In a Barbie world

Design by Julia Olivero

“Toys” are defined by the dictionary as “an object, often a small representation of something familiar, as an animal or person, for children or others to play with”. A small representation of something familiar. So do toys represent what we see around us? They might. But when does this representation become harmful, or does it ever, and why? Do toys have the capacity to reflect an unrealistic image, or do they convey a hidden message?

When one thinks about the physical human perception of a toy, it’s easy to immediately think about Barbies and the fashion doll industry. Fashion dolls have in fact been protagonists among children for centuries, starting from the 18th century in France, when the doll was given the task of popularizing French aristocratic fashion among the richest families all over Europe. At the time, it was important to show how clothes would look once worn, and producing a number of miniature figures wearing the dresses was considered to be the most convenient method for both sellers and potential customers. Therefore, we could easily say that the role of the fashion doll was in fact to mirror a human being, to reflect exactly how they would look like wearing a particular dress. Dolls were true and proper fashion guides, like a magazine would be these days.

We could argue that even though the French fashion doll did not have strictly bad intentions, it was still a fragmented mirror of the “ideal”, i.e. the upper class, dressed with sumptuous clothing and showing off a high standard of life. Then again, these dolls were not meant to be children's toys when they served as a “mini-mirror” of a person. The transition was however quite fast, since after the 18th century the doll industry was dominated by German manufacturers who contested the excessive and almost unrealistic luxury of the French doll, and started to make dolls into characters rather than fashion guides. The German doll was later replaced by American doll “Sissy” in the mid 1950s, who still showed off a rich lifestyle (giving the doll a carriage, fancy dresses and feather hats), but tried to appeal to the postwar rising middle class rather than the aristocratic society. Once again, these toys were now used by children as well, and they were explicitly meant to mirror an ideal of an unreachable richness as a required standard of beauty. 

Barbies appeared for the first time in the doll market in 1959, born from an idea by Ruth Handler, who took inspiration from the German doll “Build Lilli” to create the first teenage fashion doll with an adult face, rather than a baby face like the previous dolls were. At this point, I would like to digress for a moment to talk about the rather controversial history of “baby faced” dolls, and baby dolls in general. Before Barbie was first produced, for a long period of time baby dolls had been the most popular doll internationally. Although of course children played with them for recreational purposes, there was another meaning behind the outstanding popularity of baby dolls. Children were considered to need “training” on being adults already from an early age, and what better way to “train” little girls to become mothers and housewives than by giving them a toy baby to play with? Girls were brainwashed from an early age that their role in society was to become wives and dress nicely, and letting them play “mothers” with baby dolls, and dressing the dolls in luxurious French clothes was a perfect way to train them. Somehow, children’s games became a mirror of their possible future life, or better, a preview of what was expected from them in adulthood. 

Going back to Barbie, when she was produced for the first time she became a symbol of mass consumerism, but also a way to combat the exceptional success of baby dolls. Barbie was, at least, an actual adult appearing toy, who often pursued different careers, owned her own house and car. What made Barbie so successful over the long-term was that she would change over time, reflecting the fashions and trends of the period to appeal to every generation in the best possible way. However, there is a lot of controversy around Barbie, and whether this new fashion doll is harmful for the children that play with it. 

Barbie’s attempts to become more diverse and inclusive have come very late and very slowly. The newest generation might be able to have a much more diverse image of Barbie, but even from what I remember from my childhood, the one lasting image I have of her is the tall, skinny white blonde “girl next door”. Racial diversity and body inclusivity were not part of the product line, and the changes that we are seeing are coming at a very decelerated, delayed, pace. Is this image of Barbie harmful for little kids? Naturally, it’s problematic to claim to be a brand “for everyone” when few look like Barbie.

So of course, there is an inherent problem with Barbie, but Barbie is just one example of a much more common phenomenon. Children don’t give societal meanings to their toys, they just see them as something to play with, and they don’t seem to feel restrained to play with them “as they should”. Children create their own story and use their toys as characters, they cut their dolls’ hair, for example, not “sticking” to any beauty standards, not even realizing that toys might be mirroring something more, something societal, but making them into the protagonist of their own fantasy. Toys thus have a purpose, for children, to stimulate their creativity, let them have fun. There is nothing intrinsic to children that makes them understand or even think about beauty standards or gender norms, because these two are concepts created by society, by marketers. It is adults who “implant” these concepts on children, distorting their perception of the world, and it is in fact adults who recognize the problems that Barbie brings with her, the ideals she tries to spread. Once someone has been personally judged or experienced beauty standards and gender norms, it becomes impossible not to perceive a doll (for example) as a representation of the ideal femininity - in this case - and ideal standard of life, while children don’t interpret it that way because they haven’t yet experienced these standards, or they haven’t processed them as such.

Saying that toys don’t bring their own issues is wrong, since they are still produced and marketed by adults in a way that mirrors society’s outdated standards. This needs to change, as soon as possible. However, toys, dolls, more specifically, aren’t mirrors, and they shouldn’t try to. Sure, we represent what we see through them, but there should be a separation between them, whose purpose is to help children develop creativity and have fun, and the values that we believe the future generations should inherit from us.