosophy, referred to as the ‘red pill’… When an individual has ‘taken the red pill’, they have enlightened themselves to a reality in which women wield feminism as a weapon against men, depriving them of sex and love. (Gothard et al. 1)

Ken’s new outfit is another important change. As patriarchy leaks into Barbieland, Ken's outfit begins to reflect iconic images of masculinity, such as Sylvester Stallone in a mink coat. Previously, Ken's clothing complemented Barbie's, but now, his fanny pack displays his full name instead of just the letter K, positioned over his non-existent genitalia. This deliberate placement implies a newfound connection between his new identity and his imagined sex.

When discontent Barbies strategise to disrupt the new order, they manipulate Kens' fragile egos, inciting conflict just before the crucial constitution vote. The fighting sequence starts with Ryan Gosling’s "I'm just Ken" song and imagery reminiscent of Rodin's iconic statue “The Thinker”. The Rodin Museum describes the figure as “a being with a tortured body, almost a damned soul, and a free-thinking man, determined to transcend his suffering through poetry”, mirroring Ken's current state of turmoil. In Rodin’s lifetime, there were “many marble and bronze editions in several sizes” that have been executed (Zelazko). Similarly, there are countless iterations of Ken, undermining his belief in his uniqueness. The general anticipation of the statue being impressive but then feeling let down when seeing its real size serves as a poignant metaphor for Ken's inflated self-importance, contrasted with his inherent fragility and insignificance.

As the chorus “I’m just Ken” starts, Ken (Gosling) rides into the battle “on paddle boats reminiscent of cannon-loaded ships, while [Ken (Liu)]’s crew carries him over their shoulders, spinning umbrellas like wheels and holding stick horses as if they were human chariots” (Lee), having frisbees, tennis rackets, and other sports equipment in their hands. This imagery not only captivates the audience but also serves as a reflection of the sports and war imagery in media representations of men. The notion of hegemonic masculinity is intricately woven into such depictions. Jansen and Sabo point out “that the sport/war metaphor is embedded within a “deep structure” of patriarchal values, beliefs, and power relations that, in turn, reflect and advance the agendas of hegemonic masculinity” (2). This metaphor not only reflects but also advances the agendas of hegemonic masculinity. By glorifying competition and valorising traits associated with aggression and dominance, media representations perpetuate narrow and rigid norms of masculinity, reinforcing the hierarchical gender dynamics prevalent in society. However, through playful exploration of these notions, Barbie introduces a significant step in the healing journey of MPDBs, all while cleverly critiquing the inherent associations society makes between masculinity, competitive sports, and even aspects of warfare.

Kenough

As Ken continues his performance, seamlessly transitioning from a part-power ballad, part-battle sequence into a dream ballet, the narrative takes a profound turn. Connell's concept of “gender order”, referring to “a historically constructed pattern of power relations between men and women and definitions of femininity and masculinity” that emerge and are transformed within varying institutional contexts (98-99), becomes particularly relevant when applied to dancing, seen as an institutional context. Silvester, discussing how gender dynamics within dancing evolved, notes that in the 60s, with the twist and later with disco dancing, dancers did not have to have partners any more, which made the “presumptions about the effeminacy of professional male dancers” widespread (qtd. in Owen 18). Because in performance culture female dancers were the objects of desire for usually male spectators, dancing found itself a place inside the borders of femininity, “and homophobic prejudices against male dancers grew” (Owen 18). Initially, at the party, dancing symbolises their confinement to their identities as Barbie’s accessory, and later it serves as a catalyst for shedding the performative shackles of masculinity and patriarchy. Through dance, MPDB Ken embraces authenticity, breaking down the barriers of the embarrassment of showing admiration to his fellow Kens and fostering genuine connection and affection. The Kens help each other up, they giggle, and they kiss each other on the cheek; they are no longer threatened by each other or by showing affection. As the battle sequence comes to an end, one Ken acknowledges that they were only fighting because they didn’t know who they were. What initially began as a melodramatic expression of the insecurities of an incel, angry at his object of affection, transforms into a collective affirmation of self-worth, fostering unity and acceptance among the Kens. Lee aptly describes this transformation as an elevation from internal conflict to self-affirming validation, marking a pivotal shift away from self-destructive behaviours towards mutual respect and understanding.

Ken finally has an identity that is not defined through Barbie’s gaze or patriarchal vision of masculinity. He is not an MPDB that only exists for the protagonist anymore. He finds an identity; however, one he does not know how to express. Connell and Messerschmidt state that “men can adopt hegemonic masculinity when it is desirable; but the same men can distance themselves strategically from hegemonic masculinity at other moments. Consequently, ‘masculinity’ represents not a certain type of man but, rather, a way that men position themselves through discursive practices” (841). Ken still does not abandon what he has found in the real world. Knowing he has been defeated he tries to “strategically” reposition himself. Like a toddler having a temper tantrum, he runs to his mojo dojo casa house, throws himself on his bed, and starts crying, while Barbie tries to comfort him. Myisha et al. suggest that Barbie, as a woman, again is cast in the role of nurturer and comforter, and thus the movie finds itself repeating gender stereotypes. However, missing the point that Ken is crying in this scene, these criticisms are themselves reinforcing gender stereotypes by mistaking common decency for an intrinsic association with women. Ken later denounces patriarchy and learns from Barbie not to define himself by his possessions, his relationship, or his job. Embracing his individuality, he declares, “I'm Ken, and I'm Kenough”, going down the slide, symbolizing a rebirth. In his final shot, Ken is seen with a sweatshirt proclaiming “I’m Kenough”. In embracing his past identities through the bandana and the color pink, he constructs a new identity, one that welcomes all colors.

bell hooks defines feminism as “the struggle to end sexist oppression” for all women without “[privileging] women over men” (26). Greta Gerwig, in an interview with Time, acknowledges the struggles faced by both men and women throughout history, highlighting the universal pressure to meet unrealistic standards (Carlin). This suggests that while women face specific forms of oppression, men too are ensnared by other rigid societal norms, if not the same. By recognising these challenges, feminism advocates for the involvement of men in the movement. Whether it is standing in solidarity with women or confronting their own biases, men play a pivotal role in advancing gender equality. For feminism to thrive, it necessitates men's active participation, urging them to support women's rights and challenge patriarchal structures while remaining open to introspection and growth. Feminism has consistently aimed to dismantle the rigid gender binaries epitomised by the Barbie/Ken dichotomy, advocating for the separation of attributes from their gendered associations. From Barbie, we can glean the lesson that hierarchical and inflexible gender norms benefit no one and that power and social roles should not be determined by one's biological sex. Nicholas, in their article "Ken’s Rights?", claims that online antifeminist discourses reveal parallels between Ken's journey in the movie and themes found in Men’s Rights Activist spaces. Ken's transition from aggrievement to a more enlightened perspective on masculinity mirrors the narratives prevalent in such spaces. This underscores the importance of understanding and addressing men within the context of feminism, as their experiences are intertwined with broader societal structures and expectations.

True progress cannot be achieved if we continue to view those who perpetuate patriarchy or toxic masculinity as “others”. We should see them as humanoid Ken dolls, and in doing so help them to help us trigger answers and solutions. Understanding and addressing these issues is crucial for healing and reducing harm inflicted by patriarchal norms. While Barbie may have its flaws, focussing solely on its shortcomings detracts from the opportunity to address deeper issues regarding society. MPDB Ken's portrayal as a subservient accessory to Barbie raises important questions about gender dynamics and the impact of societal expectations on individuals. Rather than vilifying Ken because he brought patriarchy to Barbieland, and reducing him only to a man, I advocate for understanding his journey and recognising him also as a brainwashed character, alongside the brainwashed Barbies, who needed the help of his friends to heal. By acknowledging and addressing the influence of patriarchal norms on all individuals, including men like Ken, we can work towards healing and progress for all.

References

Barbie. Dir. G. Gerwig. Warner Bros. Pictures, 2023.

Breslaw, Anna. “Beware the Manic Pixie Dream Boyfriend.” The Cut, 13 Sep. 2015. <https://www.thecut.com/2015/09/beware-the-manic-pixie-dream-boyfriend.html>.

Carlin, Shannon. “The History Behind Barbie’s Ken.” Time, 20 Jul. 2023. <https://time.com/6296386/barbie-ken-history/>.

Connell, Raewyn. "The Social Organization of Masculinity." Feminist Theory Reader. Routledge, 2020. 192-200.

———. Gender and Power Cambridge. Polity, 1987.

Connell, Raewyn, and James W. Messerschmidt. "Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept." Gender & Society 19.6 (2005): 829-59.

“Director Spike Lee Slams ‘Same Old’ Black Stereotypes in Today’s Films.” YALE Bulletin & Calender 29.21 (2 Mar. 2001). <http://archives.news.yale.edu/v29.n21/story3.html>.

Eby, Margaret. “The Death of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl.” Brooklyn, 15 Jul. 2014. <https://www.bkmag.com/2014/07/15/the-death-of-the-manic-pixie-dream-girl/>.

Gothard, Kelly Caroline, et al. “The Incel Lexicon: Deciphering the Emergent Cryptolect of a Global Misogynistic Community.” University of Vermont and State Agricultural College, 2021.

Gouck, Jennifer. “The Problematic (Im)persistence of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl in Popular Culture and YA Fiction.” Women's Studies 52.5 (2023): 525-44.

Harris, Aisha. “Is the Manic Pixie Dream Girl Dead?” Slate, 5 Dec. 2012. <https://slate.com/culture/2012/12/manic-pixie-prostitute-video-is-the-latest-critique-of-the-manic-pixie-dream-girl-archetype-video.html>.

hooks, bell. Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. Pluto Press, 2000.

Jansen, Sue Curry, and Don Sabo. “The Sport/War Metaphor: Hegemonic Masculinity, the Persian Gulf War, and the New World Order.” Sociology of Sport Journal 11.1 (1994): 1-17. <https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/ssj/11/1/article-p1.xml>.

Stoeffel, Kat. “The ‘Manic Pixie Dream Girl’ Has Died.” The Cut, 29 July 2013. <https://www.thecut.com/2013/07/manic-pixie-dream-girl-has-died.html>.

Lambert, Molly. “1D Internet Fantasies: Liz Lemon, One Direction, and the Rise of the Manic Pixie Dream Guy.” Grantland: Hollywood Prospectus, 3 Dec. 2012. <https://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/1d-internet-fantasies-liz-lemon-one-direction-and-the-rise-of-the-manic-pixie-dream-guy/>.

Lee, Ashley. “How Hilarious ‘Barbie’ Earworm ’I’m Just Ken’ Brings Toxic Masculinity to Its Knees.” Los Angeles Times, 28 Jul. 2023. <https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2023-07-28/barbie-movie-ryan-gosling-im-just-ken-lyrics-dance-moves-explained>.

Mason, Derrit. “The Earnest Elfin Dream Gay.” Public Books, 9 Nov. 2018. <https://www.publicbooks.org/the-earnest-elfin-dream-gay/>.

Myisha, Nabila, et al. “Decoding the Perpetuation of Patriarchal Culture in the Barbie Movie.” Cultural Narratives 1.2 (2023): 71-82.

Nicholas, Lucy. “Ken’s Rights? Our Research Shows Barbie Is Surprisingly Accurate on How ‘Men’s Rights Activists’ Are Radicalized.” The Conversation, 25 Jul. 2023. <https://theconversation.com/kens-rights-our-research-shows-barbie-is-surprisingly-accurate-on-how-mens-rights-activists-are-radicalised-210273>.

Owen, Craig Robert. Dancing Gender: Exploring Embodied Masculinities. 2014. PhD dissertation. Bath: University of Bath. <https://purehost.bath.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/187931069/OWEN_Craig_PhD_Thesis_1_6_2014.pdf>.

Penny, Laurie. “Laurie Penny on Sexism in Storytelling: I Was a Manic Pixie Dream Girl.” The New Statesman, 7 Aug. 2014. <https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/06/i-was-manic-pixie-dream-girl>.

Pickel-Chavalier, Sylvine. “Popular Horse Stories and the Invention of the Contemporary Human-Horse Relationship through an ‘Alter Ego’ paradigm.” Journal of Sports Science 5 (2017): 119-137. <https://hal.science/hal-01571632/document>.

Rabin, Nathan. “The Bataan Death March of Whimsy Case File #1: Elizabethtown.” The A.V. Club, 25 Jan. 2007. <https://www.avclub.com/the-bataan-death-march-of-whimsy-case-file-1-elizabet-1798210595>.

———. “I’m Sorry for Coining the Phrase 'Manic Pixie Dream Girl'.” Salon, 16 Jul. 2014. <https://www.salon.com/2014/07/15/im_sorry_for_coining_the_phrase_manic_pixie_dream_girl/>.

Robinson, I.H. “The Human‐Horse Relationship: How Much Do We Know?” Equine Veterinary Journal 31.S28 (Apr. 1999): 42–5. DOI: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1999.tb05155.x.

Roche, Daniel. The Culture of Clothing: Dress and Fashion in the Ancien Régime. Cambridge UP, 1996.

Romero-Medina, Pablo, and Júlia Vilasís-Pamos. “Alt-Right, Neomasculinities and Video Games: A Narrative Review.” Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA), 2023. <http://digra.org:9998/DiGRA_2023_CR_1583.pdf>.

Tannenbaum, Emily. “The ‘Manic Pixie Dream Girl’ Isn’t Dead – She Has Just Evolved.” Glamour, 25 Aug. 2020. <https://www.glamour.com/story/the-manic-pixie-dream-girl-isnt-dead-shes-just-evolved>.

“The Thinker.” Musee Rodin, n.d. <https://www.musee-rodin.fr/en/musee/collections/oeuvres/thinker>.

Weaver, Caity. “The Ken Doll Reboot: Beefy, Cornrowed, and Pan-Racial.” GQ, 20 Jun. 2017. <https://www.gq.com/story/the-ken-doll-reboot-beefy-cornrowed-and-pan-racial>.

Zelazko, Alicja. “The Thinker.” Britannica, 20 Feb. 2024. <https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Thinker-sculpture-by-Rodin>.

Zemler, Emily. “On Location: Unboxing Barbie in Venice Beach.” Conde Nast: Traveler, 21 Jul. 2023. <https://www.cntraveler.com/story/barbie-movie-venice-beach>.

———. Dressing Barbie Was Always the Best Part: Just Ask Costume Designer Jacqueline Durran. Yahoo! Movies, 20 Feb. 2024. <https://ca.movies.yahoo.com/dressing-barbie-always-best-part-130045950.html>.

Race and Orientalism in the History of Asian Barbies

Rachel Wang — Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0000

In 1981, Mattel introduced America’s first Asian Barbie as “Oriental Barbie”, described as “dainty and elegant … [in a] long, slender yellow dress”, with hair “pulled back to display her lovely face” (“Oriental Barbie”). Oriental Barbie is purportedly from Hong Kong, yet she is simultaneously marketed to represent the entire Orient in a homogenising, stigmatising manner that exemplifies Robert Park’s concept of the “racial uniform”. The back of Oriental Barbie’s box provides vague, generalising descriptions of “the Orient” that imply the purported superiority of the Occident: “in this part of the world, we eat rice with our meals rather than bread or potatoes. We use chopsticks for eating instead of knives and forks . … Chinese is a picture language … . Below are some examples for you to try” (“Dolls of the World Oriental”). Particularly with the invitation to “try” Chinese, Mattel invites consumers to participate in what Kevin Powell calls the “cultural safari”, a term that, broadly construed, suggests a “fascination with a facet of another’s culture” (Kasulis).

Michael Kimmel notes that such fascination is safe precisely because “you can ‘take [the cultural experience] off’”. Although Mattel begins to produce ethnically specific Asian Barbies in 1982, Ann duCille remarks, “these quick-and-dirty ethnographies only enhance the extent to which these would-be multicultural dolls treat race and ethnic difference like collectibles, contributing more to commodity culture than to the intercultural awareness they claim to inspire” (“Dyes and dolls” 52-53). Because of this blatant cultural marginalisation of race and ethnicity that has been produced for years as a site of foreignness from within the predominantly cisgender, heterosexual, white United States and Barbie universe, I seek to explore how Mattel has perpetuated Orientalism through the production and marketing of Asian Barbies within their Dolls of the World series.

The cultural marginalisation that Mattel creates through the marketing of Asian Barbies is accomplished under the pretense of increasing public knowledge and prompting intercultural awareness, which is stated on the back of Oriental Barbie’s box in a very literal interpretation of Powell’s cultural safari: “come visit the Orient. I know you will find it exotic and interesting”. The back of the box also contains a “miniature cultural history and language lessons” (duCille, “Black Barbie” 341) for the consumer to “try” with each doll from the Dolls of the World series.

The particular “language lesson” featured with Oriental Barbie are Chinese characters that Mattel deems a fitting example of Chinese as a “picture language”. Interestingly enough, an exceedingly domestic overtone is at play with the selected characters: 媽 (mother), 爸 (father), 你 (“you”, but the masculine version of the pronoun), 房 (house), 玩 (play), 愛 (love), 喜 (joy), and 吃 (eat). The image of playing house and of a presumably heteronormative nuclear family seems to be strongly insinuated with this choice of characters. Furthermore, Mattel equates the Orient with “joy” by featuring the character 喜 (joy) alongside the word “Orient” on the front of the box.

In observing the Oriental Barbie box, which states “Meet Barbie from Hong Kong” on the front and depicts the Hong Kong Dollar as “the Oriental currency” on the side, it is worth considering why Mattel chose Hong Kong as the home of Oriental Barbie. For one, Oriental Barbie is not entirely Asian in the sense that Hong Kong was occupied at the time of the doll’s release in 1981, which further complicates the issue of authenticity of racial and ethnic representation. Recalling the United States’ political relations with various Asian countries from the 1970s to the early 1980s may further contextualise Mattel’s decision to make Hong Kong the home of Oriental Barbie, as well as their choices behind which Asian countries to make an ethnic Barbie for.

In the 1970s, Nixon’s ping-pong diplomacy had opened up previously fraught diplomatic relations between the U.S. and China. This change in diplomatic relations also facilitated increased cultural exchange between the two countries. In 1981—the year of Oriental Barbie’s debut and the year Reagan’s presidency began—Hong Kong was a popular U.S. tourist destination in Asia (Crouch 72-73). At the beginning of the 1980s, the Reagan administration’s decision to resist the Soviet Union also impacted on its diplomatic relations with Asian countries such as India, Japan, and China, each of which had varying opinions on how to deal with the U.S.S.R. (Greene 1). Despite differences in political stances, Mattel produced a Barbie for all three countries: India Barbie in 1982, Japanese Barbie in 1985, and Chinese Barbie over a decade later in 1994. Even 1994, the production year of Chinese Barbie, reflects the tensions between the U.S. and China in the early 1980s over the former’s arms sales to Taiwan and the two powers’ burgeoning partnership for “science and technology cooperation” in the 1990s (Minami 88). Contextualising Mattel’s potential reasoning for the particular production of these Asian Barbies allows us to understand why Mattel would want to offer educational content on these particular Asian “countries” (here a simulacrum with Oriental Barbie) to their primarily North-American based audience.

Even then, Mattel’s intent to educate consumers through the reductiveness of their ethnographies contradicts itself, because the cultural marginalisation that results from the marketing and selling of Asian Barbies and the impact it has on the marginalised leads to a “self-contradiction inherent to the claims of civic functions (of furthering knowledge and enabling public enlightenment)—that accompany all imperialist establishments, even … apparently innocent ones” (Chow 95). Indeed, the “innocent” imperialist establishment of the child’s Barbie doll is not so innocent, as Jenny Wills reminds us: “sentimental, picturesque, and childhood playthings are not benign or devoid of serious racialized implications” (Wills 190). In fact, the name of “Oriental Barbie” or any other Asian Barbie “implies her difference, her not-quite-Barbieness”, which Wills first points out with the name of “Black Barbie”. Mattel demarcated a clear distinction between ethnic Barbies and white Barbies when it created and marketed the name of Oriental Barbie and other Asian Barbies. The positioning of Asian Barbies as an ethnic alternative thus creates what Wills calls a “scripted violence”, in which the relationship between white Barbie and ethnic Barbies “scripts racial inferiority upon those Other dolls and the subjects they are meant to celebrate and reflect” (Wills 189).

The vitality of collecting ethnic Barbies as a business is deeply troubling, then, as it demonstrates both Mattel’s success in marketing Asian Barbies as an exoticised other and the many collectors who readily accept and contribute to this narrative. In fact, duCille reveals that “Mattel’s ethnic dolls — particularly those in its Dolls of the World series — are designed and marketed at least as much with adult collectors in mind as with little girls” (“Black Barbie” 339). Mattel media-relations director Donna Gibbs tells duCille that the ethnic dolls are actually marketed more towards adults, “‘although appropriate for children’” (“Black Barbie” 339). Gibbs lays out how Mattel strategically releases only “two or three different nations or cultures [for the Dolls of the World series] each year”, produces these “premium value” dolls in short supply in order to generate a competitive market for them, then retires them from the market after selling them for a mere one to two years (“Black Barbie” 339). Sure enough, Mattel’s marketing strategy proved successful: Westenhouser notes in The Story of Barbie that “the Oriental mold is a popular face mold to which collectors respond favorably” (Westenhouser 27). Because of Mattel’s strategic issuing of only two to three ethnic Barbies per year, “each year it becomes a collectors’ guessing game as to what countries will be this year’s additions” (Westenhouser 119). As a result, Mattel experienced a massive boost in sales through the marketing of the ethnic Barbie as a collectible.

The treatment of race and ethnic difference as a commodified collectible rather than as genuine intercultural awareness is best evidenced by Mattel’s choice to produce Oriental Barbie—and all subsequent Asian Barbies, save for India Barbie—by using the same “Oriental Face Sculpt”. The “Oriental Face Sculpt” was introduced alongside the debut of Oriental Barbie in 1981, and although later productions of Asian Barbies in the Dolls of the World series expanded to specifically represent different Asian countries, such as Japan, China, and Korea, each Asian Barbie still used the same Oriental Face Sculpt. Augustyniak writes, “many new head molds have debuted since 1977, offering more variety and ethnic diversity” (8).

When we observe the history of Barbie face sculpts, however, we find that many face sculpts have easily been produced of white Barbie over the years, with face sculpts even being made in honor of specific fashion designers or events, such as the 2013 Karl Lagerfeld, the 1991 Bob Mackie, and the 2008 Kentucky Derby. Meanwhile, the titular Barbie’s first two Asian friends both use the Oriental Sculpt: Miko (1986-1989), who is Pacific Islander (“Miko”) but was discontinued and replaced by Kira (1985-2001), who is allegedly of Japanese or Vietnamese heritage (“Kira”). These characters have only the Oriental Face Sculpt to represent their ethnic background, which itself remains ill-defined. With the plethora of face sculpts that have been produced over the years for white Barbies, one may be led to ponder why Mattel has not been willing to exert the same amount of effort to properly represent Asian Barbies.

This is because for Mattel, profit always precedes any other motive, including racial and ethnic representation. As duCille explains, “the cost of mass-producing dolls to represent the heterogeneity of the world would be far greater than either corporation or consumer would be willing to pay” (“Black Barbie” 337). Hence, in order to generate profit, “racial and cultural diversity — global heterogeneity — must be reducible to … common, reproducible denominators” (“Black Barbie” 340). The Oriental Face Sculpt, then, is a result of all the “common, reproducible denominators” that Mattel deemed financially profitable enough to use as their attempt at racial and ethnic representation.

The way that Mattel markets ethnic and cultural differences for Asian Barbies in addition to the use of the Oriental Face Sculpt, then, is through variations in skin colour and dress. For instance, Japanese Barbie, Korean Barbie, and Chinese Barbie all use the same Oriental Face Sculpt. The only notable differences between these dolls are the colour of their skin, the clothes that they wear, and their hairstyle. Indeed, duCille writes, while “today Barbie dolls come in a rainbow coalition of colors, races, ethnicities, and nationalities, all of those dolls look remarkably like the stereotypical white Barbie, modified only by a dash of color and a change of clothes” (Skin Trade 38). The uniformness of modularity with face sculpts, coupled with Mattel’s paltry efforts of merely altering the skin colour and clothing of each Asian Barbie, exemplifies Immanuel Wallerstein’s argument that “ethnicization must … be linked to the racism specific to the operations of modern capitalism with its twin objectives of maximizing profits and minimizing production costs” (qtd. in Chow 34). As a corporate giant, Mattel would not be enticed by the idea of adding “more complex, less easily commodified distinctions”, because these distinctions would require additional forms of manufacturing that complicate production and thus do not maximise profits for the corporate body (“Black Barbie” 340). Consequently, “ethnic reproductions [of Asian Barbies] ... simply [melt down and add on] a reconstituted other without transforming the established social order, without changing the mould” (“Black Barbie” 337-8). Mattel’s failure to provide racial and ethnic representation through Asian Barbies is best demonstrated, however, by a case study of India Barbie.

India Barbie was released in 1982 as one of the first Asian Barbies, following the 1981 release of Oriental Barbie. Interestingly enough, India Barbie is the only Asian Barbie who was not created with the Oriental Face Sculpt. Instead, she has the Steffie face mold, which has been used with dolls such as: the titular Barbara Millicent Roberts, Midge, and Summer, who are all white; Teresa, who was introduced as Barbara’s first Latina friend in 1988; Christie, who became the first black Barbie in 1980 (“Steffie”); Hawaiian Barbie (1975) (Westenhouser 135); and Mexican Barbie (1989) (Westenhouser 121). Therefore, Mattel created India Barbie with a racially and ethnically ambiguous face sculpt that has also been used to depict white Barbies, which demonstrates the “relational proximity (or similarity) to [India Barbie’s] white doll counterparts” (Wills 189). The sari that India Barbie wears is additionally problematic in that it is worn inaccurately. Further, on the back side of the India Barbie (1982) box we see exoticising and othering language that insinuates the superiority of the Occident, as is the case for Oriental Barbie’s introduction.

The way in which India Barbie is dressed with her sari is a far cry from how the sari is properly worn. What is also of interest is that India Barbie is wearing red and gold, which are colours typically only worn at Indian weddings. This sartorial choice may, at a first glance, be interpreted as yet another culturally insensitive blunder of Mattel’s, but when India Barbie’s outfit is considered alongside Japanese Barbie, who wears a red wedding kimono, and Malaysian Barbie, who also wears the semblance of a wedding garment, these choices of outfit begin to call into question why Mattel repeatedly decides to dress Asian Barbies in wedding attire.

Mattel’s affinity for dressing Asian Barbies in bridal outfits can likely be explained by the corporation’s sales of wedding-affiliated Barbies, which have been some of the historically best-selling dolls in the Barbie universe. In the image caption for the Wedding Day Set (1959), which features the first Barbie wedding gown, Westenhouser notes, “always the top selling [Barbie] garment … is the wedding gown” (32). In Westenhouser’s view, Barbies wearing wedding gowns remain the best seller each year (32) because “every little girl dreams of the perfect romantic wedding and Barbie makes that fairytale come alive” (32). From a capitalist standpoint, then, Mattel is simply capitalising upon the supposedly widespread demand for Barbies in wedding dresses, and Mattel can only further ensure the financial success of Asian Barbies by choosing to dress Barbies such as India Barbie in semblances of wedding attire, even if these outfits are not culturally accurate or fully representative.

Aside from the matter of dressing India Barbie in a red and gold sari, there is also the question of why Mattel chooses to focus on descriptions of Asian Barbies’ hair so heavily, including that of India Barbie. For instance, with the India Barbie and Japanese Barbie, Mattel uses nearly identical phrasing of the doll’s hair being pulled back to reveal the “delicate features” of her face. India Barbie’s description reads: “her long brown hair is pulled back, accenting her delicate features” (“India Barbie”), while Japanese Barbie’s description reads: “her black hair is pulled away from her face and tied with a red and white hairband” (“Japanese Barbie”). This diction first appears in Oriental Barbie’s product description, and it is especially interesting to consider why Mattel might emphasise the entirety of an Asian Barbie’s face being shown, almost as if to suggest that her face is so exotic that it needs to be fully on display for the consumer to get a proper look at the exotic “other’s” face. It seems that with Mattel’s emphasis on the entirety of the Asian Barbie’s face being revealed, ethnicity becomes “the site of a foreignness” that is a privileged society’s way of “projecting into some imaginary outside elements it seems foreign and inferior” (Chow 34-5).

Throughout our case study of numerous Asian Barbies, Mattel’s portrayal of racial and ethnic difference has always been in a highly performative manner that has only been superficially signified through changes in skin colour and dress and the near-perpetual use of the exoticising Oriental Face Sculpt. These othering and fetishising attempts at multicultural representation create, as Wills argues, “exoticized difference, of deferred subjectivity; racial progressiveness [that] can be purchased and played with” (Wills 189) then cast off, as Powell’s notion of the cultural safari allows us to understand. Critically, Mattel markets these Orientalist depictions of racial, ethnic, and cultural identity as “marketable difference[s]” (Wills 189) that the white consumer can supposedly try on with ease and just as easily remove. Thus, with the production and marketing of Asian Barbies and other ethnic dolls, Mattel never truly accomplishes a healthy and helpful extension of the individual child as Ruth Handler envisioned all Barbies to be—instead, the corporate body only perpetuates a narrative of racial inferiority and the casting of Asian Barbie dolls (and, by extension, the Asian cultures, geographical locations, and populations that Mattel claims to represent) as the Other.

References

Augustyniak, J. Michael. Collector’s Encyclopedia of Barbie Doll Exclusives: Identification & Values, 1972-2004. Collector Books, 2005.

Bhadania, Namrata Ashvinbhai. “The (Mis)representation of Racialized Minorities: Barbie Dolls as Social Problems in India.” Journal of Literature and Art Studies 11.9 (2021): 637-649. <https://doi.org/10.17265/2159-5836/2021.09.005>.

Bobo4890. “Oriental Barbie Doll.” Barbie Wiki, n.d. 29 Jan. 2024 <https://barbie.fandom.com/wiki/Oriental_Barbie_Doll?file=1981-dotw-Oriental.jpg>.

Botz-Bornstein, Thorsten. "Barbie and the Power of Negative Thinking: Of Barbies, Eve-Barbies, and I-Barbies." Kritikos 9 (2012).

“Chinese Barbie Doll.” Barbie Wiki, n.d. 31 Jan. 2024 <https://barbie.fandom.com/wiki/Chinese_Barbie_Doll>.

Crouch, Geoffrey I. "An Analysis of Hong Kong Tourism Promotion." Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 5.2 (2000): 70-75. <https://doi.org/10.1080/10941660008722074>.

“Dolls of the World INDIA Barbie 3897 by Mattel Vintage 1982 DOTW Barbie India.” eBay, n.d. 13 mar. 2024 <https://www.ebay.com/itm/235438965854>.

“Dolls of the World Oriental Barbie Doll Mattel 1980 No. 3262 NRFB.” eBay, n.d. 31 Jan. 2024 <https://www.ebay.com/itm/175824587562>.

DuCille, Ann. “Black Barbie and the Deep Play of Difference.” The Feminism and Visual Culture Reader, ed. Amelia Jones. New York: Routledge, 2003. 337–48.

———. "Dyes and dolls: Multicultural Barbie and the Merchandising of Difference." differences 6.1 (1994): 46-68.

———. Skin Trade. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard UP, 1996.

Foulke, Jan. 14th Blue Book: Dolls & Values. Hobby House Press, 1999.

Greene, Fred. “The United States and Asia in 1981.” Asian Survey 22.1 (1982). <https://doi.org/10.2307/2643706>.

Guerrero, Lisa. "Can the Subaltern Shop? The Commodification of Difference in the Bratz Dolls." Cultural Studies? Critical Methodologies 9.2 (2009): 186-196. <https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708608325939>.

“India Barbie Doll (3897).” Barbie Wiki, n.d. 31 jan. 2024 <https://barbie.fandom.com/wiki/India_Barbie_Doll_(3897)>.

“Japanese Barbie Doll (9481).” Barbie Wiki, n.d. 31 Jan. 2024 <https://barbie.fandom.com/wiki/Japanese_Barbie_Doll_(9481)>.

Kasulis, Kelly. “Tracing the History of ‘Asian’ Barbie.” Kelly Kasulis, 30 Mar. 2016. <https://kkasulis.wordpress.com/2016/02/01/tracing-the-history-of-asian-barbie/>.

“Kira.” Barbie Wiki, n.d. 31 jan. 2024 <https://barbie.fandom.com/wiki/Kira>.

“Korean Barbie Doll.” Barbie Wiki, n.d. 31 Jan. 2024 <https://barbie.fandom.com/wiki/Korean_Barbie_Doll>.

Lemonmeringue1959. “Chinese Barbie Doll.” Barbie Wiki, n.d. 31 Jan. 2024 <https://barbie.fandom.com/wiki/Chinese_Barbie_Doll?file=Chinese_Barbie_Doll.png>.

———. “India Barbie Doll (3897).” Barbie Wiki, n.d. 31 Jan. 2024 <https://barbie.fandom.com/wiki/India_Barbie_Doll_(3897)?file=India_Barbie_Doll_%283897%29.png>.

———. “Japanese Barbie Doll (9481).” Barbie Wiki, n.d. 31 Jan. 2024 <https://barbie.fandom.com/wiki/Japanese_Barbie_Doll_(9481)?file=Japanese_Barbie_Doll_%289481%29.png>.

———. “Korean Barbie Doll.” Barbie Wiki, n.d. 31 Jan. 2024 <https://barbie.fandom.com/wiki/Korean_Barbie_Doll?file=Korean_Barbie_Doll.png>.

———. “Malaysian Barbie Doll.” Barbie Wiki, n.d. 31 Jan. 2024 <https://barbie.fandom.com/wiki/Malaysian_Barbie_Doll?file=Malaysian_Barbie_Doll.png>.

“Malaysian Barbie Doll.” Barbie Wiki, n.d. 31 Jan. 2024 <https://barbie.fandom.com/wiki/Malaysian_Barbie_Doll>.

“Miko.” Barbie Wiki, n.d. 31 Jan. 2024 <https://barbie.fandom.com/wiki/Miko>.

Minami, Kazushi. People's Diplomacy: How Americans and Chinese Transformed US-China Relations during the Cold War. Cornell UP, 2024.

Nemani, Priti. “Globalization versus Normative Policy: A Case Study on the Failure of the Barbie Doll in the Indian Market.” Asian Pacific Law and Policy Journal 13.1 (2011). <https://ssrn.com/abstract=1802793>.

“Oriental Barbie Doll.” Barbie Wiki, n.d. 31 Jan. 2024 <https://barbie.fandom.com/wiki/Oriental_Barbie_Doll>.

Orr, Lisa. "Difference That Is Actually Sameness Mass-Reproduced: Barbie Joins the Princess Convergence." Jeunesse: Young People, Texts, Cultures 1.1 (2009): 9-30. <https://doi.org/10.1353/jeu.2010.0026>.

Pearson, Marlys, and Paul R. Mullins. "Domesticating Barbie: An Archaeology of Barbie Material Culture and Domestic Ideology." International Journal of Historical Archaeology 3.4 (1999): 225-259. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/20852937>.

PoodleLambAdmin. “1981/1982 India Barbie (#3897).” Toy Sisters, 12 Aug. 2018. 13 Mar. 2024 <https://www.toysisters.com/1982-india-barbie/>.

———. “1987/1988 Dolls of the World Korean Barbie (#4929).” Toy Sisters, 16 Aug. 2018. 24 Mar. 2024 <https://www.toysisters.com/1988-korean-barbie/>.

Rogers, Mary F. Barbie Culture. India: Sage, 1999.

Schor, Juliet B. Born to Buy: The Commercialized Child and the New Consumer Culture. Scribner, 2014.

“Steffie.” Barbie Wiki, n.d. 13 Mar. 2024 <https://barbie.fandom.com/wiki/Steffie>.

Tang, Jennifer. “Using Multicultural Barbie Dolls to Teach Colonialism, Racism, and Income Inequality.” Integrating Pop Culture into the Academic Library, eds. Jennifer Putnam Davis, Melissa Edmiston Johnson, and Thomas C. Weeks. Rowman & Littlefield, 2022. 235-56.

“10 Dollar (The Chartered Bank) – Hong Kong – Numista.” Numista, n.d. 13 Mar. 2024 <https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note207901.html>.

Tulinski, Hannah. Barbie As Cultural Compass: Embodiment, Representation, and Resistance Surrounding the World’s Most Iconized Doll. Honors Thesis. College of the Holy Cross, 2017. <http://crossworks.holycross.edu/soc_student_scholarship/1>.

Vig, Shreshth. “How to Wear a Saree: Step by Step Guide.” Kanchan Fashion, 12 Aug. 2022. 22 Mar. 2024 <https://www.kanchanfashion.com/blogs/best-ethnic-dresses-for-women/how-to-wear-a-saree-step-by-step-guide>.

Westenhouser, Kitturah B. The Story of Barbie. Collector Books, 1994.

Wills, Jenny Heijun. "Scripted Violence, Scripted Deferral: Pre–and Post–Civil Rights Racial Innocence." Jeunesse: Young People, Texts, Cultures 5.1 (2013): 179-91. <https://doi.org/10.1353/jeu.2013.0009>.

“03262 Oriental Barbie.” Doll Peddlar, n.d. 13 mar. 2024 <https://www.dollpeddlar.com/product/03262-oriental-barbie/>.

“Are You Watching The Godfather?”

Kaela Joseph, Tanya Cook, Alena Karkanias — Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0000

Introduction

In the film Barbie, Stereotypical Ken “only has a great day if Barbie looks at him”. Ken’s identity is based on Barbie’s approval, that is, until he garners the approval of other Kens by reshaping their collective identities under the patriarchy. The Kens’ patriarchal collective identities are demonstrated in part through their participation in popular-culture fandoms. They mansplain The Godfather and Stephen Malkmus, demand their Barbies be “really invested in the Zack Snyder cut of Justice League”, and sing Matchbox 20’s “Push” at the Barbies “while staring uncomfortably into [their] eyes for four and half minutes”. It would be easy to write these moments off as jabs at stereotypic masculine interests. The film's criticism, however, is not only the merit of these interests, nor a declaration that only men care about them. Rather, the critique of patriarchal collective identity is shown in the way these interests are shared through competitive, affirmational fandom. Affirmational fandoms are fandoms built on knowledge of canon, with fan identity typically expressed through competition around mastery of explicit, official knowledge. Affirmational fandoms have historically been thought to draw more men-dominated fan bases (Correa-Chávez, Kohfeldt, and Nguyen 1), as they lend themselves to the kinds of hierarchies inherent in patriarchy. Transformational (or transformative) fandoms, on the other hand, are thought to be more popular among women and gender-diverse fans and show less interest in pure canon ideation, instead utilising the source material to create something entirely new (Jenkins 47-8). In this way, transformational fandom is similar to how Barbies themselves are intended to be played with. This article will explore how Barbie illustrates the differences between affirmational vs. transformational fandom, textually and metatextually, and how patriarchal and binary approaches to fandom ultimately disempower everyone, including those who identify as men.

Affirmational vs. Transformational Fandom

The term “affirmational fandom” was first coined by Dreamwidth user obsession_inc in 2009 to distinguish fan culture which seeks to reiterate a creator’s intended meaning of a work. Participation in an affirmational fandom is demonstrated through steadfast devotion to canonical knowledge, and adherence to rules inherent to the creator’s own worldbuilding. In affirmational fandom, knowledge of canon is treated as important capital, often traded between fans as a way to best one another in a competition of who knows the most about niche topics. Specifically, fans participate in what sociologist Bourdieu describes as cultural capital (knowledge) that leads to building social capital (networks). Since this type of fandom positions the creator as the master authority on interpretations of works, fans are able to weaponise their own mastery of the text and alignment with the creator's intentions in order to create a social structure within the fandom that is intentionally exclusionary and hierarchical. Moreover, since many popular works have male creators, largely due to systemic inequities in the film, television, and written fiction industries (“2021 Statistics”), this hierarchy also mirrors patriarchy in its unchallenged centring of men’s perspectives and thus its overall appeal to men as fans (Busse).

Suzanne Scott further criticised this centring of creators as ultimate authorities through her deconstruction of the "fanboy auteur" (44). The fanboy auteur is someone who functions as both content creator and fan, thus manufacturing an even greater divisiveness between production and the everyday consumer by stratifying the fanboy auteur into a separate category of fan that most other fans cannot achieve. Scott (47) draws upon the Foucauldian notion of textual discourses and the role of the author, or “author function” (Foucault 75), to describe how a fanboy auteur reinforces the status quo by maintaining an exclusionary fan identity, as opposed to allowing the author to fully step back from the work so that it might be interpreted and reinterpreted, vastly, through a diversity of lenses. Foucault argued that the authorial role is, as are most things, socially constructed through public discourse, as is the definition of authorial power (76). In other words, by defining something in media, one has power over it, and that power can be used to discipline who gets to use, understand, and engage with said media as an artifact. As is often seen in patriarchal social structures, the fanboy auteur has overwhelmingly benefited not just men, but white men specifically (Salter and Stanfill).

Affirmational fandoms stand in stark contrast to transformational fandoms, a concept popularised by Henry Jenkins in his book Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture. Jenkins described a transformative process that fans guide texts through, which prioritises meaning-making and imagination over canon, or creator, in fan spaces. This is often done through the production of transformative works such as fan fiction and fan art that are largely unconcerned with fidelity to a work’s creator, sometimes treating them as entirely separate from the production of fan works. While transformational fandoms still exchange cultural capital to build social capital and maintain a sense of hierarchy at times, they do so with a much lower bar for entry that is more accessible to otherwise marginalised fans.

In addition to accessibility, transformational fandom has been thought of as a more feminist fandom due to the disproportionate presence of women in transformational fan spaces and their disproportionate engagement in fan labour through the creation of content such as zines and archival fan fiction (Correa-Chávez, Kohfeldt, and Nguyen). Importantly, there are ways in which this labour is exploited by male-dominated industries as a means to signal diverse representation, as opposed to actually including diverse representation in media texts (Lowe).

Examples in Barbie

Transformative fandom is what Barbie dolls, and by proxy the Barbie movie, were made for. The film’s opening is itself a transformative work, a reimagining of 2001: A Space Odyssey, with young girls rejecting the socially rigid construct of the baby doll for the sleek new toy that defies categorisation. Like transformative works, Barbies can be anything, implying that women and girls can also be anything. As a result, we see Barbies at the start of the film engaging in a broad array of careers and interests, appearing to have a level of autonomy that isn’t quite so easily obtained by women in the real world. Because the Barbie movie also features diverse Barbies including Barbies who are transgender, size-inclusive, of various races and ethnicities, and Barbies who use devices such as wheelchairs, the film also transforms the image of women in popular media by depicting them more realistically than is typical in major motion pictures.

The shift that Barbie Land takes in the second act, when Stereotypical Ken introduces the concept of patriarchy, more closely mirrors affirmational fandoms, both textually and metatextually. Textually, the Kens are seen mansplaining various topics. Mansplaining has been defined by researchers “not only as simply patronizing and condescending, but as designed to assert the speaker’s superior knowledge, on the basis of their gender” (Joyce et al. 521). As within affirmational fandoms, through mansplaining, knowledge is used as a form of power.

Simply mansplaining, however, is not in and of itself demonstrative of affirmational fandom. For fandom to be affirmational, it must also use said knowledge as cultural capital, elevating the Kens to a place of superiority over the Barbies, as well as over one another, based on their level of higher expertise and deference to a creator. This is where Barbie goes the extra mile as social commentary – the Ken’s are not just talking about the what of these various topics, but, in the case of fandom specifically, the why of it, central to an idealised creator.

One of the clearest examples of this is actor Kingsley Ben-Adir’s Ken name-dropping The Godfather’s creators, noting “Coppola’s aesthetic genius” as well as referring to the film as a “triumph to Robert Evans and the architecture of the 1970s studio system”. This Ken is both sharing deep lore about the film’s production, as well as asserting dominance through this knowledge, sharing it only after he has belittled President Barbie for having not watched the film in the first place. Ncuti Gatwa’s Ken likewise discusses how “Stephen Malkmus really harnessed the acerbic talk-singing of Lou Reed with post-punk influences such as ‘The Wire’ and ‘The Fall’”. Neither of these are shallow, hot takes, but instead are the kinds of niche affirmational knowledge that fan studies authors describe as excess made into expertise (Zygutis; Scott).

We see this again in Writer Barbie’s discussion of having gotten “really invested in the Zack Synder cut of Justice League” while under the indoctrination of the Kens. In the real world, fans developed a cult-like devotion to the Snyder cut of Justice League after the studio released a shorter, heavily edited version of the film. The organised collective action fans engaged in to pressure the studio to release the Snyder cut (or director’s cut) represents the intersection of affirmational fandom and civically engaged fandom (Cook and Joseph 73). Instead of working toward broader socio-cultural change, however, releasing the Snyder cut allowed fans to focus on levelling up their cultural capital within fandom to pull rank, so to speak, over fans who had not seen this version. This aligns with the idea of the creator’s vision as the ultimate authority over a story – one that not only should be released, but defended as canon.

Even the repetition of Matchbox 20’s “Push”, in Barbie, is somewhat affirmational in that it is pure reproduction, right down to the 1990’s grunge singing style of yarling (“Yarling”), which we do not see repeated elsewhere in the diegetic portions of the soundtrack sung by Ryan Gosling or the other actors portraying Kens. Metatextually, we as the audience are meant to be in on the joke, meant to laugh at the Kens for posturing in this way, meant to see it as inherently patriarchal, and thus flawed when viewed through the feminist lens of the film. It is, after all, the very undoing of the Kens, as the Barbies plot to distract them by first aiming to make the Kens think they have power over the Barbies, and then, as Sasha remarks, “make them question whether they have enough power over each other”. This is accomplished by the Barbies through manipulating the Kens’ fannish appreciation for “Push”, done so by feigning interest in their Ken’s replication of the song, only to then wound their Ken’s pride by redirecting that attention to another, rival Ken. This act creates affirmational competition within the fannish display. Stereotypical Barbie even goes so far as to question the authorial voice of the song, which actor Sam Liu’s Ken misattributes to himself, instead of the actual and idealised creator. This interplay between competition and misattribution seeds disruption to the Kens’ collective power by calling into question fannish identity and fidelity to the creator such that in-fighting occurs. It is not the final domino in the chain of unseating the Kens’ power, but it is an important one that can only be accomplished by turning the competition inherent in affirmational fandom into something that can be used against fans, in this case the Kens.

How Binary Approaches to Fandom (and Gender) Do Harm

An important question the film asks is whether power should be lauded or shared, particularly as it relates to gender politics. Certainly, in the real world, we can see the harms of uneven power dynamics as highlighted by the affirmational nature of knowledge. Mansplaining, for example, has been shown to be prevalent in the modern workplace as a form of typically, but not always, gendered mistreatment, with impacts on job performance, retention, and psychological distress (Smith et al.). It has also been described as a tactic used by some neo-liberal white men as a way to re-centre masculinity and men’s voices as an ultimate source of knowledge, and thus power, in discourse on intersectional feminism, a tactic otherwise described as “covert hegemony” (Burkley 170). Importantly, these kinds of affirmational, hegemonic systems can also be upheld by people other than white men, when said systems prove beneficial to gaining or maintaining power. For example, Rouse, Condis, and Stanfill found examples of hegemony and racism in both anti-liberal and liberal fan spaces online, while Lothian and Stanfill found that even feminist fans spaces perpetuate harm to marginalised groups by the very structures built to protect some while not protecting all marginalised communities.

Barbie as a film never quite presents a conclusion to gendered power inequalities. Instead, the film acknowledges multiple flaws in the binary territories of both Barbie Land and the real world but leaves us without an egalitarian solution in either. What Barbie does do is to offer a starting point for further exploration by asking the Kens to see themselves as “Kenough”, affirmed in who they are without the need to vie for power using the affirmational tactics they practiced before.

Fandom studies has also only begun to answer questions about gender inequity. Firstly, recent research suggests that a gendered divide between affirmational and transformational fandom may exist, but not quite in the ways previously theorised. Rather than men being more likely to engage in affirmational fandom than women, Correa-Chávez, Kohfeldt, and Nguyen found that women fans were more likely compared to men to engage in all types of fannish activities, both affirmational and transformational, though women did tend to engage in transformational activities the most between the two types of fannish participation (4). Importantly, however, affirmational fandom was narrowly defined through consumption and not proliferation (e.g. reading but not producing plot analyses). Cosplay, or costuming, was also separated out into a third category of mimic fandom, using Matt Hill’s definition of the term from his own paper on the subject. While this third category constitutes an interesting approach to ways in which affirmational and transformational fandom overlap, it also somewhat negates the ways in which cosplay can itself be affirmational (rule-bound) or transformational (changed in ways that fundamentally reimagine a character). Many cosplayers, for example, gender-bend characters, or reinterpret them in ways that are transformative of canon, something that fans of Barbie have been enacting in movie theaters and at pop-culture conventions following the film’s release.

These distinctions are important when considering the impact of Barbie on affirmational vs. transformational fan practices in fan spaces, as well as broader spaces. At what point are fans participating in reproduction (affirmational) vs. reimagination (transformational)? The answer depends somewhat on context and the meaning created through the cosplay. For example, cosplay at fan conventions is occurring within a fan space, and thus meaning is made by fan communities. Barbie as a cultural phenomenon has also made its way into non-fannish transformative spaces, however, where meaning is less clear. For example, San Francisco’s 2024 “Hunky Jesus” contest saw “Jesus Ken”, a man dressed as Jesus nailed to a cross inside a Ken-style pink box, take home the win for best costume (Kura). Here, the space between fandom and other communities is blurred, and thus, so is related meaning.

Conclusion

Barbies are imaginative play, so it is no surprise that Barbie as a film highlights the differences between imaginative, transformational fandom and more rule-bound, affirmational fandom. It is also not a coincidence that those who play with Barbie dolls and those who engage in transformative fan practice are more likely to identify as women, or as having gender- and sexually diverse identities, given ways in which transformational spaces make greater room to create a more equitable world through inherent feminist critique. Imaginative play, in this sense, is a life-long process and continues to be formative for exploring facets of ourselves. Playing with Barbies, including in the Barbie film, enables individuals to understand their place in the world while simultaneously pushing the boundaries of what is possible.

Part of the genius of Barbie is that it shows how fan knowledge and practice (cultural capital) can constrain or enable personal and social growth. While the mastery and leveraging of fan knowledge under patriarchy gave the Kens a kind of power, it also isolated and limited them as individuals. Likewise, affirmational fandom can constrain and limit the potential for individuals and communities to change, grow, and explore through engagement with media when used in exclusionary ways. Importantly, affirmational fandom does not have to be exclusionary. Information can just be information. The critique of affirmational fandom is simply that it is often misused when viewed through a feminist lens. Transformational fandom, on the other hand, can challenge dominant cultural tropes, norms, and values. As Barbie demonstrates, transformational fandom has the power to inspire us to imagine better, and that power can never be put back in a box.

References

2001: A Space Odyssey. Dir. Stanley Kubrick. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1968.

“2021 Statistics.” Women and Hollywood. 10 Apr. 2024 <https://womenandhollywood.com/resources/statistics/2021-statistics/>.

Barbie. Dir. Greta Gerwig. Warner Bros. Pictures, 2023.

Bourdieu, Pierre. A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Trans. R. Nice. London: Routledge, 1984.

Buerkle, C. Wesley. “Adam Mansplains Everything: White-Hipster Masculinity as Covert Hegemony.” Southern Communication Journal 84.3 (2019): 170–182. DOI: 10.1080/1041794X.2019.1575898.

Busse, Kristina. "Geek Hierarchies, Boundary Policing, and the Gendering of the Good Fan." Participations 10.1 (2013): 73-91.

Cook, Tanya, and Kaela Joseph. Fandom Acts of Kindness: A Heroic Guide to Activism, Advocacy, and Doing Chaotic Good. Dallas, TX: Smart Pop Books, 2023.

Correa-Chávez, Maricela, Danielle Kohfeldt, and John Nguyen. "Women in Fandom: Participation Patterns and Perceived Authenticity." Psychology of Popular Media (2023). DOI: 10.1037/ppm0000470.

Foucault, Michel. "What Is an Author?" Reading Architectural History. Routledge, 2003. 71-81.

Jenkins, H. Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture. Updated 20th anniversary ed. New York: Routledge, 2013.

Joyce, Jack B., et al. “Speaking Out against Everyday Sexism: Gender and Epistemics in Accusations of ‘Mansplaining.’” Feminism & Psychology 31.4 (2021): 502–529. DOI: 10.1177/095935352097.

Justice League (Directors Cut). Dir. Zack Snyder. Warner Bros., 2021.

Kukura, Joe. “Photos: ‘Jesus Ken’ Wins Hunky Jesus Contest as Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence Celebrate Their 45th Anniversary.” SFList, 1 Apr. 2024. <https://sfist.com/2024/04/01/photos-ken-jesus-wins-hunky-jesus-contest-as-sisters-of-perpetual-indulgence-celebrate-their-45th-anniversary/>.

Hills, Matt. “From Dalek Half Balls to Daft Punk Helmets: Mimetic Fandom and the Crafting of Replicas.” Transformative Works and Cultures 16 (2014). DOI: 10.3983/twc.2014.0531.

Lothian, Alexis, and Mel Stanfill. "An Archive of Whose Own? White Feminism and Racial Justice in Fan Fiction's Digital Infrastructure." Transformative Works and Cultures 36 (2021). DOI: 10.3983/twc.2021.2119.

Lowe, J.S.A. "We’ll Always Have Purgatory: Fan Spaces in Social Media." Journal of Fandom Studies 5.2 (2017): 175-192. DOI: 10.1386/jfs.5.2.175_1.

Matchbox 20. “Push.” Yourself or Someone You Like. Atlantic, 1997.

obsession_inc. “Affirmational Fandom vs. Transformational Fandom.” Dreamwidth, 1 Jun. 2009. 10 Apr. 2024 <https://obsession-inc.dreamwidth.org/82589.html>.

Salter, Anastasia, and Mel Stanfill. A Portrait of the Auteur as Fanboy: The Construction of Authorship in Transmedia Franchises. Jackson: UP of Mississippi, 2021.

Rouse, Lauren, Megan Condis, and Mel Stanfill. "Making Fandom Great Again: Silencing Discussions of Racism in Reactionary and Transformative Fandoms." Popular Communication (2024): 1-13. DOI: 10.1080/15405702.2024.2336254.

Scott, Suzanne. "Who’s Steering the Mothership? The Role of the Fanboy Auteur in Transmedia Storytelling" Participatory Cultures Handbook. New York: Routledge, 2013.

Smith, Chelsie J., et al. "‘Well, actually’: Investigating Mansplaining in the Modern Workplace." Journal of Management & Organization (2022): 1-19. DOI: 10.1017/jmo.2022.81.

The Godfather. Dir. Francis Ford Coppola. Paramount Pictures, 1972.

“Yarling.” TV Tropes, the All Devouring Pop-Culture Wiki, n.d. 10 Apr. 2024 <https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Yarling>.

Zygutis, Linda. "Affirmational Canons and Transformative Literature: Notes on Teaching with Fandom." Transformative Works and Cultures 35 (2021). DOI: 10.3983/twc.2021.1917.

Unboxing the New Barbie

Eli S — Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0000

Introduction

“Unboxing the New Barbie” explores Barbie’s new image in Greta Gerwig’s 2023 film, Barbie, where Barbie appears initially in a perfect shape and enjoys her ideal life in Barbie Land. The film presents Barbie Land as a female-dominated space with Barbies at the centre of authority, with a utopic lifestyle of freedom and joy. However, the film immediately troubles this utopia through a set of cinematic devices. First, the stereotypical Barbie’s life appears as a series of monotonous routines within the pink plastic structures, and later, her utopic body image and Barbie Land are distorted due to the shortcomings and malfunctioning of the Real World. The Real World, with patriarchy at the core of it, contradicts Barbie Land’s female-oriented constitution. Presenting all the contradictions through Barbie Land and the Real World, hence, the film attempts to address Barbie’s entrapment, first by capturing her image within the pink plastic frames in Barbie Land, and later through her framed reputation as an ostentatious product of a consumerist culture in the Real World. In this article, I argue that Barbie unboxes a new Barbie who recognises her framed image in both Barbie Land and the Real World and breaks free from those frames to define a new and real role for herself. In so doing, I compare Barbie’s (Margot Robbie) image in Barbie Land inside the pink frames to Carol White’s (Julianne Moore) image in Californian Suburbs in Safe (1995), a melodrama by Todd Haynes where she is also trapped in the domestic spaces of her suburban house, experiencing mental and physical break down. The article, hence, concludes that Barbie relies on the aesthetics of melodrama to first refer to Barbie’s entrapped image in Barbie Land, and later to unbox her new image to the Real World.

Melodrama in Barbie Land

In “Tales of Sound and Fury,” Thomas Elsaesser defines melodrama: “considered as an expressive code, melodrama might … be described as a pictorial form of dramatic mise-en-scène, characterized by dynamic use of spatial and musical categories, as opposed to intellectual or literary one” (75). He further elaborates on the genre and writes that “this type of cinema depends on the ways 'Melos' is given to 'drama' utilizing lighting, montage, visual rhythm, decor, style of acting, music – that is, on the ways the mise-en-scène, translates character into action” (78). Elsaesser in his essay describes the mise-en-scène of the genre as “the middle-class home, filled with objects, [which surrounds] the heroine in a hierarchy of apparent order that becomes increasingly suffocating” (84). Jackie Byres refers to the rise of melodrama in the timeline of Hollywood films and writes that

most of the women’s films of the 1930s and 1940s ended tragically, but in the 1950s, the (eventually unsuccessful) return to an emphasis on woman as wife-companion, exemplified by the suburban housewife, required a different ending, a “happy ending” that provided the female protagonist with a male companion, a husband, a strong and capable patriarch to whom she could submit. (112)

These female-oriented melodramas, according to Jackie Byars, are “communities of women and children” in which “the absence of a patriarchal figure motivates the narratives” (106). Drawing attention to the female-centred plots, Byars also considers these films as long-awaited products of cinema where women eventually obtained space to be seen as independent entities with relative subjectivity. In this regard, she further elaborates: “the female-oriented melodrama cannot end with its female protagonist continuing a life independent and alone” (106). Douglas Sirk was one of the prominent Hollywood filmmakers whose films in the 1950s were the archetype of family melodramas where he centralised women’s images and consequently engaged the diegesis with their private and public affairs. In melodrama, there are always reflective surfaces and frames such as windows or mirrors where the characters, particularly women, are framed within these frames. Mercer and Shingler write: “in Sirk’s films we see characters looking in the mirrors when they are conforming to the society’s rules, when they are playing a role, when they are deluding themselves. Mirrors then, represent both illusion and delusion in his films and were to become such emblematic device” (54). These women are usually alone and staring at themselves or gazing out the windows, which is an additional emphasis on their loneliness and insecurities. “Mirrors then, represent both illusion and delusion in these films and were to become such emblematic device” (54). Mercer and Shingler refer to this technique as “frames within frames” where the characters are “contained within mirror frames, doorways, windows, pictures frames and decorative screens. These devices once again suggest that characters are isolated or confined in their lonely worlds, or oppressed by their environments” (54). Against this backdrop, Barbie refers to the conventions of melodrama to represent Barbie’s entrapped body inside the plastic frames of Barbie Land and her willful body that resists these frames. Barbie represents the dual – inside vs. outside – nature of melodrama through the duality in Barbie Land and the Real World. Barbie Land stands for the domestic space in melodrama and the Real World represents the emotionally and politically suppressive public.

By the look of it, Barbie Land pictures a feminine utopia: women as the forerunners in politics, sports, and literary competitions; ever subjective, and never sexualised or objectified, with Kens in the background, living a peaceful life. Barbie Land hence adheres to the melodramatic style of filmmaking with communities of women, lack of patriarchal figures, and a female-dominated space. However, fifteen minutes into the film, Barbie problematises this utopia by constantly placing the stereotypical Barbie inside the pink frames of the dream houses, windows, or mirrors, performing a set of dollish routines; eating but not eating, drinking but not drinking, until she is infected with the malfunctioning and diseases of the Real World. She wakes up to the nightmare of flat feet, bad breath, a cold shower, and cellulite. The pink utopia hence stages the colorful wraps of the melodramatic suburbs with its corrupted domestic interiors. In other words, Barbie Land equals the domestic settings of the suburban houses where women appear to have a satisfying luxurious material life, whereas in truth they are overburdened with the expectations of their roles as wives and mothers. The Real World in this equation represents the patriarchal outside and its authority over women, and the temporary Kenland refers to the corruption that is the outcome of the patriarchal Real World. Similar to suburban houses with a glamorous façade and patriarchy at the centre, Barbie Land represents a marginalised female utopia in pink plastic, designed and sold by patriarchy in the Real World.

“Mattel: We Sell Imagination!”

Barbie hence strongly resembles Safe (1995) in form and content, with its pink utopian external image and unfulfilling conditions in the interiors. Todd Haynes’s Safe is also a family melodrama, set in the 1980s in the Californian suburbs where Carol White is a homemaker living in a spacious suburban house who develops puzzling allergies to common environmental chemicals contained in everyday-use materials. This leads her to abandon her household and live in a remote sanatorium located in a desert where she is immune from any contact with chemicals. In short, Carol’s allergy is triggered by the unnecessarily consumed products every time she is exposed to them. Her physical intimacy with her husband fades away every day due to her intolerance to all the unnatural and industrial products. Simultaneously, the disease signifies her inner desire to free her body from the suburban life and unfulfilling marriage.

Safe addresses the industrial developments of the 1980s in the US through the conventions of melodrama to illustrate the emotionally and physically unhealthy environment contaminated by toxic chemicals. Carol White’s health deteriorates due to environmental toxicities and chemical attacks, and Barbie’s health is affected due to metaphorical toxicities such as toxic masculinities in the Real World. More importantly, Barbie’s notoriety for being unrealistically skinny and her responsibility for pervading eating disorders is another evident feature in Safe. Criticism around Barbie’s physical features has usually addressed her “unrealistic and unattainable bodily proportions [that] make women feel inadequate” (Toffoletti 59). The American Addiction Centers, in their article “Dying to Be Barbie: Eating Disorders in Pursuit of the Impossible”, hold Barbie accountable for girls’ eating disorders and write:

the anxieties they experience are the product of a society and media culture that prizes a thin image for women above anything else, and devalues any woman who strays outside the false "norm" of a skinny body. In pursuit of that unattainable goal, they will literally starve themselves to death. They are dying to be like Barbie. (2013)

Similar to Barbie, Carol appears with unrealistic and even unnatural physical features. First, she is presented as a skinny woman relying only on dairy (milk), and later she adopts the uncommon fruit diet. Moreover, in her regular aerobic classes, her body never sweats. By characterising Carol through her uncommon physical and mental features, Safe insists upon the female character’s resistance against the norms. “Haynes wanted Carol to evoke vulnerable, fractured nature of modern identity, an issue that American films have rarely addressed” (Levy 177). According to Glyn Davis, Haynes’s cinema “explores the tensions and discrepancies between pristine public surface and that which lies beneath: hidden emotions and passions, closeted identities and the truthful nature of relationships” (123). Both Safe and Barbie trouble the comfortable image of Barbie Land and the Suburbs and alternate it with discomfort and non-conformity.

Unboxing the Real Barbie

Mattel’s debut doll in 1950s America coincided with the after-war ideologies of the scared home which drove women into domesticity. “Beginning with the Second World War years of the 1940s and extending through the 1950s, 'home' stood for the utopian myth of a coherent, homogenous popular culture” (Cohen 143). Within this utopia, women were placed in domestic environments, and the interior spaces of the household where they were anchored to the bosom of the family.

The bourgeois culture evolved the home as the temple of femininity. Domestic life was radically segregated from the public sphere. Although women obviously inhabited public space, they did so under the protection of a chaperon. Women who attempted to roam the metropolis freely struggled with deep male prejudices regarding sexuality and space. (Rojek and Urry 16)

Therefore, Mattel’s launch of the first Barbie doll in 1959 and before the advent of second-wave feminism in the 1960s and 1970s seems like an attempt to introduce a woman at the end of a decade when women were forced back into the domestic spaces of their homes and honoured by their roles as homemakers and devoted wives. Barbie hence became “the first feminist that pointed the way out of kitchen” (Stone 7). M.G. Lord, the author of Forever Barbie, credits Barbie as an icon who “taught us independence. Barbie was her own woman. She could invent herself with a costume change: sing a solo in the spotlight one minute, pilot a starship the next. … She was all that we could be [and] more than we could be. And certainly more than we were” (9). Barbie is a “happily unmarried woman. Ruth refused to give Barbie the trappings of postnuptial life; the doll would be forever independent, subservient to no one” (51). Barbie’s place in the history of popular culture marks her a controversial cultural icon who rises between the decades of women’s passivity and the following feminist decades.

In other words, while in the 1950s, she is a pioneer feminist figure, in the 1960s and 70s, she is recognised “as an object of fascination, conflict and rancour for a generation of second-wave feminists” (Toffoletti 60). In Marilyn Ferris Motz’s view, “Barbie is a consumer. She demands product after product, and the packaging and advertising imply that Barbie, as well as her owner, can be made happy if only she wears the right clothes and owns the right products” (128). Accordingly, all the props that followed Barbie and her diverse roles as an affluent independent woman echoed “the idea that women in capitalist culture are themselves commodities to be purchased, consumed and manipulated” (Toffoletti 60). This oscillation in Barbie’s reputation makes her an everchanging cultural product and the interpretations of her subjective. According to M.G. Lord, “to study Barbie, one sometimes has to hold seemingly contradictory ideas in one’s head at the same time ... . People project wildly dissimilar and opposing fantasies on it. Barbie is a universally recognized image, but what she represents is as personal as fingerprints” (10). Taking Barbie’s dynamic identity and reputation into account, Greta Gerwig in her 2023 film summarises sixty-plus years of an ongoing renewal in Barbie’s image and the unstoppable criticism that follows her. While Barbara Handler introduced a strong female doll in the 1950s as a protest against the decade’s imposed standards on women, in 2023 Barbie is still stigmatised and forced back into the margins by remaining in the box of Barbie Land.

“Mattel: No One Rests until This Doll Is Back in a Box.”

Barbie’s journey to the Real World and her straying from Mattel’s laws pose a threat to the patriarchal establishment in the Real World. Similar to melodrama where women “seem trapped in an image of themselves as dangerous women, threatening to a patriarchy that strives to maintain their willful bodies in a patriarchal, dichotomous situation as gendered bodies” (Ceuterick 42), Barbie’s unboxed figure in the Real world disturbs its marginalising structures. The unboxed new Barbie refuses to go back to the perfect pink world; instead, she allies with the Real-World women to fix the corrupted Barbie Land and decides to become a Real-World woman, accepting its imperfections. Barbie breaks free from the box to recognise herself, Ken, Barbie Land, and the Real World. The unboxed new Barbie hence is an attempt to represent New/Real Barbie’s subjectivity in the Real World and not just in Barbie Land, which is an ostentatious design of the patriarchal Real World. Gerwig chronicles Barbie’s evolving image through her journey from Barbie Land to the Real World and back, and eventually her settlement in the Real World when she breaks free from the pre-determined literal and metaphorical frames of both worlds. While in Barbie Land she is framed within pink plastic frames, in the Real World, she is framed with stigma and criticism for withholding feminism.

Conclusion

In this article, I argued that Greta Gerwig’s 2023 film Barbie unboxes a New Barbie who eventually becomes a Real Barbie/Woman, rejecting all the stereotypical labels that have been attached to her. Decades after her first appearance in popular culture, Barbie remains a highly controversial cultural product, facing criticism for her unrealistic affluence, independence, and physique. Addressing all these arguments and controversies, the film unveils a new Barbie who breaks free from the margins of Barbie Land to raise her awareness and resist the stereotypical stigma around her image. Facing the harsh realities of the Real World that constantly force her, first, inside the plastic frames of Barbie Land, and later into Mattel’s box, Barbie learns about her entrapment and the patriarchal control over women’s bodies. Experiencing the discrepancies in Barbie Land and the flawed Real World, the Unboxed Barbie escapes Mattel’s box to reinvent herself in Barbie Land and the Real World. Boxing and framing Barbie is a cinematic device used in melodrama where the mise-en-scène is staged with luxurious furniture, costume design, and colour palette, but it suggests a sense of entanglement with domestic affairs for women. Barbie is comparable to Todd Haynes’s Safe due to the film’s pink undertone, the frames of suburban houses that entrap the female character in domesticity, and more importantly, her deteriorating mental and physical health. Similar to Barbie, the female character in Safe resists the frames of patriarchy to free her body and define a new identity for herself. Both Barbie and Safe deploy the conventions of melodrama to depict the entrapment and resistance of the female characters to submit to these frames.

References

Barbie. Dir. Greta Gerwig. Perf. Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling. Warner Bros., 2023.

Byars, Jackie. All That Hollywood Allows. London: Routledge, 1991.

Ceuterick, Maud. Affirmative Aesthetics and Wilful Women: Gender, Space and Mobility in Contemporary Cinema. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020.

Cohan, Steven. “Almost like Being at Home: Showbiz culture and Hollywood Road Trips in the 1940s and 1950s.” In The Road Movie Book. Eds. Steven Cohan and Ina Rae Hark. London: Routledge, 1997. 113–142.

Davis, Glyn. Far from Heaven: American Indies. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2011.

“Dying to Be Barbie: Eating Disorders in Pursuit of the Impossible.” Drug Rehab Options, n.d. 12 Apr. 2024 <https://rehabs.com/explore/dying-to-be-barbie/>.

Elsaesser, Thomas. “Tales of Sound and Fury: Observation on Family Melodrama.” In Imitations of Life: A Reader on Film & Television Melodrama. Ed. Marcia Landy. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1991. 68–91.

Levy, Emanuel. Gay Directors, Gay Films? Pedro Almodóvar, Terence Davies, Todd Haynes, Gus Van Sant, John Waters. New York: Columbia UP, 2015.

Lord, M.G. Forever Barbie: The Unauthorized Biography of a Real Doll. Liveright, 1994.

Mercer, John, and Martin Shingler. Melodrama: Genre, Style and Sensibility. New York: Columbia UP, 2013.

Motz, Marylin Ferris. “'I Want to Be a Barbie Doll When I Grow Up': The Cultural Significance of the Barbie Doll.” In The Popular Culture Reader. 3rd ed. Eds. Christopher D. Geist et al. Ohio: Bowling Green UP, 1983. 122–136.

Rojek, Chris, and John Urry. “Transformation of Travel and Theory.” In Touring Cultures: Transformations of Travel and Theory. Eds. Chris Rojek and John Urry. London: Routledge, 2002.

Safe. Dir. Todd Haynes. Perf. Julianne Moore. Motion Picture Rating, 1995.

Stone, Tanya Lee. The Good, the Bad, and the Barbie: A Doll’s History and Her Impact on Us. Penguin Young Readers Group, 2015.

Toffoletti, Kim. Cyborgs and Barbie Dolls: Feminism, Popular Culture and the Posthuman Body. Bloomsbury, 2007.

To Be a Barbie Is to Perform

Anna Temel — Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0000

Historically, the Barbie doll has embodied all things stereotypically feminine, ranging from fashion trends to societal roles, and reflected the contemporary image of “the perfect woman”. However, beneath the surface of Barbie’s seemingly innocent portrayal of femininity lies a complex web of societal expectations and norms, and the toy’s potential for instilling such norms within young girls. This function of the doll ties into Judith Butler’s concept of gender performativity, in which gender is masked as a pre-existing condition while being a construct constantly produced and reproduced by society (“Performative Acts” 522). Moreover, the various caretaking-centred roles of Barbie dolls and their frequent portrayal alongside Ken dolls reinforce performativity with the use of heteronormativity, subtly implying that a woman’s fulfilment is connected to her ability to attract and maintain a heterosexual partnership, as well as her role within a heteronormative family structure, which reinforces the socially cultivated idea that femininity is inherently linked to heterosexual desire (Butler “Performative Acts” 524). Consequently, the Barbie doll serves as both a reflection and a reinforcement of societal expectations surrounding femininity, highlighting the intricacies of gender performance, compulsory heterosexuality, and the construction of identity within modern culture.

Greta Gerwig’s Barbie (2023), however, tries to divorce the doll from the unachievable standard of a “perfect woman” and instead to use it as a tool for rethinking what constitutes femininity and what it means to be a woman in the contemporary world. The film offers a subversive take on Barbie’s cultural significance, portraying her as a symbol of empowerment and self-discovery rather than a narrow representation of the idealised idea of femininity. Through the narrative of the film, Greta Gerwig attempts to challenge traditional gender norms and explore the complexities of identity, inviting a rethinking of the societal status quo. This article aims to answer, through analysis of the film’s various themes connected to gender and feminism, whether Gerwig’s Barbie succeeds at redefining the doll and making it a feminist symbol of empowerment. The analysis consists of three main sections that examine the themes most crucial for answering this question. The first section, centred around gender performativity, will discuss the cultural symbolism and significance of the doll as well as analyse the portrayal of the Barbies in Barbieland. In the second section, the focus is on deconstructing the connection between femininity, performativity, and heteronormativity in the film, and link these concepts to the film’s take on choice feminism. The last section examines the storyline’s potential in depicting identity outside of performativity and compulsory heterosexuality and analyse the film’s take on empowerment through the resistance to the stereotypical construct of femininity. Building upon this analysis, it is suggested that while Barbie attempts to break down conventional gender norms, deconstruct the stereotypical perception of femininity, and transform the doll into a tool for women’s empowerment, its endeavour is, at times, superficial, and inadvertently perpetuates the very constructs it tries to undermine.

To Be a Barbie Is to Perform

To analyse the film’s take on the transformation of the role of Barbie, it is essential to establish the link between the doll and the concept of gender performativity. Throughout the toy’s history, Barbie dolls have embodied specific roles or professions, examples of which include President Barbie, Doctor Barbie, Journalist Barbie, and numerous others. These representations aim to show young girls the diverse societal roles available to them, serving as symbols of the empowering slogan used by Mattel for the promotion of the doll, “you can be anything”, a message also central to Gerwig’s Barbie. However, the dolls simultaneously carry a set of predetermined characteristics, mostly connected to their appearance, that include the clothes they wear, the accompanying accessories, the shape of their body, or the colour of their skin. Each one of these characteristics reflects the contemporary standard of what a woman in a particular position is imagined to look like, connecting to a phenomenon described by Glenda MacNaughton where toys such as Barbie are used as powerful tools to instil gender roles and sexism in girls during childhood (22). The 1993 Doctor Barbie is an example of a toy that aims to discreetly reinforce stereotypically feminine performance. While, at first glance, the doll conveys the message that a doctor’s career is within every girl’s reach, the accessories, which include a baby, baby bottle, and rattle, and the writing on the box, which says “everything you need for taking care of baby!”, clearly define what type of doctor the girl is supposed to become, and connect to the gender stereotypes that define the role of women as mothers and “natural” caretakers.

Additionally, even though Barbie does not have a child of her own, nearly all Doctor Barbies, including those who are not meant to be paediatricians, such as the more recent 2015 Eye Doctor Barbie, are equipped with a child and a set of child-related accessories. With their childcare-centred purpose and their immaculate, conventionally attractive appearance, the Doctor Barbie dolls perpetuate what Stephanie Coontz, building on Betty Friedan’s concept of the feminine mystique, calls the “new feminine mystiques”. Particularly, they uphold the “supermom mystique”, in which women are not only reduced to their role as caretakers but are also expected to be perfect at it, while simultaneously remaining attractive and professionally active (170), creating unachievable standards of femininity. The example of the Doctor Barbies shows how the doll can convey the stereotypical, socially desired, and often unachievable image of womanhood hidden behind illusory female empowerment. As a result, by playing with the Barbie dolls, girls learn how to perform femininity through an object that is in itself an embodiment of the stereotypical, idealised performance of femininity, creating the circle that reinstates the societal status quo.

Greta Gerwig’s film tries to, and at least partially does, undermine this notion. The Barbies in Barbieland can be considered to be very diverse, representing different races, ethnicities, and body types, as well as including transgender and disabled individuals. The dolls are also excellent at an extremely wide range of social roles and jobs and create an ideal society – a feminist utopia. While initially appearing as a progressive departure from stereotypical depictions of idealised femininity, this portrayal is not free from underlying issues. One significant concern is the less obvious, but still present, assumption that femininity is synonymous with a certain set of universal characteristics that all women possess. “This makes me emotional and I’m expressing it. I have no difficulty holding both logic and feeling at the same time”, says the lawyer Barbie in her speech, emphasising the socially accepted idea that women are naturally more capable of expressing their emotions and that such a quality is desirable for them (Kachel et al. 10).

Some qualities that the movie intertwines with femininity are connected to the aforementioned “natural” caretaker characteristics that stereotypically make women less prone to conflict and more successful at building and protecting a united community, playing into the stereotype described by Prime, Carter, and Welbourne where women “take care” and perform emotional labour, and men “take charge” by acting individualistically and in a way that asserts their power over others (32), a notion especially visible in the final act of the film, when Barbies unite to end the rule of Kens. While the film’s portrayal of feminine qualities might appear to be positive, when engaging in feminist criticism through the lens of gender performativity theory, the very assumption that these characteristics are universal and innate to every woman can be considered incorrect and a product of the phenomenon of performativity, in which gender is neither an internal, pre-existing condition nor a reflection of an individual choice, but rather a set of “acts” required by society that fulfil various, constantly produced and reproduced social norms (Butler “Performative Acts” 526). Therefore, there are no universally feminine qualities because femininity as such is a social construct, a performance, not an innate condition. The seemingly positive qualities assigned to Barbies in the utopian Barbieland are a product of this very performance and perpetuate the view that certain elements of femininity are shared by all women because of their gender, undermining the film’s feminist message.

The deconstruction of the mechanism of performativity is also crucial for answering the question of whether or not Barbie’s portrayal of a “feminist utopia” can be helpful for the feminist fight and has the power to challenge the societal status quo. According to Butler, to truly undermine patriarchal structures of oppression and constructs such as compulsory heterosexuality, performativity and the mechanisms sustaining it has to be fully unmasked (Gender Trouble 180). This can be achieved through the re-examination and questioning of the very core of each social performance of the so-called “true” femininity, even when the image of it and the characteristics connected to it are perceived as vastly positive, something at which Barbie fails when it comes to its portrayal of the different characters. The film, therefore, risks reproducing the phenomenon described by Veronica Hollinger, in which the critiques of gender norms and societal status quo inadvertently reinstate them (25).

While discussing the characters of the utopian Barbieland and the film’s potential to challenge gender norms, it is also crucial to analyse the case of the Barbie who visibly does not conform to gender performativity – the Weird Barbie. Weird Barbie is unique in many ways, from her messy, short haircut through her unconventional clothing and makeup to her unusual behaviour. The way she looks and acts does not fit within the acceptable social norms of femininity, and consequently she is ostracised and removed from the community. Referring to her looks and place within Barbieland, Stereotypical Barbie comments: “either you’re brainwashed or you’re weird and ugly, there is no in-between”, highlighting the connection between societal indoctrination into widely embraced, often gender-related, norms of behaviour and appearance, and the perception and treatment of an individual as an “other” within society.

The portrayal of how Weird Barbie is treated by other Barbies strongly connects to Butler’s idea of discrete genders, which are sets of often subconscious societal beliefs and expectations that allow for the categorisation of individuals into binary genders. While discrete genders enable survival in society and humanise its members, they simultaneously have punitive consequences for those who do not conform to the stereotypical ways of gender performance (Gender Trouble 178). Weird Barbie’s nonconformity, even though central to the story, is still punished. She is never considered a true part of society, is feared by others, and is treated as a freak. This highlights that in Barbieland, correct and incorrect ways to perform gender exist, undermining the image of a feminist utopia and revealing that despite the veneer of empowerment, gender performativity has a significant influence on the characters living in Barbieland.

Choice Feminism and the Consequences of Gender Performativity

When Stereotypical Barbie comes back to Barbieland, or rather, at that point in the story, Kendom, she realises all her fellow Barbies have seemingly lost their minds. They gave up all of their significant roles and decided to serve the Kens instead, embracing patriarchy. This storyline breaks up with the perfect image of the feminist utopia and allows the movie to become, to a certain extent, self-reflexive. The Barbies, who never had to fight for their rights and only knew how to perform their roles in a “vacuum” of a perfectly matriarchal society, have no defence against the destructive influence of patriarchy. Their identities are shown as deeply performative. Before Barbieland’s transformation into Kendom, they were too preoccupied with performing their assigned roles to ever question why they performed them or whether they wanted to perform them; as a result, when different roles are assigned to them based on the newly introduced patriarchal system, they accept them without any hesitation.

This particular plot line can be interpreted as a criticism of choice feminism, the least political and most palatable form of feminism that only provides an illusion of empowerment through choice and exists as a response to common criticism of feminism as too radical (Ferguson 248). Despite having the freedom to resist the new order, the Barbies momentarily conform to a clearly oppressive set of social norms, seemingly out of their own free will. Such a portrayal satirises and exaggerates choice feminism to underline the complex issues connected to its philosophy. This storyline provides very relevant social commentary, especially in the current era of the rise of the so-called tradwife trend and glamorisation of the housewife lifestyle, and in addition to criticising the premise of choice feminism exposes the potential pitfalls of uncritical acceptance of traditional gender roles and the superficial empowerment that comes with them.

As Stereotypical Barbie delves deeper into the new reality of Kendom, she confronts another pervasive force shaping the lives of the inhabitants – compulsory heterosexuality. In the new reality, heteronormativity reigns supreme, dictating not only romantic relationships but also societal norms and expectations. Stereotypical Barbie observes how her fellow Barbies, once successful and self-confident, give up their jobs and houses and willingly conform to the narrow confines of compulsory heterosexuality, prioritising relationships with Kens above all else and accepting them as patriarchal rulers whom they need to obey. This limiting, degrading power of compulsory heterosexuality is described by Adrienne Rich, who explains that societal pressure to conform to this concept pervades every aspect of life, from academic discourse to personal relationships, influences all interactions, and affects every label assigned within society, confining many women to a prescribed script and preventing them from exploring their true identities beyond societal norms (657). The film connects to this premise and satirises compulsory heterosexuality by portraying it as a “brainwashing” practice that makes Barbies forget everything about their true identities and purposes and deconstructs the intertwining of heterosexuality with femininity through the perspective of Stereotypical Barbie, who witnesses the disastrous effects of compulsory heterosexuality from an outside perspective. Consequently, the film succeeds at exposing the performative nature of heterosexuality and reveals how it can stifle authentic expression and impose rigid binaries on women’s identities and desires.

Stereotypical Barbie and Feminist Empowerment

Stereotypical Barbie’s journey to finding her identity and purpose is perhaps the most important theme of the movie, and one that offers the most direct commentary on performativity. Stereotypical Barbie does not have an assigned role; she is a blank slate, which is a double-edged sword. On one hand, she is free to decide who she wants to be; on the other hand, she has no sense of purpose and struggles to find her place in the world. Throughout the film, Stereotypical Barbie learns that the real experience of girlhood and womanhood and her perception of femininity are vastly different. She sees the self-contradictory notion of women “always doing it wrong”, and the issue of never being able to fit within the unachievable standards. This observation deeply resonates with the aforementioned concept of “the new feminine mystiques” in which the societal expectations imposed on women require them, for example, to be sexy, yet not “too sexy”, to avoid being labelled as promiscuous, or to focus on their families and be fully committed to their role as mothers, but still have successful careers (Coontz 170), shedding light on the pressures women face. Additionally, Barbie’s experience with the unattainable, idealised image of womanhood and the internal conflict she goes through, realising she does not want to perform Barbieland’s “perfect” version of femininity, also connect to the concept of liveable life described by Wendy Gay Pearson. Pearson juxtaposes the societal pressure to conform to the accepted norms of gender performance, and the equating of such conformism with survival, with a sense of identity and personhood, claiming that “a normative conception of gender can undo one’s personhood, undermining the capacity to persevere in a liveable life” (76).

For the main character, engaging in the same activities as other Barbies and adhering to performativity caused depression and a lack of a sense of self, making her life unliveable. “Do you guys ever think about dying?”, she asks, interrupting a joyful party, visibly shocking other Barbies, and giving voice to the “irrepressible thoughts of death” she has been experiencing as a result of the dissonance between how she is supposed to act and feel and how she truly does. Stereotypical Barbie’s life, however, becomes liveable and her personhood is fully affirmed when at the end of the film, she decides to give up her role and place in Barbieland and becomes a “real person”, equating the rejection of performativity with agency and empowerment, and underlining that there is no one universal experience of womanhood.

The answer to the question of whether Stereotypical Barbie resists compulsory heterosexuality along with performativity, however, remains unclear. The character initially strongly rejects conforming to compulsory heterosexuality by rejecting Ken; therefore, at first glance, a normative, heterosexual romantic relationship does not define her. However, simultaneously, heterosexuality plays a discreet yet crucial role in the film. It is because of Ken’s actions that Barbie manages to discover her identity and go through the journey of finding her purpose. Ken is the driving force of the plot; if it were not for him, Barbie would not have many of her moments of reflection on femininity and womanhood. Finally, Barbieland is saved because the Barbies, led by Stereotypical Barbie, decide to perform heterosexuality in a weaponised way and use it as a tool of power over Kens. The film’s ending and Barbie’s apology for not appreciating Ken enough even further complicate the commentary on compulsory heterosexuality. While she rejects Ken romantically, she admits that Kens are crucial to society and that Barbies could not live happily without them. The struggle of the film to take a clear, more radical stance against compulsory heterosexuality again connects to the idea of Hollinger that the critiques of the societal status quo are often tainted by compulsory heterosexuality and reinstate the very social norms they try to challenge (25). By its avoidance of adopting a more radical position, the film inadvertently conforms to aspects of compulsory heterosexuality and reproduces the heteronormative, patriarchal norms that it simultaneously tries to criticise.

Conclusions

While Greta Gerwig’s Barbie attempts to deconstruct patriarchy and undermine the constructs that sustain it, such as gender performativity and compulsory heterosexuality, its efforts often remain superficial. The film’s portrayal of Barbies in Barbieland partially succeeds at transforming the symbolism of the doll and detaching it from the most stereotypical image of femininity, but does not fully free the doll from preconceived notions surrounding gender. Similarly, the main character’s journey, although a transformative exploration of womanhood that leads her to the discovery of feminism as a tool of both personal and common empowerment, is still limited and tainted by the stereotypical, normative conception of gender. Consequently, some of the constructs and polarities that the movie tries to undermine are instead reinforced by it. Despite its shortcomings, however, the film succeeds at providing a satirical lens for re-examining some of the deeply ingrained elements of the societal status quo and is not completely unsuccessful at redefining the doll as a feminist symbol.

References

Butler, Judith. “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory.” Theatre Journal 40.4 (1988): 519.

———. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge, 1989.

Coontz, Stephanie. A Strange Stirring: The Feminine Mystique and American Women at the Dawn of the 1960s. Basic Books, 2012.

Ferguson, Michaele L. “Choice Feminism and the Fear of Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 8.1 (2010): 247–253.

Gerwig, Greta. Barbie. Warner Bros, 2023.

Hollinger, Veronica. “(Re)reading Queerly: Science Fiction, Feminism, and the Defamiliarization of Gender.” Science Fiction Studies 26.1 (1999): 23–40.

Kachel, Sven, Melanie C. Steffens, and Claudia Niedlich. “Traditional Masculinity and Femininity: Validation of a New Scale Assessing Gender Roles.” Frontiers in Psychology 7 (2016).

MacNaughton, Glenda. “Is Barbie to Blame? Reconsidering How Children Learn Gender.” Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 21.4 (1996): 18–24.

Pearson, Wendy Gay. “Towards a Queer Genealogy of SF.” Queer Universes (2010): 72–100.

Prime, Jeanine L., Nancy M. Carter, and Theresa M. Welbourne. “Women ‘Take Care,’ Men ‘Take Charge’: Managers’ Stereotypic Perceptions of Women and Men Leaders.” The Psychologist-Manager Journal 12.1 (2009): 25–49.

Rich, Adrienne. “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence.” Signs 5.4 (1980): 631–660.

Barbieland

Anna Maria Broussard — Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0000

Greta Gerwig’s 2023 film Barbie presents Barbieland as a matriarchal society, and arguably as an asexual utopia where the various iterations of Barbie, Ken, and other Mattel dolls live in harmony. The movie critiques the system of compulsory sexuality that pushes a rejected Ken into his takeover of Barbieland. Further complicating this asexual reading of the Barbie is the history of the Mattel dolls as unsexed, a criticism that has been laid at the feet of many asexual individuals whose lack of sexual desire often renders them as inhuman. While the blossoming field of asexuality studies has sought to counter the misconception of asexual people as somehow unsexed and inhuman, robust depictions of asexuality are still rare onscreen. While Barbie never explicitly claims an asexual identity, she also never shows any sexual desire, not even for Ken. I propose that an asexual critical lens, a practice of reading texts for traces of asexuality, can be used to read Barbie and to critique our society’s preoccupation with compulsory sexuality.

But first, what is asexuality? Julia Sondra Decker defines asexuality as “the experience of not being sexually attracted to others … [and] not valuing sex or sexual attraction enough to pursue it” (3). To further broaden and complicate the definition of asexuality, CJ DeLuzio Chasin, for instance, suggests that for some, asexuality is seen “as primarily being about a disidentification with sexuality (that is, a strong sense of being not sexual or nonsexual as opposed to being sexual)”, while for others, “asexuality is primarily about a positive identification … that is, a strong sense of being asexual/ace as opposed to non-asexual” (407). These additional conceptualisations revolve around either distancing oneself from sexuality or embracing asexuality as an identity, or even a combination of both. The variety of definitions of asexuality are arguably an integral part of its complexity.

Defining asexuality has been a primary concern for asexual activists, many of whom point to the creation of the Asexuality Visibility and Education Network (AVEN) as the beginning of the understanding of asexuality as a contemporary identity category that falls under the queer umbrella. Research into asexuality is relatively new, with the bulk of scholarship occurring within the past fifteen years. During this time, asexuality studies has emerged as a thriving academic field of study, largely informed by feminist and queer theory.

In the introduction of their edited volume Asexualities: Feminist and Queer Perspectives, Karli June Cerankowski and Megan Milks explicitly describe asexuality as queer, stating that it explores “new possibilities in intimacy, desire, and kinship structures” (3). Even further than exploring alternative possibilities outside of normative sexual structures, asexuality scholars also go so far as to interrogate the assumption that all people experience sexual attraction.

While this assumption of sexual desire has been described by multiple asexuality scholars, the best-known and most-cited definition comes from Kristina Gupta, who uses the term “compulsory sexuality”, drawing from Adrienne Rich’s concept of compulsory heterosexuality, which describes the process in which heterosexuality is constructed as a political institution that disempowers women (632). Gupta defines compulsory sexuality as “the social norms and practices that both marginalize various forms of non-sexuality, such as a lack of sexual desire or behaviour, and compel people to experience themselves as desiring subjects, take up sexual identities, and engage in sexual activity” (132). In other words, compulsory sexuality hinges on the assumption that everyone experiences some form of sexual desire, so therefore participation in this system of compulsory sexuality is mandatory. Because of this, asexuality is often considered an invisible orientation, with representations of asexuality being rather scarce and the voices of asexual individuals, up until very recently, going largely unheard. As Sherronda K. Brown states, “asexuality … would be more recognizable if it were not so strongly regarded as an impossible or wrong way to exist” (37).

The evidence of compulsory sexuality is pervasive, as seen in market-driven media advertising using sex to sell commodities and in pop culture depictions of romance and sexuality that render asexuality as virtually non-existent. Gupta cites recent scholarship on the role of sexuality in contemporary capitalism, stating “the capitalist marketplace attempts to incite sexual desires in order to sell products that promise to fulfill those desires” (138). Sexual desire here becomes something that can be manufactured and sold, through products such as the overtly sexualised Barbie doll, for instance.

Another aspect of compulsory sexuality is the proliferation of sexuality not just in advertising, but also in popular culture. The vast majority of film, literature, music, theatre, etc. are love stories, with sex playing a major role. There are very few representations of overt asexuality in contemporary popular culture, though this has expanded in more recent years. Ela Przybylo and Danielle Cooper created a methodology to include asexual representation and interpretation through what they call “asexual resonances” where asexuality may be hidden, invisible, ignored, or not overtly identified. Instead of trying to find a clear or “correct” example of asexual representation, Przybylo and Cooper allow for a “queer broadening of what can ‘count’ as asexuality” (298). In other words, Przybylo and Cooper provide a potential for an asexual interpretative lens to read for asexuality in pop culture where it may not be overtly named as an identity. Similar to this asexual interpretive lens is that of Stacy Wolf, who in A Problem like Maria: Gender and Sexuality in the American Musical attempts to interpret straight characters in American musicals as lesbians (4). In other words, Wolf asks: what if these characters could be read as lesbian? This same what if could be used to ask how we could read characters as asexual. So, where Stacy Wolf uses “lesbian”, I wish to use the same methodology for reading characters as “asexual”.

It is with this lens that I seek to read Barbie as asexual, or at least containing strong asexual resonances. In using an asexual lens, we can read Barbie as an asexual icon, but we can also view how the Barbie movie critiques the system of compulsory sexuality and sets up Barbieland as an asexual utopia. Several critics have already read Barbie as an example of asexual representation, with numerous social media posts, podcasts, and YouTube videos breaking down their asexual interpretations. Articles from 2023, such as Kelly Pau’s Salon article “Barbie Has Become an Asexual Icon and We Should All Learn from Her” and Scarlett Harris’s “Barbie Might Just Be Asexual – and the Movie Proves It” are just two examples of how Barbie has been recognised by people in the asexual community.

For instance, in a Vogue interview from before the film’s premiere, Barbie actress Margot Robbie herself seems to make the case for an asexual interpretation of Barbie. She is quoted as saying “okay, she’s a doll. She doesn’t have organs. If she doesn’t have organs, she doesn’t have reproductive organs. If she doesn’t have reproductive organs, would she even feel sexual desire? No, I don’t think she could”. Because she is a doll, as Robbie notes, she cannot feel sexual desire. Barbie, first of all, is a fantasy, with Mary F. Rogers stating in her book Barbie Culture that “her femininity is fantastic” (14). She is an overly idealised feminine doll; nothing more than a fantasy. Robbie, in the same Vogue interview, further states, “she is sexualized. But she should never be sexy. People can project sex onto her”. In other words, Barbie can be anything. We are the ones who project sex and sexiness onto her, but the doll itself (or herself) is not automatically sexy. Viewed in this way, an asexual existence is the default, or the norm for Barbie. Compulsory sexuality is thus unknown in Barbieland.

Gerwig’s film begins with Barbie as a monolith, this figure of fantastic femininity and womanhood, that allows little girls to put down their baby dolls and tacitly refuse motherhood, and thus compulsory sexuality. Soon, we switch to Barbieland, a fantastical utopian vision of the world of the Barbie doll, where the laws of physics are suspended as we follow the dolls in their daily routine, again free from compulsory sexuality.

Utopia is often defined as a no place, one that does not exist except in our imaginations. José Esteban Muñoz describes utopia as offering “a critique of the present, of what is, by casting a picture of what can and perhaps will be” (35). There is a potential in queerness to imagine what could exist. Muñoz further depicts queer utopias as enacting a future vision by looking to “queer relational formations” (28), which I would argue would include asexual relational formations through nonsexual intimacy.

Barbieland is such an asexual utopia. Every night is girls’ night, where the Barbies just still enjoy life to the fullest through their dance parties. There is no sense of the dolls having romantic relationships or sex, especially considering that they all lack genitals. Their relationship, among all of the dolls, seems to be one of friendship and fun, not sex or sexual desire. Living a full life in Barbieland with nonsexual intimacy among friends is imagined as the everyday and ideal. Barbie, who is so often viewed as an unattainable sexual fantasy, is instead allowed to just be in Barbieland. She is the centre of Barbieland, where the Barbies are all in charge. Barbie is also not romantically or sexually interested in Ken. Instead, they have a friendship, where Ken seems to want to pursue Barbie, he even sees himself through Barbie, but she remains mostly interested in her own life, her accomplishments, and dancing with the other Barbies.

Now of course, this utopian vision is flawed. As Muñoz states, utopian vision is often viewed as “naively romantic” (27). So too is the vision of Barbieland. The Barbies themselves are naïve about the “real world” and live in an almost childlike innocence. The characters are still dolls, after all, not fully realised humans. It is when real human feelings begin to seep into Barbie through the human that used to play with her that things begin to change for the worse for Barbie. She starts to experience “flaws”, such as flat feet and cellulite, and must travel to the real world to “fix” it.

Barbie’s innocence highlights one of the most common misunderstandings of asexuality: that asexual people are often infantilised and considered immature or repressed. Megan Milks discusses this very tendency, and how asexual identifying people are read as “not-yet-human but also not-yet-liberated” (107). Barbie is viewed in this very way, especially considering that she is not human; she is a toy with literally no genitals. She is not quite human, but I would not argue that she is not liberated. Barbieland, for her, is a liberating society. Her entrance into human society is where she suddenly becomes immature. However, there is a legitimate critique suggesting that a society of genitalless dolls is an asexual utopia.

However, this is a fantasy land, not real life. Asexuality, in real people, does not mean unsexed or desexualised, lacking in sex organs, or somehow not fully human. Barbieland could be viewed as an asexual utopia; however, this utopian vision is neither perfect nor unproblematic.

The infantilisation and objectification of Barbie starts to set in once she has to enter the “real world”. She is an innocent fish out of water, trying to figure out her way into a world that sexualises her, which she does not yet recognise. Sarah Ahmed, in The Cultural Politics of Emotion, explains discomfort as belonging to a set of queer feelings. She states that “discomfort is not simply a choice or decision … but an effect of bodies inhabiting spaces that do not take or ‘extend’ their shape” (152). Barbie does not belong in the “real world” where she immediately feels preyed upon from being sexualised. Barbie thus confronts the world of compulsory sexuality, which so often looks like compulsory heterosexuality (especially for women). As Ken enters the real world, he discovers the patriarchy, and becomes even more entrenched in the idea that as a man, he is owed affection from Barbie. Ken then becomes a symbol of toxic masculinity, which goes hand in hand with compulsory sexuality.

Ela Przybylo, in Asexual Erotics: Intimate Readings of Compulsory Sexuality, contends that “compulsory sexuality is not only the celebration of sex or sexual desire but it is the uneven application of this celebration, the idea that white men deserve sex and that women owe them this sex” (138). Przybylo here is specifically discussing the “tyrannical celibacy” (138) of the contemporary incel movement (which often blends misogyny with white supremacy), but this depiction of compulsory sexuality can be applied to the behaviour of the Kens in Barbie as well. Ken believes that he is owed sexual access to Barbie (even if he doesn’t quite know what that means), which she will not give. As the Kens attempt to turn Barbieland into Kenland, they brainwash the Barbies into giving up their agency in order to get their attention. Eventually, the Kens begin to demonstrate toxic masculinity, expecting subservience from the Barbies and even fighting amongst themselves for the Barbies’ affections, which the Barbies later use to their advantage to save the day.

The nonsexual intimacy that Barbie offers Ken is at first considered unthinkable, but it is recognised in the end when the Barbies defeat the Kens. The Barbies thus do not give in to compulsory sexuality, and the Kens agree. The nonsexual relationships are restored, with another Ken exclaiming, “I miss my friend Barbie” as they have a hug together, demonstrating that in the end they are all able to exist alongside one another as friends, not in a sexual way and not in a way where one has more power over the other.

While Ken might believe that Barbie’s rejection makes him somewhat less of a man, Barbie feels otherwise. For her, she is not interested in Ken because that is not her story. In the end, Barbie wants her own story, and helps Ken find his as well, apart from being in a romantic relationship. Barbie and Ken reconcile at the end, but they do not get together. Barbie remains alone, and arguably, asexual. Her story is not a romance.

The very end of the movie sees Barbie choosing to forego her flawed asexual utopia and come to the real world, after being allowed to view and feel the joys and pains of womanhood. She is allowed to go from being a desexualised object to a fully realised woman. However, just because she gains genitals does not mean that she is no longer asexual. Asexuality is also not the state of having no sex organs; asexual people are not plants or dolls, as it were.

Instead, perhaps we should take an imaginative leap off the screen, to ask about her potential future as an asexual woman. What if she still ends up alone? Happy and alone? Not an unsexed object, but an asexual subject. Still beautiful and whole, and able to just be?

Our current moment within which asexuality is newly legible is the moment in which we as moviegoers are watching and interpreting this film. An asexual lens works as an interpretative possibility for twenty-first century audiences who are newly enunciating asexuality as its own sexual orientation.

With Barbie, asexuality can find a place among contemporary audiences. While Barbie began as a doll, her character became more than that. The Barbies themselves also became fully realised characters, still living their perhaps oversimplified lives in their imperfect utopia. Barbie chooses to enter the real world, but her asexuality still remains. She does not choose to enter into a relationship with anyone. Instead, she chooses body autonomy.

References

Aguirre, Abby. “Barbiemania! Margot Robbie Opens Up about the Movie Everyone’s Waiting For.” Vogue, 24 May 2023. 10 April 2024 <https://www.vogue.com/article/margot-robbie-barbie-summer-cover-2023-interview>.

Ahmed, Sarah. Cultural Politics of Emotion. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2014.

AVEN: The Asexuality Visibility and Education Network. 2001-2024. <https://www.asexuality.org/>.

Barbie. Dir. Greta Gerwig. Warner Brothers Pictures, 2023.

Brown, Sherronda J. Refusing Compulsory Sexuality: A Black Asexual Lens on Our Sex-Obsessed Culture. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books, 2022.

Chasin, CJ DeLuzio. “Reconsidering Asexuality and Its Radical Potential.” Feminist Studies 39.2 (2013): 405-426. <https://doi.org/10.1353/fem.2013.0054>.

Decker, Julie Sondra. The Invisible Orientation: An Introduction to Asexuality. New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2015.

Gupta, Kristina. “Compulsory Sexuality: Evaluating an Emerging Concept.” Signs 41.1 (2015): 131-154. 2 Feb. 2024 <https://doi.org/10.1086/681774>.

Harris, Scarlett. “Barbie Might Just Be Asexual – and the Movie Proves It.” SheKnows, 26 July 2023. 24 Mar. 2024 <https://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/articles/2816809/is-barbie-asexual/>.

Milks, Megan. “Stunted Growth: Asexual Politics and the Rhetorics of Sexual Liberation.” Asexualities: Feminist and Queer Perspectives. Eds. Karli June Cerankwoski and Megan Milks. New York: Routledge, 2014. 100-118.

Milks, Megan, and Karli June Cerankowski. “Introduction: Why Asexuality? Why Now?” Asexualities: Feminist and Queer Perspectives. Eds. Karli June Cerankwoski and Megan Milks. New York: Routledge, 2014. 1-14.

Muñoz, José Esteban. Cruising Utopia: The Then and There of Queer Futurity. New York: New York UP, 2009.

Pau, Kelly. “Barbie Has Become an Asexual Icon, and We Should All Learn from Her.” Salon, 1 Aug. 2023. 24 Mar. 2024 <https://www.salon.com/2023/08/01/barbie-asexual-icon/>.

Przybylo, Ela, and Danielle Cooper. “Asexual Resonances: Tracing a Queerly Asexual Archive.” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 20.3 (2014): 297-318. <https://doi.org/10.1215/10642684-2422683>.

Przybylo, Ela. Asexual Erotics: Intimate Readings of Compulsory Sexuality. Columbus: Ohio State UP, 2019.

Rich, Adrienne. “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence.” Signs 5.4 (1980): 631-660.

Rogers, Mary F. Barbie Culture. London: Sage, 1999.

Wolf, Stacy. A Problem like Maria: Gender and Sexuality in the American Musical. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 2002.

“I’m a Barbie Girl”

Daisy McManaman — Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0000

“We girls can do anything, right, Barbie?” — Barbie advertising slogan, 1985

Introduction

Barbie, throughout her sixty-five year history, has both influenced and reflected western ideas of femininity. To quote M.G. Lord: “Barbie has both shaped and responded to the marketplace, it’s possible to study her as a reflection of American popular cultural values and notions of femininity. Her houses, and friends and clothes provide a window onto the often contradictory demands that the culture has placed upon women” (Lord, 7). Not only does Barbie reflect the contradictory demands and ideals placed on women, as Lord points out, but Barbie has also generated contradictory ideas and analyses. This article considers Barbie and her construction of hyper-femininity in relation to feminist debates, utilising Critical Femininities and queer theory to seek out new meanings for Barbie. It is worth noting that this article discusses Barbie as a figure and cultural construct, both in relation to the Barbie doll line as well as the 2023 film Barbie.

I’m a Barbie Girl

In the throes of 2020’s COVID lockdown I found joy in an unexpected source: Barbie.

Like many, Barbie had a pink-tinted presence in my childhood, with her shiny blonde hair, permanently arched feet, and in place of genitals, flesh coloured plastic underwear embossed with tiny raised letter Bs which I would rub my fingers over. I would dress my Barbies up in whatever tiny clothes I could get my hands on, my tape of Aqua’s Barbie Girl on repeat. My mum once bought me a Bratz doll, whose oversized lips and Y2K fashions couldn’t eclipse Barbie. Bratz dolls felt like the girls in school who would bully me, whilst Barbie felt like a woman I could aspire to be, with her dream house, multitude of careers, and parade of pets. In my heart, Barbie was supreme. However, as my childhood Barbies eventually scattered to various charity shops and storage bins in the attic, my adult life became devoid of tiny plastic heels and hairbrushes.

That is, until 2020. Stuck indoors, on furlough from a retail job I despised, and considering applying for PhD programs but struggling to string together my proposal, I saw her. Celebrating Barbie’s 60th Birthday: Proudly Pink Barbie™. She appears drenched in pink, her pink hair styled into a high ponytail permanently gelled into a satisfying swoop at the end; attached to her pink peplum top sits a rhinestone broach which reads “Barbie”. The Barbie monogram also appears printed on her hot pink pencil skirt and matching pink quilted bag, which sits in the crook of her pink gloved arms. Whilst modern Barbies’ gaze looks straight forward to look kindly upon their owners, Proudly Pink Barbie™ is based on the sculpt of the original 1959 Barbie. As such, her blue eye-shadowed cat-eyed gaze is cast permanently downwards and to the side, her glossed pink lips pouting instead of smiling. Proudly Pink Barbie™ does not perform happiness for the viewer, instead her sidewards glance reads as ennui. It’s as if she knew that in my lockdown solitude I had grown accustomed to wearing Juicy Couture sweatpants and no make up, and she judged me heavily for it. Proudly Pink Barbie™ will always be a better hyper-femme than me, and I’m at peace with that.

Proudly Pink Barbie™ sits perfectly on my living room shelf with her Barbie pals who have joined her over recent years, a cluster of ballgowns, tiny lingerie, striped swimsuits, and a once winking cowgirl whose broken eyes have been fixed. A reminder of the possibilities of hyper-femininity in all its fun, performative, camp, joyous, and powerful forms. My most recent Barbie stands out of her box on the shelf with her new peers, she is Margot Robbie Barbie in her pink cowgirl outfit.

The Multiplicities of Barbie and Her Complicated Relationship to Feminism

Barbie’s (2023) opening monologue reflects on Barbie’s history and the multiplicity of Barbie:

yes, Barbie changed everything. Then, she changed it all again. All of these women are Barbie, and Barbie is all of these women. She might have started out as just a lady in a bathing suit, but she became so much more. She has her own money, her own house, her own car, her own career. Because Barbie can be anything, women can be anything. And this has been reflected back onto the little girls of today in the real world. Girls have grown into women who can achieve everything and anything they set their mind to. Thanks to Barbie all problems of feminism and equal rights have been solved, at least that’s what the Barbies think. (Gerwig)

Whilst ironic in tone, it does consider how Barbie can act as a conduit for empowerment. The multiplicity of Barbie, with her endless careers and multiple houses, friends, and methods of transport, leads to a cacophony of opportunities for play. However, the boundless opportunities and room for creativity within Barbie’s world do not often extend to Barbie’s idea of femininity. Barbie can be everything, but she is very rarely seen without her plastic heels and pink branding. Barbie’s careers are often in flux, but her gendered identity seemingly fits perfectly within her pink box. Whilst it could be, and has been, argued that Barbie’s construction of femininity is limiting, it could also be simultaneously true that Barbie’s hyper-femininity is in itself a feminist statement.

The first Barbie doll debuted a few years before Betty Friedan published The Feminine Mystique, calling attention to “the problem that has no name” (Friedan, 5): the widespread unhappiness of women forced into hegemonic feminine roles with limited opportunities for women in the workforce. Whilst feminine in her appearance, Barbie defied patriarchal roles with her actions. Barbie in her early years allowed young girls and children to dream that they could work any career they wished, even in what was seen as more masculine positions such as astronauts and doctors, could own their own homes without needing to be married, and did not need to sacrifice their femininity in order to succeed. To Barbie, femininity knows no bounds.

To many, however, Barbie’s construction of femininity is perceived as limiting and disempowering. Barbie has been a site for feminist discourse since she made her debut. In 1972, NOW (The National Organisation for Women) staged a protest outside a toy fair in New York, handing out leaflets which stated that “'fashion' dolls such as Barbie, Dawn and Chrissy perpetuated sexual stereotypes by encouraging little girls to see themselves solely as mannequins, sex objects or housekeepers” (New York Times).

Meanwhile, Natasha Walter links the pink-ification of girls' toys such as Barbie to what she sees as the auto-objectification of women, claiming that women are modelling themselves on the dolls they were brought up with. Walter argues that the limiting ideals of femininity as portrayed in dolls such as Barbie both echo and endorse the western feminine beauty standard of cis-gendered, white, skinny, able-bodied, and blonde. Barbie’s caricature of femininity has had an impact on women, as many strive to attain her almost impossible standard of beauty; according to Walter this should not be viewed as an act of empowerment, but rather as giving in to patriarchal ideals.

Whilst many, such as Walter, have argued that Barbie’s construction of femininity has both historically and in recent years been limited in its beauty standards, the notion of Barbie as white, blonde, able-bodied, and thin is not entirely representative of the true diversity of Barbie. Throughout Barbie’s history, Mattel has attempted to diversify both Barbie herself and her line-up of friends; however, these attempts have made a complicated impact, with Mattel at times arguably falling short of truly instilling inclusivity into Barbie. In 1967, Mattel launched Coloured Francie, a darker-complexioned version of their Francie doll. Coloured Francie was Mattel’s first none-white doll in their Barbie line; however, Mattel faced criticism for utilising the same face mold as her caucasian counterpart. A year later Mattel released Christie, their first doll with a face mold based on African American features, whilst in 1980 Mattel released African American and Hispanic Barbie dolls, officially expanding Barbie from being solely white. Since then Barbie has been an array of multiple ethnicities and races. In recent years, Mattel has also expanded her once limiting beauty standard further by introducing dolls such as a ‘curvy’ Barbie in 2016, Barbies with prosthetic limbs and hearing aids in 2018, and a Barbie with Down syndrome in 2023. However, Mattel's forays into introducing dolls of different body types and disabilities have not always succeeded. Seven years after the introduction of the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act, Mattel realised “Share a Smile Becky”, a friend of Barbie's who came in a hot pink wheelchair. However, Mattel’s first disabled doll was quickly discontinued after consumers realised that Becky was unable to access Barbie’s dream house and accessories.

Despite Mattel’s at times arguably apathetic attempts to diversify Barbie, the cultural notion of Barbie has remained that of white, thin, blonde, and able-bodied. We can see this reflected in the casting of the film Barbie itself: despite a diverse cast of Barbies, our protagonist “stereotypical” Barbie is played by white, thin, blonde, and able-bodied actress Margot Robbie, who describes herself to Kate McKinnon’s Weird Barbie: "I’m Stereotypical Barbie. I’m like the Barbie you think of when someone says, ‘Think of a Barbie.’ That’s me” (Gerwig). As Stereotypical Barbie herself states, despite there now being a cacophony of Barbies available, to many our cultural idea of Barbie remains blonde, white, thin, and able-bodied.

If we are to view Barbie as a pink-tinted reflection of western ideas of femininity, it is no surprise then that Barbie’s beauty standards and our cultural idea of Barbie’s standard of feminine beauty mirrors western beauty standards. However, through reanalysing Barbie’s construction of unbridled hyper-femininity through a lens of Critical Femininities perhaps we can also allow space for readings of Barbie as a site for empowerment, subversion, and joy. Hoskin and Blair describe Critical Femininities as “moving beyond femininity as a patriarchal tool” (Hoskin and Blair, 1): challenging assumptions that femininity is inherently subordinate and a source of disempowerment, they argue instead for “alternative readings of femininity that are both intersectional and liberating” (Hoskin and Blair, 5). Viewing Barbie through a lens of Critical Femininities allows us to see her pink-hued hyper-feminine aesthetics as a representation of high-femme joy, in all her tiny plastic high-heeled, exaggeratedly vibrant make-up, and frilly costumed glory. Whilst many feminist critiques of Barbie raise valid concerns, I would argue that simultaneously if we are to view Barbie’s hyper-femininity as a site for joyous gender expression, instead of as a purely patriarchal tool, we can see the true strength in Barbie’s pink-saturated femininity. By acknowledging the complications and multiplicities of Barbie and allowing space for her to be seen outside of the binary of bad/good feminist, for multiple meanings to coexist perhaps we can seek out new possibilities for Barbie.

“The Epitome of Stupidity and Glamour”: Queer Co-option of Barbie

Another key notion we can utilise in seeking out new possibilities for Barbie is to seek to liberate her from Mattel’s enforced heteronormativity. What is overtly lacking from the Barbie movie as well as many feminist texts on Barbie is her radical ability to act as a conduit for joyous and subversive queer readings. Whilst Barbie as a product manufactured by Mattel has both historically and recently been limited in her construction of femininity, with her largely depicted as skinny, white, and blonde, Barbie as an idea, as a shorthand for the endless possibilities of hyper-femininity and gender play, is so much more.

Erica Rand argues that Mattel’s branding and creation of Barbie perpetuates hegemonic ideas of femininity and heterosexuality, and enforces western beauty standards; however, consumers of Barbie can deviate from Mattel’s demands. Rand highlights how Barbie can be used as a tool to subvert the very values and beauty standards she represents, with consumers creating their own queer, butch, cross-dressing, and dyke Barbies who break the hegemonic and heterosexual mold enforced by Mattel. Rand states that

consumers often took out much of what Mattel put in. But, equally as often, they took out less and added more themselves than common wisdom would suggest. They gave Barbie queer accessories, and they acted as Barbie’s queer accessories to the crime of abetting her escape from the straight context of meaning that Mattel spent millions of dollars to give her. (Rand, 194)

A recent example of the queer co-option of Barbie is drag queen Trixie Mattel. Adopting Mattel as her performance surname, Mattel has utilised Barbie as inspiration for much of her drag persona. Mattel’s exaggerated make up and usage of Barbie fashions as a site of inspiration for her drag looks, such as Golden Dreams Barbie, Winking Western Barbie, and Workin’ Out Barbie, form a queer parody of Barbie which reclaims and subverts Mattel’s (the brand’s) intentions. As well as utilising Barbie as a conduit for drag parody, Mattel is also an avid collector of Barbie and creates YouTube content to present her collection and discuss Barbie history with her audience. Her YouTube series Trixie’s Decades of Dolls sees Mattel discuss key Barbies from the 1960s to 1990s, where Mattel revels in the ridiculous, groundbreaking and consistently high-femme eras of Barbie. Mattel draws attention to moments where Barbie reflects and influences women’s history, as well as calling attention to the impractical, camp, and ridiculous nature of the designs of Barbie over the years. She describes 1990’s Holiday Barbie this way: “I mean nothing is more ridiculous than this gown, and there’s this big floating bang, with blue eye makeup plastered in circles on an orange base. The epitome of stupidity and glamour” (Mattel).

It is clear that Mattel utilises Barbie as a site of personal joy. Mattel serves as a – to quote Rand – “queer accessory to Barbie”, utilising drag to parody and reclaim Barbie as well as utilising her YouTube content to publish her queer readings of Barbie. Mattel’s exaggerated performance of Barbie-inspired hyper-femininity both celebrates Barbie’s legacy and destabilises aspects of Barbie that fall more within patriarchal, normative, and heteronormative spheres. Mattel stands as an example for how Barbie and her complicated representations of femininity can be utilised as a source of empowerment and joy.

Over the course of my research, I have been thinking about my own relationship to Barbie as a queer femme woman, and the legacy that each Barbie that I once held in my chubby childhood fingers, or now place on my living room shelf, has had. Rediscovering Barbie at the age of 26 reaffirmed and set ablaze a core and unwavering belief of mine: that femininity can be fun. I look at my Barbies lined up on my shelf: a parade of hyper-femininities, they call out to me to be as fun as them, as pink, as bright, as bold, as ridiculous. My Barbies show me that femininity can be subversive. That I can express my gender identity through dress-up. That I can love and embrace the colour pink and saturate my life and myself with pink, as an act of joy and gender expression, not as a sign that I’ve given in to patriarchal demands. Barbie means to me the power of hyper-femininity and the endless room for possibilities and multitudes it holds.

Fig. 1: Self-portrait with Barbies, 2023.

Conclusion

Whilst Barbie may be seen as an unrealistic ideal, her construction of exaggerated hyper-femininity has for many served as a conduit for femme self-expression. In her biography Doll Parts, transgender model and performer Amanda Lepore describes how her childhood Barbie dolls were “everything I wanted to be, before I even knew what I wanted” (Lepore, 4). For generations of women, queer people, and femmes alike, Barbie has been a friend, a confidant, a muse: a plastic sculpted figure who sparked within us a desire to explore and play with our own relationships with gender and femininity.

Through we are arguably yet to see an out queer Barbie on our shelves and our screens – although Mattel has released in recent years a series of Inspiring Women Barbie dolls, some of which depict LGBTQ+ women, including actress Laverne Cox – I would like to end by briefly focussing on the queer subtext in Barbie’s ending. We see Barbie leave Barbieland with her creator, Ruth Handler – played by Rhea Perlman – and decide that she wants to no longer be an idea, but instead to be a human: “ I want to do the imagining, I don’t wanna be the idea” (Gerwig). Barbie’s journey through the conflicting push and pull of patriarchy and feminism has led to her longing for subjecthood. Ultimately, Barbie realises that she does not need permission from her creator to be human, she can simply “discover I am”. Barbie’s self-discovery and leap into humanity, transforming from a thing that is made to a woman, reflects many queer people’s journeys in realising that they do not need permission to live their authentic lives. Barbie’s ending serves as an ode to those who stepped into the unknown and embraced the multitude of possibilities available to them. “Take my hands. Now, close your eyes. Now feel.”

References

Friedan, Betty. The Feminine Mystique. London: Penguin Classics, 1963.

Gerwig, Greta, dir. Barbie. Warner Bros Pictures, 2023.

Hoskin, Rhea Ashley, and Karen L. Blair. “Critical Femininities: A ‘New’ Approach to Gender Theory.” Psychology & Sexuality 13.1 (2022): 1-8. <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19419899.2021.1905052>.

Lepore, Amanda. Doll Parts. New York: Regan Arts, 2017.

Lord, M.G. Forever Barbie: The Unauthorised Biography of a Real Doll. New York: William Morrow, 1994.

Mattel, Trixie. Trixie’s Decades of Dolls: The 90s. 2020. 11 Apr. 2024 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrJh4fF4RE>.

Rand, Erica. Barbie’s Queer Accessories. Duke UP, 1995.

New York Times. "Feminists Protest 'Sexist' Toys in Fair." 29 Feb. 1972. 11 Apr. 2023 <https://www.nytimes.com/1972/02/29/archives/feminists-protest-sexist-toys-in-fair.html>.

Walter, Natasha. Living Dolls: The Return of Sexism. London: Virago, 2010.

Barbie

Jo Coghlan, Lisa J. Hackett, Huw Nolan — Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0000

The story of Barbie is a tapestry woven with threads of cultural significance, societal shifts, and corporate narratives. It’s a tale that encapsulates the evolution of American post-war capitalism, mirroring the changing tides of social norms, aspirations, and identities. Barbie’s journey from Germany to Los Angeles, along the way becoming a global icon, is a testament to the power of Ruth Handler’s vision and Barbie’s marketing. Barbie embodies and reflects the rise of mass consumption and the early days of television advertising, where one doll could become a household name and shape the dreams of children worldwide.

The controversies and criticisms surrounding Barbie – from promoting a ‘thin ideal’ to perpetuating gender and racial stereotypes – highlight the complexities of representation in popular culture. Yet, Barbie’s enduring message, “You can be anything”, continues to inspire and empower, even as it evolves to embrace a more inclusive and diverse portrayals of power, beauty, and potential. Barbie’s story is not just about a doll; it’s about the aspirations she represents, the societal changes she’s witnessed, and the ongoing conversation about her impact on gender roles, body image, and consumer culture. It’s a narrative that continues to unfold, as Barbie adapts to the times and remains a symbol of possibility.

Barbie: A Popular Culture Icon

“It is impossible to conceive of the toy industry as being anything other than dependent on a popular culture which shapes and structures the meanings carried by toys” (Fleming 40). The relationship between toys and popular culture is symbiotic. While popular culture influences the creation of toys, toys also contribute to the spread and longevity of cultural icons and narratives. Today, one of the most influential, popular, and contested toys of the twentieth century is Mattel’s Barbie doll. Her launch at the New York Toy Fair on 9 March 1959 by Mattel co-founder Ruth Handler was a game-changer in the toy industry. Her adult appearance, symbolised by her fashionable swimsuit and ponytail, was a bold move by Mattel. Despite the doubts from the toy industry which thought nobody would want to play with a doll that had breasts (Tamkin) and Mattel’s skepticism of its commercial success (Westenhouser 14), Barbie was a success, selling over 350,000 units in her first year, and she quickly became an iconic figure, paving the way for other male and female adult dolls.

For the first time in mid-century America, Barbie meant children could play with a doll that looked like a woman, not a little girl or a baby. In a 1965 interview, Ruth Handler argued that American girls needed a doll with a “teen-age figure and a lot of glorious, imaginative, high-fashion clothes” (cited in Giacomin and Lubinski 3). In a 1993 interview, Handler said it was “important that Barbie allowed play situations that little girls could project themselves into … to imagine, pretend and to fantasize”. Hence Ruth Handler’s Barbie could be an “avatar for girls to project their dreams onto” (Southwell). Barbie hit the market with a “sassy ponytail, heavy eyeliner, a healthy dose of side-eye and a distinctly adult body” (Blackmore). Her arched eyebrows were matched with a coy sideways glance reflecting her sexual origins (Thong). Mattel did not reveal that Ruth Handler’s Barbie was inspired by a German novelty men’s toy, Bild Lilli, which Handler had purchased on a European holiday in 1955. Mattel fought several lawsuits and eventually secured the rights to Bild Lilli in 1964, which required the German maker of the Bild Lilli doll to not make her again. Barbie dolls, both blonde and brunette, changed little until 1967, when Mattel launch the ‘new’ Barbie doll which is the foundation for today’s Stereotypical Barbie. The same size as the original, thanks to Mattel engineer Jack Ryan she could twist and turn at the waist. Her facial features were softened, she had ‘real’ eyelashes’ and took on an ‘outdoor look’. The new 1967 version of Barbie originally retailed for US$3.00. Mattel, assuming consumers may not want to buy a new Barbie when they already had one, offered buyers the new Barbie at US$1.50 if they traded in their old 1950s Barbie. The television advertising campaign for the new Barbie featured Maureen McMormick (who would go on to play Marcia Brady in the TV series The Brady Bunch from 1969 to 1974). The original #1 Barbie today sells for over US$25,000 (Reinhard). The most expensive Barbie sold to date was a Stefano Canturi-designed Barbie that sold in 2010 for US$302,500 at Christies in New York (Clarendon).

Barbie has been described as “the most successful doll in history”, “the most popular toy in history”, the “empress of fashion dolls” (Rogers 86), the “most famous doll in the world” (Ferorelli), the biggest-selling fashion doll in history (Green and Gellene), and is one if the world’s “most commercially successful toys” (Fleming 41). Barbie is both “idealistic and materialistic” and characterises an “American fantasy” (Tamkin). More so, she is a popular culture icon and “a unique indicator of women’s history” (Vander Bent). The inclusion of Barbie in America’s twentieth-century Time Capsule “cemented her status as a true American icon” (Ford), as did Andy Warhol when he iconised Barbie in his 1968 painting of her (Moore). During the 1950s and 1960s, Barbie’s name was licenced to over 100 companies; while a strategic move that expanded Barbie’s brand presence, it also provided Mattel with substantial royalty payments for decades. This approach helped solidify Barbie’s status as a cultural icon and enabled her to become a lucrative asset for Mattel (Rogers). Sixty-five years later, Barbie has 99% global brand awareness. In 2021, Mattel shipped more than 86 million Barbies globally, manufacturing 164 Barbies a minute (Tomkins). In 2022, Barbie generated gross sales of US$1.49 billion (Statista 2023).

With this fiscal longevity and brand recognition, the success of the Barbie film is not surprising. The 2023 film, directed by Greta Gerwig and starring Australian Margot Robbie as Barbie and Canadian Ryan Gosling as Ken, as of March 2024 has a global box office revenue of US$1.45 billion, making it the 14th most successful movie of all time and the most successful movie directed by a woman (Statista 2024).

Contested Barbie

Despite her popularity, Barbie has been the subject of controversy. Original Barbie’s proportions have been criticised for promoting an unrealistic body image (Thong). Barbie’s appearance has received numerous critiques for “representing an unrealistic beauty standard through its former limited skin tone and hair combination” (Lopez). The original Barbie’s measurements, if scaled to life-size, would mean Barbie is unusually tall and has a slim figure, with a height of 5 feet 9 inches, a waist of just 18 inches, and hips of approximately 33 inches. Her bust would measure around 32 inches with an under-bust of 22 inches, and her shoulder width would be approximately 28 inches. Original Barbie’s legs, which are proportionally longer than an average human’s, would make up more than half her height (Thong).

A 1996 Australian study scaled Barbie and Ken to adult sizes and compared this with the physical proportions of a range of women and men. They found that the likelihood of finding a man of comparable shape to Ken was 1 in 50. Barbie was more problematic. The chance of a woman being the same proportion as Barbie was 1 in 100,000 (Norton et al. 287). In 2011, The Huffington Post’s Galia Slayen built a life-sized Barbie based on Barbie’s body measurements for National Eating Disorder Awareness Week. Slayen concluded that “if Barbie was a real woman, she’d have to walk on all fours due to her proportions”. One report found that if Barbie’s measurements were those of a real woman her “bones would be so frail, it would be impossible for her to walk, and she would only have half a liver” (Golgowski).

A 2006 study found that Barbie is a “possible cause” for young girls’ “body dissatisfaction”. In this study, 162 girls from age 5 to 8 were exposed to images of a thin doll (Barbie), a plus-size doll (US doll Emme, size 16), or no doll, and then completed assessments of body image. Girls exposed to Barbie reported “lower body esteem and greater desire for a thinner body shape than girls in the other exposure conditions”. The study concluded that “early exposure to dolls epitomizing an unrealistically thin body ideal may damage girls' body image, which would contribute to an increased risk of disordered eating and weight cycling” (Dittman and Halliwell 283). Another study in 2016 found that “exposure to Barbie” led to “higher thin-ideal internalization”, but found that Barbie had no “impact on body esteem or body dissatisfaction” (Rice et al. 142). In response to such criticism, Mattel slowly introduced a variety of Barbie dolls with more diverse body types, including tall, petite, and curvy models (Tamkin). These changes aim to reflect a broader range of beauty standards and promote a more positive body image.

Barbie has always had to accommodate social norms. For this reason, Barbie always must have underpants, and has no nipples. One of the reasons why Ruth Handler’s husband Elliott (also a co-founder of Mattel) was initially against producing the Barbie doll was that she had breasts, reportedly saying mothers would not buy their daughters a doll with breasts (Gerber). Margot Robbie, on playing Barbie, told one news outlet that while Barbie is “sexualized”, she “should never be sexy” (Aguirre). Early prototypes of Barbie made in Japan in the 1950s sexualised her body, leaving her to look like a prostitute. In response, Mattel hired film make-up artist Bud Westmore to redo Barbie’s face and hair with a softer look. Mattel also removed the nipples from the prototypes (Gerber). Barbie’s body and fashion have always seemed to “replicate history and show what was what was happening at the time” (Mowbray), and they also reflect how the female body is continually surveilled.

Feminists have had a long history of criticism of Barbie, particularly her projection of the thin ideal. At the 1970 New York Women’s Strike for Equality, feminists shouted “I am not a Barbie doll!” Such debates exemplify the role and impact of toys in shaping and reforming societal norms and expectations. Even the more recent debates regarding the 2023 Barbie film show that Barbie is still a “lightning rod for the messy, knotty contradictions of feminism, sexism, misogyny and body image” (Chappet). Decades of criticism about Barbie, her meaning and influence, have left some to ask “Is Barbie a feminist icon, or a doll which props up the patriarchy?” Of course, she’s both, because “like all real women, Barbie has always been expected to conform to impossible standards” (Chappet).

Diversifying Barbie

Over the decades Mattel has slowly changed Barbie’s body, including early versions of a black Barbie-like dolls in the 1960s and 1970s such as Francie, Christie, Julia, and Cara. However, it was not until 1980 that Mattel introduced the first black Barbie. African American fashion designer Kitty Black-Perkins, who worked for Mattel from 1971, was the principal designer for black Barbie, saying that “there was a need for the little Black girl to really have something she could play with that looked like her” (cited in Lafond). Black Barbie was marketed as She’s black! She’s beautiful! She’s dynamite! The following year, Asian Barbie was introduced. She was criticised for her nondescript country of origin and dressed in an “outfit that was a mishmash of Chinese, Korean and Japanese ethnic costumes” (Wong). More recently, the Asian Barbies were again criticised for portraying stereotypes, with a recent Asian Barbie dressed as a veterinarian caring for pandas, and Asian violinist Barbie with accompanying violin props, reflecting typical stereotypes of Asians in the US (Wong).

In 2016, Mattel introduced a range of Barbie and Ken dolls with seven body types, including more curvy body shapes, 11 skin tones and 28 hairstyles (Siazon). In 2019, other Barbie body types appeared, with smaller busts, less defined waist, and more defined arms. The 2019 range also included Barbies with permanent physical disabilities, one using a wheelchair and one with a prosthetic leg (Siazon). Wheelchair Barbie comes with a wheelchair, and her body has 22 joints for body movement while sitting in the wheelchair. The Prosthetic Barbie comes with a prosthetic leg which can be removed, and was made in collaboration with Jordan Reeve, a 13-year-old disability activist born without a left forearm. In 2020, a No Hair Barbie and a Barbie with the skin condition vitiligo were introduced, and in 2022, Hearing Aid Barbie was also launched. In 2022 other changes were made to Barbie’s and Ken’s bodies, with bodies that became fuller figured and Kens with smaller chests and less masculine body shapes (Dolan). Down Syndrome Barbie was released in 2023, designed in collaboration with the US National Down Syndrome Society to ensure accurate representation. By 2024, Barbie dolls come in 35 skin tones, 97 hairstyles, and nine body types (Mattel 2024). Spanning hundreds of iterations, today the Barbie doll is no longer a homogenous, blond-haired, blue-eyed toy, but rather an evolving social phenomenon, adapting with the times and the markets Mattel expands into. With dolls of numerous ethnicities and body types, Barbie has also embraced inclusivity, catering to the plethora of different consumers across the world (Green and Gellene 1989).

Career Barbie

While not dismissing Barbie’s problematic place in feminist, gender and racial critiques, Barbie has always been a social influencer. Her early years were marked by a variety of makeovers and modernisations, as have recent changes to Barbie’s body, reflecting the changing social norms of the times. Stereotypical Barbie had her first major makeover in 1961, with her ponytail swapped for a short ‘Bubble Bob’ hairstyle inspired by Jackie Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe, reflecting women’s emerging social independence (Foreman). In the early 1970s, Barbie’s original demure face with averted eyes was replaced by a new one that “depicted confidence and a forward-facing gaze” (Vander Bent). Her “soft look” was a departure from the mature image of the original 1959 Barbie (Lafond). The ‘soft look’ on Malibu Barbie with her newly sculpted face featured an open smile for the first time, as well as sun-tanned, make-up free skin and sun-kissed blonde hair. The disappearance of Barbie’s coy, sideways glance and the introduction of forward-looking eyes was a development “welcomed by feminists” (Ford). Barbie’s early makeovers, along with her fashion and accessories, including her homes, cars, and pets, contributed to shaping her image as a fashionable and independent woman. Barbie’s various careers and roles have been used to promote ideas of female empowerment. From astronaut to presidential candidate, Barbie has broken barriers in traditionally male-dominated fields. However, the effectiveness of these efforts in promoting female empowerment is a topic of debate.

The post-war period in America saw a significant shift in the pattern of living, with a move from urban areas to the suburbs. This was facilitated by a robust post-war economy, favourable government policies like the GI Bill, and increasing urbanisation. The GI Bill played a crucial role by providing low-interest home loans to veterans, making home ownership accessible to a large segment of the population. It was a significant transformation of the American lifestyle and shaped the country’s socio-economic landscape. It is in this context that Barbie’s first Dreamhouse was introduced in the early 1960s, with its mid-century modern décor, hi-fi stereo, and slim-line furniture. This was at a time when most American women could not get a mortgage. Barbie got her first car in 1962, a peach-colored Austin-Healey 3000 MKII convertible, followed short afterwards by a Porsche 911. She has also owned a pink Jaguar XJS, a pink Mustang, a red Ferrari, and a Corvette. Barbie’s car choices of luxurious convertibles spoke to Barbie’s social and economic success. In 1998, Barbie became a NASCAR driver and also signed up to race in a Ferrari in the Formula 1. Barbie’s ‘I Can Be Anything’ range from 2008 was designed to draw kids playing with the dolls toward ambitious careers; one of those careers was as a race car driver (Southwell).

While Barbie’s first job as a baby-sitter was not as glamourous or well-paying as her most of her other over 250 careers, it does reflect the cultural landscape Barbie was living in in the 1960s. Babysitter Barbie (1963) featured Barbie wearing a long, pink-striped skirt with ‘babysitter’ emblasoned along the hem and thick-framed glasses. She came with a baby in a crib, a telephone, bottles of soda, and a book. The book was called How to Lose Weight and had only two words of advice, ‘Don’t Eat’. Even though there was a backlash to the extreme dieting advice, Mattel included the book in the 1965 Slumber Party Barbie. Barbie wore pink silk pajamas with a matching robe and came prepared for her sleepover with toiletries, a mirror, the controversial diet book, and a set of scales permanently set at 110 pounds (approx. 50kg), which caused further backlash (Ford).

Barbie’s early careers were those either acceptable or accessible to women of the era, such as the Fashion Designer Barbie (1960), Flight Attendant Barbie (1961), and Nurse Barbie (1962). However, in 1965 Barbie went into space, two years after cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova became the first woman in space, and four years before the American moon landing. Barbie’s career stagnated in the 1970s, and she spends the decade being sports Barbie, perhaps as a response to her unpopularity among vocal second wave feminists and reflecting the economic downturn of the era. America’s shift to the right in the 1980s saw in the introduction of the Yuppie, the young urban professional who lived in the city, had a high-powered career, and was consumption-driven. More women were entering the workforce than ever before. Barbie also entered the workforce, spending less time doing the passive leisure of her earlier self (Ford). It also signals the beginning of neoliberalism in America, and a shift to individualism and the rise of the free market ethos.

In 1985, Day-to-Night Barbie was sold as the first CEO Barbie who “could go from running the boardroom in her pink power suit to a fun night out on the town”. For Mattel she “celebrated the workplace evolution of the era and showed girls they could have it all”. But despite Barbie’s early careers, the focus was on her "emphasized femininity”, meaning that while she was now a career woman, her appearance and demeanor did not reflect her job. Astronaut Barbie (1985) is a good example of Barbie’s ‘emphasised femininity’ in how career Barbies were designed and dressed. Astronaut Barbie is clearly reflecting the fashion and culture trends of the 1980s by going into space in a “shiny, hot pink spacesuit”, comes with a second space outfit, a shiny “peplum miniskirt worn over silver leggings and knee-high pink boots” (Bertschi), and her hair is too big to fit into the helmet. A dark-skinned US Astronaut Barbie was released in 1994, which coincided with the start of the Shuttle-Mir Program, a collaboration between the US and Russia which between 1994 and 1998 would see seven American astronauts spend almost 1,000 days living in orbit with Russian cosmonauts on the Mir space station.

Throughout the 1990s, Barbie increasingly takes on careers more typically considered to be male careers. But again, her femininity in design, dressing and packaging takes precedence over her career. Police Officer Barbie (1993), for example, has no gun or handcuffs. Instead, she comes with a "glittery evening dress" to wear to the awards dance where she will get the "Best Police Officer Award for her courageous acts in the community”. Police Office Barbie is pictured on the box "lov[ing] to teach safety tips to children". Barbie thus “feminizes, even maternalises, law enforcement” (Rogers 14). In 1992, Teen Talk Barbie was released. She had a voice box programmed to speak four distinct phrases out of a possible 270. She sold for US$25, and Mattel produced 350,000, expecting its popularity. The phrases included ‘I Love Shopping’ and ‘Math class is tough’. The phrase ‘Math class is tough’ was seen by many as reinforcing harmful stereotypes about girls and math. The National Council of American Teachers of Maths objected, as did the American Association of University Women (NYT 1992).

In response to criticisms of the gendered representations of Barbie’s careers, Mattel have more recently featured Barbie in science and technology fields including Paleontologist Barbie (1996 and 2012), Computer Engineer Barbie (2010), Robotics Engineer Barbie (2018), Astrophysicist Barbie (2019), Wildlife Conservationist Barbie, Entomologist Barbie (2019), and Polar Marine Biologist Barbie (all in collaboration with National Geographic), Robotics Engineer Barbie (2018), Zoologist Barbie (2021), and Renewable Energy Barbie (2022), which go some way to providing representations that at least encompass the ideal that ‘Girls Can Do Anything’.

Barbie over her lifetime has also taken on swimming, track and field, and has been a gymnast. Barbie was an Olympic gold medallist in the 1970s, with Mattel releasing four Barbie Olympians between 1975 and 1976, arguably cashing in on the 1976 Montreal Olympics. Gold Medal Barbie Doll Skier was dressed in a red, white, and blue ski suit completed with her gold medal. Gold Medal Barbie Doll is an Olympic swimmer wearing a red, white, and blue tricot swimsuit, and again wears an Olympic gold medal around her neck. The doll was also produced as a Canadian Olympian wearing a red and white swimsuit. Gold Medal Barbie Skater looks like Barbie Malibu and is dressed in a long-sleeved, pleated dress in red, white, and blue. The outfit included white ice skates and her gold medal. Mattel also made a Gold Medal P.J. Gymnast Doll who vaulted and somersaulted in a leotard of red, white, and blue tricot. She had a warm-up jacket with white sleeves, red cuffs, white slippers, and a gold medal.

Mattel, as part of a licencing agreement with the International Olympic Committee, produced a range of toys for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. The collection of five Barbies represented the new sports added to the 2020 Olympics: baseball and softball, sport climbing, karate, skateboarding, and surfing. Each Barbie was dressed in a sport-specific uniform and had a gold medal. Barbie Olympic Games Tokyo 2020 Surfer, for example, was dressed in a pink wetsuit top, with an orange surfboard and a Tokyo 2020 jacket. For the 2022 Winter Olympics and Paralympics, Mattel released a new collection of Barbie dolls featuring among others a para-skiing Barbie who sits on adaptive skis and comes with a championship medal (Douglas).

As part of Mattel’s 2023 Barbie Career of the Year doll, the Women in Sports Barbie range shows Barbie in leadership roles in the sports industry, as manager, coach, referee, and sport reporter. General Manager Barbie wears a blue-and-white pinstripe suit accessorised with her staff pass and a smartphone. Coach Barbie has a pink megaphone, playbook, and wears a two-piece pink jacket and athletic shorts. Referee Barbie wears a headset and has a whistle. Sports Reporter Barbie wears a purple, geometric-patterned dress and carries a pink tablet and microphone (Jones).

Political Barbie

Barbie has run for president in every election year since 1992. The first President Barbie came with an American-themed dress for an inaugural ball and a red suit for her duties in the Oval Office. In 2016, Barbie released an all-female presidential ticket campaign set with a president and vice-president doll. The 2000 President Barbie doll wore a blue pantsuit and featured a short bob cut, red lipstick pearl necklace, and a red gown to change into, “presumably for President Barbie’s inaugural ball” (Lafond).

This followed the introduction of UNICEF Ambassador Barbie in 1989. She is packaged as a member of the United States Committee for UNICEF (United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund), which is mandated to provide humanitarian and development aid to children worldwide. Rather problematically, and again with a focus on her femininity rather than the importance of the organisation she represents, she wears a glittery white and blue full length ball gown with star patterning and a red sash. While some proceeds did go to the US Committee for UNICEF, the dressing and packaging featuring an American flag overshadows the career and its philanthropic message. The period signalled the end of the Cold War and was also the year the United States invaded Panama, resulting in a humanitarian disaster when US military forces attacked urban areas in order to overthrow the Noriega administration.

Military Barbie

Barbie has served in every US military branch (Sicard). Barbie joined the US army in 1989, wearing a female officer’s evening uniform, though with no sense of what she did. While it may be thought Barbie would increase female in interest in a military career, at the time more women were already enlisting that in any other period from the early 1970s to 2012 (Stillwell). Barbie rejoined the army for the 1990-1991 Gulf War, wearing a Desert Combat Uniform and the 101st Airborne "Screaming Eagle" patch, and serving as a medic.

Barbie also joined the Air Force in 1990, three years before Jeannie Leavitt became the first female Air Force fighter pilot. Barbie wore a green flight suit and leather jacket, and gold-trimmed flight cap. She was a fighter pilot and in 1994, she joined the USAF aerial demonstration team, The Thunderbirds. Busy in the 1990s, she also enlisted in the US Navy wearing women's Navy whites. Marine Corps Barbie appeared in 1992, wearing service and conduct medals (Stillwell). All of Barbie’s uniforms were approved by the Pentagon (Military Women’s Memorial). The 2000 Paratrooper Barbie Special Edition was released with the packaging declaring “let’s make a support drop with first aid and food boxes”. She was dressed in undefined military attire which includes a helmet, dog tags, parachute, boots, and hairbrush.

Barbie’s Influence

In 2014, Barbie became a social media influencer with the launch of the @barbiestyle Instagram account, and in 2015, Barbie launched a vlog on YouTube to talk directly to girls about issues they face. The animated series features Barbie discussing a range of topics including depression, bullying, the health benefits of meditation, and how girls have a habit of apologising when they don’t have anything to be sorry about. The Official @Barbie YouTube channel has over eleven million global subscribers and 23 billion minutes of content watched, making Barbie the #1 girls’ brand on YouTube. Barbie apps average more than 7 million monthly active users and the Instagram count boasts over 2 million followers. The 2023 Barbie film really does attest to Barbie’s influence 70 years after her debut.

Barbie, as this article has shown, is more than an influencer and more than a doll, if she ever really was only a doll. She is a popular culture icon, regardless of whether we love her or not. Barbie has sometimes been ahead of the game, and sometimes has been problematically represented, but she has always been influential. Her body, race, ability, careers, independence, and political aspirations have spoken different things to those who play with her. She is fiercely defended, strongly criticised, and shirks from neither. She is also liberating, empowering, straight, and queer. As the articles in this issue reflect, Barbie, it seems, really can be anything.

**Imagining and Interrogating Barbie in Popular Culture**

The feature article in this issue outlines how Australian Barbie fans in the 1960s expressed their creativity through the designing and making of their own wardrobes for the doll. Through examining articles from the Australian Women’s Weekly, Donna Lee Brien reveals this rich cultural engagement that was partly driven by thrift, and mostly by enjoyment.

Eva Boesenberg examines the social and environmental effects of a plastic doll that is positioned as an ecological ambassador. While there is no doubt that climate change is one of our most pressing social issues, Boesenberg questions the motivations behind Barbie’s eco-crusade: is she an apt role-model to teach children the importance of environmental issues, or is this just a case of corporate greenwashing?

Emma Caroll Hudson shifts the focus to entertainment, with an exploration of the marketing of the 2023 blockbuster film Barbie. Here she argues that the marketing campaign was highly successful, utilising a multi-faceted approach centred on fan participation. She highlights key components of the campaign to reveal valuable insights into how marketing can foster a cultural phenomenon.

Revna Altiok’s article zooms in on the depiction of Ken in the 2023 film, revealing his characterisation to be that of a ‘manic pixie dream boy’ whose lack of identity propels him on a journey to self-discovery. This positioning, argues Altiok, pulls into focus social questions around gender dynamics and how progress can be truly achieved.

Rachel Wang turns the spotlight to Asian identity within the Barbie world, revealing how from early iterations a vague ‘Oriental’ Barbie was accompanied by cultural stereotyping. Despite later, more nuanced interpretations of country-specific Asian dolls, problematic features remained embedded. This, Wang argues, positions Asian Barbies as the racial ‘other’.

Kaela Joseph, Tanya Cook, and Alena Karkanias’s article examines how the 2023 Barbie film reflects different forms of fandom. Firstly, Joseph interrogates how the Kens’ patriarchal identity is expressed through acts of collective affirmational fandom. Here, individual fans legitimise their positions within the group by mastering and demonstrating their knowledge of popular culture phenomena. Joseph contrasts this with transformational fandom, which is based upon reimagining the source material to create new forms.

The transformation of the titular character of the Barbie movie forms the basis of Eli S’s analysis. S examines how the metaphor of ‘unboxing’ the doll provides an avenue through which to understand Barbie’s metamorphosis from constrained doll to aware human as she journeys from the pink plastic Barbie Land to the Real World.

Anna Temel turns her critical gaze to how the 2023 film attempts to reposition Barbie’s image away from gender stereotypes to a symbol of feminist empowerment. Director Greta Gerwig, Temel argues, critiques the ‘ideal woman’ and positions Barbie as a vehicle through which contemporary feminism and womanhood can be interrogated. Temel finds that this is not always successfully articulated in the depiction of Barbie in the film.

The reading of the Barbie movie’s Barbie Land as an Asexual Utopia is the focus of Anna Maria Broussard’s article. Here Broussard draws the focus to the harmonious community of dolls who live without social expectations of sexuality. Barbie provides a popular culture reflection of the Asexual experience, expressed through Barbie’s rejection of a heteronormative relationship both in Barbie Land and the Real World.

Completing this collection is Daisy McManaman’s article interrogating the multiple iterations of the doll’s embodied femininity. Incorporating an ethnographic study of the author’s relationship with the doll, McManaman uncovers that Barbie serves as a site of queer joy and a role model through which to enjoy and explore femininity and gender.

These articles have been both intellectually stimulating to edit, and a joy. We hope you enjoy this collection that brings a new academic lens to the popular cultural phenomenon that is Barbie.

References

Aguirre, Abby. “Barbiemania! Margot Robbie Opens Up about the Movie Everyone’s Waiting For.” Vogue, 24 May 2023. 16 Mar. 2024 <https://www.vogue.com/article/margot-robbie-barbie-summer-cover-2023-interview>.

Bertschi, Jenna. “Barbie: An Astronaut for the Ages.” Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, 18 Jul. 2023. 11 Mar. 2024 <https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/barbie-astronaut-ages>.

Blackmore, Erin. “Barbie’s Secret Sister Was a German Novelty Doll.” History.com, 14 Jul. 2023. 11 mar. 2024 <https://www.history.com/news/barbie-inspiration-bild-lilli>.

Chappet, Marie-Claire. “Why Is Barbie So Controversial? How Ever-Changing Standards for Women Have Affected the Famous Doll.” Harpers Bazaar, 18 Jul. 2023. 11 Mar. 2024 <https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/culture/culture-news/a44516323/barbie-controversial-figure/>.

Clarendon, Dan. “The Most Valuable Barbie Doll Auctioned for $302,500 — Which Others Carry Value?” Market Realist, 14 Apr. 2023. 15 Mar. 2o24 <https://marketrealist.com/fast-money/most-valuable-barbies/>.

Dittman, Helga, and Emma Halliwell. “Does Barbie Make Girls Want to Be Thin? The Effect of Experimental Exposure to Images of Dolls on the Body Image of 5- to 8-Year Old Girls.” Developmental Psychology 42.2 (2006): 283-292. DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.42.2.283.

Dolan, Leah. “Barbie Unveils Its First-Ever Doll with Hearing Aids.” CNN, 11 May 2022. 16 Mar. 2024 <https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/barbie-hearing-aid-ken-vitiligo/index.html>.

Douglas, Kelly. “Why the New Para Skiing Barbie Is Groundbreaking for Disability Representation.” The Mighty, 21 Oct. 2023. 25 Mar. 2024 <https://themighty.com/topic/disability/para-skiing-barbie-disability-representation/>.

Ferorelli, Enrico. “Barbie Turns 21.” Life, Nov. 1979. 15 Mar. 2024 <https://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/primary-sources/310.html>.

Fleming, Dan. Powerplay: Toys as Popular Culture. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1996.

Ford, Toni Marie. “The History of the Barbie Doll.” Culture Trip, 6 Oct. 2016. 16 Mar. 2024 <https://theculturetrip.com/north-america/usa/articles/the-history-of-the-barbie-doll>.

Foreman, Katya. “The Changing Faces of Barbie.” BBC, 11 May 2016. 16 Mar. 2024 <https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20160511-the-changing-faces-of-barbie>.

Gerber, Ruth. Barbie and Ruth: The Story of the World's Most Famous Doll and the Woman Who Created Her. HarperCollins, 2009.

Giacomin, Valeria, and Christina Lubinski. 2023. “Entrepreneurship as Emancipation: Ruth Handler and the Entrepreneurial Process ‘in Time’ and ‘over Time’, 1930s–1980s.” Business History Online. 20 Mar. 2024 <https://doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2023.2215193>.

Golgowski, Nina. “Bones So Frail It Would Be Impossible to Walk and Room for Only Half a Liver: Shocking Research Reveals What Life Would Be Like If a REAL Woman Had Barbie's body.” Daily Mirror, 14 Apr. 2013. 19 Mar. 2024 <https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2308658/How-Barbies-body-size-look-real-life-Walking-fours-missing-half-liver-inches-intestine.html>.

Green, Michelle, and Denise Gellene. “As a Tiny Plastic Star Turns 30, the Real Barbie and Ken Reflect on Life in the Shadow of the Dolls.” People, 6 Mar. 1989. 15 Mar. 2024 <https://people.com/archive/as-a-tiny-plastic-star-turns-30-the-real-barbie-and-ken-reflect-on-life-in-the-shadow-of-the-dolls-vol-31-no-9/>.

Jones, Alexis. “Barbie's New 'Women in Sports' Dolls Are a Major Win For Athletes and Fans.” Popsugar, 9 Aug. 2023. 17 Mar. 2024 <https://www.popsugar.com/family/mattel-women-in-sports-barbie-49268194>.

Lafond, Hannah. “How Barbies Have Changed over the Years.” The List, 7 Jul. 2023. 16 Mar. 2024 <https://www.thelist.com/1333916/barbies-changed-over-the-years/>.

Lopez, Sandra. “10 Barbie Dolls Inspired by Real-Life Iconic Latinas.” Remezcla, 19 Jul. 2023. 20 Mar. 2024 <https://remezcla.com/lists/culture/barbie-dolls-inspired-by-real-life-iconic-latinas/>.

Military Women’s Memorial. “Barbie Enlists.” 15 Mar. 2024 <https://womensmemorial.org/curators-corner/barbie-enlists/>.

Moore, Hannah. “Why Warhol Painted Barbie.” BBC, 1 Oct. 2015. 15 Mar. 2024 <https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34407991>.

Mowbray, Nicole. “Dressing Barbie: Meet the Designer Who Created a Miniature Fashion Icon.” CNN, 14 Jul. 2023. 17 Mar. 2024 <https://edition.cnn.com/style/dressing-barbie-iconic-fashion-looks>.

New York Times. “Mattel Says It Erred; Teen Talk Barbie Turns Silent on Math." 21 Oct. 1992. 20 Mar. 2024 <https://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/21/business/company-news-mattel-says-it-erred-teen-talk-barbie-turns-silent-on-math.html>.

Norton, Kevin, et al. “Ken and Barbie at Life Size.” Sex Roles 34 (1996): 287-294. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01544300.

Reinhard, Abby. “Here's How Much Your Childhood Barbies Are Really Worth Now, New Data Shows.” Best Life, 14 Jul. 2023. 15 Mar. 2024 <https://bestlifeonline.com/how-much-are-barbies-worth-now-news/>.

Rice, Karlie, et al. “Exposure to Barbie: Effects on Thin-Ideal Internalisation, Body Esteem, and Body Dissatisfaction among Young Girls.” Body Image 19 (2016): 142-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.09.005.

Rogers, Mary, F. Barbie Culture. Sage, 1999.

Siazon, Kevin John. “The New 2019 Barbie Fashionistas Are More Diverse than Ever.” Today’s Parents, 12 Feb. 2019. 19 Mar. 2024 <https://www.todaysparent.com/blogs/trending/the-new-2019-barbie-fashionistas-are-more-diverse-than-ever/>.

Sicard. Sarah. “A Few Good Dolls: Barbie Has Served in Every Military Branch.” Military Times, 28 Jul. 2023. 15 Mar. 2024 <https://www.militarytimes.com/off-duty/military-culture/2023/07/27/a-few-good-dolls-barbie-has-served-in-every-military-branch/>.

Slayen, Galia. “The Scary Reality of a Real-Life Barbie Doll.” Huffington Post, 8 Apr. 2011. 19 Mar. 2024 <https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-scary-reality-of-a-re_b_845239>.

Southwell, Haxel. “Plastic on Track: Barbie's History in Motorsport”. Road and Track, 21 Jul. 2023. 15 Mar. 2024 <https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a44588941/plastic-on-track-barbie-history-in-motorsport/>.

Statista. “Gross Sales of Mattel's Barbie Brand Worldwide from 2012 to 2022.” 2023. 16 Mar. 2024 <https://www.statista.com/statistics/370361/gross-sales-of-mattel-s-barbie-brand/>.

———. “Highest-Grossing Movies of All Time as of 2024.” 2024. 31 May 2024 <https://www.statista.com/statistics/262926/box-office-revenue-of-the-most-successful-movies-of-all-time/>.

Stillwell, Blake. “Barbie and Ken Went to War Long before the 'Barbie' Movie.” Military.com, 26 Jul. 2023. 15 Mar. 2024 <https://www.military.com/off-duty/movies/2023/07/26/barbie-and-ken-went-war-long-barbie-movie.html>.

Tamkin, Emily. Cultural History of Barbie.” Smithsonian, 23 Jun. 2023. 17 Mar. 2024 <https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/cultural-history-barbie-180982115/>.

Thong, Hang. “Barbie’s Doll Dimensions.” OmniSize, 29 Nov. 2023. 19 Mar. 2024 <https://omnisizes.com/hobbies/barbie-doll/>.

Vander Bent, Emily. “The Evolution of Barbie: A Marker for Women’s History.” Girl Museum, 12 Apr. 2021. 16 Mar. 2024 <https://www.girlmuseum.org/the-evolution-of-barbie-a-marker-for-womens-history/>.

Westenhouser, Kitturah B. The Story of Barbie. Collector Books, 1994.

Wong, Bryan. “Daniel Wu Slams Barbie Maker Mattel for Stereotyping Asians as ‘Panda Doctors’ and ‘Violinists.’” Today Online, 24 Jan. 2024. 16 Mar. 2024 <https://www.todayonline.com/8days/daniel-wu-slams-barbie-maker-mattel-stereotyping-asians-panda-doctors-and-violinists-2347786>.