The Toffoletti readings this week were very thought provoking so I found them enjoyable to read. However, I struggled to grapple with how the theories discussed look beyond the context of an insular academic discussion. In seeking to understand Barbie as a transformative site of the posthuman, I wish Toffoletti had put more emphasis on how Barbie is a jumping off point for complicating ideas of the self. I wonder if the polarizing cultural narratives of desire and repulsion surrounding Barbie are so dominant that it almost obscures the ability to think beyond them. I personally have visceral reactions to the sight of Barbie as an object (never mind the multitude of cultural ideas that come with it) that are informed by body image, eating disorders, and how I have experienced my gender. I was eager to read Toffoletti’s historiography of the Barbie and almost felt the posthuman analysis were secondary to this. She stated numerous times that she was trying to distance her work from well known arguments, yet it seems necessary for her to nod to them in significant ways to establish her own reasoning.

Theoretically I find it more managable to grasp the transformative posthuman potential if I focus on seeing Barbie as a disruptive force that both fragments experience and serves as a reflexive opportunity. Toffoletti argues that as an illusion of the real, Barbie calls established categories into question and therefore “what is offered in place of identity is an alternative modality of subjectivity that is not aligned with a process of identification or a practice of resistance” (58). I am uncertain if we can come to this alternative without it being contingent on or referential to Barbie as a site of identity formation or resistance. Therefore, how different is this alternative if it has traceable roots to what it says it is not?

Toffoletti says that “post structural multiplicities of understanding” are created when value shifts according to how groups ascribe meaning (62). For me, this complicated the very notion of transformative as not necessarily meaning progressive but more an alternative. Additionally, it reinforced how dependent (re)inscribed meanings are on context, location, and experience. Thinking of shifting meaning reminded me of discussions I’ve had on whether political satire is progressive or damaging. Some folks have expressed concern with satirical exploration of sexism or racism being taken as endorsement of those value sets, rather than criticism if an audience is unaware of context. Simillarly, I find it difficult to view Barbie as having progressive and or transformative qualities when it is situated in deeply ingrained culture narrative that has tangible life consequences for women. While Barbie can be viewed as a ‘shifting referent’ (70) that informs us of ideas of fantasy and illusion, I take issue with how even on a theoretical level, these discussions continue to use women’s bodies and identities to reinforce disparaging, oppressive, and essentializing ideas of gender.