Performative resistance and aestheticized conflicts: Barbie ’s ambivalent feminist practice

Abstract

This article examines the film Barbie as an embodiment of the ambivalence of Western popular feminism. The article argues that Barbie demonstrates two forms of ambivalence – performative resistance and aestheticized conflicts. Defining performative resistance as the tendency of cultural products to articulate progressive ideas while integrating oppressive ideologies into their world-building and diegesis, the article focuses on three aspects of performative resistance demonstrated in the film: its simultaneous celebration and critique of consumerism and normative feminine beauty, its ambivalent attitude toward the patriarchal logic of domination and its inclusion of people with disabilities and people of color as part of its ableist and postracial ideologies, showing that the film’s progressive statements often conceal its incorporation of oppressive ideologies. Defining aestheticized conflicts as cultural products’ representation of conflicts and power struggles in a pleasing and appealing manner to create a happy and harmonious atmosphere, the article examines the aestheticization of diegetic conflicts between Barbies and Kens, among Kens, between capitalists and consumers, and between capitalists and workers, finding that the film’s exposure of conflicts paradoxically contributes to their weakening, and downplays both gender and class conflicts. Through a textual and critical discourse analysis of Barbie, the article hopes to show that regressive elements in Western popular feminist discourses can be intimately intertwined with progressive ideas and often reinforce, reproduce and perpetuate themselves by masquerading as progressive, suggesting that Western popular feminism may be entering a new phase in which structural problems are increasingly obscured by their exposure.

Introduction

Since its release in the United States on 21 July 2023, the fantasy comedy film Barbie, directed by Greta Gerwig, has attracted large audiences and ranked number one at the 2023 US domestic box office. One of the most discussed episodes in the film is when the male protagonist, Beach Ken (Ryan Gosling), learns how patriarchy works in the real world. The process by which Beach Ken learns about patriarchy is portrayed in the film in an entertaining way. After Beach Ken arrives in the real world, he immediately realizes that ‘everything is almost like reversed here’ (28:38–28:41) and becomes fascinated by the idea that men rule the world. Understanding patriarchy as ‘where men and horses run everything’ (41:31–41:32), he decides to seek his fortune in the real world and begins a series of absurd job-hunting activities, such as asking a male manager (Ptolemy Slocum) for a ‘high-level, high-paying job with influence’ (41:39–41:41). When the manager turns him down, he claims that ‘you guys are clearly not doing patriarchy very well’, to which the manager replies, ‘We’re doing it well, yeah. We just hide it better now’ (41:48–41:56). After many failed attempts, Beach Ken is determined to return to Barbie Land and establish patriarchy there. Through this incident, the film sheds light on the persistence of patriarchy. The film’s direct articulation of the existence of patriarchy in contemporary Western society exemplifies a remarkable shift in Western media culture in recent years. A postfeminist optimism based on the assumption that gender equality has been achieved is evolving into an acknowledgment of the persistence of institutional inequality and a broader acceptance of feminist ideas.

However, the increasing popularity of feminism in the West does not guarantee more effective resistance to patriarchy and other forms of hegemony. For one thing, the most visible feminist discourses in Western popular culture tend to be accommodating, more concerned with women’s empowerment than with addressing structural problems. Popular feminist expressions tend to be intertwined with the neoliberal ethos of personal choice, individual responsibility and self-discipline, and their individualistic undertones make it difficult to radically critique the workings of patriarchy. As Banet-Weiser (2018) writes, ‘Media-friendly expressions such as celebrity feminism and corporate feminism achieve more visibility, and expressions that critique patriarchal structures and systems of racism and violence are more obscured’ (p. 4). As a result, the dominant form of popular feminism ‘is primarily white, middle-class, cis-gendered, and heteronormative’, which ‘seizes the spotlight in an economy of visibility and renders other feminisms less visible’ (Banet-Weiser, 2018: 13). For another, although the postfeminist rejection of feminism is gradually being replaced by an enthusiastic embrace of feminism, the postfeminist sensibility identified by Gill continues to permeate Western popular culture. Defending the continued importance of postfeminism as a critical object and as ‘an analytic category to capture a distinctive contradictory-but-patterned sensibility intimately connected to neoliberalism’ (Gill, 2016: 610), Gill shows that many widely supported feminisms today, such as neoliberal feminism and celebrity feminism, reflect various dimensions of the postfeminist sensibility, such as the celebration of personal choice, individual responsibility, self-discipline, entrepreneurial spirit and consumer culture. In other words, the growing awareness of gender inequality unfortunately coincides with postfeminist and neoliberal sentiments and a reluctance to address systematic injustice.

By directly exposing the persistence of patriarchy and mocking Kens, Barbie, to some extent, contradicts Banet-Weiser’s (2018: 14–15) observation that popular feminism tends to accommodate men, express feminist ideas in non-confrontational ways and dismiss resistance to patriarchy as characteristic of an old-fashioned generation of feminists. However, despite its admirable attempt to verbalize the persistence of structural inequality, the film at the same time displays clear traits of a postfeminist, consumerist and neoliberal ethos. For example, the empowerment of women, exemplified by Barbies’ participation in various middle-class professions, is one of the film’s most significant themes and corresponds to neoliberalism’s demand for entrepreneurial and hardworking individuals; the film’s portrayal of Barbies’ youthfulness and feminine beauty is in line with postfeminism’s advocacy of natural sexual differences and femininity; Barbie Land’s beautiful decorations and diverse merchandise make it the epitome of consumer culture; and the film’s promotion of self-knowledge, individual agency and personal choice echoes the spirit of individualism and downplays the importance of collective struggle.

In light of both the film’s radical potential and its accommodation to neoliberal capitalism and patriarchy, this article poses the following questions: How should we understand Barbie’s incorporation of contradictory stances? To what extent does Barbie accommodate oppressive ideologies, such as neoliberalism, patriarchy, racism and ableism, and to what extent does Barbie still have radical potential and lend itself to women’s emancipation? What does Barbie tell us about the characteristics of Western popular feminism in the present moment? How do the characteristics that Barbie exhibits transcend existing characterizations of Western popular feminism and thus require new theorizations of popular feminism in the West? In other words, the article attempts to use Barbie as a representative case to explore the complexities of Western popular feminism in the present, given the film’s inclusion of both progressive and regressive elements and its popularity in Western media culture.

With the above questions in mind, this article combines the methods of textual analysis and critical discourse analysis to examine the film. Textual analysis ‘consists of close readings of how media objects, from television to magazines to video games, represent the world’ and is used to examine ‘how meaning is made through signs and sign processes in communication, including the media’ (Harvey, 2020: 39–40). Thus, textual analysis would contribute to the article’s close reading of the process by which meanings take shape in Barbie. Critical discourse analysis is a powerful tool for analyzing texts in relation to power and ideology. As Catalano and Waugh (2020) write, the goal of critical discourse analysis ‘is to examine critically the relationship between language, ideology, power, and social structure, for example, social inequality as it is constructed, re-produced, legitimized, and resisted in language and other modes of communication’ (p. 1). Thus, critical discourse analysis will be useful for the article’s examination of how various forms of hegemony are manifested and reproduced in Barbie.

Using textual and critical discourse analysis, this article proposes to interpret Barbie as a text that embodies the ambivalence of Western popular feminism in the present moment. In this article, the term ‘ambivalence’ is used to characterize the film’s incorporation of contradictory feelings, stances, commitments and values. In particular, the article examines two forms of ambivalence that the film exhibits. The first is characterized by the film’s simultaneous assimilation of and critical reflection on oppressive ideologies, such as consumerism, normative feminine beauty, the logic of patriarchy, ableism and postracialism, which illustrates an act of performative resistance, defined here as the tendency of cultural objects to verbally critique oppressive ideologies while simultaneously integrating these ideologies into their diegesis and making these ideologies inherent in their resistance. This performative resistance demonstrates a progressive stance through its verbal articulation of progressive ideas and denunciation of oppressive ideologies. However, its verbal critique of oppressive ideologies conceals its actual absorption of them, just as Barbie’s verbal resistance to the aforementioned ideologies conceals its active participation in them. The second ambivalence is reflected in the film’s aestheticization of conflicts, which in this article refers to cultural products’ representation of conflicts and power struggles in a pleasing and appealing manner to create a happy and harmonious atmosphere. In other words, although the film depicts and exposes gender and class conflicts, its entertaining and comical way of presenting them diminishes their seriousness and urgency. By discussing the two forms of ambivalence embodied in the film, the article shows that the film’s apparent progressiveness can covertly lend itself to various forms of hegemony. In this sense, ambivalence poses an inherent problem in the film’s self-proclaimed progressive politics.

By examining Barbie’s performative resistance and aestheticization of conflicts, this article, on one hand, echoes existing scholarship on the ambivalence of popular feminism, particularly popular feminism’s entanglement of feminist and anti-feminist ideas: popular feminism’s progressive potential is often accompanied by its tendencies to collude with neoliberalism, consumerism and individualism and its failure to challenge structural inequality (Banet-Weiser, 2018; Banet-Weiser et al., 2019a; Gill, 2016, 2017; Rottenberg, 2018). On the other hand, this article further enriches existing scholarship by elaborating on Barbie’s performative resistance and aestheticized exposure of conflicts, demonstrating that the regressive elements within popular feminist discourses are intimately intertwined with progressive ideas and often reinforce, reproduce and perpetuate themselves by masquerading as progressive. By introducing the concepts of performative resistance and aestheticized conflicts, the article further suggests that Western popular feminism may be entering a new phase, in which structural problems are increasingly obscured by their exposure.

In the next section, this article discusses the performative resistance of Barbie from the following three aspects: its simultaneous celebration and critique of consumer culture and normative feminine beauty; its concurrent desire for and rejection of women’s domination in Barbie Land, or rather, the patriarchal logic of domination and its inclusion of people with disabilities and people of color as part of its ableist and postracial ideologies. In the third section, the article examines the film’s aestheticization of conflicts from the following perspectives: its aestheticization of the conflicts between Barbies and Kens as well as those among Kens, the image of capitalists, the relationship between capitalists and consumers, and the relationship between capitalists and workers. The last section is the conclusion.

Performative resistance in Barbie

Barbie’s performative resistance is first embodied in its simultaneous celebration and critical awareness of normative feminine beauty and consumer culture. Barbie Land is presented as a pink world adorned with a variety of feminine elements and a wide array of merchandise. The female protagonist, Stereotypical Barbie (Margot Robbie), first appears in a series of shots depicting her daily routine: waking up in a pink heart-shaped bed in her pink pajamas, taking a shower in a pink shower room, choosing a pink dress from a large closet containing various clothes, sunglasses, lipsticks and bags, and selecting a carton of milk from a pink refrigerator filled with various foods. These shots show the infiltration of various commodities into Barbie Land and characterize Barbie Land as a feminine space filled with women’s beautiful clothes, high heels, cosmetics and bags. In addition, the lyrics of the song that accompanies these shots also place great emphasis on feminine beauty:

And pink/Goes with everything/Beautiful from head to toe/I’m ready to go, you know, you know/It’s pink/Good enough to drink/We like other colors, but/Pink just looks so good on us/P, pretty/I, intelligent/N, never sad/K, cool. (4:54–5:18)

These lyrics show that in Barbie Land, beauty is not only valued but also transformed into a norm to which all Barbies must conform. Barbies are described as ‘beautiful from head to toe’, and ‘pretty’ is treated as one of their core values. In this sense, the film imagines a utopian Barbie Land characterized by Barbies’ feminine appearance and their immersion in consumer culture. In doing so, it not only fails to critique how the pursuit of normative feminine beauty can lead to women’s self-objectification and their internalization of the male gaze but also celebrates feminine beauty in the name of freedom and happiness, thus reinforcing women’s self-discipline by presenting it as the result of women’s personal choice. From this perspective, the film presents women’s bodies ‘simultaneously as women’s source of power and as always unruly, requiring constant monitoring, surveillance, discipline and remodeling (and consumer spending) in order to conform to ever-narrower judgments of female attractiveness’ (Gill, 2007: 149).

However, in a conversation between Stereotypical Barbie and Sasha (Ariana Greenblatt), Sasha offers a harsh critique of the cult of normative feminine beauty and the pervasiveness of consumerism in the real world, further complicating the film’s stance on these ideologies. In this conversation, shot-reverse shots and close-ups are used to capture the facial expressions of Stereotypical Barbie and Sasha as they speak and listen to each other, emphasizing their contrasting viewpoints. Sasha begins the conversation by firmly telling Barbie, ‘You’ve been making women feel bad about themselves since you were invented’ (39:57–40:00). Stereotypical Barbie is confused and replies, ‘I think you have that the wrong way around’ (40:01–40:02). Sasha then responds to Stereotypical Barbie, ‘You represent everything wrong with our culture. Sexualized capitalism, unrealistic physical ideals’ (40:03–40:07). The shots then cut back to Stereotypical Barbie, who remains perplexed and replies, ‘Barbie is so much more than that’ (40:11–40:13). Sasha then accuses Stereotypical Barbie of being a fascist: ‘Look at yourself. You set the feminist movement back 50 years. You destroy girls’ innate sense of worth, and you are killing the planet with your glorification of rampant consumerism’ (40:14–40:27). After hearing the above accusation, Stereotypical Barbie breaks down in tears. In this scene, by contrasting Sasha’s determination with Stereotypical Barbie’s hesitation, the film invites the audience to identify with Sasha’s point of view and to blame Stereotypical Barbie for setting unrealistic physical standards for women and for participating in promoting consumerism. In other words, in the above conversation, consumerism and normative feminine beauty are presented as objects that the audience should reject.

However, if consumerism and normative feminine beauty are seen as negative in the film, why are they presented as outstanding features of Barbie Land, which is supposed to be a feminist utopia? As a feminist utopia, Barbie Land is designed as an object of desire for the audience, which makes it difficult to interpret its embodiment of these ideologies as ironic. In fact, consumer culture and normative feminine beauty are presented as important components of Barbie Land throughout the film, and no changes to this characteristic of Barbie Land are made later in the film. The simultaneous representation of consumer culture and feminine beauty as objects to be rejected and desired well illustrates the film’s performative resistance. On one hand, the film includes a conversation between Sasha and Stereotypical Barbie to verbally critique the ideologies of consumerism and normative feminine beauty and shows an awareness of their limitations; on the other hand, it has internalized these very ideologies and made them part of the characterization of Barbie Land. This self-contradiction undermines the film’s progressive politics to some extent, rendering its ambivalence problematic.

In addition to its ambivalence toward consumer culture and normative feminine beauty, the film’s performative resistance is also embodied in its simultaneous embrace and critique of Barbies’ dominance in Barbie Land. Barbie Land is depicted as a realm where women reign supreme and thrive. In contrast, ‘As Barbie has flourished, Ken has been left behind. Kens are the objectified, excluded second sex’ (Pickles, 2023). As the external voice-over comments, ‘Barbie has a great day every day, but Ken only has a great day if Barbie looks at him’ (07:25–07:30). In particular, the film shows the centrality of Barbies in Barbie Land by depicting their involvement in various careers like presidents, reporters, Nobel Prize winners, judges, senators, pilots and astronauts, in contrast to Kens’ lack of job opportunities, thus promoting the neoliberal ideology of careerism. As McRobbie (2009) notes, ‘Nowadays the young woman’s success seems to promise economic prosperity on the basis of her enthusiasm for work and having a career’ (p. 58). In this sense, the film illustrates ‘a neoliberal, consumerist (protocapitalist) feminism concerned with “women’s advancement” up the corporate and nation-state ladder’ (Mohanty, 2003: 6) and celebrates a ‘girl boss’ concept’ that defines women ‘in relation to their position in a capitalistic world’ and ‘perpetuates the commodification of women’ (Elder, 2023). In addition, Barbies’ dominance is further illustrated by their tendency to neglect or condescend to Kens. For example, Stereotypical Barbie consistently refuses Beach Ken’s invitations to spend the night together, insisting that each night is reserved for a girls-only gathering with other Barbies. While the idea of a ‘girl’s night’ embodies an ideal of women’s togetherness and solidarity, it excludes Kens, who are also willing to participate. In this representation, Barbie Land exists as an inverted real world. Here, the power dynamics of male dominance and female subordination in the real world are reversed, with Barbies taking on what are conventionally considered masculine roles while Kens play feminine roles. Paradoxically, despite the reversal of gender roles, Barbie Land perpetuates a patriarchal logic of domination through the supremacy of Barbies over Kens.

However, while the filmmakers envision a world dominated by women, they also show a reluctance to embrace this female supremacy. Their reluctance is evident in their attempt to reshape Barbie Land in the second half of the film, in which Barbies become aware of Kens’ subordinate position in Barbie Land and decide to show them more respect. Toward the end of the movie, Stereotypical Barbie apologizes to Beach Ken, acknowledging, ‘I think I owe you an apology. I’m really sorry I took you for granted. Not every night had to be girls’ night’ (1:33:23–1:33:32). The dialogue deepens when Beach Ken expresses, ‘I only exist within the warmth of your gaze’ (1:34:02–1:34:07), prompting Stereotypical Barbie to gently reply, ‘Maybe it’s time to discover who Ken is Maybe it’s Barbie and it’s Ken’ (1:34:26–1:35:23). This conversation culminates in Beach Ken’s realization of his individuality and his self-knowledge that ‘Ken is me’ (1:35:34–1:35:36). By depicting Beach Ken’s awakening, the filmmakers not only imagine an ideal Barbie Land characterized by mutual respect between Barbies and Kens but also suggest a necessary shift away from male dominance and female self-objectification in the real world.

Given their reluctance to embrace female supremacy, do the filmmakers then have a negative attitude toward the previously women-centered Barbie Land? The answer remains unclear. At the end of the film, when the CEO of Mattel (Will Ferrell) suggests returning Barbie Land to its previous state, President Barbie (Issa Rae) immediately rejects his suggestion, stating, ‘I don’t think that things should go back to the way that they were. No Barbie or Ken should be living in the shadows’ (1:37:28–1:37:35). This reinforces the film’s message that the once women-centric Barbie Land should evolve into a new one where both Barbies and Kens can thrive. However, a nuanced ambivalence emerges when Kens express their desire to be appointed to the Supreme Court, to which President Barbie responds negatively, offering a lower circuit court judgeship instead. On one hand, President Barbie’s refusal to let Kens into the Supreme Court can be interpreted as a reflection of the filmmakers’ reluctance to deconstruct the centrality of Barbies in Barbie Land. From this perspective, the filmmakers have President Barbie express, in a seemingly humorous way, their implicit desire to preserve the centrality of women, or rather, to maintain the patriarchal logic of dominance in Barbie Land. This suggests that while the film mocks patriarchy in appearance, it preserves its underlying logic, resulting in a rebellion in name only that leaves the essence of patriarchy untouched. On the other hand, President Barbie’s rejection also shows the filmmakers’ recognition of the difficulty in translating the ideal of equality between Barbies and Kens into practical implementation. By depicting the challenges Kens face in gaining access to the Supreme Court in Barbie Land, the filmmakers allude to the obstacles women face in gaining power in the real world.

The filmmakers’ ambivalent attitude toward Barbies’ dominance over Kens in Barbie Land is further illustrated by the external voice-over’s commentary: ‘Well, the Kens have to start somewhere. And one day, the Kens will have as much power and influence in Barbie Land as women have in the real world’ (1:38:07–1:38:15). Rather than claiming that Kens will one day be equal to Barbies, the voice-over draws a parallel between Kens in Barbie Land and women in the real world. On one hand, the juxtaposition of Kens and real-world women, rather than Barbies, suggests the filmmakers’ reluctance to grant Kens the same power as Barbies and reflects their willingness to preserve women’s domination, or rather the patriarchal logic, within a fantasy realm. On the other hand, this juxtaposition also reflects their pessimistic belief that Kens may not be able to gain as much power as Barbies because of the entrenched and systematic female dominance in Barbie Land, just as it is difficult for women to gain as much power as men in the real world. This pessimism is also embodied in the film’s ironic setting, in which Barbie Land is a commodity produced by the Mattel corporation and managed by male executives. The irony is further dramatized when Gloria (America Ferrera) proposes the production of Ordinary Barbie to Mattel’s CEO. Though initially dismissing the idea as terrible, the CEO quickly changes his mind upon realizing its profit potential. The filmmakers’ dramatization of Barbie Land as a commodity produced by businessmen can be seen as a self-parody and a pessimistic admission that their feminist fantasy is always in negotiation with ‘the economics and ideologies of the “free market”’ (Gledhill, 1988: 68).

In addition to the two manifestations discussed above, Barbie’s performative resistance is also manifested in its inclusion of people with disabilities and people of color as part of its ableist and postracial ideologies. The ableist undertone of the film becomes apparent when comparing Stereotypical Barbie with Weird Barbie (Kate McKinnon). Stereotypical Barbie, who embodies the ideal of the female body, occupies a central and revered position in Barbie Land, while Weird Barbie, who deviates from conventional beauty standards, faces isolation and ridicule from her Barbie peers. The prominence of Stereotypical Barbie and the marginalization of Weird Barbie illustrate how the film presents the ideal female body as the norm while stigmatizing and marginalizing deviant bodies. Furthermore, the film depicts deviant bodies through the rhetoric of disability. Weird Barbie is seen as disabled and in need of repair in the eyes of her fellow Barbies, who describe her as ‘falling more and more into disrepair herself’ and ‘always in the splits’ (18:34–18:45). This narrative describes Weird Barbie from an ableist perspective that frames disability as an individual deficiency to be overcome and repaired. As Kafer (2013) notes, disability is often approached from the perspective of either an individual model, which sees disability as ‘a personal problem afflicting individual people, a problem best solved through strength of character and resolve’, or a medical model, which ‘frames atypical bodies and minds as deviant, pathological, and defective, best understood and addressed in medical terms’ (pp. 4–5). Furthermore, despite her ingenuity in guiding Stereotypical Barbie and resisting Kens’ brainwashing, Weird Barbie’s exceptional qualities paradoxically help to reinforce the binary opposition between her and other Barbies and make her fit into ‘the stereotype of the “supercrip”’ (Thomson, 2001: 341) that shapes people with disabilities as the Other by ‘positioning the disabled figure as the exception to human capability’ (Thomson, 2001: 341).

However, despite the film’s ableist implications, the filmmakers appear to be aware of their ableism and demonstrate a self-reflexive tendency to address their ableism toward the end of the film, in which they have President Barbie, as a representative of all Barbies, apologize to Weird Barbie for their lack of respect for her and offer her a position in the cabinet. This move to demarginalize Weird Barbie shows the filmmakers’ attempt to portray Barbie Land as an inclusive space where normativity is deconstructed so that everyone can live equally and with dignity. This message delivered by the filmmakers at the end of the film wraps up the film with a liberating and progressive undertone. In other words, President Barbie’s sermon on the value of inclusivity constitutes performative resistance to ableism, as the speech verbally articulates anti-ableist ideas and thus plays a role in concealing the logic of ableism inherent in the film.

In a similar vein, the racial diversity of Barbie Land paradoxically contributes to the postracial agenda, through which racial categories are depoliticized, and ‘whiteness can both mark and reassert its hegemony in a racial capitalism without stigma’ (Banet-Weiser et al., 2019b: 11). In Barbie Land, Barbies and Kens have different skin tones and racial characteristics. The filmmakers appear to embrace the principles of racial diversity by integrating Barbies and Kens of different ethnic backgrounds into Barbie Land. However, a close examination of this diversity reveals its problems. Despite the racial diversity of Barbies and Kens in terms of representation, the main characters who drive the narrative of the movie, including Stereotypical Barbie, Beach Ken, Allan (Michael Cera) and Weird Barbie, all belong to the white demographic. Racial minority characters are relegated to peripheral roles, existing more as ‘images’ than as ‘actors’ who actively advance the plot. As Beltrán (2010) observes, in Hollywood films, ‘characters of color are utilized primarily to lend a hip tone to a setting and in support of the white lead characters’ development’. Even the most prominent Barbie of color in the film, President Barbie, has a marginal role and lacks the ability to influence the development of the story. President Barbie’s authority as the leader of Barbie Land is evident only in a few scenes in which she makes announcements and conducts meetings. However, during crucial discussions among Barbies about resisting Kens and reclaiming the power of Barbies, Stereotypical Barbie takes the lead, even though she has no significant position in Barbie Land, and President Barbie is conspicuously absent. The creation of a President Barbie of color and the simultaneous reduction of her to a mere ‘image’ illustrates the filmmakers’ commitment to increasing the visibility of racial minorities while maintaining the centrality of white Barbies and Kens both in Barbie Land and in the narrative of the film. From this perspective, they see the visibility of racial minorities as an end in itself and engage in a superficial politics of visibility and diversity. In other words, diversity in this film serves to some extent as ‘a form of institutional polishing’ (Ahmed, 2017: 102), and ‘institutions might name things or say yes to something in order not to bring something into effect’ and ‘appear to do something without doing anything’ (Ahmed, 2017: 103).

Moreover, the filmmakers further naturalize and make invisible the centrality of white Barbies and Kens by erasing race in Barbie Land, where everyone is called either Barbie or Ken (except Allan). In other words, there is no racial classification in Barbie Land, where all Barbies and Kens live happily together regardless of their racial characteristics. This narrative is consistent with the postracial discourse of ‘the ethnically ambiguous’, which serves as one of the main ways to visualize postrace in the media (Banet-Weiser et al., 2019b: 10–11), and reflects that ‘racial difference has solidified into postracial discourses of multiculturalism, diversity, and color blindness’ (Gray, 2013: 773). The ethnic ambiguity and absence of racial references in Barbie Land help to conceal the centrality of white Barbies and Kens, as President Barbie’s role as president masks her lack of authority and her existence as an ‘image’ in the film. In sum, the film’s engagement with racial diversity embodies a ‘plastic representation’ that ‘uses the wonder that comes from seeing characters on screen who serve as visual identifiers for specific demographics in order to flatten the expectation to desire anything more’ (Warner, 2017: 35). By including Barbies and Kens of color in Barbie Land and depicting a President Barbie of color, the film again demonstrates a performative resistance that uses the appearance of racial minorities to mask its white-centric logic.

Aestheticized conflicts in Barbie

In addition to performative resistance, another prominent feature of Barbie is the aestheticization of conflicts in the film. More specifically, the cruelty of the real world is transformed into something relaxing, reassuring and funny through the film’s humorous and entertaining modes of representation. Although the film presents multiple conflicts, such as those between men and women, between capitalists and workers, and between capitalists and consumers, it at the same time diminishes and beautifies them. In other words, Barbie is characterized by the simultaneous exposure of conflicts and their erasure. This paradox constitutes another ambivalence of the film and illustrates how the patriarchal oppression of women and the capitalist exploitation of workers and consumers are minimized in the film not by the film’s concealment of them but by the film’s representation of them.

To begin with the conflicts between Barbies and Kens, on one hand, the filmmakers do not hesitate to portray the confrontation between them. There are various encounters between Barbies and Kens in the movie, such as Beach Ken’s promotion of patriarchy in Barbie Land and his efforts to reduce Barbies to a subordinate role and Barbies’ struggle to undermine Kens’ supremacy and regain their lost power. All of these encounters illustrate the often antagonistic relationship between Barbies and Kens and the intense power struggles between them. On the other hand, all of the supposedly serious confrontations between Barbies and Kens turn out to be peaceful and harmonious. For example, the overthrow of Barbies’ dominance by Kens, led by Beach Ken upon his return to Barbie Land, well illustrates the aestheticization of conflicts in the movie. Kens seem to take power automatically and magically, without any struggle or effort. When Stereotypical Barbie returns, she finds that everything has suddenly changed. There are no shots describing the process of Kens’ power grab. The only explanation for why Kens suddenly dominate Barbie Land and why Barbies are radically brainwashed by Kens is offered by Beach Ken: ‘We just explained to them the immaculate impeccable seamless garment of logic that is patriarchy, and they crumbled’ (1:00:57–1:01:00). Not only is Beach Ken’s explanation unconvincing, it makes Barbies’ transformation even more confusing. The portrayal of the magical and bewildering transformation of Barbies not only dramatizes Kens’ ability to overthrow the entrenched dominance of Barbies in Barbie Land but also shapes Barbies as innocent and even stupid dolls who can be easily indoctrinated by Kens. From this perspective, as a feminist film, Barbie paradoxically embraces the sexist narrative that emphasizes men’s abilities while belittling women’s, justifying ‘male power’ and ‘traditional gender roles’ through ‘derogatory characterizations of women’ (Anderson, 2014: 108). Moreover, the film not only depicts Kens’ power grab as a process characterized by a peaceful transfer of power and a harmonious reversal of gender roles but also portrays the results of Kens’ power grab in an entertaining way, as embodied in Kens’ comical complacency with their new status, Barbies’ amusing change in their attitude toward Kens, and Stereotypical Barbie’s humorous surprise at what has happened. The above practice undermines the tension between Barbies and Kens with a happy atmosphere. In this sense, ‘it is a feminism that is actually encumbered by its desire not to be angry, not to be “difficult,” not to be “humourless”’ (Gill, 2016: 618).

Like Kens’ magical power grab, the process of Barbies’ power grab also helps to make the confrontation between Kens and Barbies fun and relaxing. First of all, Barbies’ strategy for undermining Kens’ power is to flirt with different Kens, make several Kens fall in love with them at the same time, and create jealousy among Kens so that they will fight with each other. In this way, Barbies ‘play on their egos and their petty jealousies’ (1:24:21–1:24:23). The strategy of playing on Kens’ egos makes Barbies’ power grab amusing rather than violent. In addition, the film weakens not only the conflicts between Kens and Barbies but also the conflicts among Kens. Fooled by Barbies’ tricks, Kens decide to declare war on each other. However, the war among Kens is presented as a melodrama in which Kens’ expressions and actions are slowed down and dramatized, accompanied by Beach Ken’s amusing song and Kens’ non-lethal weapons, such as tennis rackets and volleyballs, flying everywhere. In other words, the war is presented as a farce, and its dramatic nature once again erases the possible brutality of Kens fighting among themselves.

Similar to the aestheticization of the conflicts between Barbies and Kens, the image of the capitalist and the institution of capitalism are also presented in the film in a comic way, and the humorous presentation makes them more amusing than annoying. In other words, on one hand, the film depicts the contradictions between capitalists and consumers and between capitalists and workers, rather than hiding them; on the other hand, its presentation of these contradictions paradoxically weakens them. The Mattel executives first appear in a scene depicting a high-level Mattel conference where the CEO claims that they sell ‘dreams’, ‘imagination’, ‘sparkle’ and ‘female agency’ to customers (35:30–35:42). These remarks shape the CEO as a greedy merchant who commodifies feminist ideas for profit, thus not only casting a shadow over the image of the CEO but also ironizing the frequent transformation of women’s self-esteem into ‘a remarkably brandable commodity’ (Banet-Weiser, 2018: 82) in neoliberal capitalism. However, the following shots show the CEO and other male executives in an amusing way, which gradually changes their negative image. When the CEO is told that Stereotypical Barbie is now in the real world, he reacts to the news in an exaggerated way: he faints and becomes crazy about catching her. The plot then follows a narrative of bad characters, represented by Mattel executives, trying to hunt down good characters, represented by Stereotypical Barbie. However, the scene of Mattel executives chasing Stereotypical Barbie is far from tense and horrifying. The male executives are portrayed as clumsy and incapable of capturing Stereotypical Barbie, despite their large numbers. When they chase Stereotypical Barbie inside the Mattel building, they appear to run haphazardly and aimlessly, allowing Stereotypical Barbie to escape easily. The representation of male capitalists as silly and funny guys ‘drains the supposed oppressors of any degree of threat’ (Cox, 2023) and prevents them from becoming the object of audience dislike.

In addition to portraying Mattel executives as funny guys through a comedic mode of representation, the filmmakers also depict Mattel executives in a much more positive light toward the end of the film. When Mattel executives finally enter Barbie Land, they appear in the scene of the reconciliation between Barbies and Kens and fit in well with the atmosphere of harmony, understanding and caring there. In other words, they cease to exist as villains and become organic components of the film’s happy ending, in which all disputes are resolved and everyone seems lovable. More specifically, Barbies and Mattel executives seem to get along with each other instead of being hostile to one another. The CEO even asks Barbies to call him mother in a tender tone, which helps to hide his previous greedy and hypocritical words and actions. The CEO also gently treats Gloria, an employee of Mattel. He calls her child and asks her to tell him her secret dream. By softening the image of the CEO to one of tenderness through the rhetoric of motherhood, the film glamorizes not only the image of the capitalist, as represented by the CEO and other executives, but also the relationship between the capitalist and the worker, as exemplified by the relationship between the CEO and Gloria. The film’s glorification of the images of Mattel executives, despite exposing their commodification of feminism, may be an attempt to avoid offending Mattel and damaging its brand as one of Barbie’s production companies while still maintaining a critique of capitalism and consumer culture, which suggests a process of negotiation within media institutions in which ‘the professional and aesthetic practices of “creative” personnel operate within different frameworks from, and often in conflict with, the economic or ideological purposes of companies and shareholders’ (Gledhill, 1988: 69).

What’s more, the aestheticization of conflicts in the film not only reflects the tension between the filmmakers and their investors but also exemplifies the tendency of Western popular feminism to celebrate happy affects. Western popular feminism’s obsession with happy affects has been noted by many scholars. In Gill’s (2017) discussion of what she calls ‘the affective and psychic life of postfeminism’, she notes that postfeminist culture ‘“favours” happiness and “positive mental attitude”, systematically outlawing other emotional states, including anger and insecurity’ (p. 610). Similar to Gill, Rottenberg (2018) also notes that neoliberal feminism treats ‘a happy work-family balance’ (p. 13) as its ultimate goal and emphasizes the importance of ‘affect, behavior modification, and well-roundedness’ (p. 42). Echoing Gill and Rottenberg, Banet-Weiser (2018: 15) argues that popular feminism not only values happy affects and positive attitudes, such as empowerment, confidence, pleasure, competence, self-esteem and resilience, but also presents its feminist expressions as friendly. What’s more, the above scholars further critique popular feminism’s preoccupation with happy affects, suggesting that this overemphasis on happy affects not only shifts people’s attention from structural injustice to personal emotions, attitudes and personalities but also constitutes a form of discipline that places the burden on individuals to demonstrate positive mental traits (Banet-Weiser, 2018; Gill, 2017; Rottenberg, 2018). Consistent with these scholars’ critiques of popular feminism, Barbie exhibits similar problems the scholars have identified: it creates an atmosphere of harmony, relaxation and joy that diminishes the cruelty of power struggles and the urgency of structural inequality. Moreover, the film’s promotion of positive emotions is further complicated by its depiction of social conflicts and its critique of various ideologies, which serves to obscure how its cheerful atmosphere contributes to the weakening of structural problems.

Conclusion

This article examines two forms of ambivalence exhibited by the film Barbie. The first ambivalence is characterized by Barbie’s tendency toward performative resistance. The article examines Barbie’s performative resistance from three perspectives. The first aspect is the film’s celebration of consumerism and normative feminine beauty on one hand, as demonstrated by the ubiquity of consumerist and feminine elements in Barbie Land, and its engagement in a critical reflection on these ideologies on the other, as exemplified by Sasha’s verbal critique of them in her conversation with Stereotypical Barbie. The second aspect concerns the film’s ambivalence toward Barbies’ superior position in Barbie Land: it demonstrates a self-contradictory stance that both admires and rejects Barbies’ domination over Kens, reflecting the filmmakers’ desire to maintain the patriarchal logic of domination despite their rebellion against patriarchy. The final aspect is that, on one hand, the film demonstrates a progressive stance by including Barbies and Kens of color in Barbie Land, creating a President Barbie of color and having President Barbie apologize to Weird Barbie; on the other hand, the inclusion of Barbies and Kens of color and Weird Barbie reflects a superficial politics of visibility that perpetuates postracial and ableist ideologies. In addition to performative resistance, the film’s ambivalence is also embodied in its aestheticization of conflicts, which makes it a good example of how the representation of conflicts can serve as a way to diminish them. Specifically, the article shows that the tensions between Barbies and Kens, among Kens, between the Mattel corporation and consumers, and between the Mattel CEO and the worker Gloria are all softened and lend themselves to a happy and relaxed atmosphere, thus reducing the cruelty of the power struggles.

Barbie’s performative resistance and its aestheticization of conflicts make the film self-contradictory. On one hand, the film demonstrates a critical awareness of oppressive ideologies and a willingness to expose and resist them. Departing from postfeminism’s optimistic neglect of the existence of gender inequality, its admiration for consumerism and normative feminine beauty, and its frequent indifference to racial inequality and class contradictions, the film exposes the persistence of patriarchy, condemns the limitations of consumerism and beauty standards for women, celebrates racial diversity and reveals gender and class conflicts. On the other hand, however, the film internalizes the ideologies that it ostensibly rejects, and its verbal rejection further conceals its integration of these ideologies as part of its world-building. Moreover, its critique of these ideologies is often accompanied by its efforts to defuse conflicts and create a harmonious atmosphere of reconciliation. From this perspective, the film’s performative resistance and aestheticization of conflicts can be problematic and troubling.

By introducing the concepts of performative resistance and aestheticized conflicts, this article seeks to highlight the evolving manifestations of power and enrich the existing scholarship on popular feminism in media and cultural studies. Although critics have elucidated the ambivalence of popular feminist discourses by referring to their ‘articulation or suture between feminist and anti-feminist ideas’ through ‘a grammar of individualism that fits perfectly with neoliberalism’ (Gill, 2007: 162), the article shows that the ambivalence of popular feminism is embodied not only in its incorporation of both feminist and anti-feminist ideas but also in the disguising of the latter as the former and the concealing of the latter with the help of the former. Moreover, unlike critics’ observation that structural critique is largely absent from popular feminism, which ‘consents to heteronormativity, to the universality of whiteness, to dominant economic formations, to a trajectory of capitalist “success”’ (Banet-Weiser, 2018: 16), this article shows that the film contains structural critique, but in a performative way, and criticizes patriarchy, consumerism and white supremacy, but verbally. The film’s ambivalence suggests that various forms of hegemony, such as patriarchy, consumerism, racism and ableism, are manifesting themselves in media culture in increasingly subtle ways. This growing subtlety may signal the evolution of popular feminism into a new phase in which inequalities and conflicts are increasingly obscured by their articulation and exposure. Feminist media studies, then, need not only to identify how cultural products simply express or resist oppressive ideologies, but also to examine how cultural products perpetuate oppressive ideologies by denying them in appearance while absorbing their mechanisms of operation, or by exposing them while diminishing their seriousness, and to keep an eye on the diverse and sophisticated manifestations of power.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that this article’s discussion of Barbie’s ambivalence follows a text-based methodology that combines textual analysis and critical discourse analysis and shows how the process of encoding is an ideological process shaped by various power relations. Nevertheless, the processes of encoding and decoding are often asymmetrical: viewers can negotiate with the messages conveyed by the film, interpret the messages from an oppositional standpoint (Hall, 1980: 125–127) and engage in an ‘oppositional gaze’ that refuses to follow the ideological interpellation of the film and derives visual pleasure from critical evaluation and interrogation (hooks, 1992: 115–131). This means that viewers can create their own interpretations, which are conditioned by the historical, social, political, economic and cultural contexts in which they find themselves. Therefore, the audience can take the initiative to receive the progressive ideas conveyed by the film and to critique the problematic elements involved in it. In this sense, the article’s analysis of the problematic nature of ambivalence is limited to representation, while the situation of decoding requires further investigation, as ambivalence, from the perspective of reception, can offer the audience much freedom of understanding and interpretation.