Guseva Yu.E. Barbie doll: pro et contra (towards the formulation of the problem) // In the shadow of the body / Ed. N. Nartova, E. Omelchenko. – Ulyanovsk: Ulyanovsk State University Publishing House, 2008. Over the past two decades, not only the ideology, socio-political and economic situations, the lifestyle and thoughts of citizens have changed in Russia - the sphere of consumption has also changed: things unknown to Soviet people have become an everyday occurrence of the post-Soviet era. Elements of Western mass culture (literature, cinema, food, clothing, toys, etc.) penetrated the post-Soviet space and became part of our lives. The emergence of new products of Western culture in Russia leads to a discussion about their benefits/harm. Thus, the question of how harmful, from a moral point of view, Western films of an aggressive or overly entertaining nature, talk shows or advertising is actively discussed (attention is often focused on the “kindness and purity” of Soviet cinema and television). First of all, the objects of criticism are objects or phenomena that are very different from those to which Soviet people have become accustomed for seven decades. At the same time, the new is often associated with “bad” and the old with “good”; the Western way of life in general and its individual elements are stigmatized as unacceptable for the Russian mentality and destroying its originality, in particular. It is important to note that the inclusion of a new phenomenon in everyday life is often accompanied by harsh criticism, which is gradually replaced by a relatively tolerant attitude. Toys, just like any other objects and phenomena, become the subject of discussion. Some are designated as “harmful”, others as “beneficial”. The Barbie doll has attracted a lot of attention, and there is ongoing debate about how useful it is for children. The Barbie doll phenomenon is unique. The doll, having become super popular all over the world, has ceased to be just a toy. Rather, it can be called a symbol of a special hypertrophied type of femininity (specifically attractive appearance at any cost, desire for expensive things, consumer behavior towards men). In this work, we turn to the Russian discourse around the Barbie doll. What is a Barbie doll for the post-Soviet space? A symbol of new life or a destroyer of traditions and foundations of society? What is your attitude towards her? What information does Barbie convey? Why did the doll cease to be primarily a toy, but became a symbol of hypertrophied femininity? Why do you sometimes see a monster instead of a toy, destroying everything around you? An attempt to systematize judgments (or rather, accusations) about Barbie makes it possible to see that society has endowed a piece of plastic with great power: by “animating” Barbie, responsibility for many of the problems of modern society was transferred to the doll. Barbie is often accused of causing women to suffer from anorexia and undergo plastic surgery, strive for a hedonistic lifestyle, and have few children; it also becomes the reason for the formation of early sexual interest in children, etc. The discourse around the doll is not unambiguous (positive or negative); there are many conflicting opinions regarding the doll and its possible influence on children and adults. The ambiguity of discourse is determined by the fact that it was formed and developed in three directions: in scientific knowledge, “philistine” judgments and in socio-political debates, which mainly unfold in the media. Each of the designated areas has its own opinions regarding the Barbie doll. The discourse that has unfolded in the scientific sphere owes its appearance largely to the controversy that has unfolded in society around the Barbie doll. Accusatory statements towards the doll could not help but attract the attention of researchers, although in Russian psychology there are not so many works devoted to this toy. In general, in domestic scientific knowledge, it is more likely thatnegative attitude towards the Barbie doll. The famous psychologist V.V. Abramenkova [1998] criticizes the toy, noting that Barbie’s sexuality is an archetype of fornication, and playing with a harlot doll will not bring any benefit to the girl. L.I. Elkoninova and M.V. Antonova [2002] are not so categorical. They point out that children need a variety of toys. And the problem is not that Barbie stimulates interest in sexual relations, but that this doll carries a stereotypical ideal of beauty, a stamp that girls will imitate. True, there is also an opposite opinion: the doll gives the girl the opportunity to play “beauty,” and such a game is necessary [Loseva V.K., Lunkov A.I., 1995]. Researcher A. V. Khashkovsky [2000], a modern Slavophile, speaks very critically of the Barbie doll, who places special emphasis on the fact that the doll will spoil the Russian soul, and a person’s life will be wasted, in pursuit of dubious ideals. Thus, in scientific knowledge, at the moment, there is no clear opinion regarding the benefits or harm of the Barbie doll. Unfortunately, the number of scientific studies is small, and due to the lack of information, it is impossible to talk about cause-and-effect relationships; it is difficult to draw a conclusion about both the positive and negative influence of the doll. At the level of “philistine” judgments, no clear negative attitude towards the Barbie doll has been identified . We conducted a survey in which 38 men and women (residents of St. Petersburg aged 18 to 38 years) took part. Respondents were asked to talk about their attitude towards the doll. Only two people (5.2%) showed a negative attitude towards the doll (“ruins the lives of girls”, “provokes early sexuality”), 11 people (29%) showed a neutral attitude (“I don’t have any attitude”, “an ordinary toy”), the remaining respondents showed a positive attitude. We also analyzed messages left on various forums (for example, http://www.forum.littleone.ru, http://forum.cosmo.ru) in sections in which parents discuss various issues and problems related to development and raising children. Most reports show parents' positive attitudes towards Barbie doll; mothers and fathers buy this doll for their children and do not see anything dangerous in it. The socio-political discourse reflected in the media has a clearly negative connotation. In Turkey, Barbie doll and Spider-Man are called enemies of Muslims. In Iran and the UAE, the Barbie doll is prohibited. The doll was banned in Saudi Arabia, calling it a Jewish toy[1]. But in Israel there is a struggle against the doll. Russia does not lag behind Muslim countries. At one of the conferences at the Ministry of Education, Russian teachers drew attention to the fact that many foreign toys are harmful, and Barbie was one of these toys. “Instead of these crippling toy “monsters”, our specialists in child psychology suggest remembering Russian spillikins and making Easter cakes. Very useful for the formation of a child, they say.”[2]. In the printed press and, especially on the Internet, journalists, public figures, and simply “compatriots who are not indifferent to the fate of Russia” consider the Barbie doll as the culprit of a variety of disasters. Barbie's guilt is often quite global. Thus, the doll is accused not only of being too sexy, but also of creating an inferiority complex in girls and women. Barbie turns out to be to blame for the low birth rate in Russia and the fact that women are quite active and masculine... This field of discourse (socio-political debate) becomes the main object of research in our work. For analysis, we took texts posted on the Internet, in which the authors turned to the analysis of the Barbie doll phenomenon. The choice of source is due to the fact that the Internet is currently one of the most popular media. In addition, a large number of texts published in the printed press are posted online. Thus, the analysis of Internet resources can be considered a fairly representative sample reflecting the specifics of the Russiansocio-political discourse about the Barbie doll. The study used two methods of text analysis: content analysis and intent analysis. Using these two methods together allowed us to confirm the hypothesis that in the Internet text array there is a predominantly negative attitude towards the Barbie doll (at the same time, the negative attitude is specific in the sense that the toy (essentially a piece of plastic) is endowed with mythical properties to influence life of people). We also managed to identify several groups of accusations against the doll, try to analyze the qualitative features of the texts, and identify obvious and hidden motives for the accusations. By analyzing articles published on the Internet, we can identify several groups of accusations against the Barbie doll. All charges are related to each other, but we have tried to highlight the nuances of each group. 1. The beauty of Barbie contributes to the development of complexes and “Barbie syndrome” in girls and women. “Barbie syndrome” refers to a woman’s uncontrollable desire to achieve a specific ideal of external attractiveness (top model type) through cosmetics, diet, clothing, as well as more radical means such as plastic surgery, liposuction, etc. The media often focuses on the fact that real women are very different from the Barbie doll: they do not have such a thin waist, not such a lush bust, etc., so the attractive appearance of the doll causes envy , which leads to the emergence of “Barbie syndrome”. The authors of numerous popular articles claim that, “according to psychologists,” tens of thousands of girls and women around the world suffer from “Barbie syndrome.” Attention is drawn to the fact that it is Barbie that provokes anorexia in women. However, we did not find a reference to a single psychologist who would conduct a study and prove that Barbie is the cause of anorexia nervosa in women. Anorexia nervosa syndrome was identified back in the 19th century, when the Barbie doll did not yet exist. And at the beginning of the twentieth century. a large number of women suffered from this disease. Therefore, talking about the doll’s fault is, to say the least, strange...Is it only the doll’s fault that women are expected to be physically attractive, that a woman is viewed as a commodity, the value of which is determined by various parameters, including beauty? The works of feminist theorists Gail Rubin [2000], Judith Butler [2000], Rosi Braidotti [2000], Luce Irigary [1985] allow us not only to see the hierarchy of status positions of men and women in society, but also to understand the reasons for its emergence. According to the authors, it is the “sex/gender” system that is the reason for the emergence of the existing hierarchy in society, when men have a higher status than women, and a woman’s lower status is compensated by her appearance, ability to bear children, and various skills. The reasons for women's desire to achieve maximum visual attractiveness turn out to be much deeper than the presence of a beautiful doll on the market. The most famous Barbie imitator was the American Cindy Jackson, who underwent 28 plastic surgeries and paid almost $100,000 to become like a Barbie doll. The case of the only woman in the world who decided to change her appearance in order to become like Barbie cannot be considered as a pattern. Her ideal could be anyone: a fashion model, a TV series heroine, or any fictional character. The latest information about this woman is shocking: she was tired of looking like a doll, and she again decided to change her appearance surgically. Another example is closer to real life. “When I turned 10 years old, my dad gave me this doll with the words: “Daughter, I want you to become just as beautiful!” Since then, I have often compared myself to Barbie. “And I saw that the comparison was not in my favor,” admits Katya.”[3]. What conclusion is the reader being pushed to? It is the doll that is to blame for the girl’s problems. However, it is quite obvious that dad, being an authority, a reference person for the girl, himself becameone of the reasons for the formation of complexes in a child. If parents perceive the doll only as a toy, but not as a role model, and do not focus on the imperfections in the child’s appearance, then “Barbie syndrome” is less likely to appear. 2. Barbie's appearance and lifestyle contribute to the formation of a consumer lifestyle in women. The Barbie doll is special because it exists in the context of the accessories that accompany it. She has everything (or much more) than a real woman. A huge amount of clothes, cosmetics, a Barbie house, a car. A myth has been created around Babri that she leads an idle life and gets everything due to her attractiveness. So, for example, the joke that a simple Barbie costs $100, and a divorced Barbie costs $10,000 because she is sold along with Ken’s house, car and things, shows that Barbie lives exclusively at the expense of a man. In fact, Barbie's consumer lifestyle is nothing more than the fantasies of the doll's critics. Only a child playing with a doll knows what she does, how she lives, etc. However, the authors of journalistic articles point out that Barbie is the reason why women begin to view their appearance as a commodity that can be sold profitably: find good job thanks to physical attractiveness, get married successfully. “Looking at a spectacular, impeccably dressed doll with a sleek face and a chiseled figure, many begin to associate success in business and personal life with appearance.”[4] And again, blaming only the doll is an attempt to avoid recognizing and solving serious social problems . Politicians and other public figures through the media convey the idea that a woman should first of all remain a woman (take care of herself, be a real mother, a keeper of the hearth). Accordingly, for this, a man must be a real man and fully provide for the woman. In society, female consumer behavior (complete refusal to work) is considered normal; the reason for this is the patriarchal structure and the presence of stable gender stereotypes. Moreover, many types of employment are currently closed to women with “unpresentable” appearance. As long as in newspapers we can see an advertisement like “girls no older than 25 years of age with model appearance required,” attractive appearance and youth will remain a commodity that can be sold. Currently, appearance has become capital, but it is not the doll’s fault that A woman's attractiveness is a commodity. Blaming the doll is just a mask for a serious problem that needs to be solved. If the same authors who accuse Barbie of consumerism write that “a woman should remain a woman,” that is, look good, be a caring mother and wife, and a man should provide for his family, be strong, then this is precisely the attitude towards gender roles and shapes the consumer lifestyle of women. 3. Barbie's hypersexuality leads to the development of early sexuality in children. The appearance of the Barbie doll attracts attention. Indeed, the doll is the embodiment of sexuality, its shape is far from real (too thin waist and wide hips, too small legs, fluffy hair, too full lips and big eyes). The media often draws attention to the fact that playing with a sexualized doll is harmful for children: “the doll develops mannerisms, coldness and early sexuality in girls that are unusual for children during play”[5]. The doll begins to be seen as the cause of the development of “abnormal” sexuality. In civilized societies there is control over sexuality, which is manifested, among other things, in the presence of taboos. Sexual behavior in children is even more taboo than in adults. Children are, as it were, “outside sexuality.” It is unspoken that a “normal” child should not be interested in gender issues at all. Any manifestations of sexuality are suppressed in the family by parents and in children's institutions by educators or teachers. Children are scolded for their completely natural interest in theirbody or the body of another, games with elements of sexual behavior are quite harshly suppressed, and their participants are punished. Moreover, sometimes for children their games do not carry any sexual meaning, but adults see elements of sexuality in them. For example, undressing a doll may or may not be a game of a sexual nature; a child may only be interested in the process of dressing and undressing or the desire to change the doll with the help of clothes. That is, adults project their own sexual interest or even their own problems of a sexual nature onto the child. Sexual games are no less important for a child than others. The sexual sphere develops in childhood along with the cognitive and emotional sphere. Naturally, this area develops through play, since play is the child’s main activity. Children's sexual games with undressing dolls (“hospital”, “mothers and daughters”) are typical for children. A child is interested in his body, the body of his peers and adults - this is completely normal and cannot be prohibited. The asexuality of Soviet dolls did not prevent children from undressing them, speculating about their gender, and playing sexual games. Any doll has a male or female gender. And even if the manufacturer has not assigned a gender to the doll, the child assigns a name to it, and the doll’s clothes can be gender-typical. Accordingly, dressing and undressing a doll is already a child’s sexual play. 4. The Barbie doll does not prepare a girl for the role of a mother. Attitudes towards playing with dolls vary depending on the content of the game. Thus, playing “mother-daughter” with a child doll is seen as useful, and playing with Barbie as harmful: “Girls used to play “childish” with a doll.” The doll reproduced the proportions of a child’s body; it was close and understandable to the baby. This doll taught the girl the most important thing - to be a mother, taught her to love, educate, take care of someone. And look at the Barbie doll. This is a fully developed girl, with hypertrophied hair, legs and sexual characteristics. The most important thing for parents here is to understand that Barbie cannot be babysat, she can only be decorated.”[6] The author of the text believes that the role of the mother is the main one for the girl. A question immediately arises. Why is it considered that the most important thing for a girl is to learn to take care of someone and master the role of a mother? The strict gender differentiation that existed in a traditional patriarchal society still dominates society. A woman is primarily expected to fulfill the role of a mother. As a result, it is believed that a girl should master this role through play. Of course, there is a demographic problem in Russia, but its solution should not be associated with forcing women to perform childbearing functions, since the basis of democracy is still the good will and freedom of every citizen. Let's return to the issue of not playing with Barbie like with a child. It is clear that Barbie cannot be swaddled and rocked, just as the baby cannot be dressed in an evening dress. The train won't fly, and you can't play football with a toy plane. Each toy has its own purpose. And it’s unlikely that a girl playing Barbie will completely give up playing “mother-daughter” with a baby doll. Those older than the “Barbie generation” remember with sadness the pitiful attempts to sew an elegant dress for a doll whose figure only allows her to be swaddled. In her article, E. Yu. Ivanova refers to the opinion of a six-year-old girl, whom she asked: “Which doll would she buy for her daughter: a Barbie or a large doll - like a baby. She replied: “Of course it’s big, because you can play daughter-mother with her!” Adults, think about it: you can’t play daughter-mother with Barbie!!!”[7]. Thinking about the problem, it is still not clear why Barbie cannot be a mother and have small children (that’s a game for children), why games with Barbie in “shop”, “hospital”, “theater”, etc. typical for children are bad games that allow a girl to master many other roles. “Girls play with this doll not as “mother-daughter,” but as “friend-acquaintance.” Thus, at the age when girls from time immemorial “lost” the futuremotherhood is the main purpose of a woman, now they are coding themselves for something else”[8]. A single episode is presented as a conclusion. We don't know the girl's motives. Perhaps right now she wanted to play “mother-daughter”, and tomorrow she will want to play other games. It is completely unclear why the range of female roles should be limited to the role of mother and what is wrong with a girl playing “friends and acquaintances” while mastering other skills. “Now the “Barbie generation” has grown up, when a doll was a friend for a girl, and such girls take on the role mothers are not ready,” writes journalist N. Fedotova in the article “Barbie doll kills expectant mothers. Why is the number of abandoned children growing?[9]. Indeed, statistics show that quite a lot of young women refuse children. But did the fact that their doll was Barbie lead to the abandonment of their own child? And among those who are not among the happy owners of the doll, there is a percentage of cuckoo mothers... Summarizing all of the above, we can say that in Russia the Barbie doll becomes a symbol of sexuality in a negative sense (sexual promiscuity, consumerist attitude to life, selfishness). Its fault is the desire of women to have a beautiful body, although a rather masculine, hierarchically structured society pushes a woman to consider her external attractiveness as a commodity. The doll’s fault turns out to be the hypersexuality of children, as if before the appearance of the doll, children were asexual. And even in women’s lack of desire to fulfill the role of mother, it turns out that the doll is to blame, and not the socio-economic situation in the country. Whether a toy can have such a strong influence on people’s lives is a complex and ambiguous question. What can a piece of plastic do if it has no meaning? And what can this same piece of plastic do if we endow it with power, if we blame it for something, transfer our problems onto it? It is convenient for parents and educators to blame the doll for the child having sexual interests. Public figures see the doll as the cause of social problems. We see that this is simply a way to remove responsibility from oneself and shift it to an inanimate object... One can say a lot about the fact that a doll does not develop a child’s imagination, that one cannot play “mother and daughter” with it, etc. But no doll will become an educational toy if parents do not play with their children. Barbie can be a mother of small children, she can have a house and she can run a household. She can sew clothes, furnish her home (make furniture, for example), and do her hair. Barbie doesn't have to spend all her free time at the beauty salon. She is a toy and will do what the owner wants: go to work, relax with friends at the dacha, go to the cinema, receive guests. It is clear that a doll is what you put into it. An alternative to Barbie is a traditional Russian toy that carries high moral qualities: “I think we need to revive the making of traditional folk dolls. Let the children make it themselves from available materials. The dolls will be much cleaner environmentally than plastic Barbies. But the main thing is that a homemade doll does not instill materialism in children. After all, each doll is like a person: one of a kind. And she has the only outfit. It has its own history of creation and its own unique image”[10]. Of course, making toys develops children. But it’s difficult to agree with other ideas. Doesn't a child create her own story for her Barbie? Isn't each doll unique in an outfit sewn by mother and child? Does a doll necessarily foster materialism? “On a deeper psychological level, Barbie has become an inanimate object. She has lost that individuality and warmth that a doll has if it is perceived as the one and only person.”[11] And again the natural question arises about how the child perceives the toy. The toy can be the one and only, the one that people talk to and then remember orThey even keep it for a lifetime, or maybe one of many. And such a toy can be either a homemade doll or a teddy bear, or a Barbie doll. In contrast to the isolated cases of the negative influence of a doll described above, we present excerpts from an unstructured interview conducted by the author in 2007. The respondent is a 22-year-old girl, not burdened with a Barbie complex, who had several dolls as a child. This interview, without a doubt, does not prove the positive impact of Barbie on a child's development. The interview only allows us to pose a question and put forward a hypothesis that it is not important what set of toys a child has, what is important is how parents perceive toys and what social attitudes are formed in the child in the process of interacting with parents through toys. “I really wanted a Barbie doll, all my girlfriends had it and when my parents bought it for me, I was happy. Then they bought me Ken, the little dolls were their children. I had a home for Barbie in my closet, my mother bought me special fashion magazines for Barbie and I used them to sew dresses and make various things for Barbie. At my mother’s request, all my parents’ friends brought me beautiful scraps, so my Barbie had a lot of dresses. My Barbie and Ken did everything like my parents did. They worked the same jobs, went on vacation with their children, went shopping, and received friends. Many years have passed, but boxes with dolls and their outfits are still kept in my mother’s closet. Sometimes I take them out, sort through the dresses and remember my childhood. Thanks to Barbie, I learned to sew, embroider, and craft.” Based on this interview, it can be assumed that playing with a Barbie doll is no different from playing with other dolls. Namely, just like in other games, the projection of relationships in the parental family onto the content of the game is manifested. The game allowed the respondent to master needlework; the fact that the doll is still carefully stored indicates its importance for the respondent in childhood. So, to summarize, we can conclude that people’s ideas about Barbie do not predominantly carry a negative connotation; the data obtained from scientific research clearly does not confirm the harm of the doll. However, at the level of socio-political discourse, the Barbie doll becomes the cause of many intrapersonal, interpersonal and even social problems. In general, the Barbie phenomenon has not been sufficiently studied at present. The results of our research do not allow us to draw conclusions about the benefits or harms of the doll. We see the main result in the possibility of posing a problem that requires further development. This article is an attempt to identify a problem field, but research is required in order to prove the presence or absence of a positive or negative influence of a doll on our lives.[1] The doll was called a Jewish toy because its creator (“mother”), Ruth Handler, was Jewish.[2] Barbie doll may be banned in Russia // Utro.Ru http://www.rokf.ru/oddities/[3] Nikonova L. I want to be a Barbie doll! // Mirror of the week. No. 20 (395) June 1-7, 2002.[4] Bazarova V. Difficult childhood // Everyday life. No. 31. 14. 11. 2002 [5] Ibid. [6] Bakulin M. Yu. About the Barbie doll // Russian Week. Orthodox online magazine about modern Orthodox culture in Siberia. http://www.russned.ru/autors.php?ID=3.[7] Ivanova E. Yu. What could be more serious than a toy? // http://www.deti.rema.44.ru/papers/igra.htm[8] Ibid.[9] Fedotova N. Barbie doll kills expectant mothers. Why the number of abandoned children is growing // Friday. October 22, 2004 [10] Yakusheva G.I. Folk doll as a means of introducing a child to national culture // http://skm.skamsk.ru/index.php?razdel=stat&text=m_stat[11] Frean A. Barbarism begins with Barbie – an object of love and hate // Ino pressa. June 19, 2007 Literature Abramenkova V.V. Play shapes the soul of a child // World of Psychology. 1998. No. 4. Butler J. Gender anxiety // Anthology of gender theory / Comp. Gapova E., Usmanova A. - Minsk: “Propylene”, 2000. Braidotti R. Gender differences as, 2008.