Speaking of toys (from yesterday’s post), let’s talk about Barbie. Recently, Barbie has had a renowned makeover. There are Barbie dolls that have curves, a variety of ethnic backgrounds, and are different heights. “Barbie” Barbie, still exists, she is still slender, blond, tall, and of course, is addictively stylish. In my class a few weeks ago, we were focusing on Theodor Adorno’s theory on the culture industry, how the making of products is translated into our culture. From the rhythm of the machines to the making of equal parts to create equal wholes, as well as how: “the schematic nature of this procedure is evident from the fact that the mechanically differentiate products are ultimately all the same,” (Adorno, 2). In other words, like the T-Model Fords, parts are made in the same way, and they all look the same, and then when put together, the parts make cars that hardly differ. In fact, they all look the same. Barbie, I think, is the perfect example of industry seeping into our culture. Think about, in the Barbie factories, all the arms and legs and busts being produced. Then when put together, the same doll is created and put into a variety of outfits. Under her clothes, however, she is the same. The doll we know today, was a product of the 1950s- the age in which, women were being advised to return to their homes post their WWII debut as a working force, and be average housewives. According to the Barbie industry, Barbie was inspired by a mother, Ruth, who “watched her daughter Barbara playing with paper dolls. Barbara and her friends used them to play adult or teenage make-believe, imagining roles as college students, cheerleaders and adults with careers,” (1). Despite this alleged history, the “mass” claims differently. How many times have you seen on Facebook, heard from feminist friends, and perhaps from your own mother, that Barbie provides a bad message for girls, that she is not focused on careers, but rather vanity, sameness, and a tradition of femininity that has lost its popularity? In July of 2013, three years before Barbie released its infamous makeover of diverse Barbie body types, Claire Groden at TIME magazine explored the “Average Barbie.” Artist Nickolay Lamm was the first of many to compare Barbie’s dimensions to the dimensions of the average teenage girl. Lamm found that Barbie was not only anorexic, but, as Groden says in her article, “may be even more influential to girls’ development of body image standards,” (2). Lamm argues that Barbie, may be more influential in this arena than models in media. Which, I think is valid. Barbies can be handled, touched, and played with- Barbie’s figure is tangible, where as models are only images. Our culture, has, as Adorno argues, responded to the “clock” of industry. American culture is dependent on schedule, time- sameness in our daily schedules and lives. This has carried over to our expectations of beauty. We see beauty as something every girl must obtain. Beauty, however, cannot be diverse, it must be equal, it must match the rhythm in which we work. All parts of a female body must equate to an equilibrium that society defines as attractive. Not only has the “Barbie image,” created tension between young girls and their bodies, but has contributed to the loss of general aura and “uniqueness” in our culture. Like the introduction of mass made clothing and sizes during the Civil War, Barbie has created a factory of the body. Her dimensions, made in a factory, have spread from plastic parts to real parts- which are perhaps, are even seen as plastic. Honestly, because we are all hypocritical, I do not completely dislike Barbie. I think that the Mattel Company has made progress and is attempting to match the new cultural mood of individuality and accepting each other as we are. Also, perhaps mothering is important- if a mother or father can detach their child from the idea that Barbie is an influence, to think instead of Barbie as merely a toy, individual cases of Barbie love would differ. Also, I follow Barbie on Instagram. Who doesn’t? The artsy photos of mini outfits are too cute to miss-out on. Also, she travels to Paris on the fly...who would think I would ever be envious of a doll? REFERENCES Websites (1) http://www.barbiemedia.com/about-barbie/history.html (2) http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/07/09/barbie-meet-average-barbie/ Essay Adorno, Theodor. The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception. 1944. Photos 1.http://metro.co.uk/2015/11/16/the-incredible-transformation-of-barbie-over-the-last-56-years-5505021/ 2.http://ladies-trends.com/2013/10/29/new-real-barbie/ 3. http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2016/02/03/barbie-ken-mattel/79713914/
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |