To Be a Barbie Is to Perform

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.