People are often surprised to learn that I have fond memories of playing with Barbie dolls as a child.
This disbelief could be interpreted in a number of different ways, each a bit more biting and backhanded than the last (you don’t seem feminine enough to have been interested in dolls; to look at you, I’d never guess you played with a doll that was so connected with fashion).
Most likely, though, it’s a puzzling discrepancy that draws folks up short: I care a great deal about diversity and representation in popular culture, yet in that regard, Barbie has often earned a failing grade.
To give but two of the numerous examples, in 1992, Teen Talk Barbie became notorious over one of the phrases she spoke being a lament that “Math class is tough!” Meanwhile, in the 2010 Barbie book I Can Be A Computer Engineer, Barbie had a pink laptop and didn’t even know how to code, instead relying on “Steve and Brian” to do the engineering while she just “created design ideas.”
Beyond that, there’s the ongoing complaint that as an ostensible full-formed human female (as opposed to a doll like Raggedy Ann, which is more an abstraction of a female body), Barbie’s physical dimensions are physically impossible, and said to promote an unrealistic body image to impressionable young girls.
I care a great deal about these negative depictions as well. I dislike that Mattel, the makers of Barbie, have made such sexist decisions over the years.
And yet, my positive memories of the iconic doll remain firmly in place. I played with Barbies incessantly, especially between ages 8 and 10, and credit that play with helping make me the fiction writer I am today.
I can recall those days like yesterday. My Barbie collection was extensive; enough dolls and accessories to fill a small suitcase.
My friends would come over and we would first plan (i.e. outline) and then use the dolls to play out various storylines, most of which would extend over multiple play sessions like so many episodes of a soap opera.
Through such play, I discovered the importance of conflict in a story, for I was always wanted to come up with new and better ways that things could go wrong.
I loved coming up with names and backstories for each character, and figuring out how their past experiences influenced their present situation.
I also learned about story structure – specifically, what comprised the story climax, for that was the part I never actually wanted to reach, knowing the story would end soon thereafter.
(Technically, I guess I also learned about overwriting a story, but I’ve working hard to unlearn that particular lesson.)
More so than a hindrance to self-esteem, I remember Barbie serving as a tool for creative play. This isn’t to say I never disliked my appearance as a child – I definitely remember regretting my blackness, my frizzy hair, my sturdy physique.
Yet rather than causing my dissatisfaction in and of itself, I consider Barbie to have been just another manifestation of an already pervasive societal principle. By the time I was old enough to make up complex stories with dolls, I’d already reached a level of understanding that looking different from the blonde-haired, blue-eyed, slender female ideal withheld certain opportunities from me.
Looking back, though, it would have been nice if I’d owned more than one black Barbie.
A darker shade of sale
Mattel’s latest initiative involves introducing some long-awaited diversity to its traditionally white, super-skinny dolls. Specifically, Barbies will soon be available in three different body shapes – petite, tall, and curvy – seven different skin tones, 22 different eye colours, and 24 different hairstyles.
Not everyone is pleased with this new venture. Complaints have included that fact that the dolls still have unrealistic proportions, even the “curvy” variety, which is also an unnecessarily sexualized way of describing the average woman’s body.
The fact that all the introductory images of the new Barbies show them in dresses and skirts has also drawn criticism. This is seen as proof that the dolls are still reinforcing a preoccupation with physical appearance rather than skills and intellect.
As well, the fact of that of seven new skin tones, four of them are a version of white has suggested to some that the new dolls aren’t much more diverse than previous, at least in terms of race.
The most interesting criticism I’ve come across, however, is of the fact that the change was fueled by a decline in Mattel’s market share.
Since 2012, Mattel’s sales have decreased more than 20%, due in large part to the success of rival company Hasbro, who manufactures all the Disney princess dolls, most notably, Elsa of the hit movie Frozen.
To quote an article in The Atlantic:
The changes in Barbie’s body may have arisen out of the company’s desire to do good; mostly, though, they arose from its need to do well. This was that oldest and most American of things: cultural change by way of capitalism.
In a similar vein, The Guardian states:
The buying public has been diverse in size and stature for decades, and Mattel playing catch-up seems more like a sales strategy than a genuine attempt to represent their customers…. Let’s call this what it is: a last-ditch effort by a company that recognizes the only way to stay alive and ultimately thrive is to – gasp – diversify.
But is all of this truly a bad thing? Does the reason for the change even truly matter?
A green comparison
When I was a teenager, I experienced a number of frustrating occasions where my actions in some matter were deemed wrongly motivated.
This is to say, my desire to either avoid getting in trouble, to prevent others from thinking ill of me, or to otherwise live up to the expectations of those with authority over me was considered of greater importance than the fact that I did, ultimately, do the right thing.
(As if image management and the avoidance of penalties aren’t legitimate motivations that most adults practice every other day.)
While I understand the desire to capture the hearts and minds of others in some matters – especially those pertaining to social justice – it’s important to recognize that for some people, it may never actually happen.
Some people may never advance any further than behaving correctly to escape social stigma.
If nothing else, changing attitudes can take a very long time. As such, we need to be okay with receiving whatever concessions we can get in the interim. Wanting something, but only the right way, is often a recipe for getting a whole lot of nothing.
Oftentimes, we just need to accept the sour grapes and worry about making fine wine later.
I’m reminded of an undergraduate class I took on conservation biology. We had just finished discussing what’s known as ecosystem services – that is, all the functions the natural world performs in order to keep us alive (e.g. providing oxygen and drinking water, pollination, waste decomposition, medicinal resources, energy, soil formation – the list goes on).
Next, the professor explained how environmental economists had actually quantified all these services. In 1997, they calculated the price it would cost for humans to reproduce what nature does for free: an average of $33 trillion US a year.
We were then posed a question: is it important for people to adopt environmentally-friendly practices because it’s the right thing to do for the Earth, our beautiful, live-sustaining home? Or is doing so merely to prevent having to spend those trillions good enough?
The first situation is referred to as intrinsic valuation – the valuing and appreciating of something for its own inherent worth. The second is called instrumental valuation – a sense of value that can be measured and reckoned against other possible outcomes.
Our conclusion? It doesn’t matter either way why people adopt better practices; the fact of them doing so is the part that matters most.
For if it came down to either instrumental valuation or no valuation, would we really want to just carry on with the status quo?
Strength in numbers
I feel the same way about the new Barbie dolls – that to now have some of the diverse representation people clamoured for for years is more important than it coming about for capitalist reasons.
(How realistic was it to expect otherwise in any case, unless Mattel was planning to completely alter its shareholder mandate and business model?)
But that right there shows how the situation isn’t nearly as bleak as some might believe. It reveals the power behind the position that diversity matters, where diversity can take on market forces and prevail.
It shows that being vocal about what you want and voting with your dollar really can help create change. In this particular case, the powers-that-be have already been hit where it hurts most, i.e. their bottom line.
Right now, the right thing for the wrong reason is good enough. It’s moved us that much closer to the end we want.
And who knows? With greater exposure to diversity – to all the intrinsic values that make the world a better place – perhaps Mattel – perhaps everyone not yet convinced – will in time come around to the intrinsic side on their own.
Did you play with Barbies as a child? What do you think about Mattel’s new offerings? Let me know in the comments.
(Image source #1, #2, and #3; #4 – J.G. Noelle)
13 thoughts on “Motivation Doesn’t Matter: On Instrumental Valuation, Diversity, and Barbie’s New Curves”
I had a notebook where I recorded all my Barbies’ full names and backstories. My sister and I had a whole imaginary country with customs and queens and you name it. It was a matriarchy before I knew what a matriarchy was. My favorite Barbies were the Dolls of the World collection. Did you have any of those? Mexican Barbie? Nigerian Barbie? Malaysian Barbie? I adored them. We somehow did research (before the internet) to pick each of them a culturally appropriate name. You’re absolutely right about this type of play teaching how to create fiction.
Wow! You did so much better than I did with your stories: from what I recall, a lot of mine revolved around an eventual wedding or baby being born. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but I definitely didn’t have any imaginary queendoms and cultures. I wish I had! If only you’d lived down the street when I was a kid.
I’m not sure if the Dolls of the World collection was sold in stores or not. I personally didn’t own any of the fancy Barbies, much to my ongoing frustration (my mom would never buy them), but I know some adult women who still have their special edition collections. Some of those dolls are real works of art.
Yep, I’m one of those adult women. 🙂
I was still collecting them in my early teens, buying them with babysitting and chore money (I started doing my household’s laundry when I was 8 just to fund Barbies). Yes, they really are works of art. Dolls of the World were sold in toy stores here in the U.S. I think they still are but they’re not as abundant.
If you’re interested: http://www.thebarbiecollection.com/gallery/dolls-of-the-world
Pages 8-10 were the ones I had. The hair and costumes are to die for. Pictures don’t do them justice. Some of the last ones I bought were the most gorgeous, like Medieval Lady Barbie (with “real” eyelashes!) http://www.thebarbiecollection.com/medieval-lady-barbie-doll-12791
So cool! Those dolls are beautiful. And, of course, I love the Medieval Lady Barbie.
I used to make up stories with my ceramic horses. The only “playing” I did with my Barbies was to dissect them, starting with shaving her head. Then screwdrivers were involved and, eventually, my grandparents stopped buying them. I think all my dolls met such a fate… except for Ariel, but then I’ve always had a soft spot for redheads and mermaids…
I cut many of my Barbies’ hair as well. Somehow, it never ended up looking as good as I envisioned it (surprise surprise). I always thought Mattel should make a doll with hair that can regrow. Perhaps they’ve since done so, but it didn’t exist when I was young.
Interesting that you played with ceramic horses; I didn’t have any of those. Were they a popular line of toys when you were young or just something you personally were into?
I’m not sure what they were. I’ve vague memories of being 4 or 5 and first seeing them at a flea market. Sadly, only one of the five survived such adoration, the legs really weren’t up to the sort of play I did and I had to move on to the matchbox cars my mates gave me.
No barbies here, but I did have GI Joes and similar “boy” dolls. No complex back stories (I am a pantser after all), but I did bring them into the bath tub along with rubber alligators and snakes and lord over swamp adventures. Important note: bathwater is really bad for GI Joes. The rubber and elastic parts inside rot and then the arms and legs come off.
If I didn’t wreck them in the bathtub, I would bury them int eh yard and dig them up a year later to see the effects of exposure. Usually nothing happened because they were made of plastic. Now that I think about it, they were probably safer buried than in my hands.
I actually played with GI Joes a bit too. My babysitter had three sons and sometimes we would have the Joes marry the Barbies (funny, we never had the Barbies go into war with the Joes).
I’m curious: do you recall GI Joes offering much diversity when you were young?
I had one doll (it may not have been the GI Joe brand but something similar) that, to my recollection, could be described as “racially ambiguous,” but for the most part they were all white dudes. On the other hand, most of the dolls/action figures I played with were monsters and aliens, so diversity wasn’t as much of an issue there. I think it never occurred to manufacturers back then that they could diversify their offerings. When everyone in the room pitching ideas and making decisions is a white guy, the myopic result is disappointing but unsurprising.
Some progress. Maybe. Forced by market-share loss. Boo hoo.
But a disability blogger I adore (Dave Hingsburger) pointed out that there used to be a Barbie in a wheelchair – and she seems to have disappeared. Diversity is more than skin color.
What makes some of this worse is that there ARE human women (not many, and some of them are sick) with those body proportions. And their ‘curvy’ ones are nothing like fat women – they’re just closer to average proportions.
We all have many intersecting identities (race, gender, ability, religion, orientation, age, etc.) that make up who we are, and pop culture is only just starting to better represent some of these. There’s definitely more work to be done in the name of diversity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: The Oscars and Book Covers | Ciara Darren