Life Like Dolls

Life Like Dolls

The Collector Doll
Phenomenon and the Lives of
the Women Who Love Them

A.F.Robertson

Routledge
New York and London
 Published in 2004 by
Routledge
29 West 35th Street
New York, NY 10001
www.routledge-ny.com
Published in Great Britain by
Routledge
11 New Fetter Lane
London EC4P 4EE
www.routledge.co.uk
Copyright © 2004 by A.F.Robertson
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group.
This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005.
“To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s
collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized
in any form or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or here
after invented, including photocopying and recording or in any information storage
or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Robertson, A.F.
Life like dolls: the collector doll phenomenon and the lives of the
women who love them/A.F.Robertson. p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 0-415-94450-3 (hardback: alk. paper)—ISBN 0-415-94451-1 (pbk.: alk.
paper)
1. Dolls—Collectors and collecting—Psychological aspects. 2. Women—United
States—Psychology. I. Title.
NK4893.R62 2003
688.7'221'075–dc21 2003009895

ISBN 0-203-50504-2 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 0-203-57649-7 (Adobe eReader Format)

 For my sister
Elizabeth Stanger,
who collects grandchildren.
 Contents

List of Pictures vi
List of Figures vii
Preface viii

Chapter One Introduction 1

Chapter Two The Commodity 21
Chapter Three The Collection Just Grows and 61
Grows
Chapter Four The Doll That Needs You 95
Chapter Five Dollification 116
Chapter Six More Than Real 151
Chapter Seven Forever Young 189
Chapter Eight Innocence and Fear 221

Appendices 231
Notes 251
Bibliography 266
Index 277
 List of Pictures

Picture 1 Elderly woman nursing a doll, 3

Picture 2 Advertisement for Caroline (Georgetown 31
Collection),
Picture 3 Marketplace doll stall. Richelieu, France, 52
November 1995,
Picture 4 Certificates of authenticity for two collector 57
dolls,
Picture 5 At Debbie’s house—dolls everywhere you 74
look…,
Picture 6 Eva’s dolls—at home, 75
Picture 7 Waiting for you to take her home, 96
Picture 8 Two American Girl play dolls and the collector 154
doll Gwendolyn,
Picture 9 Rose Vanilla, without her bonnet, 178
Picture 10 Rosie, age 3, grooming Barbie, 179
Picture 11 Rosie nursing doll, 195
Picture 12 The Lenox Christening Doll, 202
Picture 13 Sarah with her MyTwinn, and MyTwinn’s 210
own look-alike doll,
Picture 14 Noelle, the Christmas Angel, 214
Picture 15 Unwrapping and wrapping Noelle, the 216
Christmas Angel,
Picture 16 Mary Jane, 230
 List of figures

Figure 2-a Number of doll manufacturers and total sales 42

in the United States, 1967–97,
Figure 2-b Total sales of U.S. doll firms, and wages of 43
production workers, 1967–97,
Figure 2-c Total employees and total production workers 44
in U.S. doll firms, 1967–97,
Figure 2-d Number of production workers in U.S. doll 45
firms and average wage, 1967–97,
Figure 2-e Annual average price of dolls in advertisement 49
sample, 1991–99,
Figure 2-f Price ranges of dolls by main doll firms in 52
advertisement sample, 1991–99,
Figure 3-a Age of U.S. doll collectors (1994), 89
Figure 6-a Development of the facial mask, 162
Figure 6-b Facial development, 164
Figure 6-c Infantilizing facial features, 165
Figure 6-d Comparison of doll face forms, 171
Figure 6-e Mouth forms. Antique doll, play doll, real 175
child, and two PCDs,
Figure 7-a Infantilization, 197
Figure 7-b “Infantilized” and “normal” boys, 198
Figure 7-c Adultified dolls, 202
Figure 7-d Mean and variation in the height of the nasal 203
septum in sample of 118 girl dolls,
 Preface

In North America and in Europe producing dolls for adult

women is a large and lucrative industry. Commercially linked
to the collection of “real” antique porcelain dolls, the new
commodity differs quite radically in form, function, aesthetics,
and many other ways from dolls intended for children. In
marketing terms the dolls are targeted at women in the “empty
nest” stage of their lives: they have finished rearing their own
children (or perhaps never had any) and can expect to live
much longer than in the past. Most of them can afford the price
tag of around $100 for a doll, and many believe that their
purchase is a sound investment. The sales pitch is backed up by
certificates of authenticity, limited edition numbers, artists’
signatures, and the exhortation to collect.
The design of these dolls has obviously been researched with
care. A major selling point is elaborate realism that rarely
applies in the design of dolls for children. Much attention is
paid to such details as the curl of eyelashes and the molding of
nostrils and fingernails. The dolls all have names and personal
identities that are fleshed out in the advertising copy and the
packaging.
This quest for realism often seems overdone. Exaggeratedly
large infant eyes are combined with voluptuous post-adolescent
mouths, big hair, and elaborate clothes. This is the child who,
ambiguously, has and has not grown up, who is alive but inert;
lifelike, but preserved in the fragile chill of porcelain from the
change and loss that life itself implies.
While the women who collect these dolls gaze at them in
rapture, the rest of us may only glimpse them from the corner of
 ix

our eyes: an advertisement in Parade magazine, a window

display in a high street store, a late-night program on one of the
TV shopping channels. This billion-dollar industry has catered
for a very private sort of desire. The collectors, many of whom
have turned whole sections of their homes into “nurseries” for
their dolls, are distant from (and are often shunned by) the clubs
to which serious, up-market, antique doll aficionadas belong.
But gradually these new doll enthusiasts are “coming out,”
contacting one another at fairs, on TV sales marathons, in
Internet chat rooms, and even in one another’s homes.
Authentically unreal, a bizarre concoction of childlike and
adult traits, novelties that profess to be antiques, precious
trash: these dolls are the joint product of human passions and big
business. Certainly, they are in some sense magical, deceptive:
words like “enchanting,” “charming,” “irresistible,” and
“captivating” are part of the sales talk. But however
mendacious and however inert these dolls may appear to others,
for the women who buy them their beauty rests in the fact that
they are “so natural,” so very much alive.
It would be easy to dismiss this realism as merely
metaphoric: “of course they don’t really think these dolls are
alive.” But as soon as we started talking to these women we
discovered that that is how they really feel. If we are to engage
more sympathetically with the collectors’ feelings we have to
ask some deeper questions about what aspects of “real life” are
embodied in the dolls and how they are put there. Part of the
answer can be found in the clever details of manufacture, but it
is of course mainly the women themselves who imbue the dolls
with life. How and why do they do it?
For all its apparent childish triviality, the porcelain collector
doll (PCD) obliges us to think again about the distinctions we
habitually make between people and things, feelings and
meanings, passion and reason. In exploring the PCD
phenomenon we have had to take a very broad view, pursuing
the meaning of these dolls from the intimate details of
physiology, sexuality, and family growth, through to the
demographic, political, economic, and historical processes of
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The collectors are
identifiable by their age and family circumstances, they are
x

comfortable economically, they have a nostalgic interest in dolls

both as antiques and as relics of their own childhood. Over the
last thirty years an industry has developed to cater to their
desires. But there’s more to it than that. At the heart of the
matter there is an ambiguity that I have sought to capture in the
title of this book. To the collectors, the dolls are lifelike, but in
the collector’s dreams life is also doll-like: stable, immortal,
perfected.
There is an exquisite, sensuous tension between the bodies of
the women and the bodies of the dolls that defies simple
explanation. Feelings are so fundamental to our human
experience and yet, as psychologists, doctors, and others are
painfully aware, they are notoriously difficult to capture
“scientifically.” One reason for this difficulty is that when we
start analyzing bodies they become less lifelike: anatomical
specimens, cultural artifacts, neurological systems.
As a remedy, I have suggested that we refocus our attention
on how people grow, recognizing that for human beings this
growth is simultaneously physical and social.1 We don’t
reproduce ourselves, other people do that for us, making our
bodies, and passing on to us the ideas and tactics we need to
“do” life. But the other side of the coin is no less important:
how we grow animates society—that largescale, long-lasting
aggregation of human beings held together by the symbolic
apparatus we call “culture.” Human growth, in other words, is
the active link between the biological and the historical aspects
of our being, which implies that it should be of as much interest
to historians and students of culture as to biologists and
physiologists.
I have been drawn to these dolls and their collectors because
they seem a very apt illustration of how the meanings people
attach to things change as they grow, and how the way we grow
in some sense differentiates everything out there in the world
around us that we lump together as “culture.” Car, mother,
and delicious, are all ideas that change quite radically as we
proceed through our lives. The PCDs are dolls, but they are not
the dolls we familiarly associate with children. What makes
them seem natural or freaky depends not just on who you are,
nor even how old you are, but how you grew up, how you have
 xi

lived, and how you view your own past and future. In this
strange phenomenon of the collector doll, some aspects of the
way women have grown during the course of the twentieth
century have been fixed in porcelain. If we can read the features
of these dolls with sufficiently open minds, they may tell us
something interesting about our collective history, and perhaps
also something significant about our constitution as human
beings.
This project was an offshoot of my undergraduate and
graduate classes on the family at the University of California,
Santa Barbara. Around 1990, we noticed the increasing number
of advertisements for porcelain collector dolls (PCDs) in the
Sunday newspapers and mailbox fillers. It was immediately
obvious that they were intended for adult women rather than
children, and that they could tell us something interesting about
family life in contemporary America. The 440 advertisements we
clipped and discussed became the core of the project, as it
developed.
Many people may think it odd that a man should have
started and carried through this particular project. In our
radically gendered society, a male with a large stack of pictures
and texts dealing with effigies of little children will inevitably
attract some suspicion. I offer no apologies. Apart from the
captivating strangeness of the phenomenon, I came to the dolls
from a lifelong interest in the ways in which human
reproduction is socially organized. American and European
women who seemed to be accumulating substitute children
were obvious grist to my mill. The collectors I got to know
seemed relaxed about or even indifferent to my sex. There are
men everywhere in the doll business, sculpting and trading,
driving to fairs and minding stalls, helping their spouses at home
with care and maintenance. A few look sheepish, but most are
breezy and self-confident. One of my early mentors and sources
of inspiration, the anthropologist Meyer Fortes, used to declare
bluntly that you couldn’t be a proper anthropologist if you had
never raised a family of your own. I argued back vehemently
that someone like myself, married but without children, may
actually be more observant about family life than someone
afflicted with diapers, teenage delinquency, and school bills. I
xii

certainly see no reason to believe that a good family man—or

even a good family woman—would necessarily have made
better anthropological sense of the doll collectors.
The project developed as a means of giving students at Santa
Barbara some practical experience of doing anthropology. My
own fieldwork has been mainly in Africa, and the logistical
problems of taking students there are legion. Instead, we tend
to encourage students to take a practical interest in “the exotic
in our midst”—to explore the unfamiliar worlds that crowd
around our own. Typically, we have directed students to ethnic
enclaves, strange occupations, communities of the very poor or
the very rich. On the principle that our own families are full of
aliens, I have had students write about their parents and
siblings, domestic rituals, or financial crises—often with
startlingly illuminating results that I have ploughed back into
teaching. Introducing the doll phenomenon to a large
undergraduate class always brought several students with some
direct interest (usually a close relative with a collection) to my
office afterward.
I introduced the dolls to a small undergraduate seminar on
research and writing. I could see no reason why the students,
mostly in their late teens and early twenties, should know
anything, or care about the PCDs. My hope was that their
detachment from the phenomenon would raise interesting
objective questions, and I was often rewarded. Some plainly felt
they had been hijacked, but played along patiently, digging out
facts and figures, studying dolls in different times and places,
and talking to collectors. The writing is nearly all my own, so
they are absolved from blame, although I use the “we” pronoun
to signal their involvement. Those who were smitten continued
to work with me as relays of research assistants, processing the
advertisements, monitoring the TV shows, collecting statistics.
Our treatment of the topic benefited not only from the great
variety of their backgrounds, but also from the breadth of their
disciplinary interests—biology, sociology, psychology, history,
and economics. Their greatest assets were their direct contacts
with the collectors them selves—grandmothers, aunts, family
friends—with whom they struck up conversations that often
were mutually gratifying. This personal transgenerational
 xiii

network proved to be an unusual and productive way of

collecting information. The project extended throughout the
1990s, including a year when I was teaching at Manchester
University in England. This long time frame, coinciding with
the boom in PCDs, allowed us to track changes in the
commodity, marketing styles, and clientele.
The students were well aware, from their anthropological
classwork, that there can be something unpleasantly smug about
making a study of the exotic and learning other people’s
secrets. Though many students’ first reaction to the topic was
“yuck!”, the vast majority ended up with sympathetic feelings
for the collectors and for the older women in their families
more generally. It reminded me of the anthropologist’s tendency
to fall in love with one’s “tribe” and to use its customs to
measure off all that’s wrong with our own society
(overindulgent parenting, rudeness in public, etc.).
For my own part, I feel puzzled about the obsessive aspects
of collecting, but I have much sympathy for the passion with
which the collectors relate to their dolls. My fundamental
concern is that social scientists, for all their fancy theories, can
now make very little sense of these intense feelings. I have
written quite a lot about this in recent years, and I live in hope
that we may find better ways of bringing feeling and meaning
back together, thus improving our understanding of what life is
about. The porcelain collector dolls have always seemed as
good a starting point as any.
Only one student researcher, a surfing dude who became the
darling of his local doll club and made a sterling contribution to
our project, said he did not want to be named. I’ll call him
Frank. The rest are listed below, in alphabetical order. The
contribution of some of them went far beyond the call of duty.
I thank them all most sincerely for their patience, diligence,
good humor, and apparently genuine interest in the goals of the
project.
I also acknowledge very gratefully the help of many
colleagues, friends, and relatives, especially Francesca Bray, the
Gerngross family (thank you, Anna and Emily), Ramon
Guardans, Keith Hart, Ilene Kalish, Eva Kuhn, David and Sarah
Lawson, Debbie Madrigal, Juliet Mitchell, Harvey Molotch,
xiv

Elizabeth Stanger, Don Symons, and Phil Walker. My thanks to

Dona Porter of the Bradford Group, and to doll artists Dianna
Effner, Linda Mason, and Pamela Phillips for permissions and
technical advice.
The student researchers: Claire Ardis, Kathleen Berglund,
Beth McWaters Bjorkman, Timea Bradley, Corinna Bridges,
Angel Browning, Celise Chilcote, Emily Christian, Jennifer
Cullen, Roya Daizadeh, Cindy De Witt, Rebecca Denman,
Marilyn Gomez, Carolyn Gregorio, Cristina Maria Gueco,
Robyn Hagle, Laura Izuel, Brandon Johnson, Susie Kim, Jaime
Lomonaco, Stacey Pedersen, Jamie Porter, Jennifer Ramirez,
Virginia Ray, Jenade Scott, Tracy Sellman, Lorraine Tennyson,
and Amanda Wade.
 Chapter One
Introduction

“This is not a toy.”

Most people looking at porcelain collector dolls (PCDs) for the

first time find them odd. They don’t look at all like the sort of
thing you would give to a child: they are too fragile, too
elaborate. Unlike so many children’s dolls they are startlingly
realistic, and yet their realism looks overdone, distorted. The
fact that they are made to imitate real live children, and that
their owners treat them as such, is somehow disturbing. Odder
still, they are often collected in large numbers. The industry
works on the assumption that buyers will not be content with
just one but will accumulate dozens or even hundreds.
On the one hand we see a commodity manufactured in very
large quantities by successful business corporations. Stevie,1
also known as “Catch Me If You Can!” is advertised as a
“Collectible Doll with Investment Potential”:

The doll you buy today may be a wise investment for the
future. Once an edition is sold out, those who want a doll
from the edition must pay whatever the market will bear,
if and when one becomes available from dealers or at
auction. That’s why fine collectible dolls often sell for
more then their original prices within only a few years of
being issued. Of course, not all dolls increase in value;
values can go down…
2 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

On the other hand, we see an object that arouses very

passionate feelings and which is treated by the collector as a real
little person: “I’m transported when I see a doll,” says Anne R.
“I go into another world.” Anne has an “extraordinary spiritual
feeling” for her dolls. They are “magical,” she insists: “Dolls
appear alive to me…. [I]t’s almost as if you can breathe life into
them…. [T]hey can collect their life force, a warmth from you.
You can almost see through their little eyes.”2
Why are some people so deeply enthralled by these dolls, and
others so appalled? This was the basic question pursued by our
student researchers, most of whom were women between 18
and 24 years of age and who were not in the market for these
dolls. Their initial reactions ranged from a shrug of indifference
to outright disgust:

“It’s obsessional. These women have a mental problem.”

“Dolls are creepy—they bother little girls.”
“They don’t look like dolls. They look older…like
women.”
“Very weird…Freaky…Distorted…”
“It’s like taxidermy.”
“Makes me think of JonBenet Ramsey.”
“They’re promising something that’s already gone.”
“They’re, like, untouchable.”
“They try to capture life, but they are deathly.”

These responses were mild compared with what many women

in their thirties and forties had to say. Academics especially
were “shocked” or “nauseated,” and a few were critical of our
motives in studying them. Of course, the censure and the disgust
only increased our curiosity— the topic was plainly hot.
The collectors themselves are usually well aware of the oddity
of their obsession: “Many blushed and others started laughing
when asked about their compulsion to collect dolls.”3 They
know it’s considered shameful for fully grown adults to be so
interested in dolls. It hovers on the brink of madness—it is well
known that clinically senile women often nurse dolls
(Picture 1). To be interested in such elaborate dolls—lots of them
—provokes a good deal of guilt. But there is strength in
 LIFE LIKE DOLLS 3

Picture 1: Elderly woman nursing a doll.

The woman’s son died of pneumonia when he was a baby. She was taking
stuffed animals from other residents in the clinic, so the staff got her the
plastic child’s doll. She addresses it as “son.” Photo by Elizabeth Stanger.
4 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

numbers: to see collectors emerging from domestic seclusion

into the daylight of clubs, fairs, TV phone-ins, and Web chat
rooms is very evocative of gay people “coming out” in the
1960s and 1970s.
Adults routinely disparage dolls. This is very evident in the
dictionary definitions, which were almost certainly concocted
by adult males. The word maybe originated in the Old Dutch
dol, a whipping top, or in the Old English doil or dold,
meaning stupid.4 We are told that “doll” is a diminutive of
“Dorothy,” a name commonly given to dolls and puppets, and
that it is also the “smallest pig in a litter.” The Oxford English
Dictionary defines it as “an image of a human being (commonly
of a child or lady) used as a plaything; a girl’s toy-baby.” By
transference it is also “a pretty, but unintelligent or empty
person, esp. when dressed-up; a pretty, but silly or frivolous
woman.” “A doll’s face” is one that is “conventionally pretty,
but without life or expression.” Around the nineteenth century
it was used to refer to “a common woman, a prostitute.”
Scholars have been particularly stand-offish about dolls.
People who make a serious study of such apparently trivial
things seem to fear the stigma of indulging in “Mickey Mouse
academics.”5 Even more bizarre is the tendency for books
about dolls to look like toys: Audrey Vincente Dean’s useful
book Dolls, published in 1997, measures three and a half by five
inches. Anything that looks like a toy seems to get this
treatment—even when it is actually a human being: what can
have possessed the publishers of Gaby Wood’s remarkable
study of the dwarf Caroline Crachami to produce the book
itself as a miniature?6 We are reminded that “mannequin” or
“manikin,” the word we use for the people or dummies (or in
the nineteenth century, the “dolls”) that model clothes, is a
contemptuous allusion to a dwarf.
In this project we kept encountering the complaint that even
developmental psychologists don’t pay much attention to dolls
(indeed, to toys in general) although they are so much at the
center of our early lives. Eva-Maria Simms points to a sexist
undercurrent: “The doll, although featuring prominently in
many female children’s lives, has found little attention from the
academic community.” While “the doll barely exists in
 LIFE LIKE DOLLS 5

psychological theory,” the little attention that has been paid to

the topic is decidedly androcentric, loosely concerned with
oedipal struggles, little girls who (mis)treat their dolls
“phallically,” and boys with an “unhealthy” fixation on girlish
things.7 On the other hand, our worries about dolls are treated
very extensively in modern art. Dolls have been used copiously
by artists like Hans Bellmer and Cindy Sherman, and especially
surrealists like May Wilson, to make statements of every
conceivable sort, most of them erotically or morbidly
disturbing. Jason Hunsiger’s picture Boy in the Bush “is a self
portrait of the artist at age six playing with a doll in his secret
hideout under the hedge. The doll, held by the boy, is dressed
like the boy, in shirt, shorts, and sneakers, but appears as a
menacing adult.” And in The Woman Without Children, a
1992 watercolor that is very evocative of the passion for PCDs,
Ellen Phelan portrays a lone figure gazing longingly at a trio of
dolls.8 The photographer Richard Avedon has made
particularly bizarre use of battered, naked dolls in his sequence
of fashion plates titled In Memory of the Late Mr. and Mrs.
Comfort.9
If we belittle girls and their dolls, we have also belittled the
second childhood of old age. We have disparaged older women
especially, a problem that the founding generation of feminist
scholars have themselves become aware of as they, too, age.10
The increasing demographic weight of this segment of our
population is forcing their special concerns on our attention.
Women die later and more slowly of chronic ailments than men.
Most of them live alone, at home; in the 65–69 age bracket, 34
percent of women are widowed, 7 percent of men.11 One
reason why they are less likely to live with their children than in
the past is simply that they have fewer children.12 Loneliness is
the dominant affliction of later life, from which many women
are seeking relief in the company of dolls. Far from trivial, doll
play is a key to understanding the damaging processes of
isolation and neglect that have developed relentlessly along with
the poisoned chalice of increasing longevity.
Not all societies take such a dim view of adult relationships
with dolls. They seem to have happier connotations in the
romance languages: the French poupée (see our “puppet”)
6 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

probably derived from the Latin pupa, a little girl, which in

turn probably came from the Sanskrit root push, meaning to
nourish. In other languages, what we call a “doll” would be
translated simply as a “made-child.”13 In Japan there is a long
tradition of dolls, which are integrated into the ceremonial life
of women and their families. In the past, a girl got two hina
when she was born, she took them with her when she was
married, and they were passed down by women through the
generations. On the third day of the third month there was a
“feast of dolls” (hina matsuri) focused on girls, in which the
dolls and their often very elaborate accessories were displayed.
A motif of this feast was that the “living” dolls (the ones
belonging to live girls) entertained the “dead” ones.14
How you see the porcelain collector dolls, and the values you
attach to them, depends very much on who you are—crudely,
your gender and your age. Interestingly, young children don’t
like them, and prefer something that looks and feels quite
different. Not many adult men are enthused by the PCDs, or
are in any way sensitive to the purposes they serve, although
there are reports of “serious” male Barbie collectors.15 There
have been some very famous male doll designers down the
years, including Johnny Greulle, the creator of Raggedy Ann,
and Pierre François Jumeau, who in the nineteenth century
made the porcelain dolls that are now prized as antiques. But we
shall return often to the central role that women have played in
the design, if not the manufacture, of almost every doll. This is
as true of the large-scale production of PCDs today as it was in
past centuries. Male designers have played their part in finding
durable materials for play dolls, and ways of producing them in
large numbers. But they also seem unable to resist the
temptation to turn them into mechanical marvels. Casimir Bru,
father of the famous Bébé Bru, experimented tirelessly with
dolls that slept, ate, blew kisses, and chattered.16 Women and
children get bored with such claptrap, preferring dolls they can
animate with their own imaginations. More generally, male
interest in dolls is assumed to be warped, signaling pedophilia or
some unhealthy fetishism.
The different life-bound meanings of dolls are highly charged
emotionally. Men’s problems with dolls hark back to their
 LIFE LIKE DOLLS 7

childhood, when at a certain stage they were made to feel guilty

about showing any interest in them. “That boys are naturally
fond of and should play with dolls as well as girls, there is
abundant indication” declared Hall and Ellis in their classic
study of dolls at the end of the nineteenth century. “The danger,
too, of making boy milliners is of course obvious, but we are
convinced that on the whole, more play with girl dolls by boys
would tend to make them more sympathetic with girls as
children if not more tender with their wives and with women
later.”17 Kenneth Loyal Smith, curator of the Toy Collection at
the New York City Museum, speaks for doll enthusiasts today:
“Dressing them, talking to them, having a friend a child can
really trust serves a great function in preparing us for
adulthood, regardless of gender.”18 In spite of such liberal
views, boys habitually react with venom against dolls. Our study
is packed with tales of girls who suffered mightily from the
destructive urges of their brothers, and who have sought
restitution later in life by filling their homes with PCDs. The
penance for these boy doll-destroyers is often a guilty terror of
dolls later in life. Repeatedly, we found it was boys and men
who most disliked and feared dolls, and who were intimidated
by their glassy gaze or could not bear their frilly prettiness.
These are themes that weave their way through countless folk
tales, novels, and horror movies. A sense of guilt and shame
may also dog the girl who is told at puberty that she must put
away her dolls and grow up. Reckoning with this loss is part of
the agony of adolescence, and in due course the ecstasy of
collecting dolls later in life.
Our modern Western idea that it is sick or abnormal for
grownups to have a passion for dolls has been carried over to
criticism of other cultures and societies. Until quite recently,
“primitive” (in a perverse sense, “childlike”) peoples were
reckoned to have a weakness for dolls, or doll-like objects, to
the extent that they actually worshiped them. This was
“fetishism,” a naive tendency to imagine that objects are alive
and behave like real people. Holding such objects in reverence
was “idolatry,” and although there is no semantic relationship
between “idol” and “doll,” it was felt that “some psychic
connection cannot be doubted.”19 This made it easy to believe
8 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

that children’s interest in dolls was a measure of their

uncivilized, savage condition; and that the savages’ interest in
dolls was in turn a measure of their childishness. An adult in
civilized society who took an interest in dolls was truly
anomalous: women who played with dolls were either mad or
witches.
In our societies we have not scrupled about referring to the
icons of other cultures—the kachina of the Hopi or the akuaba
of West Africa—as “dolls.” If we shrink from the notion of
referring to the crucifix as a doll, it is presumably because we
cannot tolerate the suggestion that it is merely a plaything. The
Christian church has always had a very equivocal view of dolls,
sometimes banning them as idolatrous, otherwise incorporating
them in images of the Christ child, or cherubim. Is the same
sort of ambivalence at work in the aficionadas’ insistence that
the PCDs are “serious” and should not be mistaken for toys?
Jennifer, one of our researchers, remembered that her
grandmother’s dolls were as untouchable as that other figure
that dominated her house—a massive, eight-foot-tall crucifix.
And yet religious icons come close to being toys in such forms
as the Nativity scenes set up in households throughout the
Christian world. In Catalonia, Spain, each of these must have
its caganer, or “shitter,” the fun being to place this squatting
figure, unmistakable in his red beret, somewhere obvious yet
unexpected among the little plaster cattle, kings, and holy
family. If we are prepared to admit sacred objects to the
category of “dolls” we could surely trace the lineage of our
PCDs in one direction to the putti, those exquisitely molded
cherubs rising in clusters amid the baroque decor of churches
throughout the Roman Catholic world.
Standard Western children’s dolls pop up in all sorts of
strange and highly ritualized contexts around the world. Pink
plastic dolls dangle from the headdresses of young male
initiates of the Kabre people of northern Togo, West Africa.20
In the children’s section of Japanese cemeteries, dolls have
appeared in remarkable profusion, in the form of Mizuko-jizò
memorializing miscarried, aborted, or still-born fetuses. William
LaFleur describes the “Purple Cloud Temple” near Tokyo,
given over exclusively to jizò. They apparently represent
 LIFE LIKE DOLLS 9

diminutive monks, but wear bibs and little sweaters, and often
have toys. “Jizò is quite remarkable in that it is a stand-in for
both the dead infant and the savior figure who supposedly
takes care of it in its otherworld journey. The double-take effect
—one moment a child and the next a Buddhist savior in
monkish robes—is intentional.” Children are welcome at these
cemeteries—there is even a playground. “The sense of kitsch
arises because two things are conflated here that we in the West
usually want to separate as much as possible—that is, the
cemetery and the nursery.”21
There are some interesting parallels with the phenomenally
successful Precious Moments dolls, manufactured by Enesco,
that are to be seen from time to time among the motley objects
that appear in American cemeteries. This is a highly
standardized, hand-sized, androgynous doll reminiscent of the
earlier Kewpie. The signature feature is the eyes, which are tear-
shaped (set vertically in “drop” mode), evocative of dewy-eyed
newborn innocence. The originator of the Precious Moments
dolls, Samuel Butcher, hoped that “these figurines, fashioned
after my artwork, would be little messengers delivering the
inspirational thoughts and teachings of the Lord.”22 One
Precious Moments collection of about 22 dolls is “Sugar
Town,” whose styles and accompanying texts closely reflect an
essentially white, Christian-right market. A worldwide complex
of collector clubs has sprung up around these dolls, focused by
Butcher on a chapel to which Precious Moments enthusiasts can
make pilgrimage. It has a ceiling in the Sistine style, but
decorated with the familiar Precious Moments figures. With the
motto “Loving, Sharing, and Caring,” the Precious Moments
movement raises charitable funds, notably for the Easter Seal
Society. We traced 477,000 Web sites related to Precious
Moments.

FEELING, MEANING, AND GROWTH

Our attitudes to dolls are loaded with very passionate and
contradictory feelings of love and hate, security and fear, pride
and shame, innocence and guilt. These are not fleeting
emotions; they are embedded within us, accumulating from our
10 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

earliest experiences. We may grow up, but we never really get

dolls out of our systems. The life of the doll and the child are
intertwined, laying down complex layers of sensation and
significance, from the erotic and maternal to the guilty and
aggressive. By the time a collector is in her fifties and has more
than a couple of hundred porcelain dolls, the meanings and
feelings will have piled up to almost impenetrable density.
In our pursuit of a sympathetic understanding of this small
but telling fragment of contemporary culture, we have had to
dig down through these layers of feeling and meaning, looking
back at the childhood experiences of the collectors earlier in the
twentieth century, and at the history of the dolls themselves.
Approaching the topic from the perspective of a self-consciously
“holistic” anthropology, our focus is on how people grow, both
physically and socially, in the cultural contexts that are
distinctively human. Pursuing the meaning of dolls along this
growth axis inevitably takes us through different fields of
study, tracing connections between the biology of the human
body on the one hand and social history on the other.
I should clarify at the outset several aspects of this
developmental or biohistorical perspective on culture that I
have found helpful in resolving the perplexing ambiguities
presented by the PCDs.23 Growth is a process that goes on
between people. I grow as an individual, but also as a person in
the context of developing social relationships. Human lives are
finite, but the modern fixation on individual human lives as a
span of years extending from conception to death is a very
special and painfully narrow sort of cultural construction. In
cultures other than ours, our bodies and all their psychic
components are more usually seen as shared rather than as
personal private property. This is surely a more generous view
of who and what we are.
We do not reproduce ourselves or raise ourselves. Other
people do most of that for us, in the context of families and
communities. Being phenomenally slow developers among the
mammals, we can’t survive after birth without protracted care
from other people, most immediately our mothers. Over
periods longer than our personal lives, human growth links one
generation to the next in the process we dully call
 LIFE LIKE DOLLS 11

“reproduction.” It involves relays of people, their individual

lives extending through many decades within the historical
fabric of community and society. Growth is thus both a
personal experience and, extending through history, a social
and demographic process. This is the life-sustaining nexus into
which dolls are inserted, acting as surrogates for or
supplements to “real” people.
A corollary of this intergenerational view of growth is that
aging and death are as much facts of life as birth and
maturation. Biologists are mainly to blame for the notion that
growth ends with adulthood, when we have acquired the sexual
and social capacities to produce and rear offspring. From a
Darwinian point of view, older women such as our doll
collectors are not very interesting because their reproductive
days and thus their role in evolution are over. But if our genes
appear to have little interest in our survival past middle age, we
as human individuals assuredly do. The perpetuation of culture
(as distinct from the human species) likewise depends on there
being senior generations to consolidate and pass on knowledge
and understanding.
Moreover, these days aging has become a very conspicuous
historical fact: dramatically increased longevity means that
there are proportionately very many more older people—
women especially—than ever before. We have only recently
started coming to terms with the economic, political, and social
implications of this. The PCDs are witness to the impact that the
demographics of aging are having on culture. We are just
beginning to assess the implications of a social environment
that is peopled, as never before in human experience, with
grandparents and, increasingly, great-grandparents. In these
new circumstances, meanings and functions of familiar objects
like dolls mutate and multiply.
This broader, historical understanding of human growth helps
to bridge the gaps between physiology, psychology, and
culture. One of the casualties of the intellectual estrangement of
biology and culture is our inability to explain the vital
connections between how things feel and what they mean. As we
grow, feeling and meaning are not discrete aspects of our
experience, they emerge together. We put our feelings into
12 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

words and gestures, and the symbolic languages of art or ritual

stir our deepest feelings. We build up our understanding of
things gradually by experience and association, not like
dictionary definitions. Nor is meaning something that adults
draw ready-made from the cultural repository and dump into
the minds of children. The anthropologist Christina Toren
reminds us that “humans are biologically structured to be at
once products and producers of their own, collective and
personal, histories.”24 An infant and its mother commune by
intense feelings but know very different things. You can look up
the word “mother” in a dictionary and get a very basic
definition, stripped of the feelings that give the meanings of the
word their real force. For like everything else in life, being or
having a “mother” is not a state but a process, an unfolding
sequence of events, experiences, obligations, sensations. In
other words, to know what “mother” really means, you have to
understand how humans grow. Likewise, if children have an
idea of what a “house” is before they can say the word, it is
because they have crawled around it, tasted it, fallen off it, been
lost in it, felt happy in it. Our understanding of semantics
would be enriched if we could trace how these sensuous
meanings are assembled, through time, in the human
experiences of growth.
From this it follows that individuals take and make meanings
differentially, according to their current relationships in the
intergenerational cycle of growth. There is no such thing as “a
doll” in some absolute, generally agreed, standardized sense.
One way of drawing the many sorts of “doll” back into a
general cultural framework of understanding is to discover how
they thread their way through our whole lives, changing their
meaning—and changing us—in the process. The “doll” that we
see in dictionary definition is stripped of most of the meanings
that really matter: the passion that a child or an older woman
invests in the doll, the shame and ridicule it brings to the grown-
up man. Rather than one meaning, we have a portfolio of basic
life-bound definitions.25 To suggest that this is actually not very
interesting or important in the long term (history) and on the
grand scale (society, culture) is to underrate the power of the
 LIFE LIKE DOLLS 13

underlying feelings, as well as the centrality of objects like dolls

in millions of individual lives.
If we disparage dolls it is because we have grown out of them.
It’s not they that have changed, it’s our perception of them and
of ourselves. If the collectors’ own children, raised in the 1960s
and 1970s, have a distaste for the PCDs, it is partly because
they have grown up in different historical circumstances. But
the generation gap is not a permanent expression of political,
economic, or cultural difference, it is the difference between one
episode and another in the human regenerative cycle. In time,
the collectors’ children may themselves turn to doll collecting or
find some other ways of filling the gaps in their lives.
It is intriguing to imagine “culture”—something we usually
think of as very uniform and static—as composed of all these
different, emergent, serial understandings. What makes growth
processes distinctively human is their dependence on the “webs
of meaning”—cultures—built up over time in social groups.
But the corollary is often overlooked: culture does not
“reproduce” itself; it depends on the physical regeneration of
people—their growth. Culture depends on human growth as
much as human growth depends on culture.
The mistake earlier generations of anthropologists made was
to assume that culture could be reduced to one basic,
homogeneous view of the world. This “tradition” was tacitly
assumed to be the understanding of a typical older male—the
“tribal elder” to whom anthropologists went for the
authoritative story. A few decades ago, women objected to this
bias, and feminist scholars showed us that the world could look
very different through women’s eyes. More recently, there has
been a similar shift in attention to children’s understandings of
the world.26 With this new focus of interest has come a
tendency to insist that children have their own culture, distinct
from that of the adult world. By focusing on growth I find it
more illuminating to see the differences as a progression, with
childhood as the experience from which adulthood emerges,
and childish understandings being endemic to culture generally,
rather than alien to it. After all, every adult was once a child,
and although growing up means putting away childish things,
our earliest experiences weigh heavily upon us throughout our
14 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

lives, shaping the culture that we in turn try to impose on our

children. In our adult world, we tend to lose track of the
connections between “playful” and “serious” things: the links
between roller skates and cars, model-making and engineering,
dolls and parenting. Without these subtle transitions we simply
would not have that grand collective accomplishment we call
“culture.” “What is important,” says Roger Cox, “is not the
memory, which in any case is almost certainly illusory, but the
possibility of finding in childish things, and with luck in
children themselves, a renewed humanity.”27
The meanings we attach to everything in our lives change, to
some degree, as we get older. This is partly because our bodies
change over time, and partly because history moves on and one
generation experiences youth differently from the next. But we
still make believe that the things that matter to us most (say,
family, apple pie, honesty) have basic, stable meanings of their
own. These are the things we call “culture.” We tacitly assume
that there is some sort of system of values “out there” beyond
ourselves, calling the shots in our lives, while in fact culture
depends entirely on each generation keeping the faith, passing
the consolidated values on to their children. Meaning is fluid,
continually being made, lost, and remade in the relentless cycle
of human growth. This is the medium within which culture
happens, the matrix in which human societies adapt and
change, the regenerative process on which our progress as a
species has depended. The trouble is we are not very good at
perceiving how it happens. After all, the growth process in its
transgenerational sense stretches far beyond the compass of our
small individual lives.
The passion for porcelain collector dolls is a very particular
but illuminating example of how bodies and symbols, feelings
and meanings, and material and emotional values converge in
that aggregate we call “culture.” Dolls have a powerful and
pervasive significance in our culture generally, and children
have had a central role in making dolls mean what they do.
Dolls affect all of us because all of us were, once upon a time,
children. However, not all of us have been collectors of
porcelain dolls, although it seems fair to claim that they are
now as much a part of our culture as most other things. (In the
 LIFE LIKE DOLLS 15

fullness of time they may even be among the more durable

relics of our civilization.) It is older adult women who give the
PCDs meaning, and who (abetted by the manufacturers)
implant them and maintain them in our culture. To understand
how and why this happens we have to know how these women
have grown and the broader social and historical contexts
within which this growth has taken place.
It’s sad that our current interpretations of culture can take so
little account of all those powerful feelings that are
incorporated in the emergent meanings of “mother” or “house”
or “doll.” Cultures, nations, and all the other ways we imagine
our collective being can’t feel. To feel, you need a body, and to
know how feelings permeate the meanings of things (dolls, cake,
horror) we need a sympathetic understanding of how bodies
work. Biologists know at least as much about this as cultural
theorists; but alas, these days, the very syllable “bio-” has
become a red flag to those who prefer to explain things in
“strictly cultural” terms. In focusing on these dolls, one of my
intentions is to show that reducing our bodies analytically to
symbolic abstractions (a schematic assemblage of surfaces,
members, orifices) doesn’t tell us enough, and that flesh-and-
blood understandings are a vital part of cultural explanation. If
this is part of the mounting rebellion against disciplinary
dogmatism in anthropology, I am happy to be part of it.
“Biology” and “culture” are not discrete facts of life,
although they are treated as such in our intellectual culture. As
we live and grow we don’t keep crossing thresholds between
biology and history, or between science and culture. These are
distinctions that scholars make for their own convenience. It is
our explanations that have come asunder—witness the
biocultural wars that rage on in the academy—not the life
process itself. The dogmatic assertion that biology has no
relevance to the study of culture is based on an argument that if
all humans have the same physical constitution, and cultures
are so diverse, then biology can have nothing interesting to say
about the constitution of culture.28 But human beings are not
all the same, physically or socially, for at least one obvious
reason: we grow. The biological differences between child and
adult, and between women and men, are hugely influential in
16 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

the shaping of the collective representations we call culture. The

rejection of everything tainted by biology has fostered the
absurd notion that children—or women—are of little relevance
to culture: in the patriarchal world they consume culture and
are dominated by it, but they don’t produce it. This is exactly
the trap from which I want to escape in our consideration of
children, women, and dolls.
In a recent book, the biologist Linda Birke makes a lucid
appeal, on feminist grounds, for closing the biocultural gap.
The challenge to biological determinism was necessary, she
argues, but has led feminists to lose track of their own physical
constitution, their own insides. Science is undoubtedly a
politically loaded, historical product; the dominant image of
“the biological body as a set of constraints” explicitly or tacitly
“supports political practices which fail women.”29 At the same
time, she objects to the feminist fixation on the exterior of the
body, and its reduction to symbols and metaphors: “While
recent sociological and feminist theory has made enormously
important claims about the processes of cultural inscription on
the body, and about the cultural representation of the body, the
body that appears in this new theory seems to be disembodied—
or at the very least disemboweled. Theory, it seems, is only skin
deep.”30 On the other hand, biology tends to reduce the insides
of the body to its component parts, widening the gap between
the whole body and the practical understanding of its place in
society and history which feminists have sought. “There is no
well-developed theory of the organism in biology,” says
Birke.31 Nor, I would add, are there clear, academically
respectable ways of tracing the growth of this organism from its
microbiological beginnings, organs and all, to its social
construction in historic time spans.
Understanding of the body, says Birke, is a victim of “the
longstanding separation of the disciplines of academic inquiry.”
But it is also a victim of the old and futile tendency to separate
“nurture” and “nature”: “Ignoring or playing down the
biological, material body helps to perpetuate dualisms of mind
versus body, with all their gendered connotations.”32 The
modern academic disciplines have set themselves up around this
schism, with biologists, historians, geologists, and psychologists
 LIFE LIKE DOLLS 17

going about their own separate business. But discussion of

heredity and environment is now shifting its axis, cutting across
these disciplines and breaking them up into warring factions: the
biosocial versus the cultural anthropologists, the evolutionary
and the humanist psychologists, the fugitives from, and to,
“science.”
In the twenty-first century many of us are finding it necessary
to return to the quest for a more comprehensive understanding
of human nature and of its history in our individual and
collective lives. Increasing concern about the disjunction
between global political-economic processes and long-term
human welfare has focused critical attention on the relationships
between individual greed and social welfare, environmental,
and cultural systems. Part of this is a concern about what we
grow and how we grow: not just a selfish progression from
birth to death but, as one recent book has it,
transgenerationally from “cradle to cradle.”33
Closing the gap between our knowledge of the physical
processes in which we are born, mature, reproduce, and die,
and the historical processes by which we make our way
collectively from one epoch to the next remains one of our
biggest intellectual challenges. Anthropology used to pride itself
on this inclusive view of humanity, tracing the connections
between very intimate and very large-scale phenomena. There
are many things we need to know about youth and age in the
contemporary world that no longer seem to fit the professional
way we have been parceling out knowledge. To understand
childhood and old age better we must come to terms not simply
with academic biases, but with the biases of mature adulthood
itself. Viewing the dolls from within the lives of the women
who collect them may help us to see that the connections
between our physical being and the moral systems in which we
live are more intimate than we generally imagine.

THE BOOK AND THE PROJECT

With these ideas about growth in mind, we begin by putting the
objects themselves into historical context, tracing the
development of the PCD as a successful manufactured
18 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

commodity in North America and Europe since the early

1980s. Their “ancestry” can be traced to two phases in the
broader history of dolls, the most recent of which is the
immense surge in the manufacture of play dolls for children
during the twentieth century. But even more influential was an
earlier boom in fine porcelain dolls that were treasured by
children and women during the second half of the nineteenth
century. These have been translated by time into antiques, and
their high value, styles, and the nostalgia that surrounds them is
a basic inspiration for the design, production, and manufacture
of the PCDs today.
In chapters 3 and 4 we consider why some women should
want to buy these dolls in the large numbers suggested by
“collecting.” If this has the driving force of a need, we can see
it developing as their lives have unfolded in historical time:
growing up in the Depression, raising families in years of
postwar recovery, and experiencing the “empty nest” phase in
times of relative affluence. In the fifth chapter we explore how
the dolls enter the lives of the women, taking their place in the
fabric of family relationships, serving as surrogates for “real”
children, and helping to create new sorts of community and
identity for the collectors.
In chapter 6 we take a close look at the dolls as physical
artifacts, focusing on how “realism” is built into their bodies.
To be truly alive the dolls should change physically, but their
main attraction is that they have transcended the ultimate
tragedy of human growth: they are immortal—or, as the
advertisements so often put it, timeless. All dolls that imitate
life must also deny growth, an ambiguity that makes them
fascinating, powerful, dreadful. In the seventh chapter we
explore how the PCDs do not simply capture essences of
childhood, but physically incorporate aspects of the lives of the
women themselves. A peculiar attraction of these exquisite
effigies is that many of them also fix in porcelain memories of
the women’s once-fertile bodies.
I have introduced our student researchers, the backbone of
the project, in the preface. We gathered detailed case studies of
some 25 collectors, mostly from the western states of the United
States. The students also searched bibliographies, museum
 LIFE LIKE DOLLS 19

catalogs, the Web, and the copious literature on antiques and

doll history. The most laborious work was on the
advertisements we clipped from magazines. Between 1991 and
2000 we collected 440 of these, and by sifting out repetitions,
incomplete advertisements, those whose provenance was
unclear, and outliers of various sorts (plastic dolls, religious
images, etc.) we reduced these to a core list of 267. This
included 28 dolls marketed in Britain. It was the striking
uniformity of these advertisements, each for a single doll, that
convinced us that we were looking at a distinctive product. The
set became our main point of reference for identifying and
talking about the PCD phenomenon, and we will refer
frequently to this sample in the chapters that follow. We felt
that no statement—with the possible exception of what the
collectors themselves told us—was more heavily loaded with
information than the pictures and the texts of these
advertisements. They are also very costly to produce and place,
and there is no doubt that they were based on intense market
research and the most purposeful writing and editing. We
subjected each advertisement to various forms of con tent
analysis, ranging from the dolls’ facial proportions, clothes, and
accessories to the vocabulary of the text (see appendices A and
B). We looked for the words most frequently used, and
compared them with every other aspect of the doll (price, size,
age, sex, race) we could think of.
The advertisements soon drew our attention to the six
principal firms competing in this multimillion-dollar market
during the 1990s. We discuss these, and the commodity they
have produced, in the next chapter. We tried persistently but
unsuccessfully to get information directly from these companies.
One problem has been the speed with which one firm has
consumed another in the brief and dynamic history of this
commodity. More generally, business corporations are skeptical
about journalistic and scholarly research, and disinclined to
cooperate.34 In the case of dolls, the problem probably lies in
innumerable critical studies of Barbie and her phenomenally
successful manufacturer, Mattel.35 Possibly a firm that
produces can openers or toasters would be more forthcoming.
But within the limits of our shoestring project we found out
20 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

quite a lot about the commodity and the people who produce
and sell it, by other means.
Today, doll collectors are not hard to find. Since the
phenomenon got under way some 25 years ago, they have been
“coming out” in increasing numbers. If you are curious, log
onto the Internet, or drop by your local doll store and chat with
the proprietor and the shoppers who linger there. It’s a passion
to share, and of course you might also succumb to the charms
of Madeleine or Dana or little Christopher: as the
advertisement says, “Who could say ‘no’ to such a cute little
boy? With that mischievous grin, those deep blue eyes and
incredible dimples, Christopher can get away with just about
anything—including stealing your heart!” And just think, you
can “bring the joy of this adorable little boy into your home for
only $76!”
 Chapter Two
The Commodity

“Julia is attractively priced at $89.”

The porcelain collector doll “epidemic” of the 1980s and ‘90s

is not, as we might suppose, an entirely new development. If we
were to think of the PCDs as freakish distortions of children’s
dolls, then the opposite has also been true: over several centuries
dolls very specifically intended for women were models for
children’s dolls. Here, we shall track the descent of the
contemporary PCD from its two most direct ancestors: the
elaborate “fashion dolls” of the nineteenth century, which have
since become valuable antiques; and the children’s play dolls
that proliferated during the twentieth century. These are
European and North American traditions, which helps to
explain why, although production of the PCDs is now a global
enterprise, the principal markets are in the United States,
Britain, France, and Germany.

ANTIQUE DOLLS
Dolls, however we may define them, have been around for a
very long time. A 2,000-year-old doll from a child’s grave in
Peru is “a fine example of the cross-culturally ubiquitous style
of doll: its soft responsive body, warm colours and appealingly
stylized face offered the tactile pleasure and reassurance that
children have always sought from dolls.”1 Similar objects have
been found in the ancient Egyptian, Greek, and Roman graves
of adults as well as children. Such dolls were evidently made at
22 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

home, and it is interesting that the doll industry today still draws
much of its creative energy from very small scale “kitchen
table” design and production, mostly by women.
The first clear evidence of large-scale manufacturing of dolls
comes from Germany in the fifteenth century. From the
workshops in cities like Augsburg and Nürnberg we have early
indications of “mass production,” such as the “ring” method,
by which a profile was cut horizontally through a piece of
timber then sliced vertically and carved into dozens of figures.2
The dolls produced in these workshops were mostly female
adult figures, made in simple materials (wood, clay, wax) and
costumed in local styles. The baby doll of the modern period
was not yet born. These earlier dolls were evidently intended
for women as well as children, and the more elaborate ones
were exchanged as gifts among the expanding European middle
class and aristocracy. These were the forerunners of the
“character,” “fashion,” and “ladies’” dolls of the nineteenth
century, important strands in the ancestry of today’s collector
dolls.
The elaborate dolls of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries
were developed not for lucky children, but to model women’s
clothes. This is probably the origin of the expression “all dolled
up.” Scaled down to less than half life-size, these were
despatched by European couturiers to clients around the world,
and became treasured items in their own right. They were
exchanged as gifts at Easter (the start of the new fashion season)
and to commemorate weddings, originating the enduringly
popular tradition of the bridal doll. As the craze caught on,
celebrities like the young Queen Victoria (herself a doll
collector), the Empress Eugénie of France, and the Swedish
singer Jenny Lind were used as models. Subsidiary industries
developed to provide clothes and accessories: seamstresses,
milliners, shoemakers, jewelers specializing in the trade. These
dolls were much desired by (rich) little girls, to whom they were
entrusted as icons of femininity, models of etiquette, and
exercises in needlework, not as playthings in the “rag doll”
mode. In these mannequin figures there is at least a hint of
Barbie, the precocious mini-adult with a passion for fashion.3
 THE COMMODITY 23

Germany and south-central Europe remained the historic

centers of doll production through to the nineteenth century,
when specific artists and firms were defining the basic materials,
designs, and craftsmanship that made them valued antiques for
the twentieth century. In 1810, Johann Daniel Kestner of
Waltershausen, Germany, started producing up-market dolls in
fine porcelain, elaborately dressed and hand-painted, and sold
throughout Europe and North America. Realism was the key to
their fame: “We feel that the only difference between a WPM
[Walterhausen Puppenmanufaktur] doll and a human being is a
heartbeat!” As Paris emerged as the women’s fashion capital of
the world, competition with Germany in the production of
dolls intensified. This was partly resolved by partnerships in
production, with the heads and bodies being manufactured in
Germany and the final product assembled and clothed in
France.4
The favored material for molding the faces of these “fashion”
and “character” dolls was porcelain, whose texture and luster
lent itself so well to the modeling of a child’s or a young
woman’s complexion. Porcelain is made from kaolin, a pure
white clay derived naturally from granite, and named after the
hill in Jiangxi province that was the source of the original
“china.” It can be molded very finely and, when fired at high
temperatures (1,200–1,440°C), is very strong and translucent.
Left unglazed, it acquires a rich luster and matte surface.
Modern bisque porcelain was developed in the early eighteenth
century in Europe for the production of vases, tableware, and
other luxury items, and it was these firms that fired the early
dolls’ heads and limbs. The technical processes are very
demanding, and it took a long time and much experimentation
for porcelain production to diffuse to other parts of Europe and
eventually, early in the twentieth century, to North America. It
is interesting that the revival of porcelain dolls at the end of the
twentieth century depended, like their eighteenth- and
nineteenth-century predecessors, on firms that produced
domestic crockery, where resources and expertise in the
manufacture of this delicate material were always concentrated.
The increasing enthusiasm for fashion dolls brought a
demand for greater realism, and thus the development of
24 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

materials and techniques. The “Poupées de Luxe” or

“Parisians” of the French producer Pierre François Jumeau set
the standards: bisque dolls with human hair, glass eyes with real
lashes, detachable swiveling heads mounted on shoulder plates,
and an abundance of furs, jewelry, and other valuable
accessories. Jumeau was responsible for two major innovations:
the industrial, factory-based manufacture of dolls (hitherto
large-scale production was subcontracted to a network of
workshops); and from 1855 the production of bébé dolls. These
were not “babies” as we would recognize them today, but were
modeled on children about four to eight years old. “Bébés
resembled idealized young children with big eyes, chubby
cheeks, and small rosebud mouths,” and were often modeled on
members of the manufacturer’s own family.5 When Jumeau and
his son Emile moved the enterprise in 1873 to a new state-of-
the-art factory, these child dolls were the mainstay of
production.6 They “clearly appealed to both children and
adults” and their success was phenomenal: Jumeau claimed
that in 1889 they sold 300,000.7 Their great rival was Casimir
Bru Jeune, who was producing his famous Bébé Bru dolls in his
own factory in 1868. And early in the twentieth century a new
giant dominated production: the Société Française de
Fabrication des Bébés et Jouets (SFBJ).
True to the age of mass production the dolls were now
displayed in retail stores and advertised in new magazines,
which drew attention to the quality, realism, construction, and
clothing of the dolls, and instructed owners on selection, care,
and maintenance. The doll craze of the late nineteenth century
gave rise to a new word, dollatry— “the worship of dolls,” a
borrowing from the etymologically unrelated “idolatry.” The
extravagance drew an official complaint from the Russian Toy
Congress about “large, elegant French dolls which teach love of
dress and suggest luxury.”8 The assumption that children were
being corrupted was probably misplaced: the bébé-doll boom at
the turn of the century was still very much an adult affair.
 THE COMMODITY 25

CHILDREN’S DOLLS
The twentieth century is the epoch of the child’s doll. From the
seventeenth century onward, play dolls in robust materials
(wood, cloth, leather) intended for “real” children were
produced in increasing quantities, but not in the factories of
Pierre Jumeau or Casimir Bru. The classic bébés and
mannequins of the nineteenth century became antiques in the
twentieth: old-fashioned, highly valued, and definitively in the
display rather than the play category. There was a brief revival
of the adult character and fashion dolls in the 1920s in the
craze for “boudoir dolls.” These languorous, stagey, decorative
dolls with cigarettes and spit curls were much influenced by the
cinema and such personalities as Clara Bow, Rudolph
Valentino, and Jean Harlow. But the Great Depression
“marked a sudden end to this creative fantasy.”9
In the twentieth century dolls were adjusting to a new
historical phenomenon, recently dubbed “the invention of
childhood”:

The period between 1850 and 1950 represents the high-

watermark of childhood. In America…successful attempts
were made during these years to get all children into
school and out of factories, into their own clothing, their
own furniture, their own literature, their own games, their
own social world. In a hundred laws children were
classified as qualitatively different from adults; in a
hundred customs, assigned a preferred status and offered
protection from the vagaries of adult life.10

The display dolls of the late nineteenth century impressed

themselves on the design of dolls in the twentieth century. The
adult and bébé forms, elaborate dress, and a concern for
realistic detail were noted by Hall and Ellis in the survey of
children’s dolls at the turn of the century.11 But if dolls had
hitherto been “adultified,” they would now be “childified,” and
increasingly this would be done not in the European heartland
of doll production, but in the United States. At the turn of the
century American stores like Macy’s stocked imported
26 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

European dolls, many of them very expensive by contemporary

standards. “A revolution in European doll production enabled
jobbers, manufacturers’ agents, importers, and distributors to
channel European toys to American retail stores where mothers
and fathers purchased great quantities of dolls made out of
china or bisque.” The doll collectors were now little girls, and
the wealthier their families, the larger the collection.12
Increasing resentment about European cultural dominance,
directed especially against the Germans at the time of the World
War I, did much to stimulate American doll production. The
Kewpie doll made its appearance in 1913, Raggedy Ann five
years later. For “fine” dolls, the main inhibition had been the
satisfactory production of bisque porcelain, but with the shift to
the production of children’s play dolls that quickly lost its
significance. For appearance, especially for faces, porcelain has
never been bettered, but for play it is clunky and potentially
harmful when it breaks. The quest for durable, impact-
resistant, realistic materials had taxed the inventiveness of
nineteenth-century producers. Although used for centuries, wax
(beeswax, paraffin, or spermaceti) could be as fragile as china,
scratched and blemished easily, was difficult to paint, and
tended to discolor. Papiermâché was difficult to mold in detail,
and paste surfaces tended to flake and peel. Gutta-percha and
gum tragacanth (hardened, rubber-like substances) were more
resilient and better textured but, like rubber, tended to perish
and decompose. Celluloid, used in production as early as 1869,
was durable and lightweight, the forerunner of hard plastics.
Through to the twentieth century the great mass of dolls were
made out of “composition,” a catch-all term for almost any
materials (wood, paper, cloth, plaster, eggshells, glycerin, glue)
mixed according to secret recipes into a pulp and pressed into
molds. Depending on the ingredients, composition had a
tendency to go sticky or peel, craze, and crack open. All these
substances looked good for a while, but porcelain—if left
untouched—could last forever.
Plastics, developed for other industrial purposes during the
twentieth century, could be poured into elaborate and detailed
molds, hardened into strong rigid forms, resist moisture and
changes in temperature, and withstand the rigors of child’s play.
 THE COMMODITY 27

But they also produced unrealistically shiny surfaces, and could

not be colored and painted with much subtlety. Many of these
disadvantages were overcome with vinyl (polyvinylchloride),
the substance from which most children’s dolls are now made.
The surface texture is softer and more skinlike, will hold hair
and eyelashes more firmly, allows more con vincing matte
coloring and smoothly functioning joints, and is virtually
unbreakable.
Although dolls like Kewpie in the “character” tradition were
cartoon distortions, some of the biggest-selling dolls were
modeled fairly closely on real people. The child movie star
Shirley Temple has had a truly astonishing career as a doll. In
the 1930s the Ideal Novelty and Toy Company of New York
sold six million 24-inch Shirley Temple dolls, made of
“unbreakable” composition and featuring mischievous
“roving” eyes. Even in the Depression, one woman recalled,
“everybody had a Shirley Temple,” not least because of her
modest price.13 She appeared in plastics of various sorts, and in
1982, Ideal reissued a vinyl version with a profusion of nylon
curls.14 She is a long-established genre in her own right,
merging all three categories of antique, child’s play doll, and
adult collector item. She combines perky images of childhood
with the precociousness of the miniature adult.15 She has made
numerous appearances, in porcelain, in the collector doll range.
The 1920s launched the era of truly large-scale mass
production of dolls for children. The development of techniques
and materials, and the intensification of market research and
merchandising techniques, produced the Cabbage Patch Kids
and the Sasha series, which, have sold in their millions and
imprinted their personae deeply in the subconsciousness of
countless children. The proliferation of forms and functions is
almost infinite, from the miniaturization of Action Man to
giant Bart Simpsons to grace your sofa, from mutants and
TransFormers to life-size Barbies that wear the same clothes as
your child and can walk hand-in-hand with her. For all their
variety, these are unmistakably playthings. Of course, any of
them that survive that prime function may graduate to the status
of antique, and any of them can be set aside, like vitually any
28 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

other manufactured object, as a “collectible.” But that was not

why they were made.

THE PORCELAIN COLLECTOR DOLLS

(PCDS)
From the point of view of the adult collector, “dolls were dead”
in the mid-1970s.16 Adult women looking for dolls quickly
exhausted the antiques market—prices soon outstripped what
the ordinary collector could pay. They turned first to the major
American producer of high-quality children’s dolls. Beatrice
Alexander Behrman, alias Madame Alexander, is the historic
doyenne of the U.S. doll industry. The daughter of a Russian
porcelain repairer and doll doctor, her opportunity came with
the end of German doll imports to the United States in the First
World War. She opened the Alexander Doll Company in 1923
and developed the plastic standard-mold “Madame Alexander”
doll range over the next twenty years. Her classic dolls remain
collectors’ favorites, but Madame Alexander was resolute that
her dolls were for children, hence their relatively simple, highly
standardized designs and materials. The new adult collectors
were looking for something more. In the 1970s two companies
catering to collectors moved in: first Effanbee Dolls, which
produced limited-edition “prospective antiques” exploring
“intuitively” quite new designs and sales techniques. With their
button eyes and tiny mouths, the dolls have a distinctly late-
nineteenth-century appearance. They were followed by another
New York firm, Royal House of Dolls, which produced a
“Curio Cabinet Collection” of bisque porcelain dolls in 1975.
At the 1983 Toy Fair, Royal, Effanbee, and Alexander were
surrounded by more than 30 rivals. Thereafter, Madame
Alexander went into eclipse. Since her death in 1990, sporadic
efforts have been made to revive the fortunes of her company:
an investment group set up a batch manufacturing system
which took sales up from $23.8 million in 1995 to an estimated
$32 million for 1998.17 However, these “retroantiques”
remained definitively children’s dolls, and could not compete
seriously with the PCDs for the cardinal reason that they lacked
the desired realism and individualism.
 THE COMMODITY 29

At this stage, a different sort of firm moved in: companies

that had never dealt with dolls, but had experience with the
medium (porcelain) and, more significantly, direct sales through
magazines, TV, and mailings of crockery, memorabilia, and
jewelry. In the early 1980s the trade of these companies began
to coalesce around a new sort of commodity, the collectible. Its
growth was spectacular, rising from estimated sales of $30
million in the United States in 1983 to $7.6 billion in 1994.
The new species of fine porcelain doll, manufactured
specially for adult collectors, is noted in the specialist catalogs
and price guides from the early 1980s onward. Technically,
they bore the influence of the twentieth-century developments
in play dolls, in the material of eyes and hair, the beanbag
bodies with their “natural” heft, the jointing of heads and
limbs, and much else. But as imitation or “neo” antiques, the
basic concept of the dolls and much of the styling reverted to the
classic bébés of the late nineteenth century (see picture 2). They
are often represented as “a turn-of-the-century treasure,” or
having “the special beauty of old-fashioned girls.” And yet, as
we shall see, the design and detailing of most of the PCDs differ
markedly from these earlier models. Both aimed to be “lifelike”
but achieved this in quite different ways.
In one key respect, the PCDs have remained true to the
antique originals. Virtually all of them are porcelain: 91 percent
of the advertisements in our sample make this explicit, the
exceptions being 20 of the 53 Georgetown collection dolls,
which we know to be porcelain. A couple of vinyl dolls may
have sneaked into our sample under the “material unspecified”
heading. The touted virtue of vinyl is that it will allow a
collector doll to double as a play doll, a great convenience for
grandmothers who feel obliged to share their collections with
little visitors. We kept Patsy (“Crafted in hard collectible vinyl”)
on our list mainly on these grounds. She was offered as a
“perfect ‘first collectible’ for a child, and yet is a lovely addition
to any home and collection.”
The advertisements press home the point that making
porcelain is an old and very demanding art. Without great care
and expertise in production, loss and wastage are high. Today,
the doll’s head and body parts are modeled by the artist in
30 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

synthetic (polymer) clay, and a production mold is made from

this sculpt. In the factory, the kaolin compound is pressed into
the mold, the shell released and retouched, washed with a
complexion-colored slip of creamy clay, and fired (sometimes
two or three times) at temperatures in excess of 1, 200°C. This
produces a hard, impervious matte texture that can be painted
by hand. The result, as Nicole will testify, is “Old world
craftsmanship in a collector’s treasure for today.”

INVENTING THE COMMODITY

Dolls were a distinct commodity in Europe as early as the
seventeeth century, and a separate niche for collectible fashion
dolls for adults was clearly established by the late nineteenth
century. These were important precedents for the collector doll,
which by 1990 had emerged as a new version of the old
commodity, with distinctive forms, functions and clientele. The
PCD may not have been as widely known as other
manufactured commodities, like automobiles or hamburgers,
but the people who wanted to buy it knew what it was and
where to look for it, and the people who wanted to sell it knew
how to make it, how and where to present it to their customers,
and roughly how much to charge.
Things don’t become commodities simply by sitting in a shop
window or a closet at home. In its simplest terms, a commodity
is something that is bought and sold—in Shakespearean English,
“an article of traffic.” It is made in the active relationship
between producer and consumer: they recognize it and give it
value, mainly in the repeated act of selling and buying, as an
object distinct from other kinds of object. If enough people like
the special spoon I invented to deal with ice cream, we have a
new commodity: the ice cream scoop. Pretty much anything,
from concrete objects like houses and oranges to abstract things
like work (farm or factory labor) and information (legal advice)
can become a commodity. Precious few things, such as the air
we breathe, are not for sale, and thus don’t qualify as
commodities. But this doesn’t stop people from trying to
capture them and make a buck out of them (for a start, you can
buy “fresh” Scottish air in cans).
 THE COMMODITY 31

Picture 2: Advertisement for Caroline.

(Georgetown Collection) © Pamela Phillips.
Photo by Dave Tuemmler, Stretch Studio.
32 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

One of the key devices for turning objects into commodities

is money—which is itself built on social relationships and
loaded with special social meanings. To use cash to buy and sell
the ice cream scoop or the legal advice we need to agree what
the coins and notes are, and what they can do. The government
of whatever country we are in usually validates the coins for us,
leaving us to sort out between us how many of them should
mark out this or that particular deal. But even though sellers
and buyers make their deals in cash without knowing each other
personally, the meaning of the commodity depends on some
sort of shared interest that brings them together. The buyers
and sellers of PCDs may never have understood one another
perfectly, but I shall return repeatedly to the point that the dolls
—right down to details of their lips and names—are the
product of an intricate collaboration between them. In the
terms suggested by anthropologist Arjun Appadurai, the gap
between “production knowledge that is read into a
commodity” and “consumption knowledge that is read from
the commodity” is, in this case, quite narrow.18 But to
understand the product we have to know a lot more about this
relationship than the economic laws of supply and demand
alone could tell us.
One of the most significant things we can say about a
commodity is that it expresses relationships among people: not
simply between the seller and the buyer, but among the relays of
people involved from the earliest stages of the production
process (the quarrying of clay for the porcelain, the spinning of
yarn for the dolls’ dresses) to the packaging and mailing of the
finished product to your home— and even to the people who
come to admire your dolls there. Marx pointed out that
although we may not always be conscious of the fact, every
commodity has social meaning built into it, whether it’s a block
of steel or a Porsche, a brick or a porcelain collector doll. In
Marxian terms, “the social character of people’s relationships
with each other is disguised as an objective relationship
between them and things.”19 Although the purchaser may not
be fully aware of it, the doll embodies a relationship she has
with persons as remote as the women in Thailand or Mexico
who assembled it and stitched its clothes.
 THE COMMODITY 33

If all commodities carry lots of social baggage, the doll does

this in a startlingly and exceptionally explicit way. This
commodity is not a thousand tons of cocoa or a block of steel,
it is an object masquerading as a real little person in its own
right. But the fact that this particular commodity has a face and
a body is actually a distraction from the “social identity” of the
object which Marx and the political economists imagined.
Gazing at the finished product, we can be duped into thinking
that it is a lot sweeter and nicer than the real relationships
among the people who produced it would imply. To the worker
in Thailand who paints the lips and eyelashes for $3 a day, or
for the man in Illinois shifting boxes with a forklift truck, the
com modity might as well be a block of steel. It seems unlikely
that either has any interest in the “use values” of the doll as
they are intended by the manufacturer or perceived by the
collector.
Recently, anthropologists have been looking more closely at
the ways in which objects absorb identities as they move
around between people—bought and sold, exchanged, given as
gifts. In one sense, each specific item (grandpa’s gold watch)
has a biography. “Though the biographical aspect of some
things (such as heirlooms, postage stamps, and antiques) may
be more noticeable than that of some others (such as steel bars,
salt, or sugar), this component is never completely
irrelevant.”20 As a particular category of objects, a commodity
also has a social history (the gentleman’s pocket watch)
recountable in varying degrees of cultural detail (the gold watch
as a typical retirement gift).
Reflecting on this “social life of things,” we may note two
further peculiarities of the PCD as a commodity. First,
compared with bread or cars, this product is enclaved: it is made
and traded in a restricted sphere, outside of which much of its
meaning is lost. You have to be quite specifically involved in
the production and consumption of this commodity to know
what’s going on, and to give any sort of value to it. Second,
much of its value depends on moving it as quickly as possible
out of the status of mere merchandise and into the status of
socially meaningful object (Kimberly, “Angel hugs”): the
“commodity phase” of the PCD is ideally brief. As we shall see,
34 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

building a very particular social identity into the commodity

(names, birth certificates, etc.) is an important part of the
manufacturing process itself.21
One of the ways we know a commodity exists is because
people talk about it—they give it a name. This makes it easier
to buy and to sell the object. We have all had the experience of
going into a shop (so often it’s a hardware store) and being
unable to name the object we want to buy. Without a name,
even an object with a very distinct form and function (a bradawl)
may be hard to distinguish from the objects on the shelves
around it (hand tools). We may not even agree on the use to
which a commodity will be put—you’re selling me a brick, I’m
buying a doorstop, but if I can’t ask for a brick, I may not get
my doorstop.
Giving it a name is usually essential to establishing the
object’s identity as a separate commodity. Differentiating a
product in this way means you can sell more of it more easily.
But to do this you have to communicate with your customers,
and in modern times we have depended on advertising to do
much of this job. Patents and trademarks are the means by
which a new product can be claimed and presented to the
market. Occasionally such a proprietary name may identify the
commodity more generally (Scotch Tape and Post-its are
favorite examples). By the time sales peaked around 1995, the
phrase “porcelain collector doll” was generally established as
the key indicator of the new product we are concerned with
here. It appeared in advertisements, packaging, trade journals,
and other places (shops, TV programs, toy fairs) where the
goods were transacted. Augmented by a few other words
(heirloom, classic, premier), it picked the PCD out from the
broader categories of “toy” and “doll” by specifying the
material (porcelain) and the adult purpose (collecting) it served.
While the sellers and buyers were evidently communicating
about the product quite effectively, people compiling trade
statistics or commenting on the industry have been more
uncertain about the identity of the commodity and the
environment to which it belongs: are the PCDs “toys” or
“ornaments and souvenirs” or “giftware”? By the early 1990s
the U.S. Department of Commerce had identified them as a
 THE COMMODITY 35

growing and anomalous category, but was referring to them by

the antique label “fashion doll” and lumping them into
statistics along with children’s dolls and stuffed animals. The
fact that the producers and consumers regard the new
commodity as neither a fashion doll, nor a play doll, nor a
stuffed animal has still not penetrated official understandings.
On the grounds that knowing what a product is depends to a
large extent on distinguishing it from those it is not, we
identified some product counter-indicators for the dolls. Apart
from junk shops and garage sales, you would be very unlikely
to find the PCDs for sale in the same place as menswear, sports
utility vehicles, or teen products like pop music. One diligent
researcher sifting through stacks of magazines noticed that ads
for PCDs never appeared anywhere near a scratch-’n’-sniff
perfume advertisement. The aversion is mutual: the advertising
director of Country Home says other advertisers, fearing the
grandma image of doll advertisements, ask to be positioned at
least six pages away.22 You won’t find any doll advertisements
in Vogue mag azine, nor will you see them in any of the mass
of parenting magazines on the racks today. Although the dolls
imitate babies and children, they are traded in a separate world.
The more clearly defined a commodity, the more perceptible
the identity of the purchasers, and the more directly the
producer can communicate with them. Who you are as a
consumer plays a powerful role in the definition of the product,
which is why it may be invisible outside of the group or social
segment (region, ethnic group, social class, profession) for
which it was made. The people who buy PCDs are
predominantly white and lower middle class, but gender and age
are even more basic to the definition of this commodity. This
reminds us that the structure of our lives, our growth as human
beings, is a basic property of the things we make, buy, and sell.
Manufacturers of sports utility vehicles do not waste much time
trying to sell them to little children or elderly women. But the
same sort of discrimination is latent in virtually any commodity
—foodstuffs, entertainment, clothing, houses. For all of these,
and for better or worse, your gender and the stage you have got
to in your life connect you with some commodities or versions
36 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

of them and not with others. If you don’t connect with them,
chances are you won’t even notice them.
It is impossible to understand the PCDs without paying close
attention to the life circumstances of the women who buy them.
To dismiss the PCD craze as “childish” would miss the
distinctively adult meanings the collectors, as older women,
attach to the dolls. And yet, children are the models for the
dolls, and it is to childhood passions that the women’s desire
for these particular dolls harks back. Making sense of this,
putting together a convincing objective explanation, turned out
to be less easy than we supposed when we began looking at
PCDs in 1991. But there is no doubt that the doll
manufacturers were already very smart at reading, and catering
for, those very special demands.

THE FIRMS
The trade in collectibles, through which the main firms came to
doll production, generated an estimated $7.6 billion in sales in
1994.23 They were the companies best placed to manufacture
and distribute the new commodity when demand for it arose,
and it was from this motley product environment—not “dolls
and stuffed animals”—that the PCD emerged.
We latched onto the PCD phenomenon through the
advertising campaigns, and soon identified the leading firms.
All of them were, or soon became, parts of larger
conglomerates dealing in collectibles, and all specialized in
direct sales to customers through intensive advertising:

Ashton-Drake Galleries, Niles, Illinois

The Georgetown Collection, Portland, Maine
The Hamilton Collection, Jacksonville, Florida
The Danbury Mint, Norwalk, Connecticut
Franklin Heirloom Dolls, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Lenox Collections, Langhorne, Pennsylvania24

Teasing out information about these firms and the PCDs from
the limited, publicly available information about their parent
companies was a tough task. The industry in the mid-1990s
 THE COMMODITY 37

was “brutally competitive.”25 According to business journalist

Phyllis Berman, Danbury, a subsidiary of MBI Inc. with
revenues of about $300 million in 1991, was formed by one of
the colorful characters in the trade, Ralph Glendinning, “to
produce knockoffs of Franklin’s expensive collectibles.”26 In
these circumstances trade information is not bandied about
openly.
One thing was certain: the business was big. Between them,
Bradford (owners of Ashton-Drake), Stanhome (Hamilton),
MBI (Danbury), Roll International (Franklin), and Brown
Forman (Lenox) grossed $1.5 billion in 1991.27 According to
its own publicity, Ashton-Drake Galleries, founded in 1985, is
“the world’s largest direct marketer of limited edition,
collectible porcelain dolls.”28 Its parent company, The Bradford
Exchange, was founded in 1973 by another colorful character,
J.Roderick MacArthur, who built the firm up by producing
collectible plates with American themes, such as the Lafayette
Legacy Collection, and a series based on Norman Rockwell’s
illustrations, Rockwell’s American Dream. Bradford sold half a
billion dollars’ worth of collectibles in 1994, a 6.6 percent
share of the total collectibles industry.29
Lenox, a more modest producer of PCDs but a major
producer of other collectibles, is a subsidiary of the Brown-
Forman Corporation, originally a firm of distillers dating back
to 1870 in Kentucky. A company with product interests that
have ranged from luggage to credit cards, Brown-Forman’s big
move was the acquisition of the Southern Comfort Corporation
in 1979 for $94.6 million cash. Its total net sales in 1998 were
nearly $2 billion. Brown-Forman now consists of two business
segments, one dealing in drink, the other in consumer durables,
especially china, crystal, and ceramic collectibles. The company
took over Lenox in August 1983, paying $45 per share for each
Lenox share, for a total cost of $413.2 million. Brown-Forman
sold off Lenox’s jewelry division for $120 million cash in 1988,
but the Lenox subsidiary continued to produce collectibles and
to acquire other firms—for example, Wings Luggage in 1991.30
As the collectibles industry took off in the 1980s, bigger
companies bought out smaller businesses and developed their
own products on a larger scale. Such corporate expansion and
38 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

takeover are evocative of that earlier boom period in the history

of dolls, when the German company Simon & Halbig was
swallowed up by its rival Heinrich Handwerck, and WPM was
taken over (in 1886) by Ernst Kammer and Franz Reinhardt.31
The Franklin Mint was set up in 1965 by Joe Segel (who later
founded the QVC—Quality Value Convenience—TV shopping
channel). The company, well known for its medallions and
jewelry, was taken over by Warner Brothers in 1981 and was
bought by the current owners, Stewart and Lynda Resnick, from
Warner in 1985 for $167.5 million. They added the Franklin
Heirloom Dolls to the firm’s repertoire, and by 1995 the firm
had about $800 million in sales worldwide ($600 million in the
United States), and employees in 18 offices.32
In June 1989, Stanhome Inc., a Massachusetts firm that (as
Stanley Home Products) had sold brushes and polishes to
housewives since 1931, acquired the doll-producing Hamilton
Group for $21.3 million. The founder of Stanhome was a
former Fuller Brush salesman, Frank Stanley Beverage, who is
credited with inventing, among other things, the coffee party
mode of selling—a technique perfected by Tupperware.
Stanhome had expanded into the giftware, memorabilia,
collectibles industry, and the company acquired Enesco to
produce the Precious Moments figurines, worth $10 million in
sales every year.33 In the early 1990s the company’s subsidiaries
(Enesco European Giftware Group Limited, Enesco plc., etc.)
were trading in Britain, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Canada,
and Spain.
Georgetown, well established in the production and direct
sales of PCDs, was bought out in October 1996 by the
L.L.Knickerbocker Company, a firm that had traded in beauty
products since 1985. In addition to buying Georgetown, onetime
restaurateur L.L. Knickerbocker took over the costume jewelry
manufacturer Krasner Group Inc. and the gemstone sourcer
S.L.S.Trading Co. Ltd. in 1996. That year, Knickerbocker’s net
sales rose from $42 million to $68.3 million, its gross profits
from $6.8 million to $37.5 million. By the end of 1998 the
company had 463 full-time employees. The value of
Knickerbocker stocks zoomed from $4 to $46 in just six weeks
in 1995, and Mr. Knickerbocker himself vowed, “My goal is to
 THE COMMODITY 39

take this company to $1 billion in sales.”34 His aspirations seem

to have fallen victim to the general economic downturn later in
the ’90s: a petition for bankruptcy was filed against
Knickerbocker in August 1999.35 The firm’s assets were then
acquired by Marian LLC, a company owned by record
producer Brian Blosil and his doll-enthusiast wife, the pop
singer Marie Osmond. The last we heard, Marian had turned
over management of the Georgetown dolls to Ashton-Drake,
now part of the Bradford Group.

MANUFACTURE
The history of doll production has a tendency to repeat itself,
shifting back and forth between production on the small scale
and large scale, from kitchen table and workshop to factory
and international enterprise. The contemporary collector doll is
no exception to this pattern. Viewed just as a physical object
that someone has to make, it has some notable characteristics:

• The manufacture is divisible, consisting of several parts

(limbs, clothes, accessories) that are usually produced
separately and assembled into the finished product.
• Materials are relatively costly: the most visible parts are
made out of porcelain, which is difficult to produce.
• Manufacture is labor intensive: it requires careful assembly
and finishing by hand.
• Production is scale-elastic: dolls can be made entirely by a
single person working alone at home, or by hundreds of
people in a big factory.
• The added value is also very elastic: a PCD can be mass
produced quite cheaply, or custom-made at great expense.

This means that if you were manufacturing dolls in a

businesslike way, the parts could be made in many different
places, and assembled and finished somewhere else, according
to local prices of materials and labor and the costs of transport.
In the present global economy the dolls are unlikely to be made
where most of them are actually sold— in North America and
Europe.
40 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

To get the big picture on doll manufacture in the United

States, we consulted the Department of Commerce and Bureau
of the Census reports which appear every five years. There,
dolls in general are grouped along with stuffed toys into the
commodity heading “Industry 3942.” In 1992 dolls, including
fashion dolls, accounted for just 10.4 percent (worth $30.3
million) of this category, but by 1997 the proportion of dolls
had risen to 27 percent—$79.9 million out of total sales of
$299.8 million. This increase coincides with the boom in PCDs,
but we don’t know with any accuracy how many of the U.S.-
produced dolls are actually included in these data. It is likely
that some have been grouped under other industry headings
like “souvenirs” or “giftware” or have been merged with
“figurines.”36
Over the 15 years up to 1992, the number of doll and stuffed
animal manufacturers in the United States fell from 231 to 209
firms and the value of production dropped from about $500
million to $300 million. The figures indicate that although doll
sales expanded through the 1980s and 1990s, the number of
U.S. workers engaged in doll production dropped drastically. In
1997, only seven firms employed more than 100 U.S. workers,
and the great majority employed fewer than 20 workers. While
their numbers have fallen steadily, to 2,500 actually engaged in
production currently, their wages have improved, but they are
still not well paid. In 1997, manufacturers added $194 million
value to the total shipped value of $300 million (65 percent),
but paid just $42 million (14 percent) in wages. (See figures 2a–
2d.)
A very basic selling line for the PCDs is that they are
produced— in part if not wholly—by hand.37 The cost of the
dolls and their promise of future “antique” value depends on
the individual care with which they are made. The more the
manufacturer resorts to machines and assembly lines, the less
that promise can be fulfilled. Much of the assembly and
decoration is too finicky to be done by machines anyway, and
detectable brush strokes in the application of eyebrows or
dimples actually enhance the value of the product. Increasing
the volume of production and lowering the price, the basic
tactic for developing most other commodities, would kill this
 THE COMMODITY 41

particular product. For example, “Hannah’s porcelain head and

limbs are of a high quality fine bisque. Her hand-set, blue-gray
eyes are warm and expressive, bestowing a sweet nature on her
expertly sculpted, hand-blushed face.” The dolls were hand-
painted, -crafted, -sewn, -stitched, -tailored, and -numbered.
Their eyes were hand-set, their hair cut and curled by hand.
This was done “meticulously,” “carefully,” and “exquisitely”;
Billy “has artfully hand-painted features and is inscribed with
the artist’s signature on his upper back.” The word
“craftsman” occurred in 19 percent of the advertisements,
while a far larger portion credited the workmanship to an artist
(alone or in various compounds like “artistry”) in 68 percent.
But in truth, the level of artistry required in the manufacture of
the PCDs is not great. Although the work is done “adorably,”
“sweetly,” or “lovingly,” what is actually required is the
careful repetition of quite simple and very precisely prescribed
hand movements.
The main work is done by artisans who, according to the
advertisements, “lovingly” paint the PCDs and stitch their tiny
garments. In reality, the work is tedious, underpaid, and
surprisingly dangerous. In the nineteenth century, outworkers
(and their families) inhaled stuffing, poisoned themselves with
white lead, and scalded themselves with wax; the twentieth
century added many more hazards, such as solvents,
thermoplastics, and polystyrene fillers.38 All this points to the
increasing “outsourcing” of doll manufacture. Now, as in
comparable industries (clothing, souvenirs, etc.) most of the
PCDs are being made in countries like Thailand, China,
Indonesia, and Mexico. As one critic has remarked, the different
worlds are brought together “in such a way as to conceal
almost perfectly any trace of origin, of the labour processes that
produced them, or of the social relations implicated in their
production.”39 As you unwrap each little person and lift her
out of her box, there is little (beyond an occasional “assembled
in the USA”) to betray her transnational makeup. But there is
nothing particularly novel about this. For the last 200 years
doll production has been on the move: from Germany and
south-central Europe (Bohemia, Thüringia, Groden valley) to
France and England in the nineteenth century, then on to the
42 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

Figure 2-a: Number of doll manufacturers and total sales in the United
States, 1967–97
United States, and to Hong Kong and the Guangdong
hinterland in China in the twentieth century. It was not always
the complete doll that moved: in the early days German body
parts were sewn into torsos and dressed in France, and today,
crates of little heads, or dresses, or rocking horses converge
from around the world in the creation of Sarah or Harry.
This “globalization” of production has attracted much
negative publicity, and manufacturers are less than candid about
where their dolls are produced. In general, the more expensive
the doll, the more likely it is to have been manufactured in one
place. Danbury seeks to outsource as much as possible, whereas
Franklin, whose dolls cost about twice as much, prefers in-
house production staff.40 In the early 1990s, Knickerbocker
(Georgetown) had eight facilities, two of which are in Bangkok
(where the company has a total of 39,500 square feet).41 Given
the diverse origins of the PCD’s components, there are few
traces of those “Made with Pride in the USA” labels. The
Economist says of the phenomenally successful American Girl
series: “These quintessentially American dolls are made in
 THE COMMODITY 43

Figure 2-b: Total sales of U.S. doll firms and wages of production
workers, 1967–97

Germany. Their exquisite accessories are made in many other

countries. American Girl, meet the world economy.”42
The names of the artists and designers mentioned on the TV
shopping clubs (Y.K.Wu, C.Y.Liao) suggest that at least for the
lower priced dolls, even the design stages are shifting to the
East. Design is now the “front end” of the production process,
the only part which is not resolutely anonymous. In the
merchandising of the dolls the artists have been brought into
the spotlight quite recently: not many were named in the 1980s,
but they featured explicitly in 88 percent of the advertisements
we collected during the 1990s.43 Now artist names and
reputations have become more important to collectors than the
name of the series, or even of the manufacturer itself. Firms like
Ashton-Drake now list their dolls on the Web by artist. Some
of the names look a bit stagey (Bella Bambina, Lia Di Leo) but
the emphasis lately has been on real personalities, out there
stumping on the TV shows. Their appearance is revealing: they
are not pale, slender young things in artist’s smocks, they are
44 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

Figure 2-c: Total employees and total production workers in U.S. doll
firms, 1967–97
middle-aged, motherly women. It is very clear that their
customers who phone in for a chat feel completely at ease.
In parallel with this there has been a shift from in-house
designers to relatively well paid freelancers, the “geniuses” who
create the “magic” of the PCD. We have the strongest
impression that the firms now recognize that the fountain of
new ideas is out there among the clientele, rather than among
its own staff. Ashton-Drake advertises for designers on its Web
site, declaring “We pay on a project by project basis…. Ashton-
Drake maintains an extensive Artist Resource File, which is
constantly reviewed by our product development team as new
doll concepts are created.” Jobs are also available for wig
makers, prop makers, and illustrators “that can capture
realistic babies, toddlers, children, brides, fashion and religious
figures.” They should “have understanding of expressive
posing, and realistic features and proportions.”44
Prolific designers like Yolanda Bello, who works for Ashton-
Drake, seem to have entered the collectible doll industry in the
mid-1980s. The biographical sketches that have accompanied
their emergence in the sales’ process have a strikingly similar
 THE COMMODITY 45

Figure 2-d: Number of production workers in U.S. doll fims and average
wages, 1967–97

pattern. They usually have some basic training in, or talent for,
painting and sculpture. They began making dolls at home for
themselves, their children, or friends. Laura Lee Wambach has
been designing dolls for 15 years: “I was just shopping one day
and saw a box of clay in a craft store and someone had sculpted
a little person there and I thought well if they can do it and sell
it then I can too. I have always loved art and I love to draw and
paint.”45 Pauline Bjonness-Jacobsen has been sculpting dolls
“forever…30 years, something like that”:

I was very much interested in drawing and painting and

oil painting and then I made some dolls for some friends
and they were cloth dolls and they were very popular and
I got an order for them to go commercially. But I have
always been drawing, drawing Christmas cards, greeting
cards and drawing children’s clothes, and dolls. So you
know I have been circling in that area.46
46 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

Most of the doll designers are women.47 It is interesting that

women should have appeared in such large numbers in the
design of the PCDs, but in fact they have always been at the
heart of doll manufacture. Although the large-scale factory
production has been preemptively a male domain, the influence
of women through the centuries is unmistakable. From
Margaret Stieff in nineteenth-century Germany to Madame
Lenci (alias Elena Konig di Scavini) in early-twentieth-century
Italy and Norah Wellings in England, through to Barbie’s
creator, Ruth Handler, redoubtable women have been a
persisting inspiration for today’s designers and entrepreneurs.
It is remarkable that the wellspring of the industry is still the
home work of women who are, like their clients, passionate
about dolls. A very typical example is Maureen Byron of
Sunderland, England, who took up doll making after a bad car
crash. She works at home with a nine-to-five routine.

Her work area houses hundreds of moulds, gallons of slip

—a paste used in ceramic work—and most importantly,
three kilns. And of course everywhere there are beautiful
dolls—large, small, old and modern. Mo does everything
from casting the doll from a mould to firing it, painting it
and finally dressing it. The whole process can take up to
two weeks, and dolls cost from £10 to £250, depending
on the finish.48

A talented artist can make single “custom” dolls and sell them
for several hundred dollars. Her materials are typically
synthetic clays andpolymer resins like “Fimo,” “Cernit,” and
“Sculpey,” which are pre-colored and can be hardened at low
temperatures in a kitchen oven. Butnone of these has the
texture or the kudos of porcelain, whichdemands a different
order of expertise and apparatus. Not many dollmakers,
however skilled and ambitious, can graduate to this
material,and fewer still manage to scale up production and
sales on their ownaccount. Most sell their talents to the larger
firms, where they bringto the commodity a passion and an
immediate rapport with the consumers that are so easily lost in
(male-controlled) mass production.The big firms have learned
 THE COMMODITY 47

that unless they retain this link to thesource, buying in

freelancers and buying up small enterprises, theyquickly run
out of inspiration.

MARKETING
Collectibles, dolls especially, became “the definitive example of
classic direct marketing” in the 1990s.49 Middle America is very
accustomed to catalog purchasing, and the graduation of direct
sales to TV shows came naturally. But as the recurrent phrase
“from our home to your home” suggests, there is a strong
feeling that this special, almost-human commodity should move
swiftly and directly from the hands of her Maker to the bosom
of the Collector, unsullied by intermediaries like wholesalers
and retailers. The TV sales shows conjure up this moment of
private satisfaction:

When these boxes arrive at your door, by the way, you’ll

be so delighted because the boxes are huge, the dolls are
packaged beautifully, and when they arrive at your door,
simply take them out, sit them on a sofa, put them on a
love-seat, and fall in love with the believability of
something like this. Make sure, of course, that you’re
going to the phones right now to choose our Tamsin.50

The sales strategies for the PCDs are quite different from those
for children’s dolls, which have to be sold to parents “through
adver tisements in print media based on claims for educational
value” as well as to children themselves through “television
commercials based on their ‘badge appeal’ to peers.”51
Advertising and sales for the PCDs aim much more directly at
their adult targets. From the mid-1980s, advertisements for
PCDs appeared in the clutter of ads for processed foods and
housewares, costume jewelry, and ready-to-wear clothes which
spill out of every mailbox, TV guide, and Sunday newspaper. In
the 1990s they featured prominently in magazines that picked
out the private, homebody clientele quite clearly: McCalls,
Country Home, Ladies Home Journal, Parade, USA Weekend,
Woman’s Realm (UK). The advertisements might catch your
48 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

eye as you flipped through the magazines at a supermarket

checkout. “Serious” enthusiasts could subscribe to an
expanding range of specialist magazines that fueled the craze
and catered to all tastes and price levels. Between 1978 and
1983 Doll Reader doubled its circulation to 40,000, and in the
mid-1990s it appeared 9 times a year for an annual subscription
of $30. Its major rival is Dolls—The Collector’s Magazine,
published 10 times a year for a $49 subscription.
Product specificity is revealed in the consistency of
advertising style across the main PCD firms. The typical full- or
half-page advertisement consists of a very clear photo of the
doll, full body or portrait, with its accessories, a paragraph or
two of narrative and sales talk, and a mail order coupon inset or
pasted in (see picture 2). Ashton-Drake advertising couples a
paragraph of vivid description with boilerplate text giving
assurances of quality and service. Full-page advertisements in
large-circulation weeklies accounted for one half of the
collectibles industry’s $378 million of media spending in 1995.
The Franklin Mint’s advertising budget for that year was $90
million, $54 million of which it had spent on Sunday magazine
advertisements by the seventh month. Franklin had one of the
largest in-house advertising staffs in the United States—an
estimated 100 employees.52 In 1995 it was the twenty-seventh
largest advertiser in the United States. Bradford’s advertising
budget (Ashton-Drake) for that year was $27 million,
Danbury’s $22 million, and Lenox’s $17 million.53
The number of dolls in our advertisement sample peaked in
1994, as did the average price; thereafter it was downhill to the
end of the decade. (See figure 2-e.) Franklin, at the top end of
the PCD market, seems to have felt the pinch quite early: it laid
off 10 percent of its workforce in 1995, and President Tom
Durovsik resigned.54 The problem was less with the dolls
themselves than with the merchandising. In 1995 the direct
sales of collectibles was, in the words of one expert, “reaching a
saturation point.”55 In 1993 Stanhome started phasing out its
direct sales interests, and in May 1997 the company sold its
Hamilton Direct Response businesses in the United States to The
Crestley Collection Ltd. for approximately $48 million.56
Sunday magazine advertising of collectibles was collapsing:
 THE COMMODITY 49

Figure 2-e: Annual average price of dolls in advertisement sample, 1991–

99

“The entire direct response area hit a wall back in May

[1995],” according to the publisher of Parade magazine.57
Direct sales through TV was still getting off the ground—
accounting for just 5 percent of the sales of collectibles in
1995.58 Five years later, PCD advertisements in the Sunday
magazines were rare, but the TV sales shows were booming.
The Home Shopping Network began in the late 1970s as a
local Florida AM radio station, graduating from local to
national cable TV. Ten years later, its 24-hour programming
was grossing $2 million to $3 million a day. Personal
interaction with the consumer was the great innovation of TV
shopping. “The people calling in talk more about the product
than the show hosts do,” said an HSN senior vice president
enthusiastically. Consumers became members of the Home
Shopping Club when they made their first purchase, becoming
“like one big family.” HSN sent its members birthday and
anniversary cards, with gift vouchers “to complete the homey
image.”59 The sales advantages are conspicuous: customer
feedback is virtually instantaneous, and the pressure for
impetuous decisions (“hurry—this item will be off your screen
50 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

in a moment!”) is followed through by extremely rapid delivery

of the goods. About 70 percent of HSN’s clientele are women in
the 35-to-54 age bracket, and porcelain dolls were a key item
from the start. The HSN vice president painted “a scenario of a
woman alone at home during the day with multiple tv sets
blaring from room to room. As she goes about her chores, she
can keep abreast of the activity. When a new product comes on
the screen, it is accompanied by bells and clapping to grab her
attention.” In 1999 the HSN ran three weekly doll sales
programs: Gallery of Dolls, The Doll Shop, and The Doll
Cottage. These aired during the night on Pacific time, the
earliest starting at 10 P.M., the latest ending at 6 A.M. On the
occasions we monitored these shows, post-midnight shoppers
from Connecticut to California all sounded astonishingly lively.
Anticipating a general trend, Franklin had already been
shifting its merchandising to TV, and to “museum-quality
stores”—nearly 50 of them in 1995.60 Today, there is a very
visible proliferation of specialist doll shops in North America
and Europe. Retail stores like My Little People of Wethersfield,
Connecticut, also sell directly, by phone, fax, or through the
Internet.61 Yesterday’s stay-at-home buyers are now out
shopping, admiring the serried ranks of PCDs on the shelves,
handling the dolls, and chatting with staff. The smaller main-
street stores that proliferated during the 1990s have a friendly,
clublike atmosphere, and many of them are reselling dolls on
consignment for their regular customers. Demand still seems to
be running high, and the price range is widening.62 The low end
has been well established in shops and market stalls for years.
On a chilly November morning in 1995 I met a vendor setting
up her stall in the marketplace of Richelieu, a small town in
France. Her dolls were mostly vinyl and in the $15–$40 range
(picture 3). She gave me the familiar explanation that her
clientele consisted of mostly older women who say that they
were deprived of dolls when they were children and who justify
their collections by saying that they will pass them on to their
grandchildren. A major focus for collectors in the United States
is the doll fair. On California’s central coast, for example, the
Miller Production Group hosts 15–20 big doll shows every
year. In addition to the full PCD range there are clothes (“more
 THE COMMODITY 51

expensive than real baby clothes”), wigs, doll-making tools,

how-to videos, furniture, and much else.63
These changes have favored the growth of smaller firms
producing more expensive, custom-made dolls for specific retail
outlets. In the doll industry as a whole, the total number of
manufacturing firms increased in the United States during the
1990s, but this consisted mainly of a shift to smaller enterprises.
The PCD industry has also multiplied other opportunities for
new enterprises. The TLC doll company that makes accessories
for the Pleasant Company’s American Girls series chalked up
$200,000 worth of sales in 1996, and was “growing rapidly.”64
Now there are companies providing start-up services for the
small-scale producer. The Village Doll Haus supplies porcelain
heads and body parts for doll makers who don’t have their own
kilns, and The Doll Market has everything from undressed dolls
to “hair, socks, shoes, and eyes.”65

PRICE, VALUE, AND THE “INVESTMENT”

Comparison of the PCD advertisements suggests that the
product is very similar across the main firms (figure 2-f). The
average price of the dolls over the nine year period (1991–99)
we monitored advertisements was $106. There is much overlap
in price ranges, but averages point to a vertical division of the
market among the main firms that corresponds roughly with
their volume of sales: average price for Ashton-Drake dolls over
the nine-year period was $73, for Hamilton $104, for Danbury
$106, Georgetown $124, Lenox $153, and Franklin $199.
There is no correlation between the size of the doll and the
price. What matters is the quality of materials and finish, and
anything that suggests individual artisanal attention rather
than mass production. Eighty-four percent of the dolls came
with some specified accessory other than clothes (necklace,
chair, flowers, cart, dog, rocking chair, mirror, parasol), but
curiously, the average price of dolls without named accessories
was significantly higher ($124) than those with ($101). This
may partly reflect a general tendency in merchandising for lower
priced items to draw attention to features that are taken for
granted at higher prices.
52 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

Picture 3: Marketplace doll stall.

Richelieu, France, November 1995.
Photo by A.F.Robertson.
 THE COMMODITY 53

Figure 2-f: Price ranges of dolls by main doll firms in advertisement

sample, 1991–99

The dolls were also spread out fairly evenly by age category
among the main firms, except that Ashton-Drake produced 21
of the 26 “infant” dolls in our sample. Infant dolls with their
closed eyes, partial bodies and simple garments were the
cheapest ($85 on average). The adult dolls were slightly more
expensive ($109) than the average price for children and
toddlers ($107). There was little difference in the price averages
for dolls of different ethnicity: Caucasian dolls cost on average
$105, African Americans $114, and Native Americans $97.
The two largest-selling companies, Ashton-Drake and
Georgetown, produced the most ethnically diverse range.
Between them they accounted for all but 1 of the 18 African
American dolls in our sample.
The dolls are porcelain mainly because they imitate the
antiques that doll enthusiasts can no longer afford. The hope is
that they will, in the fullness of time, become real antiques, but
like their predecessors their future value depends heavily on the
fragility of the material. Every doll that gets broken adds to the
54 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

worth of those that remain. Down the years, dolls have been
saved from attrition by being carefully conserved. With an eye
to investment, the “serious” collector keeps everything intact,
from bows and shoelaces to wrappings, labels, and receipts, and
must resist the temptation to make little changes to clothes and
hair. Nearly all the doll owners we met were critical of
collectors who put material values above emotional values.
Keeping a doll boxed, with her label and price tag still fixed to
her wrist, is considered inhumane. We were repeatedly assured
that every doll was out on display, that all of them were loved
and carefully handled, and that nobody was hidden away
waiting for her dollar value to appreciate.
The manufacturers of the PCDs have to strike a delicate
balance between the realism of the doll and its price. Our
sample suggests that $100 is the threshold at which enough
detail can be applied to the doll to make it look realistic, while
producing it in sufficient numbers to make it commercially
viable. Around $200 is the starting point for the production of
individual, hand-made dolls. A doll by a reputable artist which
has some chance of holding and enhancing its value costs more
than $500. Small-scale specialist producers encounter this
threshold when they expand business. Ken Shader turned his
hobby making porcelain dolls into a $4 million business,
Shader’s China Doll Inc. Each part of each doll was signed and
dated by the craftsperson who made it, a feature that
recommended it to the serious collector. As business expanded,
three quarters of Shader’s dolls were produced on contract for
other firms, leaving him in a quandary about whether to step
up mass production at lower values, or continue trading up-
market in his own name.66
Until the mid-1990s, many PCD advertisements stressed the
investment value of the dolls, including little charts of the
escalating resale value of previous items.

As a leading authority on collectible dolls, Ashton-Drake

is committed to producing the highest quality of dolls at
irresistible values. Ashton-Drake’s first doll, “Jason,” is
legendary in the doll world. Designed by doll artist
Yolanda Bello, Ashton-Drake offered “Jason” to
 THE COMMODITY 55

collectors for $48, from 1985 through 1986. Since then,

“Jason” has sold at an auction for as much as $1200 and
is sold by dealers for $800 and more.67

By the end of the decade such assurances were rare, probably

because a glut was already evident, but also because investment
has never been the primary motive of the ordinary doll buyer.
The firms do not, of course, offer any guarantees against doll
depreciation, only against a lack of customer appreciation.
Cash refunds are specified in 67 percent of the advertisements.
Periods covered range from 30 days (42 percent), 100 days (3
percent), and a year (55 percent). “You may acquire ‘Virginia’
at no risk with our 100% Buy-Back Guarantee”
Collectors are less influenced by promises of the investment
potential of their dolls, than concerns (especially of family
members) that collecting PCDs is a waste of money. This seems
to be the main reason why advertising continues to offer
reassurances about the material value of the dolls. The main
tactics are to stress the individuality of each doll by marking it
with a number or original signature; to restrict the copies of
each doll to a “limited edition”; to issue certificates of quality
and award special prizes; and to have public institutions and
celebrities endorse the product.
Identification marks are stamped on the back of the neck, the
small of the back, the sole of the foot, and sometimes on each
separate body part. Like the marks on silver and fine china, this
is supposed to “authenticate” the doll in the future. “As your
assurance of authenticity, Shirley Temple’s signature will be
inscribed in the porcelain back of your doll. You will also
receive a serially-numbered Certificate of Authenticity”
(picture 4).
Twenty-eight percent of the dolls in our sample were
produced in a limited edition, a designation that is supposedly
monitored by NALED, the National Association of Limited
Edition Dealers. Precisely how the PCDs were “limited” varied:
15 percent were restricted by “firing days”—100 days is the
mode (half of the cases), otherwise 45 and 365 days. The
enthusiasm for firing-day limitations, after which molds were to
be “broken forever,” died out around 1996. Buyers seem to
56 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

have cottoned on to the fact that a big company can fire an

awful lot of dolls in 365 days. Nearly half the dolls were
“numbered,” but only a quarter were also explicitly “limited.”
The buyer will not know the number until the doll is delivered,
at which stage there may be little point in complaining that it
seems unreasonably high. Latterly the firms evidently
discovered that the average customer is not much troubled by
the incongruity of a “best selling” doll in a “strictly limited
edition,” nor much impressed by number stamps and broken
molds. The word “edition” itself seemed to carry enough weight:
dolls were variously in “exclusive,” “artist’s,” “first,”
“premier,” or “landmark” editions.
Ashton-Drake awards its dolls certificates based on its own
“uniform grading standards for dolls.” We have not seen
reference to anything other than the top, “premier” grade. The
industry also awards its dolls and their designers prizes, which
are used to certify the product in advertisements. The best
known are the “DOTY,” (Doll of the Year) awards from “The
International Doll Academy.” The two basic categories are
“play” and “collectible,” the latter broken down into
porcelain, vinyl, artist (i.e. expensive), and direct purchase
(cheap). Respectable magazines like Dolls and Doll Reader help
to monitor these competitions, which are open to the smallest
producers.
Manufacturers are always looking for ways of asserting the
value of their dolls: Mary is “the first-ever heirloom porcelain
doll issued under the authority of Catholic Daughters of the
Americas.” A well-established tradition is to link the doll to
another familiar branded product. Early examples were Dolly
Dimple, advertising self-rising flour, and Sunny Jim (alias “Mr.
Force”), advertising Force Wheatflakes.68 In recent years these
“corporate collectibles,” as they are now known, have appeared
in increasing numbers among the ranks of the PCDs. The range
is astonishing: Good Humor, Goodyear, Campbell’s Soup,
Coca-Cola, Taco Bell, Popsicle (Lucy Lick-a-color). Scootles is
the official U.S. Postal Service Doll, and Harley-Davidson
sponsors Bobby, the Little Biker Baby, who comes complete
with bandana, ignition key, diaper, and pout. The hamburger
chain has had considerable success with McMemories, the
 THE COMMODITY 57

Picture 4: Certificates of authenticity for two collector dolls.

“official McDonald’s collectibles club,” manufactured by

Ashton-Drake:

Smiling brightly, “Katie” has every reason to be proud.

Her good work at school has earned a gold star, and now
she gets to go to her favorite place, McDonald’s! “Katie”
is a new fine-porcelain collectible doll by Titus Tomescu,
endorsed by McDonald’s, which supports the efforts of
58 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

parents and teachers everywhere to improve education in

our communities. “Katie” comes with report card and a
backpack featuring the McKids logo.

When Tina Berry offered a clutch of corporate collectibles to

her audience one night we monitored her HSN-TV show, the
response was swift and emphatic:
Tina: “We even have shopkeepers trying to buy this little
fellow that
I have coming up next. It’s the Goodyear Boy!”
Caller: “I wannim!”
T: “Did you see him?”
C: “I want him! Is he too cute or what?”
T: “Oh, he’s so precious!”69
The benefits flow in both directions: “product recognition,” the
familiarity of major brands, helps to sell the dolls, and as instant
antiques the dolls perpetuate the name of the product and the
affection with which it is supposedly regarded. Danny, “The
first such doll ever authorized by The Coca-Cola Company,”
was offered in 1995 as “a historic premiere for doll collectors!”
Manufactured by the Franklin Mint, he takes us back “to the
early 1900s,” and comes with baggy cap and a little cart full of
Coke:

Remember your first home-made toy crafted with love as

the main ingredient? Danny’s scooter is created with the
same amount of love, and is equally authentic just like the
ones little boys created from real “Coca-Cola” crates in the
early 1900s. Emblazoned with the world-famous “Coca-
Cola” trademark, it’s his display stand, so he can ride right
into your heart!

It may be a measure of the extent to which such products have

pervaded our lives that the collectors seem little disturbed by
these tieins. According to a program coordinator at the Coca-
Cola Company, “When people drink Coca-Cola, they associate
it with family and friends and adopt it as part of their lifestyle.
A licensed Coca-Cola product brings the product that much
 THE COMMODITY 59

more into their lives. It is something that they can take ownership
in. That is why we chose to license. It is a way to get the Coca-
Cola trademark to consumers around the world.”70 More
generally, the collectors seem quite capable of holding the
material and the emotional qualities of the dolls in separate
cognitive compartments. The prices and installment terms, the
references to glass eyes and hand numbering, and the
merchandising tricks do not seem to detract from the romance
of the story line.
In the advertisements, the value of the dolls is talked up by
every means at the disposal of the manufacturer. Much play is
made on the classy European origins of the tradition, from the
materials of the dolls to the origins of the artists. The
advertisements are peppered with specialist vocabulary, much of
it with a French accent: “petite” (less than 10 inches),
“soutache,” “ecru,” “voile,” “pantalettes.” Nicolette is
“exquisite European artistry at a noteworthy price!” Becky was
“created by European-born designer Bets van Boxel.” Gudrun
Haak and Sylvia Natterer are both “renowned European” doll
artists.
A big marketing challenge is putting a price tag on the dolls,
while playing up their priceless emotional value. “Let this
toddler know he’s still loved for only $59.95!” (Tommy). Sweet
Carnation is “so posable and cuddly, at a tiny price” ($54.95).
“Welcome ‘Ethan’ into your home for only $69.95.” “Cuddle
her, dress her, and rock her to sleep for just $79.95 payable in
easy monthly installments” (“It’s a Girl”). “With all this
wonderful detail, Jenny is priced at a reasonable $119.” Really
expensive dolls tend to cut the sweet talk: “The price is $295”
(Lenox Christening Doll).
But there is no great need for the hard sell. The doll firms
have had one marketing asset that they have exploited to the
full. These customers want more—and more—dolls. They are
collectors, a fact which is imprinted squarely on the identity of
the commodity itself. As a prelude to tackling the question why
some women would want to collect these dolls by the hundred,
we must first consider the more general mystery of why people
should want collect large amounts of anything. How and why
60 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

has this strange behavior become such a prevalent aspect of

modern life and popular culture?
 Chapter Three
The Collection Just Grows and Grows

“Peaches and Cream is certain to win a place in your

collection—and your heart.”

Estimates of the number of people in North America and

Europe who collect things range from around a third of the
population to as many as two thirds. Those who collect
statistics differ mainly in their estimation of the “seriousness” of
the collection: most of us accumulate stuff, but collecting
indicates a conscious orderliness, discernment, persistence, and
scale—a couple of items doesn’t amount to a collection. “I did
not realize that I was a doll collector until recently,” says a chat
room participant. “I had just kept accumulating dolls.”1
Nevertheless, “serious” collections often bear a close
resemblance to the stuff the rest of us spontaneously
accumulate. There is simply no limit to the range of things that
are “collectible.” The most enduring and the most popular are
stamps and coins, followed by “dolls, toys, art glass, and
furniture.”2 But as Barbara Harrison notes in a Harper’s
magazine article, people also collect “teeth and toupees, skulls
and cookie jars, trolley-car tickets, hair and fans and kites and
forceps, dogs and coins, canes, canaries and shoes, data on
Siamese twins or the Dionne quintuplets, Presley stuff and
Beatle stuff and but tons and bones, hatpins and forged
signatures and first editions and gas masks.”3 In the 1990s frog
stuff became so popular that special shops like “Frog Hollow”
in Kensington, London, catered to it.4 “Darryl Pitt, owner of a
small production firm in Manhattan, collects meteorites,
62 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

traveling frequently to Africa and Asia to chase rocks that have

fallen from the sky.”5 In this motley array, collecting porcelain
dolls starts to look quite sedate.
Collecting is often regarded as a historically modern
phenomenon.6 The way we imagine it, there was not much
scope for collecting in pre-industrial societies. In the old feudal
and mercantile hierarchies, the tiny minority who collected
valuables were politically licensed to do so; ordinary villagers
would soon encounter the leveling pressures of superiors,
neighbors, and family. Adults who accumulated worn-out
tools, old crockery, or dead animals (all collectible items today)
would be regarded as eccentric if not mad. But with
industrialization, the expanding scale of society, and the
development of new class structures, private accumulation
became endemic. In this narrative of modernization, the
alienation of individuals from the old communal solidarities
meant that the value of people became more closely associated
with the value of things—not just rich and rare things but lots
of them. The new industrial barons bought up all the
superfluous things that distinguished their aristocratic
predecessors—houses, paintings, furniture. But latter-day
collector mania suggests that almost anything, accumulated in
sufficient quantity, may become a conveyor of social value.
According to Susan Pearce, “Collecting holds the middle
ground within the social system, between market and temple,
where values are created out of rubbish.”7
As a generic activity, collecting has become institutionalized.
There are numerous magazines and clubs for collectors, plain
and simple. People who are serious collectors of one thing are
likely to collect other things—in a sense, they collect
collections. One will spin off another: the step from cigarette
cards to matchboxes is not so large. Most PCD enthusiasts have
at least the nucleus of one or more other collections—plates,
thimbles, glassware. Half of them also collect porcelain figurines
like the Lladró and Precious Moments series.8 “My other
passion is lilies of the valley,” says a doll collector from North
Carolina. “I collect anything with lilies of the valley—china,
hankies, etc.”9
 THE COLLECTION JUST GROWS AND GROWS 63

Collecting involves specializing, and specialization—making

more and more specific categories for virtually everything,
including people—is what modernization has been all about. It
is a compulsion to select and categorize things from the world
around us, to complete or close a “series” or “class” of “choice
objects,” and thus to refine the identities of the collectors
themselves. It is, says Pearce, an exercise in meaning-making
(matchboxes have a story to tell), an attempt to give coherence
to the otherwise unintelligible junk we accumulate. And it is
also a “biographical urge,” a way of defining ourselves (my
matchboxes tell a story about me). Collecting is woven very
tightly into the fabric of people’s lives—a passion for something
weird can make you a special individual—like Edna, the “Frog
Lady” of Walsall, England.10 In the alienated, depersonalized
modern world, you can make your name as a collector. An
obituary in the New York Times noted the passing of “Hugh
Hicks, 79, prodigious collector of light bulbs.”11 Former
commodities trader Greg Tunks, whose motto is “Something for
nothing,” has made a reputation collecting and dealing in used
credit cards.12 The serial murderer Jeffrey Dahmer, notes
Barbara Harrison ominously, was also “a collector.”13
Even outright trash can make a serious person of the
collector. Classifying, distinguishing, curating, all make you in
some degree a connoisseur, and if there are enough of you, you
can get together and promote your collections and yourselves as
a group of discerning people. In the twentieth century
connoisseurship has been stretched to “kitsch” and “schlock,”
patronizing categories that for many less passionate observers
would cover the PCDs nicely. Most collectibles have very
limited use values: you don’t strike the matches, you don’t eat
your dinner off the fancy plates. They are not to be not touched,
tasted, or smelled, and even visual access can be very grudging:
stamps and etchings are kept under protective covers, jewelry in
bank vaults, dolls in their original boxes. Old musical
instruments and gramophone records are seldom played, bottles
of classic perfumes never opened, the 1932 Montrachet never
drunk.
Their exchange value is defined by the collectors themselves
rather than more general markets. Who else would know or
64 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

care that this canvas is worth millions, and that canvas

nothing? By collecting lots of bottle tops, or cheese labels, or
Dalí prints, we hope to pack material value into a novel
category of object, but without the collusion of other
enthusiasts they are worth precious little. The trouble with the
PCDs is that unlike stamps there are still no established rules of
value other than those for antiques, and the PCD is explicitly or
implicitly an imitation, or retro-antique. The collectors rarely
buy PCDs from each other or swap them; they get them by mail
order from the manufacturers. They have, as yet, little collective
organization to define tastes, standards, and resale values,
which makes investing in them very much an act of faith and
hope.
The scale, range, and material value of a collection dignifies
its owner, but what makes a collector “serious” is aesthetic
judgment and knowledgeability in the estimation of fellow
collectors. “Serious” collecting dates back to the Enlightenment,
when eighteenth-century gentlemen scholars assembled huge
collections of rocks, insects, stuffed animals, or “ritual objects”
from exotic places, which in due course became the nuclei of
public museums. One Rothschild collected albino animals and
birds, another specialized in fleas.14 The “seriousness” of these
collections remains an inspiration to people today who can
spend enormous amounts of time and money acquiring,
classifying, shelving, filing, and curating. As playthings, dolls
are at something of a disadvantage in the “seriousness” stakes,
but assiduous collectors of antique dolls have quite substantial
libraries, and meetings of the numerous branches of the United
Federation of Doll Clubs (UFDC) are devoted to descriptive
analyses of individual dolls, visits to museums, classes in repair
and maintenance, and discussions of history, production
techniques, and fabrics. In this elite context, the PCDs tend to
be disparaged, and there is little more to talk about than their
popular emotional appeal.
Current attitudes to collecting indicate that values remain
ambiguously material and social. A collection distinguishes you
as a person, but it is also an investment, a clever way of
conveying value to virtually anything that would otherwise be
junk—used stamps, old fur niture, bottle tops, gum wrappers,
 THE COLLECTION JUST GROWS AND GROWS 65

paintings. The work of putting it in order, sifting a narrow

category of objects out from the general mass, is often sustained
by the promise of profit. But ultimately this depends on the
assumption that someone, somewhere, will want to buy your
stuff as a collection or for a collection. All established
collectibles have their own dealers—books being an obvious
example. A major secondhand bookseller in Britain specializes
in hand-sorting container loads of books bought from all over
the world. The company had, for example, accumulated more
that 200 different editions of Goldilocks and the Three Bears,
which it intended to sell to a university or private connoisseur.
The ethos of the market, of shrewd choices and competitive
risk-taking, is ever-present in serious collecting. The
concentration of a narrow category of objects—bottle tops,
pictures of Elvis—creates the sense that they are a limited good,
and that in this restricted market one collector’s gains will be
another’s loss. Competition is thrilling, but acquiring complete
monopoly may be a very lonely satisfaction, and may even
cause the cash value of the collectible to slump. A collector may
profess to being “humbled” by the distinction of owning a
priceless painting, or a picture of Elvis that may be, however
exiguously, defined as “unique.” Ironically, the more valuable
the collection, the less the collector may feel inclined to own up
to it. “Texaco CEO James Kinnear does not speak to the public
about his orchids; Don Petersen, the former CEO of Ford,
won’t discuss his mineral crystals.” “It may start off as an
exhibitionist thing,” says Gordon Apker, an avid collector of
“wheeled things,” but “the more dramatic it gets, the more you
hide it. You have something to lose.”15
But for the ordinary Joe and Jane, collecting is also in part an
effort to recapture a sense of belonging, something of the old
lost community. Serious collectors establish clubs devoted to
spark plugs, buttons, rocks, or cigarette packs. It may be a
private vice, but it is also a means of making and sustaining
relations with like-minded people: accumulating, classifying,
discussing, and transferring objects within families, peer
groups, clubs, associations, swap meets. There may be a dearth
of Van Goghs, but there will always be enough postage stamps
to allow large numbers of philatelists to convene in numerous
66 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

associations, reaffirming the sensation that they are a nicer class

of people. The seemingly infinite expandability of the whole
notion of collecting is signaled by the fact that collectors of cars
or guns commonly join not just one but dozens of associations:
they collect club memberships.16
On the face of it, collecting involves lots of adult business
like investing, saving, gaining prestige, making a reputation,
building a legacy. And yet the mania is widely regarded as
childish, something to be a bit ashamed of, especially when the
objects collected are toys or trash. “Collectors share a sense of
specialness, or of not having received satisfying love or
attention, or of having been hurt or unfairly treated in infancy,”
says Manhattan psychoanalyst Werner Muensterberger.17
Although serious collecting seems to entail the civilized business
of establishing categories, rules, and order, it also smacks of a
lack of self-control, of such infantile, primeval sentiments as
greed. Almost everyone who comments on collecting invariably
adverts to its wellsprings in human nature. Collecting takes us
back to the thrill of the chase. It has its roots in the old-
fashioned vices of gluttony, avarice, and lust. “Collecting is like
sex,” Barbara Harrison writes in Harper’s. “Satisfaction creates
new appetites.”18 Collectors themselves say “it’s in the blood”
or “all about feelings.” In its advanced forms, collecting is truly
a visceral passion: “My bricks are inside me, they are something
no one can ever take away from me.”19
Collectors themselves will often admit that their urge is a
kind of madness. It’s “exactly like a drug high,” says Russell
Belk, a professor of marketing at the University of Utah who
has interviewed 200 collectors.20 According to child
psychologist Milton Brutten, “It’s very much in my case akin to
falling in love with a person.” Brutten has been collecting
contemporary paintings and sculpture for 25 years. “Artworks
became infused with a romantic or erotic energy,” he admits.
“When I’m moved, beads of sweat appear on my forehead. My
heart starts pounding. The artwork becomes a very rich,
meaningful being that can help me resolve conflicts. I feel that
life is not worth living without that sculpture.”21 Little wonder
that in extreme forms the passion can lead to incarceration:
Dennis Masellis is in jail in New York for stealing $7 million
 THE COLLECTION JUST GROWS AND GROWS 67

from his employer “to feed his uncon trollable Bakelite habit”
and his collection of 400 Barbie dolls.22 In the main, collecting
is harmless, a Rutgers University psychologist and glass collector
told Ehrenfeld: “You don’t hear many case histories of families
where someone mortgaged the house for a collection. You’re
much more likely to gamble away the family fortune or drink it
away than use it up buying beautiful things.”23
A comprehensive psychology of collecting has yet to be
written, but it would probably dwell on five themes: childish
regression, sexual urge, anality (the urge to order, categorize,
and curate), the search for security, and loneliness. There is a
developmental connection to be argued among them, reaching
back to infancy and forward to old age, evocative of the
perspective on growth we have deployed in this book. But to
understand the PCD phenomenon it is also important to bring
these feelings into conjunction with the recent history of
collecting as a cultural phenomenon—our quest for the
biohistorical meaning. In the following sections we shall begin
the exploration biographically, considering what dolls mean as
childish things in the lives of adult collectors, and the
motivations of growth, before returning to the role of the
manufacturers in producing a new commodity that taps so
deeply into human feelings.

PLAY AND DISPLAY

A collection takes things out of their normal functional
domains and retires them into a very restricted category of use
(or “non-use”), basically “display.” A vintage car may be
polished and admired, but driving it around puts its value as a
collectible in jeopardy. Likewise, a doll collection is unlikely to
survive its ostensible function in child’s play. Most objects,
when they are classified as collectibles, make the transition from
use to display, either as a late stage in their own individual
“lives” or historically, as a category of objects. In a Spanish
village recently I met a clog maker who, when he retired, sold
all his tools and lasts to the village doctor, who has devoted a
room in his capacious house to their display. The same doctor
68 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

has a very large and possibly definitive collection of stone

mortars, which will never again feel the impact of a pestle.
Today’s PCD differs from its antecedents in that it has no
such use history: it is neither a plaything nor an antique, it is
manufactured as an imitation of a plaything and an antique. It
doesn’t actually function like a toy or one of the nineteenth-
century originals, it does a different sort of job, and a central
purpose of this project has been to find out what this job is.
The dual origins of the PCD as toy and antique is expressed in a
heightened ambiguity about its function: is it for play or for
display? Little children and the senile are least likely to
“display” their dolls, and most likely to “play” with them—
bathing, nursing, and changing their clothes. Older women who
want to do this are most likely to opt for plastic or vinyl play
dolls. This is probably why the PCD manufacturers and their
customers both avoid using the word “play”—although that is
what the invitations in the advertisements to cuddle, sing to,
and generally care for the PCDs seem to amount to. Within the
doll trade generally, the distinction is between play and shelf.
Although adults “play” golf, chess, music, and so on, the
semantic undercurrent of childishness is inescapable. This
attitude persists despite the insistence of developmental
psychologists during the twentieth century that play is “not
trivial,” a view that has greatly influenced progressive parenting
and school curricula.24 Article 30 of the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) recognizes the
child’s right to play.25 But these interpretations of child’s play
remain patronizingly adult in that they are predicated on the
assumption that play helps a child to grow up, to “get serious.”
Serious collectors do not “play” with their stamps or vintage
cars, but where the collectible is itself a toy, the stigma of
childishness is more obvious. When she feels her adult dignity is
in question, a PCD collector is likely to revert to the chilly
description of her dolls as “decorative accents” for her home.
Webster’s New World Dictionary tells us that “serious”—a
word that appears so insistently in discussion of collecting
—”implies absorption in deep thought or involvement in
something really important as distinguished from something
frivolous or merely amusing [he takes a serious interest in the
 THE COLLECTION JUST GROWS AND GROWS 69

theater].” The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “having…

earnest purpose or thought; of grave or solemn disposition or
intention; having depth or solidity of character, not light or
superficial; now often, concerned with the grave and earnest
sides of life as opposed to amusement or pleasure-seeking.” A
little observation will make it apparent that for the small
children and elderly people, or for many of our PCD collectors,
caring for a doll is, in such terms, abundantly “serious.” The
gravity of the activity is to be understood in its own context
(childhood, loneliness, senility) rather than from the
disparaging perspectives of other life stages or gender
stereotypes. The PCD collectors translate the seriousness of
their involvement with dolls into emotional words like
“passion.” When people are drawn into conversations about
dolls, the gravity of their own relationships with dolls is seldom
in doubt. Tales of deep emotional involvement and of life-and-
death traumas make it clear that if we are to understand dolls
we should never dismiss their functions as either “merely” play,
or “merely” display.
The ambiguity about play and display is evident in the way
people of all ages divide up the dolls they have collected.
Corinna had two sorts of Barbie, the ones she played with, all
jumbled up in a basket, and the ones she preserved neatly in their
boxes. Isaak Volynsky, Mattel’s corporate director of new
technology, points out that the pricier “shelf’ Barbies intended
for collection and display are different: they “have to be just
about perfect—with defect-free surfaces, finely detailed features,
and the solid feel of a small statue.” There is a corresponding
concern with the quality of packaging, since the container is
often used to display the doll. Much the same applies to the
PCDs, whose wrappings Volynsky describes as “humongous
and expensive.”26 One woman, born in 1938, describes
coveting, and being given by her indulgent grandmother, an
expensive Madame Alexander doll. She never played with her,
but kept her “in a child’s walker” in her bedroom. “I never
combed her hair; I never even took the hat off. The doll I really
played with and was my friend was Sally, this poor bedraggled
soul.”27
Marilyn, now in her twenties, remembers:
70 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

As a child I never played with my dolls. I thought that

they looked nice, and that is why I had them. They always
stayed in my pet-net, a hammock hung in the corner of the
ceiling to display stuffed animals, and rested on my bed or
my dresser. I named them; usually the names they came
with or were assigned. These dolls were never my friends.
They never played with me. I have them all today, and
they are still in the same condition in which they were
bought. I feared my dolls because they were strangers
living with me in my bedroom. I did not know them.

The French poet Baudelaire, a century and a half ago, thought

this was unhealthy. There are some children, he said, who “do
not make use of their toys, but save them up, range them in
order, make libraries and museums of them. Only rarely do
they show them to their little friends, all the while imploring
them not to touch. I would instinctively be on my guard against
these men-children.”28
We found that if children have PCDs, they don’t play with
them. This usually pleases the grandparents or aunts who give
the doll. For little girls, porcelain dolls are display dolls: “I
don’t really care if you can change them or not, ‘cos I just like
to look at them” said 11-year-old Emily. Porcelain, fragile and
clunky, is more for appearance rather than touch: it just doesn’t
work as a play doll, and little children prefer dolls they can
cuddle and throw about. The most basic play/display
distinction for many children is between the soft furry animals
that are favorites at bedtime, and the fancy dolls they have been
given as “special” presents.
Seiter remarks that “boys become their toys in play; girls take
care of their toys”—which probably inclines them more toward
display.29 As they grow up, children will usually shift the
function of their dolls from play to display. As they approach
puberty children become more interested in the theatrical
qualities of their toys, an emphasis that accompanies a shift
toward Barbie or Action Man. This greater interest in
exhibiting dolls is also a reflection of our increasing self-
consciousness as we grow: the dolls are a medium by which we
put ourselves empathetically on display. As we shall see, this
 THE COLLECTION JUST GROWS AND GROWS 71

self-imaging aspect is important in understanding the form and

functions of the PCD. The collector can see in her dolls, stable
and secure on their shelves or in their cabinets, multiple images
of a self which may otherwise be fading.
Some women keep their old play dolls on a shelf in their
bedrooms for most of their lives. There they sit, biding their time
for a reawakening of the “childish” enthusiasm that so often
comes in their later years. Thus, the play/display distinction can
be a measure of the distance between childhood and adulthood:
children who display are behaving like adults, adults who play
are behaving like children. “Play dolls” are a very distinct, even
threatening category from the serious adult collector’s point of
view. Playing with collectibles jeopardizes their value: “you do
have to use some caution to make sure you protect your
investment for future generations” cautions a Web site on doll
care. “You may also want to take into consideration whether
or not children or animals will be in contact with your
collection. If this is the case, you may want to keep your dolls
out of the reach of little hands and curious family pets.”30
“Decor” is a function referred to quite often in the PCD
advertisements: “All Tuckered Out will add a charming
decorative accent to your home.” Pat Kakassy, senior
marketing manager of the PCD manufacturer Lenox, says:
“People are returning to the home and returning to nesting.
They are doing home decorating that does involve more
collecting.”31 Robyn’s grandma, Mary L., collects pretty “lady-
like” dolls, with names like Peaches and Patches, Sunny and
Honey, and Pumpkin. “When walking into the living room of
my grandparents’ home a visitor is apt to encounter close to 15
dolls,” and many more in the guest rooms. “The collection is
displayed in a realistic manner, with dolls seated on park
benches, hiding under chairs, and quietly sitting on rocking
chairs. The dolls are meant for an audience.” The irony here is
that while homes have become spaces for conspicuous display
and consumption, they have also become increasingly private:
very few of these extensive and elaborate doll displays are in
any sense open to public view. Nevertheless, collectors spend a
great deal of time and money on presentation, furnishing one or
more rooms with custom-made cases and shelves for their dolls.
72 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

A rigorous maintenance schedule of almost surgical precision is

recommended, involving the donning of cotton gloves and
gentle dusting with a hair dryer. A 1996 Ashton-Drake catalog
offers Mylar cases with built-in stands, dust covers, and vinyl
slipcovers in a range of sizes, and modular display cases with
mirror backs and “velvety” linings. Some collectors arrange
their dolls on shelves in dizzying ranks, but most prefer to
group them into tableaux: picnics, playgrounds, tea parties, and
bedroom scenes are popular. A Web page advises that “Dolls
are particularly charming when they look like they are
interacting with each other.”32 The modest collector with 200
or 300 dolls will arrange them in clusters all over the house, so
that there are dolls everywhere you look (picture 5). When we
visited Debbie, her husband was stretched out on the Barco-
lounger watching TV, seemingly oblivious of our intrusion and
the dozens of dolls clustered around him on the furniture, on
shelves, and in cabinets.
Carol D., a Californian in her early sixties, keeps her dolls in
a specially purchased hutch, or display cabinet. “Each doll has
its own space, and they are never rearranged,” her
granddaughter reports. “Carol is very anal about keeping her
dolls clean and tidy.” She cleans the hutch three times a week
—“Not just straightening up, but a thorough cleaning.” She
wouldn’t display them around the house “because I couldn’t
stand to have dust or dirt on them.” When she gets more dolls
she’ll just get a bigger hutch, she says. This raises the question
of how the average collector can accommodate a hundred or
more porcelain dolls. The simplest answer must be “in her
empty nest,” after her children have moved out. But nowadays
the nest is not just emptier, it’s bigger. Despite dwindling
household sizes, average domestic space for the middle classes
in the United States almost doubled since the Second World
War: “Suburban homes—pictured continually in television
sitcoms and magazine advertisements—were to be filled with
everything the parents had not had…. Ranch-style houses
provided separate children’s bedrooms that could be filled with
toys.”33 The trend continues: in California, a typical new house
now measures 2,300 square feet—55 percent more than in
1970.34 If collectors can resist the temptation to jam all
 THE COLLECTION JUST GROWS AND GROWS 73

available space, dolls are rotated from storage to display.

Husbands who may tolerate the transformation of living rooms
into overcrowded nurseries complain about intrusions into
conventionally male domains like the garage. More affluent
collectors put choice items on long-term display, creating the
illusion of “real” babies and children peopling the home
(picture 6).
Caring for such a large family is hard work. Or is it play? As
adults we may smile indulgently at childish make-believe, the
work of breath ing life into a doll, caring for it, expecting
much of it. On the one hand, “play” is as much an adult as a
child’s activity, but the boundaries are drawn differently.
Things like cars and guns are well known as a man’s “toys,”
the more so if he has lots of them. Model cars may be a male
category that parallels the PCDs, though “play” (running them
up and down the carpet?) may be more covert. Even though
stamp collecting involves a lot of serious curatorial work, and
the (ideal) product is a highly formalized display, as a “hobby”
it has a pre-adult aura. It was recommended to me as a child as
a way of learning geography and history and of developing a
sense of order. (My mother, a serious philatelist, was also a
professional librarian and indexer.)
Many serious collections are confined to store cupboards or
bank vaults, but what makes doll collections seem unusually
“warm-blooded” (as one woman put it) is their very visible
integration into the collectors’ homes and lives. These displays
are much more than a “decorative accent.” They are intended
to conjure up whole families sharing the domestic space. The
collector is very much the maternal figure, moving around the
house talking, adjusting, cleaning, caring for “all the little
people.” It is doubtful that even the most avid philatelist could
achieve quite the same domestic effect as, for example, Joan B.,
who has more than a couple of hundred dolls in her home in
England.

When Joan opens her front door, dolls greet the visitor,
sitting on either side of the hallway on their own chairs.
Walk around her house and dolls of every shape, size, type
and colour fill the rooms. They sit on the stairs, on beds,
74 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

Picture 5: At Debbie’s house—dolls everywhere you look…

Photos by A.F.Robertson.
 THE COLLECTION JUST GROWS AND GROWS 75

Picture 6: Eva’s dolls—at home.

Photos by Eva Kuhn.
76 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

on cupboards; they peep out between the bannisters. Some

perch on their own special chairs; others are huddled
together. The majority are elegant little girls dressed
Victorian-style…. One or two are antique, but many are
not worth a bean. Joan just loves dolls.35

THE BIOGRAPHY OF THE COLLECTION

We grow up, we grow old, we grow into and out of things, and
somehow in the thick of all this our collections grow. What’s
the connection?
Part of the answer can be found in the frequent assertion that
the serious collection is, in ideal if not always in reality, a life’s
work. It is paced by the progress not just of a personal life
course, but of growth in the social, intergenerational sense we
outlined in chapter 1. This way of linking our physical
development and the upbringing of people in specific cultural
and historical contexts provides a framework for thinking about
the phenomenon of collecting and its morality. Insisting that
mortality is an essential aspect of human growth draws
attention to an irony implicit in all collecting, but which is
conspicuous in the case of dolls: while the life of the collection
and the collector run in parallel, we may hope that the survival
of the material objects will in some measure help us transcend
our own death.
In conversation, the PCD enthusiasts make repeated
references to family processes, from the past to the future, and
justify their often huge doll “families” in these terms. Families,
like collections, grow: the one is quite a good metaphor for the
other. But a collection of dolls running to many hundreds has
plainly outstripped its human parallels. The irony is that while
it is above all in the nature of children to grow, this is one thing
a doll cannot do. And so their numbers multiply, the collection
expanding relentlessly into a huge quasi-family. The result is a
bizarre reversal of the historical tendency of the family to
contract to its modern compact, “nuclear” mode—mom, dad,
and a couple of kids.36
According to a 1995 survey, doll collecting is not a casual or
fleeting affair. Half of those canvassed had been collectors for
more than 10 years, and half of them currently had more than
 THE COLLECTION JUST GROWS AND GROWS 77

100 dolls. The nucleus of collections in 43 percent of cases were

dolls saved from childhood, but 42 percent began their doll
collections as adults, through direct (mail-order) purchasing.37
The fact that a collection commonly extends through many
phases of a person’s life largely accounts for its motley
qualities. Tucked in among the array of PCDs are the odd
decrepit play dolls and stuffed animals saved from the owner’s
childhood, which for sentimental reasons cannot be excluded
from the display. Occasionally a collector will add a new child’s
doll that takes her fancy “to keep the others company.” The
relics of other passing enthusiasms also linger on, notably
Barbies. A regular feature are the perennially popular “dolls of
the world,” small figures in various sorts of ethnic garb, that
are often souvenirs of a period in the collector’s life when she was
traveling and taking an interest in exotic places.
Collectors like to talk biographically about these different
categories, linking episodes in their own lives to phases in the
development of the collection. “Well, my doll collection started
when my grandmother presented me with a little troll,” a
visitor to the Home Shopping Network told the host of the
Collectors Day show. “It wasn’t really a doll, it was more a
little coin bank. And I just thought it was lonely and it needed
some company, so I started creating little collections around
it.”38 For some women, the collection apparently grows
seamlessly and unobtrusively as life progresses. Sandy M. of
Dundee, Scotland, says: “I suppose I have a good couple of
hundred, but I can’t really tell you how many. The collection
has just grown and grown.” Sandy wasn’t particularly
interested in dolls as a child, preferring her brother’s
construction toys, and riding ponies. “Maybe I’m just making
up for lost time!” Now she is moving to another house “to
have enough space to arrange things properly.”39
By far the most hazardous period in the life of the doll is its
owner’s puberty. If it can survive this episode of disinterest and
neglect it may graduate from the play to display category. In
between there is a period of hibernation, very often in the
custody of the owner’s mother, who, if she has passed some of
her own dolls on to her daughter, has a special interest in their
welfare. Later, if the owner’s interest is reawakened, collecting
78 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

may begin in earnest. These biographical details may in due

course be inscribed in the history of a famous personal
collection such as that of Angela Kellie, whose dolls became the
nucleus of a Museum of the Social History of Childhood in
Scotland:

As Angela became too old to play with dolls, they were put
into family storage…. Their role as toys of passage in
Angela’s childhood was over, but by the time she was an
adult in the 1950s, she began to add to the collection
deliberately by searching antique shops. Between 1950
and 1978, the years of her marriage and her young family,
the dolls became a collecting interest occupying the role in
her day-to-day life, which collecting does by structuring
leisure time and shopping trips and, in Angela’s case, by
creating a personal position and relationships through
showing her dolls and giving talks to local women’s
clubs.40

Important turning points in a woman’s life are often clearly

expressed in the episodic qualities of a collection. “Angela’s
husband died in 1978, and the collection helped to structure
her response to this event.”41 Such events become dramatic
punctuation points in the narrative that accompanies a guided
tour of the collection. Anne R.’s daughter died of leukemia
when she was six years old. On the twentieth anniversary of
this devastating event, she was traveling in the rural U.S. South.
“Alongside the road was a stand run by descendants of
Louisiana’s free people of color, selling rag dolls called
mamans, representing quadroons and octoroons. Anne stopped
and bought five of the dolls. ‘Later that same week I started
haunting antique shops and flea markets for dolls of all kinds,’
she recalls.”42 “Collections help to ‘get us through’ periods of
our lives,” says Susan Pearce, especially those troublesome
“periods of transition” like adolescence or retirement.43
An interest in dolls is often reawakened later in life by some
family event that stirs up personal memories. “I have recently
joined the ranks of doll enthusiasts after an absence of about 45
 THE COLLECTION JUST GROWS AND GROWS 79

years,” says Debbie in her first-ever contribution to an Internet

chat room:

I was prompted to come back when my sisters and I found

the head to one of my grandmother’s dolls and some
clothing as well. She had no hair, no eyes and a body that
is not the original. I want to restore her, not because she is
valuable but because she was my Grannie’s. This interest
spread when my sisters and I got together recently and I
saw one of my sister’s dolls from childhood. I found ebay
and have begun to replace my childhood dolls. I have also
begun collecting as I find dollies at garage sales, flea
markets and antique shops that are affordable.44

Joan C. came to doll collecting after selling a broken doll for £1

at a car boot sale, while she was winding up her aunt’s affairs.
Afterward she was stricken with guilt. “A childish poem came
into my mind which says ‘Dolly, poor dolly; dear dolly don ‘t
cry dear dolly; what a naughty boy he was to smash you.’
Which conjured up all my feelings of about my three brothers
who used to take my dolls and smash them up when we were
kids. So I never really had a doll from my childhood.” Joan is a
bit embarrassed about her big “doll family” and keeps meaning
to pack them away. “I wonder what a psychiatrist would say to
me?”45
Revived memories of dolls lost in childhood are a recurrent
theme in the biography of collections. Cindy, one of our
researchers, talked to Sandy K. in Santa Barbara, who said she
had started collecting dolls about five years previously.

I asked her why she started to collect dolls. She was a bit
apprehensive about answering my question point blank. I
told her that I was doing some research for a paper, and
she asked me if she could get back to me. The next day
she came in to where I work, and showed me a picture of
her family. As I scanned the picture I noticed a perfectly
dressed, neat and orderly little girl holding a rag doll. I
asked if that was her, and it was. She then went on to
explain that her doll (the one in the picture) was taken
80 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

away from her by her mother when she was ten years old
because it was too ugly and dirty. Sandy says that her doll
was the only friend she had, and it was taken away so
abruptly. Ever since then, Sandy has missed her doll, and
always wanted her back. Sure, she was given other dolls
but she never loved one as much as “Jenni,” the one that
was taken away. Now Sandy collects dolls.

GREED AND GROWTH

The shame and guilt to which some doll collectors admit and
others uncontritely deny turn on the fear that others regard
their passion as both regressive and excessive.46 The paradigm
is the greedy child, a prominent character in folklore and
culture around the world. The infant, pumping away at its
mother’s breast, is a byword for gluttony, but like the
adolescent who seems to feed non-stop, its greediness is justified
by the need to grow. In between these two big growth
spurts, children are supposed to learn how to moderate their
desires in the interests of becoming decent citizens. We are
expected to grow out of our beastly instincts, a painful process
that modern psychology identifies as the basis of adult neuroses.
“For many grown-up collectors, to pile up treasures is to stave
off childhood feelings of abandonment, to erect a tangible (yet
frangible) hedge against ancient anxiety.”47 Dignifying
seemingly unreasonable acquisitive behavior as a “collection”
looks like an adult trick, an apology for excess, for wanting and
getting more of something than you could possibly, plausibly
need.
Our ambivalence about accumulation turns on the fact that
while it seems selfish, in some basic sense it is essential for our
own survival, for the welfare of our family, and probably also
for the progress of our species. Raising a family depends on
acquisitiveness which, so long as it does not conspicuously harm
other people, is respectable and justified. What economists and
demographers have called the “family life cycle squeeze”
provides a long-term, transgenerational pattern of economic
motivation. In modern societies a married couple has only a few
fleeting years to meet the consumer demands of their children
 THE COLLECTION JUST GROWS AND GROWS 81

and then to insulate themselves from the effects of their own

physical decline. In their prime, parents must get a grip on
productive processes, save and invest, take innovative risks, and
pin their faith on any institution (ranging from bank accounts
and educational trusts to lotteries and religious cults) that can
offer some assurance of long-term security.
Bachelors and spinsters who accumulate to secure their own
childless future are very exposed to blame. These are the
Scrooges and witches on whom suspicion of avarice is most
sharply focused. If they have banked on material wealth rather
than human relationships they stand isolated and critically
vulnerable as they approach the threshold of death. Sandwiched
between gluttonous youth and avaricious age, the middle
generation has a particularly critical eye for greed. The
thoroughly middle-class, middle-aged “fear of falling”— the
loss of income, respectability, property—has as its base the
specter of family starvation.48
There is a pessimistic human tendency to see all the exchanges
of growth in zero-sum terms: one generation saps the energy of
the other. The Lusi of New Britain specifically attribute the
weakness and senility of the very old to the fact that their
vitality has been expended into their children.49 The senior
generation is expected to devolve power and wealth, but for their
own continued welfare they must depend on the attentions of
their able-bodied juniors. Avarice, said Immanuel Kant,
“belongs chiefly to older persons (as a substitute for their
natural impotence).”50 The key to survival in old age is
retaining some control over family assets in all forms—savings,
land, movable capital, and the labor of the younger
generations. This extends to sexual control, the planning and
sanctioning of marriages which keeps the reins of growth in the
hands of the senior generation.51 This is the framework in
which suspicions of senile greed flourish: an invidious concern
about hoarded wealth, dwindling contribution to productive
efforts, and too much consumed.
Women, at the center of the life processes of reproduction
and consumption, and commonly of production as well, are
most heavily implicated: “greedy institutions such as the family
are hard task masters” says Coser, and the “housewife”—the
82 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

domestic manager—bears an unfair share of the stigma.52

Certainly, women’s powers within the relations of reproduction
have exposed them to every accusation of disorder, vice, and
evil, not only from men but from the rising generation of
women that threatens to displace them. Much has been written,
for example, about the female identity of witches.53 That they
are so often older women raises again the notion of sterile
growth: the woman who wants to secure her survival after her
family duties are fulfilled is suspect. But if women’s enthusiasm
for collecting may be traced to frugal concerns for family
welfare, the male stereotype of accumulative zeal—sometimes
referred to as the Don Juan syndrome—is less flatteringly sexual.
According to Barbara Harrison,

Polygamists are collectors. Womanizers are collectors (and

invariably melancholy). The hunger of a womanizer, who
collects women as automatically as plants and animals
collect food, is never satisfied; he never achieves satiety.
“How beautiful they all are,” said the nicest womanizer I
know. We were seated at a window table in a restaurant,
and the girls in their summer dresses were passing by, and
he didn’t even know he’d said it, sweet, sad man. His
hunger is always renewed, his security always
threatened.54

We often hear the complaint that modernization has broken

down the old community morality that discouraged people from
wanting more than they and their families “really” need and
deserve. Today, it seems that individual selfishness knows no
limits—people can go on accumulating indefinitely. Those who
justify this trend claim that the progress of human society
depends on it. “Greed is the Juice That Gets Things Going in
U.S.” reads a headline from the 1980s, widely regarded as “the
greedy decade.”55 But no matter how people have tried to
change its image, greed is never good. It is a resolutely negative
moral judgment: somebody, possibly you yourself, reckons that
you want more of something than you need or deserve. The
best justification for greed is to declare that you need more
because you are growing—especially if you want more not just
 THE COLLECTION JUST GROWS AND GROWS 83

for yourself but for the people for whom you are responsible
(your family) in the human life process. Big businesses, nation-
states, and other human corporations use the same growth
justification, but in recent years this has been perceived as a
ruse, an overworked metaphor that draws accusations of
“corporate greed.” A similar sort of suspicion hangs over a
“collection” of material objects, especially if these objects do
not appear to be serving any useful, life-sustaining purpose.
For accumulation to appear wholesome, it should involve the
whole family. We found that an enthusiasm for collecting is
very often a family affair. Parents encourage their children, and
spouses encourage each other. Deb W.’s husband and sons are
into gun and knife collecting. She bridled at my ill-advised
suggestion that these were nastier things to collect than dolls.
She explained patiently that weapons are an inextricable part of
the American western traditions in which her family was rooted,
and that her menfolk were sweet and gentle people who
encouraged doll collecting among their womenfolk. Deb
insisted that they were connoisseurs, interested only in quality
guns and knives. I made a lame comment about my own
fascination with Swiss Army knives. “There you are then,” she
said, “you know how it feels.”
Husbands are commonly drawn into repairing, conserving,
or transporting dolls, but her collection and his are usually
separate enterprises. Ehrenfeld tells of a couple who collect,
respectively, dolls and “wheeled things” and have found ways
to collaborate: “They’ve decorated their home with vignettes of
her dolls riding his pedal cars or pushing his toy baby
carriages.” Living with an avid collector can be very trying, or
an exercise in mutual toleration. As his financial business
prospered, Ben E. started replacing the household furniture
with antiques. Now, he says, “Our house looks like a forest
there’s so many candlesticks around. We don’t have a
comfortable place to sit. We sit in wing chairs from 1710.” Ben
has to take time out of his busy schedule to “water” his
furniture: “I have 80 little plastic saucers of water in all the
hollow pieces at home,” he says.56 It is not surprising that
collections often feature in divorce proceedings, which are
84 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

particularly acrimonious if the collection was built up together.

“It’s worse than with children,” declared one divorcée.57
We shall look more closely in the next two chapters at the
way collecting reinforces and substitutes for family
relationships, an important reason for its prevalence in later life.
The historical increase in longevity and the decline in household
sizes over the last century has left larger numbers of older
people—women especially—isolated. Collecting figures
prominently among the diverse hobbies that help substitute for
the gratifications of work after retirement. The extra attraction
of dolls is that they appear more personable companions than,
say, a stamp collection.

I have been pretty much housebound for many years and

my doll collection has become my life. I know it sounds a
little nutty, but if one is unable to go out into the world,
one must bring the world to their world…. The only
negative in collecting dolls is that it never ends. I want
more and more to love. Every doll I own is out. Nobody is
in a box somewhere waiting to be let out.58

Many collectors are dogged by anxiety about what will happen

to their collections when they die. Carol D. admitted: “I am
really selfish when it comes to my dolls. They are mine and only
mine. I mean, when I die they will be left to my
granddaughters, but I am not ready to part with them now.
Besides, I am not done collecting yet.” And if she had all the
money in the world? “My entire house would be filled with
beautiful dolls.” Why? “Because I love them!”
Collecting later in life runs up against a moral precept deeply
embedded in the intergenerational growth cycle virtually
everywhere: as they age, people are expected to divest
themselves of their assets, not accumulate more. We owe it to
our parents to take care of them, but as they decline they
should be letting go of what they have, not wanting more.
Suspicion and guilt invade an empty nest that gets filled with
goods. Accusations of greed and avarice go to and fro between
the generations, as elders cling to their resources and adult
offspring with growing children of their own resent their
 THE COLLECTION JUST GROWS AND GROWS 85

seniors’ leisure, luxury spending, or sterile stockpiling of wealth.

The self-recrimination of the elderly, wishing not to be a burden
and dreading the lapse into second childhood, only adds to the
anguish. Desolation, nostalgia, and insecurity seem to underlie
the urge to surround themselves with material possessions
which remind them who they are, and that they still have a viable
place in the real world. They may describe their collecting as
harmless play or pastime, but serious collectors usually claim an
altruistic motive: they plan to bequeath something of value to
their children—or more explicitly to their grandchildren.
The companies dealing in “collectibles” have latched on to
this. “Heirloom” is a key word in PCD merchandising.59
Heirloom: the word wraps a sense of history, family sentiment,
personal possession, and material value into a neat package.
Creating an heirloom is an investment, but it is also a
complicated social act: it is the selection of an object by a
particular person, whose identity and reputation will travel
with it through time. It places obligations on the persons who
have the right to receive it, marking out who as well as what
belongs to whom. It links the past into the future: designated an
heirloom, the object has already taken on the historic qualities
of an antique. The PCD manufacturers make much play on
this: Margaret Lynn is “an heirloom collector doll that
recaptures all the splendour of winter at the turn of the century.
Hand-crafted in the same tradition of master dollmaking that
began with the priceless antique dolls from the Victorian era.”
But the essence of the heirloom is its physical presence, making
relationships very palpable. Inheriting a large Chippendale
commode, 50 fountain pens, or 300 dolls is a physical as well
as moral burden. All these qualities are intensified by unifying
such objects into a collection. This con fronts the heir with
another sort of choice: to respect the integrity of the collection,
to keep it growing, or to fragment it among the ever-increasing
ranks of descendants.
Whatever function an object may originally have had
(furniture, a plaything) tends to get swallowed up by its
heirloom status.
86 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

Angela [Kellie] was born in 1930, and during her earliest

years she was given dolls which had belonged to her
mother and her aunt when they were children, two late-
nineteenth century wax dolls by a friend of the family,
and, when she was about eight, two French dolls which
had belonged to her paternal grandmother. By about
1940, then, the collection spanned three generations of the
family, in fact both sides of Angela’s family: the dolls
which were the souvenir of childhood for the adults had
come together to create an heirloom collection for the
little girl, a fact of which the adults were well aware.60

But how could a little girl bear the burden of a collection that
had built up so much portentous value? Having made their way
sedately down the distaff side, expanding their numbers and
boosting their material value, Angela Kellie’s dolls were far
beyond play, and ready only for the sort of display afforded by
the museum she duly established.
Heirlooms do not draw random lines between relatives
through time. They are governed by rules: the rights of an
eldest son, or of someone specified in a will. Some objects
(guns, crockery) have selective qualities built in to them—they
are more likely to pass to a male or a female heir. Even more so
than jewelry, clothing, and domestic utensils, dolls are
distinctively—challengingly—female property. Anthropologists
have written a good deal about the importance of this in
helping to secure women’s lives in the face of male economic
privilege.61 In a patriarchal world such gendered goods have the
strategic advantage of passing from mother to daughter,
carrying both sentimental and material value that men cannot,
respectably, get their hands on. Flo, a Barbie enthusiast, “says
she views her collecting as a mothering activity, since mothers
are supposed to keep things for their daughters, and her
daughter and granddaughters will inherit her collection.”62
But something more than material values are being
bequeathed with the collection. It is a memorial to the
collector, a lifework that affords a degree of personal
redemption in a relentlessly secularized world. “If collections
can create the sense of a life-history, stretching back, perhaps
 THE COLLECTION JUST GROWS AND GROWS 87

before the collector’s own birth, they also create the sense of
immortality, of life extended beyond the individual’s death.”63
Deb W. told us that the older collectors she knows wonder
uneasily what will happen to dolls they have “saved”: will an
unthinking relative regard them as “a load of old junk” and
heave them out, unaware of the emotional energy that has gone
into the collecting? They fear that heirs will not respect the
patience, opportunism, and aesthetic interest that went into
building up the collection. “We feel about our collections as if
they were part of our physical selves, and we identify with
them,” says Pearce. “Loss of collections brings the same grief
and the same sense of deprivation which accompanies other
bereavements.” People say, “It’s a permanent record of my
life,” and many of them have grandiose ideas of public interest
in their collections: “I’ve thought of putting it in a museum.”64
Judi H., who works for May Department Stores, dreams of
turning a Victorian house into a museum for her 2,800 dolls.65
The PCD advertisements make some play on such ambitions:
Catherine Rose is “created in a tradition which has seen dolls
of this [Victorian] era become priceless antiques, displayed in
museums and distinguished private collections.”
The precedent for this is the large museum or gallery
endowed by industrial barons over the last century and a half.
Art collecting, according to Oxford don Angelica Goodden, is
“the greed that can be glorious.” “The ‘real’ collector, as is well
known, has an obsessive desire to possess that may be simply a
different version of an earlier, less reputable, lust for
accumulation.” But the guilt of wealth can be expiated in “the
enduring art of acquisition.” According to Goodden, “luckily,
the odium attached to wealth lessens when the cash is
channeled into art, since art confers a kind of spiritual
respectability.”66 It does so, of course, mainly because so many
rich and powerful people have, for so many centuries, sought
expiation in such grand public gestures for notably egoistic
lives: the collection is a moral purgative when it is finally
dumped in a public gallery.
“The true collector thinks he’s never going to die and that if
he does, he’ll die with all his toys,” says Harry R., a
“passionate collector of puzzles.” He says his biggest rival has
88 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

two of the rarest items, which he covets: “I follow his health

quite closely.” He swears that rather than let his 4,000 puzzles
fall into the hands of his competitors he’ll leave them all
jumbled in a huge box.67 The perfect collection is sacrosanct,
bearing the reputation of its author into the future. But the irony
of this end-oriented activity is that the collection is truly alive
only while it is incomplete and its author is still in pursuit of
coveted items. The satisfaction of having laid claim to the last
available Matisse or Elvis autograph is overshadowed by a
sense of desolation akin to death. “With our possessions we
weave our shrouds,” says Harrison. “Everything we collect is a
memento mori.”68
On his visit to the Santa Barbara Doll club in October 1997,
our investigator Frank made an intriguing discovery: “Fanny
brought up an interesting point. As we get closer to the end of
the millennium people tend to get crazy. They start collecting
everything. There seems to be, she said, a fear in people that
history will be lost in the next millennium.” This may partly
account for the boom in collectibles—and in stock values,
consumer spending, and much else— in the later 1990s. Once
again, the doll firms have latched onto this idea: “It’s the
Millennium Angel, think about that!” sang Tina Berry on the
Home Shopping Network. “Do not wait to get this, because
when you tie an event like the Millennium into a series of dolls
that are already popular, imagine what’s going to happen when
people all of a sudden wake up and they realize there was a
number one doll, that they got the Millennium doll…. We have
it for you today. She is an absolute perfect value.”69

PASSION ON DEMAND
“I collect dolls, primarily because I have so much joy and
passion,” declares a caller to the Home Shopping Network’s
Collectors Day program:

And just the conquest of knowing they are mine. I

decorate them and they are just wonderful creations….
Collecting dolls is such a wonderful thing because it
reminds you of all the pretty things in life. It allows you to
 THE COLLECTION JUST GROWS AND GROWS 89

Figure 3-a: Age of U.S. doll collectors (1994)

Source: Fulkerson 1995, pp. 17–18.

take the time to appreciate the joy and beauty that they
bring you because they are always there. They are always
with you, when you wake up in the morning, when you
have a lonesome day, they are there.70

As with any commodity, strategic information, tested in the

marketplace, is vital in establishing the links from demand to
supply. The process, notably in the case of the PCDs, is
exploratory and collusive, the vital link being the designers who
are themselves doll collectors. Marketing specialists will argue
that it is essential to understand any product you are trying to
sell, but there are limits to the possibility of, and necessity for
such understanding. The manufacturers of porcelain dolls
evidently knew a lot about their product, but the decline of the
industry in the 1990s suggests that they did not always know as
much as they would have liked.
Inevitably, the doll manufacturers’ perception of their
customers has been shaped by numbers. Early market feedback
made clear to the collectibles industry generally that its “most
loyal and devoted customers [are] older women.”71 Within that
broader category, “serious doll collectors are predominantly
middle aged, relatively well-off, and entirely female.”72 A 1994
survey in the United States by Unity Marketing found that three
quarters of doll collectors were ages 35 to 64, three quarters
were married, and three quarters had no children under age 18
at home. According to this survey, “Serious doll collectors are
90 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

likely to have grown children.” They are predominantly middle

class: 41 percent are still working full time, 50 percent have
household incomes of at least $45,000, 55 percent have some
college education, 16 percent graduated, and 12 percent have
done graduate work. “Yet these accomplished women have a
strong need to nurture, and dolls may fill that need.”73
Of prime importance is the fact that this cohort of women
had relatively large amounts of disposable income from their
own earnings as well as from pensions and conjugal support.
Half the doll collectors spent between $251 and $1,000 a year
on dolls, and a third spent more than that. The dolls ranged in
price up to $500, with most of them in the $100–$200 bracket.
A quarter paid $200–$500 for a doll, and nearly all those
sampled reckoned they would spend at least $500 on dolls in
the coming year.74 The PCD product range settled on the
middle and lower income levels, the most lucrative for mass-
produced dolls, leaving the top end of the market to the low
volume, specialty producers. The owner of a doll shop we
spoke to told us that many women begin with a few dolls of the
Ashton-Drake type, graduating to the “more serious” collection
of antique and custom-made dolls as their enthusiasm for
quantity turns to a taste for quality. “You have to begin
collecting somewhere,” and the PCD industry is ready to
oblige.
Defining a commodity as “collectible” is a merchandising
strategy that multiplies the desire for a single object. In sales
jargon it is line extension—offering variations on a theme that
tempts the buyer to get the whole series. Mattel’s Barbie may be
the greatest line extension of modern times.75 Domestic
crockery is a prototype of the collectible commodity, produced
more for display than use, and carried to elegant lengths by the
Wedgwood and Spode potteries of England in the eighteenth
century. A table service for six or a dozen is inherently a
collection, the standardized patterns allowing less affluent
devotees to build up a full service over long periods of time.76 It
is evidently “female property,” and its scarcity value is
enhanced by its fragility. It is thus not entirely accidental that
companies like Ashton-Drake also deal in ornamental porcelain
 THE COLLECTION JUST GROWS AND GROWS 91

plates, a close neighbor in the product environment of collector

dolls.
For the sales managers of these firms, there are two
fundamental strategies: “Get new customers at the lowest
possible cost, and retain them for subsequent purchases.” Buy
number one in the Rainbow of Love series, “then at three-
month intervals you’ll automatically be shipped the other five
babies in the collection at $59.95 each.” Some detective work
in the early 1990s by Forbes magazine indicated that for a
company like Danbury the cost of developing and
manufacturing each collector plate was about $6 and its retail
price $25. Since the marketing costs of getting a first-time
customer onto its mailing list was about $50, a single sale made
little sense. If the firm lines up 14 more plates and persuades
each customer to buy the whole series, the profit margin on
each plate could be as much as 60 percent.77 Buying one plate or
PCD often “guarantees” you the right to buy the others in a
series—while retaining your name on the all-important mailing
list. The promise to the buyer is that an object gains value by
being part of a set: you must protect your investment against
missing items.
Forty-one percent of the dolls in our sample belong in a
named series of some sort: Amish Inspirations, The Children of
Main Street America, Days of the Week, Connie’s Adorable
Babies, Faraway Friends, Gardens of Innocence, and so on. The
average price of dolls in and out of series was almost the same,
although there was a tendency for the most expensive dolls not
to be in a series. New collections kept appearing throughout the
1990s, but the high proportion of one-off titles in our sample
suggests that more collections are inaugurated than are
substantially fulfilled.
Offering a collection involves establishing an organizing theme
— creating more detailed subdefinitions of the commodity. But
the problem is how to narrow the collectible category down
(French Impressionist painting, British Imperial postage stamps
of the nineteenth century) without reducing it to meaningless
fragments (Yolanda’s Precious Playmates, or Barely Yours, or
Blossoming Belles—“She’s just as sweet and lovely as a
blooming rosebud!”). The collectibles firms are ready to
92 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

experiment, because people collect lots of different things, and

one of the merchandising tactics is to link these. In 1998,
Mayfair (Georgetown’s alias in the United Kingdom) made an
interesting offer: “Now for the first time ever…Images from the
exclusive Mayfair Doll Collection are available on thimbles.”
There, in a little wooden display case, are dainty porcelain
thimbles, each with a picture of Caroline or Apple Dumpling.
“The final thimble in this collection of 24 will certify you as the
registered owner of the whole collection…it will bear your
name as the registered owner.”78
It seems that collectors themselves are ready to play this
game. Nancy, a caller to the QVC home shopping channel in
November 2001, reported that she had just bought Annette and
Roquelk, but had a request for the featured guest doll designer
Pauline BjonnessJacobsen:
Nancy: “Um…would you ever think of doing the 12-inch dolls
that are dressed like the Little Women?
PB-J: Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. I know those books.
Nancy: I would love to see some of the little dolls. You could
come out every month with one of the Little Women
dolls in the 12-inch [size]. Until you got all seven, I
think there are seven.
PB-J: Four, I think there are four.
Nancy: Oh maybe there are four.
PB-J: But we could make seven. The ones who live next door
to the Little Women. Bring them all in.79
“It’s neurotic,” an aficionado of African sculpture and early-
twentieth-century American paintings said of his own collecting.
“It’s limitless. The next object turns you on as much as the last
one. Money is just a scorecard.”80 It can hardly be counted as
rational in the sense that the neoclassical philosophers of the
marketplace have proposed, which is probably why the
manufacturers of collectibles have never been able to come fully
to economic terms with their products. But all market
transactions are loaded with feelings (consider a Wall Street
feeding frenzy, or the visceral thrill of a new house or car, or
buying of a basket of fresh strawberries). Imitating real bodies,
the PCDs construct an unusually close link between visceral
 THE COLLECTION JUST GROWS AND GROWS 93

feelings and wants as they are traded in the marketplace. The

problem is, we have been taught to believe that markets are
rational, not passionate places. Believing that it’s the rationality
that makes them “work” allows traders to keep the books and
make stock predictions. But we also know that economics alone
can’t explain why I buy stuff in the supermarket that I don’t
want, or buy more before lunch than after. Nor can it explain
why someone wants 300 dolls when one or two would seem to
be enough.
This ambiguity is amply expressed in the sales talk for the
PCDs. The material inducements (“attractively priced,” “prime
value,” “great investment”) are clearly stated, but emotional
values are always woven into the advertising copy:

“Michelle” is sure to become one of your best-loved

possessions. Possession that brings endless pride.
Tiffany “is an adorable Victorian treasure” and her
“costume has been lavished with loving detail too.”
Victoria is “a turn of the century treasure…. Her dress
is sheer white voile with over a yard of lavish lace trim.”

Variants of the ambiguous word “treasure” appear often in the

advertisements. The dolls are “rich,” “lavish,” and
“sumptuous”; they are “coveted,” their value is “irresistible.”
Their aura is described as “golden.” Angelica is “lavishly
gowned in rich velvet, shimmering taffeta, and sparkling gold
lame.” Amy, a “magnificent collectors’ masterpiece” is
“brilliantly crafted of the very finest hand-painted porcelain
bisque and lavishly costumed in sumptuous ensemble!” One of
the key words in selling the PCDs is “precious.” Weaving
together both material and emotional values, the word is used
in a fifth of the PCD advertisements, and is of course the title of
the immensely successful Precious Moments series. (See
Appendix A.)
The porcelain collector dolls are the product of a quite
complicated interplay of demand and supply, between the
desires of the women who buy them, often in large numbers,
and the commercial opportunism of the firms that make them.
The manufacturers’ concern that the women should have more
94 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

and more dolls engages with the pas sionate urge of the women
to own not just one, but many of these exquisite objects. In this
chapter we have viewed collecting as a symptom of the urge to
accumulate, which is essential to the cycle of human growth. In
the next chapter we shall draw the biographical and the
historical lines more closely together, putting the lives of the
women who now appear mainly as distinct cohorts of collectors
into the historical perspective of the twentieth century.
We keep returning to the oddity of this commodity: the objects
collected are perceived ambiguously as things and as people.
Whatever dispassionate observers may imagine, they are
bought, and sold, as lifelike. Accumulating people is what
growth, both in the sense of human reproduction and social
expansion, is all about, but in every human society how this is
done is subject to intense moral regulation. Until it was
outlawed in our societies, slavery, the private appropriation of
people, was positively sanctioned; and paying money for
adopted children or human embryos remains morally
contentious. The dolls circumvent these restrictions: you can
pay for and possess not just one, but hundreds of these “real”
little people.
The ambiguity of these lifelike dolls allows the collectors to
carry to extravagant lengths an urge for family growth which
is, at heart, profoundly normal. These women are childless,
some permanently so, others mostly in the temporary sense that
their children have already gone or have not yet come. Quite a
few have real children of their own at home, but have room in
their lives for more. They often talk about their boundless love,
and it is hardly surprising that the modern marketplace has
allowed the suppliers to fulfill their desires. It seems that the
urge to buy more and more dolls will always and ultimately be
a fruitless search for a missing, abundantly real child. And yet,
for many of the collectors we met there is something absurd
about that possibility: asked if they would swap all their dolls
for a real living child of their own, they usually gave some
variant of this surprised response: “Well, for a start, I’d have to
be a whole lot younger!”
 Chapter Four
The Doll That Needs You

“Hannah needs a hug.”

Selling many sorts of commodity means identifying people’s

wants and persuading them that these are more urgently needs.
There is a vacuum in your life which our product (bread, beer,
a car) must fill.
“Timmy’s realistic pose elicits a nurturing feeling.” There are
lots of products that we, as potential consumers, could be said
to need, but there are not many products that could plausibly
be said to need us. Doll manufacturers make much play on the
happy coincidence that this little porcelain or plastic person
“wants” you as much as you want it. Their products are
represented as orphans, waiting in limbo (a warehouse in Niles,
Illinois) like puppies in a pet store for someone to take them
home (picture 7). “Welcome a wonderful visitor to your home—
to stay with you always” (Shannon). “Charming little Hans is
looking for a home, and he is waiting for an adventure. He’s
adorable, and ready to celebrate, with you.”
Some doll advertising has taken this neediness to great
lengths, emphasizing “helplessness, crying, shivering, trembling,
hunger, and need for a diaper change.” One advertisement for a
play doll runs: “‘Don’t shiver, Newborn Baby Shivers, my love
will keep you warm.’”1 This sales tactic, evidently aimed more
at the doll-purchasing parents than children themselves, has
drawn some grim comments from Nancy Scheper-Hughes and
Howard Stein, who see a “darker, more obsessive side of the
adoption/rescue/infanticide fantasy”:
96 THE DOLL THAT NEEDS YOU

Picture 7: Waiting for you to take her home.

Photo by A.F.Robertson.
 LIFE LIKE DOLLS 97

The Cabbage Patch dolls, fetus-like in appearance, are

advertized as abandoned (can we think they are possibly
aborted?) infants in search of good homes and the ‘right
kind’ of parents. The dolls are extravagantly expensive to
adopt, so that poorer families can shelter a cabbage patch
kid only at great personal sacrifice. The dependent dolls
come with “authentic” adoption papers and with a proper
name.2

The PCD advertisements play on an emptiness in the life of the

collector that can be resolved by the act of purchase: “Share the
love in her heart. Send for Grace today.” “Let Annabelle fill
your heart with her gift of love.” Key words in the emotional
vocabulary are “adore” and “adorable,” used in a quarter of the
advertisements. Similar words are “delightful,” “charm(ing),”
“enchant(ing),” and “captivat(ing).” Overflowing with
affection, the dolls may sound better than the real thing to
women who have been through emotional deserts with their
own teenagers. Over the last half-century we have been
tormented with ideals of parenthood and childhood that are
very hard for both parties to sustain. The dolls represent a
second chance, an assurance of undying affection. “Taking
care” of dolls is a very long tradition, and can be a lifelong
commitment extending from infancy through to old age. It can
be therapeutic but it can also be a little stressful, like real child
care. The more beautiful and realistic the doll, the greater the
responsibility, and the more acute the guilt of failing to look
after something so vulnerable and fragile.
The PCD is not simply the cynical commercial exploitation
of older women’s susceptibilities. It responds to real enough
needs—witness the fact that so many dolls have been designed
by
c women who have experienced the vacuum themselves. The
reative endeavors of Elena Konig di Scavini, alias Madame
Lenci, one of the most successful doll manufacturers of the
early twentieth century, “were fuelled by her disappointment at
not having children.”3 Like so many of the PCD designers
today, she had a visceral understanding of how to make a thing
that could substitute for a missing person more effectively than
any other thing.
98 THE DOLL THAT NEEDS YOU

NEEDS, WANTS, AND DESIRES

Do the women who buy the PCDs, often in large quantities,
need the dolls? Or do they merely want them? The distinction
between needs and wants is a very old and troublesome one in
the history of Western philosophy. It is predicated on an even
older and more radically troublesome distinction between body
and mind. In modern usage, it is generally assumed that needs
are rooted in the body, while wants are mental, choices over
which we exert some voluntary control. We feel needs, we think
wants. This is usually illustrated by the urgency of my “needing
a drink of water” (or I may die), and more selectively
“wanting” a Pepsi or a martini.4 The point is driven home by
saying that if I “need” a martini, I am probably an alcoholic—
the “want” has become an abnormal and involuntary bodily
requirement. And after strenuous exercise I may likewise
“need” the revitalizing sugars and salts in the Pepsi, rather than
plain old water. Moral assessments of what we “deserve” turn
on this judgment: people generally explain that greed is
“wanting more than you need.”5
Since classical antiquity, scholars have argued endlessly
about these categories. If “needs” are basically common to
human bodies everywhere, surely they can be spelled out
biologically (in terms of calories, temperatures, hours of sleep,
etc.). Generalizations of this sort do not satisfy those who find
the historical and cultural relativity of values much more
interesting. Of course we all need a drink, but what matters is
why we drink one thing rather than another—the options of
tea, kava, Pepsi, or whatever. This has the effect of
relinquishing discussion of our basic human needs to the natural
scientists, and confining historical and cultural discussion to
our infinitely variable and expandable wants. Clearly, you
cannot satisfy, or express, or even know about a particular want
if history, culture, and language have not put it there. Napoleon
needed helicopter gun ships to turn the tide of events at
Waterloo, but it is unlikely that he specifically “wanted” them,
whatever fantasies he may have had about strategic air strikes.
Porcelain collector dolls are now wanted with great avidity, and
 LIFE LIKE DOLLS 99

history has obliged by getting them out there into the

marketplace.
But this does not imply that the collectors do not need the
PCDs, however exotic and extravagant they may appear.
Rather, it suggests that we (scholars) have no clear and reliable
ways of understanding and expressing what those underlying
needs are. A passionate desire for Caroline or Billy cannot—yet
—be reduced to bodily indices like calories, glandular
secretions, or genetic predispositions, but it is also very difficult
to find words that do justice to the powerful motivation to buy
them. Wants are easier to express than needs, because wants
are “in the mind” rather than “of the body”: we can talk about
them. As David Berry remarks in his book on Luxury, “While
it makes little sense to say that individuals can want something
without knowing they are so wanting, it is sensible to say that
individuals can have needs of which they are unaware.”6 Until
children can say what they want, parents are left guessing
about what they need. This presents us with a problem of
interpretation: to explain why people need things like dolls, we
may not find out all we want to know simply by listening to
what they say. It is likely to be much more important to try to
divine what they feel, which implies a more empathetic
connection with their bodies. And as we all know, the deeper
our feelings, the more difficult they are to put into words.
Contemporary academic interest has fixed on desire as a
mediating term that seeks connections between the cultural and
historical contexts of wanting and of bodily needing. However,
it does so with a particular set of biases that have notably
adult, sexual undertones. Children need things, and their wants
must be regulated, but if they say they “desire” something they
sound precocious. In the doll advertisements, Hannah needs a
hug, and Kaitlyn wants a kiss; neither of them “desires” these
little gratifications. The latent erotic connotations of “desire”
seem to have purged the word from the advertisements. We
found only two traces of it: one referred to an explicitly adult
doll, the buxom Cinderella: “Passions flare as the clock strikes
twelve, and desire ignites a young girl’s heart.” The second was
Sophie, a little girl in Victorian button-up boots: “Everyone
needs someone to love…. And Sophie has found her heart’s
100 THE DOLL THAT NEEDS YOU

desire.” But it turns out that what Sophie desires is not hugs or
kisses, but a doll of her own, which puts her acquisitive urges
directly on a par with those of the collector herself: “Little
Victorian girls used to fall in love with beautiful dollies every
bit as much as we do today. And Sophie had her heart set on
one of her mama’s dearest treasures…the famous Victorian doll
known as the Bru.”
Because the word “desire” seems inapt in doll talk, I have
side-stepped it in this book, talking instead—like the collectors
themselves—about passion. This powerful word shifts our
attention back toward bodily feeling, going beyond desire to
evocations of both agony and ecstasy. It helps us to identify a
wider range of sensations through the lives of the collectors, as
these have unfolded in particular historical circumstances. As we
got to know more about doll collecting, two distinct
biohistorical categories emerged: the women who were
experiencing, respectively, the agony of the “empty womb” and
of the “empty nest.” The two categories are not mutually
exclusive: a woman who has never had children has also in some
sense an empty nest; and a woman whose children have left
home may have very direct empty womb cravings for another
baby. But the distinction is a substantial one, about bodies in
time: the ticking clock of female fertility on the one hand, and
on the other the cyclical pattern of family growth that shifts
children out of the parental household to establish parental
households of their own. The empty nest and empty womb
present significant differences in the motives for acquiring the
dolls, different expectations of their functions, and different
preferences in design. And they are by far the most common
and the clearest explanations that the collectors themselves
offer for their passion for dolls.

THE EMPTY NEST

“I need a child beside me to fill my heart,” says Aunty Nabou
in Mariama Bâ’s novel about women in Senegal, So Long a
Letter. “I want this child to be both my legs and my right arm.
I am growing old. I will make of this child another me. Since
the marriage of my own chil dren, the house has been empty.”
 LIFE LIKE DOLLS 101

Her sister replies: “Take young Nabou, your namesake. She is

yours. I ask only for her bones.” Satisfied, Aunty Nabou packs
her suitcase with all the country goodies which are expensive in
town: dried couscous, roasted groundnut paste, millet, eggs,
milk, chicken. “Holding young Nabou’s hand firmly in her right
hand, she took the road back to town.”7
All around the world, past and present, children are on the
move. Sorting out which kid belongs to whom is one of the
many complexities of doing anthropological or sociological
surveys of households. In the African villages where I did my
fieldwork, old people seemed to have an abundant supply of
real grandchildren, nephews, and nieces to comfort and assist
them as they aged. And in Europe in past centuries young
people moved from one household to another as foster
children, apprentices, or housemaids, balancing the tense
equation of food, work, and accommodation in the life
processes of the wider community. The tight little nuclear
family of our modern industrial world seems resistant to such a
flow. Children are moved, but usually in the agony of some
sort of failure—divorce, destitution, delinquency. The kitchens
of complex households formed by second and subsequent
marriages often feature flow charts detailing where each child is
supposed to be, week by week. When, inevitably, kids extricate
themselves from the emotional vortex to get on with their own
lives, the loss is felt all the more keenly. For the great majority
of mothers who do not continue to foster other needy children,
now may be the time to buy a dog—or a doll.
The big difference between the empty nest in other places and
at other times is that in the industrialized countries today the
void lasts so much longer. Here are some of the most
significant demographic facts for the U.S. population:

• Over the last 200 years, a woman’s life expectancy has

doubled to about 80 years.
• Over the last 200 years, a woman’s actual childbearing span
has dropped from 17 to 10 years.
• A woman born in 1951 could reckon on having 52 years of
life ahead of her after bearing her last child.
102 THE DOLL THAT NEEDS YOU

• A woman born in 1951 could reckon on having 28 years of

life ahead of her after rearing her last child.
• Two hundred years ago, the average woman died 12 years
before the birth of her last grandchild.
• Now, the average woman can expect to live 25 years after
the birth of her last grandchild.
• Between 1900 and 1980 the proportion of people older than
65 tripled, to 12 percent.
• Since 1940, the proportion of people over 65 who live alone
has quadrupled.
• Women today can expect to live nearly 10 years longer than
men.
• Widows now outnumber widowers by about 11 to 2.
• Over the age of 65, women are twice as likely as men to be
living alone.8

The PCD phenomenon must be seen both in the context of this

historically new and much extended life span, and of lives lived
in particular historical circumstances. What is so interesting
about the dolls is how they link a very early and a much later
phase in the woman’s life: they are objects that tie their
experiences as children in one historical period to adult
experiences in a historical period some half-century later. The
PCD boom was timed for the 1990s, and for women in their
fifties and sixties. If their enthusiasm for dolls has anything to
do with their own experiences as children we have to reach
back to the 1930s. And there we encounter a generally unhappy
period in the history of the industrial countries, remembered
mainly as the Great Depression.
The older women collectors we talked to nearly always made
some sort of reference to the lack of toys in their own
childhoods—mostly in the 1930s and 1940s, the years of the
Depression and World War II. Many of them also talked about
the loss of childhood itself, and the need for some sort of
compensation in later life. The recollections of so many women
testify to how traumatic the disappearance, mutilation, or other
loss of a doll can be. A century ago, a thoughtless mother
burned her little daughter’s doll when it had
deteriorated almost beyond recognition. The child wept for a
 LIFE LIKE DOLLS 103

week, and years later reproached her mother: “Why did you
burn it, I loved it so, and she loved me. She is in God’s house
and sometime I will see her.”9
Nancy G. lost her dolls in the Depression. “My dolls were up
there on the shelf, and then one day, when we had to move,
they just disappeared. Some, my brothers broke—not on
purpose. I guess I always wanted to have my dolls back.”
Nancy wanted those dolls, not just any dolls, and when she could
afford it she became a serious antiques collector. Nancy never
married—“I am a single person”—but had a successful career
in local government. Raised in Connecticut, she came to
California with her mother 30 years ago, after her father died.
She likes cats, is a wood carver, walks everywhere, and was
about 80 when I first met her in 1994, at a doll fair. She was
minding the local club’s display, a big chipboard doll house
filled with an assortment of “serious” dolls. She was cradling a
new purchase, a nineteenth-century china-faced German doll
that cost $700. It was small and rather plain, the face about
three and a half inches in diameter, with yellow hair molded
onto its skull. It had a simple white dress with a bit of
embroidery, and pointed leather boots on limp tubular legs.
The doll was one of a pair of “twins,” and her friend—a fellow
Club member— bought the other. Nancy said she keeps her
collection in drawers and chests. “You have to keep them
covered, because the clothes deteriorate.” Her pleasure is to
unpack them, undress and dress them, and then carefully put
them away again.
If we want to know more about the women who experienced
childhood during the Depression, we have as an excellent
source a psychosocial study of 167 people born in 1920–21 in
Oakland, California. They were white, mostly Protestant kids
from middle- and working-class homes, selected from fifth- and
sixth-grade classes in 1931. Their life experiences were tracked
through to the early 1990s, supplemented by a slightly later
sample from the Berkeley area.10 They form a valuable
reference group for our own California-based project—they
represent the grandmothers of our student researchers.
Although we have no record of how many of them actually
collected dolls, their circumstances are indicative of those who
104 THE DOLL THAT NEEDS YOU

do.11 During the PCD boom of the 1990s they were in their
seventies, very much part of the target clientele. The detailed
monitoring of these people’s lives gives us a pretty clear view of
who would be likely to collect dolls later in life and who would
not.
In the 1930s, when these people were adolescents, the
Oakland research was heavily preoccupied with psychosocial
testing and the “objective” reports of parents and teachers.
Today they would probably be observed much more directly,
with more attention paid to their own understandings and
activities. More account would also be taken of their relations
with other family members, especially grandparents, which the
study “unfortunately overlooked” (there were, after all, rather
fewer of them at the time of the study than now).12
Nevertheless, the children’s family circumstances emerge quite
clearly. Their parents were in their late thirties and early forties
at the depth of the Depression (the first months of 1933), and
Oakland was an area of relatively great deprivation in national
terms. That year their median family income dropped 40
percent to around $1,900.13 A third of the families sought
public assistance during the 1930s.14 The study explores the
relationships between these Depression kids and their parents,
and notes the difference between them and their own children:
a “sharp contrast in childhoods, one marked by scarcity and
the other by affluence.”15
Their adolescence was severely curtailed—“there were no
‘teenagers’ in the Depression.”16 Inevitably, for the children
who were sent to school with cardboard in their shoes to cover
the holes, toys were a very low priority on the family budget.
The two survival tactics—cutting expenditure and
supplementing income—meant children worked much more,
inside (girls especially) and outside (boys) the household, and
thus had less time, as well as money, to spend on toys. It is also
likely that if the toys they had were not actually sold, those of
any value went into the display/save category, rather than play.
Children made do with rag or clothespeg dolls and tin-can cars.
If the better-off children felt most deprived, it was probably
because toy manufacture had boomed in the first two decades of
the century, and expectations had been raised. In parallel with
 LIFE LIKE DOLLS 105

this, new middle-class ideals of child rearing were stressing the

value of toys and play in the experience of childhood.17
As part of the “downward extension of adultlike experience”
for the more deprived children especially, half of the Oakland
boys and a quarter of the girls had part-time jobs, and they
contributed their earnings to the family budget. Economic
hardships took boys outside the household, and as they grew up
they became more outward-oriented and socially independent.
Girls were even busier, but had lower cash earnings, especially
in the most deprived households where mothers worked outside
the home or there were siblings to care for. In such households
chores were allocated to even the smallest children.18
The Oakland children experienced great anxiety in relation to
their parents, especially to their un- or underemployed fathers:

In the area of family relationships, mother’s centrality as

decision maker and emotional resource is the primary
theme among deprived households. Severe economic loss
increased the perceived power of the mother in family
matters within the middle and working class, and
diminished father’s social prestige, attractiveness, and
emotional significance, as perceived by sons and
daughters.19

The intensification of girls’ work and responsibilities at home

brought them into closer contact and alliance with their
mothers, and thereby into greater conflict with their fathers.
They were “generally described as emotionally sensitive or self-
conscious (feelings easily hurt, cries easily, etc.) by their
mothers, and tended to underestimate their social standing
among classmates.”20 When grown up, the girls were much
more likely to value family ties positively than the boys, but
also to perceive conflict more acutely and be critical of parental
conduct. Although households could be described as
“matricentric,” many children developed a critical view of
mothering. The girls often complained of a maternal “martyr”
syndrome—“Remember what I gave up so that you could have
good clothes and food?”21
106 THE DOLL THAT NEEDS YOU

The “surprising” conclusion for the Oakland researchers was

that the deprived kids of the Depression grew up resilient and
adaptive, not debilitated and demoralized. “What young
Americans in the 30s lacked was opportunity, not desire or
ambition.”22 The Oakland study found that whether the
parental family was seen as a passive victim or as a tight little
problem-solving team, the effect of the Depression was
generally to give the children a commitment to what we would
now call “family values.”23 For girls especially, “exposure to
conditions which made rewarding, secure relationships difficult
to achieve and therefore scarce” fostered a lifelong commitment
to the notion of the family as a haven in a heartless world.24 If
in later life the Oakland girls were trying “to undo the ‘psychic
disruptions’ of Depression and war,” they may indeed have felt
more keenly the “empty nest” phase, and a need to make
homes for dolls as family surrogates.25
The Oakland women married during the war, typically at age
20, close to the national norm for the time, and “had their first
child shortly thereafter in a period of relative affluence.”26 They
were unlikely to be encouraged to go on to higher education. A
quarter worked only until marriage and childbearing; a third
interrupted their careers to rear children and then returned to
work; 8 percent worked only after child rearing; and the rest
worked intermittently or not at all.27 The period between school
and marriage was typically hectic for a girl. Most had at least a
year of work and were largely preoccupied with finding a
husband, on whom a young woman’s own life and social status
depended. Marriage meant sacrificing personal autonomy and a
career, but offered an escape from the parental home and “a
legitimate context in which to satisfy needs for sexual relations,
childbearing, status, and love.”28 In 1984 (by which time they
were in their late fifties and sixties) 57 percent of the women
were still married to their first husband, 12 percent were
divorced and unmarried, 19 percent were remarried, 9 percent
widowed, and 4 percent had never married. In the final study,
when the women were in their seventies, 20 percent of the
women were widowed, nearly all of them living alone.29 The
normative progress of a woman’s life during this period has
been summarized thus:
 LIFE LIKE DOLLS 107

She is expected to move from birth and home-centered

childhood into school attendance for a time sufficient to
find a husband, but not so long as to waste valuable youth
on knowledge used only for a short time. The next
appropriate stages are work before and after marriage,
giving birth to a limited number of children, rear ing
children, caring for the retired husband, widowhood, and
death.30

The Oakland study indicates that while childhood deprivation

may have provided a spur, it did not determine a way of life.
Adaptations were mostly in the timing of life events: the
Depression kids showed a capacity to catch up, reproductively,
socially, and materially. Collecting dolls is one small piece of
this program—if you didn’t get them before, you can get them
later! The study reckoned that “some disciplines practiced in
the 30s—frugality, conservation, and so forth” would become
ingrained in the Depression kids and passed on to the next
generation.31 However, it is interesting that the children of the
Great Depression did not generally carry a sense of grievance
with them throughout their lives. Some may have pestered their
own children about wasting food or being careless with
possessions, but mostly they seem to have been indulgent
parents and grandparents. The follow-up studies in the 1980s,
when it was proving increasingly difficult to keep tabs on the
original Oakland sample, found that “neither men nor women
felt that the Great Depression had had much effect on their
lives. A third of the women and more than half of the men said
they had been essentially unaware of it.”32 In their forties, very
few people in the Oakland sample felt that they had known
themselves at all well during their high school years.33 Time
mellows our memories—the same people had complained of
deprivation earlier in their lives. “Clearly, awareness is not a
necessary condition for an event or set of circumstances to have
had a strong influence on aspects of the life course.”34
In our own inquiries, however, we found that the collectors’
sense of deprivation was much more clearly focused. Although
not inclined to dwell on their miseries in later life, they
remembered the lack of playtime and playthings, most notably
108 THE DOLL THAT NEEDS YOU

dolls for the girls. These feelings were evoked not so much by
the logic of what “really” happened earlier in the course of a
long and eventful life, but by a second, parallel sense of loss,
the departure of children and the death of a spouse, an
encounter with the solitude of the empty nest. “‘When I was a
little girl we didn’t have the means,’ said Debbie Ray, mother
of six. ‘But now that I am a grownup little girl I can afford what
I want’ Having a lifelike doll in the house is a nice way to
sublimate the need to have a baby around. ‘And this way they
won’t grow up and leave me,’ a laughing Debbie Kay said.”35
Women who have devoted their lives to child rearing may feel
particularly keenly the sense of emptiness when the children
leave home. Doll collecting can start with the early onset of this
process, a solace to Mom as teenagers become absorbed in their
own affairs. We might imagine that a woman who has raised
five or ten children would regard their departure as a welcome
respite, but we hear repeatedly that such “supermoms” make
the most avid doll collectors. “As the last of nine children in the
blended family of Carol and Dennis Larsen left home, the dolls
arrived.” The Larsens farm 2,500 acres in Iowa; Carol has
taken computer classes and deals with the business side. She
collects and now makes her own porcelain dolls, “learning from
other artists and by reading.” Carol’s creative energy is a
reminder that the empty nest may also harbor sensations of the
empty womb. The domestic space vacated by the children has
been taken over by display and workshop areas, sewing tables
and kilns. “Can’t we ever eat supper without a naked doll on
the counter?” complained the youngest Larsen, who now works
the farm with his dad. Dennis has taken up carpentry and
makes dolls’ furniture, and he and Carol sell their wares at 20
weekend shows a year. “We work well together,” says
Dennis.36
The dolls that cluster around the older women are an
antidote for loneliness and the sense of purposelessness, the
great agonies of modern times. A more elaborate study than
ours would have paid close attention to numerous older women
who do not collect dolls. Our intuition is that a woman living
in close proximity to her grandchildren and actively involved
with them simply has no need for surrogates—she lacks the
 LIFE LIKE DOLLS 109

time, space, and inclination. But the geographical mobility and

social encapsulation of the modern “nuclear” family has greatly
increased the segregation of older people. A significant reason
why they are less likely to live with their children “is simply that
they have fewer children.”37 The extent to which contacts
between children and older people have been eroded is a major
tragedy of our times. Sylvia Ann Hewlett reminds us that
“children infuse the end of life with comfort and help mute its
terror.”38 But very much the same could be said of the role of
older family members at the beginning of our lives. The dolls in
the advertisements declare that children need the affection and
guidance of the older generation, as much as the adults
themselves need the solace of children. And that, in its simplest
terms, is what the history of human society, and the
regeneration of culture, is all about.

THE EMPTY WOMB

The interests and experiences of doll collectors who have never
had children are somewhat different from those who have.
Women in the middle years of their lives (35 to 45) may be
drawn to doll collecting as an antidote for the emptiness that
goes with postponing childbearing until it may be too late. The
demographic pattern underlying this tendency is all too familiar
to those who decry “the demise of the traditional family”:

• The birthrate halved during the twentieth century, from

about 28 live births per thousand people in 1920.
• The postwar baby boom, which peaked in 1958 at 25.3 live
births per thousand Americans, was followed by a “baby
bust,” with a birthrate of 14.8 per thousand in 1976.
• Since 1960, use of woman-controlled contraception (the Pill)
and medically approved pregnancy termination (abortion)
has increased.
• Since 1960, women have been delaying marriage until they
are on average about 24 (men until they are 26).
• Americans are now much more likely to get divorced: rates
have risen steeply from an annual rate of 1.6 per thousand
110 THE DOLL THAT NEEDS YOU

Americans in 1930, to 4.7 in 1990. There is now a more than

50 percent chance that a marriage will end in divorce.
• The proportion of women who work outside the home rose
steeply, from about one in eight in 1940 to one in four in
1976 and one in two in 1987. By 1990, 56 percent of
married women in the United States were “out to work.”
• Household sizes dropped from an average of four persons
in 1920 to 2.7 persons in 1985; many more younger people
were living alone.39

In a general pattern of declining fertility, parenting has been

postponed and reorganized, occupying less of a woman’s life
course, and being less rooted in the domestic institutions of
marriage. In the 1940s women went out to work to help
support the postwar surge in babies, and thereafter had to
reckon the advantages of a career and personal earnings against
the traditional role of housewife, at home raising children and
dependent on a husband’s earnings. In 1975, women in the 34–
39 age group produced less than 4 percent of American babies,
compared with 10 percent in 1945. In the 1980s and 1990s,
magazine articles picked up on the “baby craving” of women
who were now close to or past menopause. More affluent
women had recourse to the new birth technologies, notably the
implanting of their own or a donor’s fertilized egg. Adoption
agencies were overworked, and scandals about the “buying” of
babies from poor countries proliferated. The baby shortage
raised the temperature of debates about abortion, clashes
between “pro-life” and “pro-choice” parties turning on the issue
of whether or not women should be socially obliged to sustain a
pregnancy. As for so long in the human past, too many of those
who are pregnant now don’t want to be, and too many of those
who aren’t pregnant want to be. Life is not fair.
Sylvia Ann Hewlett has provided a valuable profile of “baby
hunger.”40 Her study was initiated by her own “battle for
motherhood,” and proceeded to inquiries among her own
college cohort 25 years after graduation. This inspired a larger
study of “high-achieving” professional women, the
“breakthrough generation” most susceptible to childlessness,
now ages 41–55, and their peers in the age group 28–40. At age
 LIFE LIKE DOLLS 111

40, a third of the women with incomes in the $55,000–65,000

a year range were childless, the rate rising to a half at the top
end of “ultra-achievers,” those earning more than $100,000.41
According to Hewlett, childlessness for these women was not a
choice, it was force of circumstance. Women who have
overcome career pressures and have raised children are
justifiably outraged about accusations of “greed”—wanting
more out of life. “Darn it,” says 35-year-old Cindy, “I’m
talking about the basics: love and work. What sane person
doesn’t want that?”42
Hewlett uncovered “a range of complicated emotions. Some
of these women blamed career, some blamed men, many
blamed themselves. Some were seriously in pain, others had
come to terms with a different kind of life. All wished they had
found a way to have children.”43 Kate, 52, is an academic
medic: “Looking back I can’t think why I allowed my career to
obliterate my thirties. I just didn’t pay attention”:

I’m only just absorbing the consequences. I was looking at

some data the other day and it hit me: If I reach age 65 in
good health, the likelihood is that I will live for another
19.1 years. That’s an awfully long time to be on my own
without the crutch of work. I don’t know why it didn’t
occur to me before, but since I don’t have children I also
won’t have grandchildren.44

At least women who had concentrated on a career rather than

child rearing were likely to have the disposable income to seek
some sort of solution to declining fertility. Hewlett cites Mayo
Clinic figures that show women’s fertility dropping from its
peak between ages 20 to 30, to 50 percent at 35, and 5 percent
after 40. “The basic problem is that women run out of eggs.”
In-vitro fertilization (IVF) extends a hope which Hewlett feels is
overrated. It costs a lot—$10,000 to $100,000—and its
effectiveness declines steeply with age. The proportion of live
IVF births is still tiny—only 25,582 babies out of 3.9 million,
or 0.6 percent, born in the United States in 1998.45
Hewlett does not mention dolls as a way of assuaging the
agony of baby hunger. Of the three women we met who were
112 THE DOLL THAT NEEDS YOU

buying dolls at the top, custom-made end of the doll range, two
were childless high achievers with incomes to match. They were
inclined to disdain the run-of-the-mill PCDs, which provided
solace for women with lower disposable incomes. Judi H. of
Portland, Oregon, is an executive with a division of the May
company, and “gets a high” buying dolls. She has 2,800 of
them, which she reckons are worth around half a million
dollars. She has hopes of establishing a museum to house them
in the future. Fiftyish and never married, Judi confides that the
dolls have “fulfilled a tremendous maternal need. I could never
mother 3,000 children and be a CEO.” Of her dolls she says “I
know what every one of them is doing. I know if a cleaning
woman has moved one.” They regularly receive the
professional attention of a seamstress, who handstarches their
costumes. She says her doll family lightens her heart when she
comes home at the end of a long day. Only one of them
accompanies her to the office, but is kept hidden away to avoid
adverse comments about what Judi calls her “ultrafeminine
hobby.”46
Although we lack statistical evidence, there are strong
indications that women in the 35-to-45-year-old, empty-womb
category are particularly attracted to newborn and infant dolls,
like “Homecoming”:

When you cradle this delicate porcelain newborn in your

arms, you’ll experience the warmth, the pride, and the
love all parents feel when they bring their brand-new baby
home. Acquire “Homecoming,” first issue in the Baby’s
1st Celebrations collection, by Brenda Conner. Here is the
miracle of a newborn, sculpted in fine porcelain with a
mother’s tenderness and affection… Reserve your
newborn today!”

This doll might be a good match for Sarah J., 45, who works as
an account manager for a large, Atlanta-based insurance
company:

I found it excruciatingly painful to even be around my

brand-new niece. One of the few times I held little Lucy
 LIFE LIKE DOLLS 113

she rooted around in my neck and as I felt her

unbelievably soft, newborn skin the physical craving to
hold my own baby became almost unbearable…. This
whole experience stirred me up. I guess I was forced to
recognize that children are a big deal, that I had missed out
on something huge.47

One PCD advertisement has an inset picture of a woman,

apparently in her late thirties, hugging the infant doll Good as
Gold. One of our child commentators, eight-year-old Anna,
drew our attention to it. “Is that a parent?” she asked. “That’s
interesting,” she mused. “A parent playing with a doll.”
The agony of the empty womb should not be underrated. “It
sounds crazy, doesn’t it?” says one such woman. “How can an
imagined child provoke such deep grief?”48 The pain is more
poignant when the doll is a memento mori for a stillborn child.
Carol H. dropped a bombshell during a conversation with one
of our researchers, Cindy, her granddaughter: “She said she had
four miscarriages, all girls, before she successfully gave birth to
two boys.” This was the first Cindy had heard of it. “She
mentioned it so nonchalantly, it threw me off guard.” In her
otherwise extensive collection, Carol has only one boy doll.
Cindy wanted to know why, and Carol explained “that she was
looking for the perfect little boy.” At this point in the
conversation Carol is overcome emotionally. “She gets up and
pours herself another glass of wine. She looks at me for a while,
almost right through me like I wasn’t there.” Then she tells
Cindy about “her boys”:

When Dan was born the only feeling that was in my mind
was pure joy. It was the exact same feeling when Tony
was born. I tried to have children; it was the only thing I
ever wanted. It was the happiest time in my life. They
were, and are, the light of my life. I love them the way I
never thought possible. If God meant for those
[miscarried] children to be born, they would have been
born. Instead, He sent me Dan and Tony, the two most
perfect children in the world. For a long time before they
were born I couldn’t understand why He took [the others]
114 THE DOLL THAT NEEDS YOU

away from me, then Dan and Tony were born and I
understood why. When I look at the dolls they remind me
of that time when everything was so perfect. They were
perfect little angels, but now they’re grown up and on
their own. I liked taking care of them, I miss taking care
of them. I think that is why I take such good care of my
dolls, they never have dust on them, never a hair out of
place. And they are always young.

Clinical perceptions of these problems, and the use of dolls in

relieving symptoms, have their roots in Freudian psychology.49
We came across three cases of women who were given dolls on
medical advice to help them through traumas associated with
childbirth: depression because of infertility, the loss of child by
miscarriage, and a death in infancy. Since the patient may go
through an extended period caring quite intensively for the
doll, children’s play dolls may function better, but some
anatomically correct details are also desired. A likely candidate
is The Doll Factory’s “Original Newborn Baby” which, though
less than half life size, has a genuine “soft spot” on its skull. He/
she (there’s a choice) has a hospital identification bracelet, a
birth certificate, and “acrylic eyes, non-moving.”50 Regarding
other therapeutic uses for dolls, we should put in a good word
for Barbie who, we learn, has helped at least one woman
through the trauma of mastectomy.51
A forerunner of the therapeutic doll was the “Bye-Lo Baby,”
designed in the 1920s by Californian art school teacher Grace
Storey Putnam and marketed by the George Borgfeldt toy
company. “Eager women consumers lined up outside toy stores
just before Christmas 1922 in order to purchase the ‘Million
Dollar Baby’” One described it as “so soft and warm and
lifelike in texture and coloring, that you would think that you
were holding a living, breathing infant.” Putnam wanted the doll
to be “a little wobbly—as real babies are,” but the
manufacturers preferred bisque to rubber. She noted that “men
did not like it at all,” complaining of its “unattractive realism,”
especially its half-closed eyes. She reckoned this was because
the Bye-Lo was “too like their own babies…. They do not care
 LIFE LIKE DOLLS 115

for their own babies until they are old enough to smile at
them.”52
Dolls have for long been used as instructional aids for
prospective parents. This has become increasingly necessary as
families have fragmented and household sizes dwindled,
inhibiting the flow of essential advice and information between
the generations.53 Early in the twentieth century Martha Chase
produced her famous “Sanitary Dolls” for use in hospitals and
pre-natal clinics to instruct women on child-care practices. A
latter-day variation on this theme is “Baby Think it Over” for
teenage girls, especially those suspected of having a precocious
and persistent urge to be mothers. These $200 dolls have to be
“tended” at the usual awkward times, as a daunting test of
maternal endurance. Designed by aerospace engineer Richard
Jurmain, the doll wails at random intervals and provides digital
information to the supervisor about how much rough handling
it has received. With sales worth around $5 million in the
mid-1990s, these cautionary dolls come in white, black, Latino,
and Asian versions, and both sexes. They are used mainly in
high schools. “Teachers say that a few students have stabbed
their dolls, hurled them out of windows and ripped the electronic
circuitry out in order to quiet the crying. These students flunk
the assignment, of course, and are usually recommended for
counseling.”54
We noticed that collectors visiting the various Web chat
rooms frequently refer to the therapeutic function of the dolls in
relieving stress. Tending them has a calming effect, absorbing
emotional energy:

I get particularly stressed out when I can’t use my dolls or

sewing for dolls to relieve stress, as is the case right now
when I’m trying to prepare for a big family do at
thanksgiving and have no room or time to set up my
machine and ironing board. So I’ve been sewing little doll
things by hand: yesterday, in odd minutes, I made Alex a
nightie, a bikini, a shawl and a matching purse, all by
hand.”55
 Chapter Five
Dollification

“Now you can bring this beautiful child into your

life.”

The objects in our lives that we wear, eat, work and play with
are all loaded with meaning. Our relationship with these things
is two-sided: we give meaning to them (cars, kilts) and they give
meaning, directly or indirectly, to us (drivers, Scotsmen). By the
same token, the things around us can become important aspects
of our relationships with one another. To a large extent, we
know who we and other people are by referring to the objects
around us. Cars and kilts remind us how we should behave
toward certain people, and what we in turn can expect of them.
Some things (wedding rings, uniforms) can become powerful
expressions of our relationships, in that we make important
connections (marriages, armies) with one another through them.
However, our relationships with certain things can get very
personal. They are more than just symbolic links with other
people: we give them identities and draw them into our social
relations as if they themselves were persons. We have the ability
to imbue almost anything, from pebbles to whole mountain
ranges, with personality. Things like houses or cars which get
intertwined with our lives can become like family or friends—
and occasionally enemies. Such objects can even substitute for
“real” family and friends if our social relationships are sparse.
The PCDs have all these personable qualities. The
manufacturers send them out into the world as virtual persons
with names, clothes, roles, and basic identities. They are then
 DOLLIFICATION 117

drawn into the lives of the collectors as embodied memories of

children who have grown up, surrogates for grandchildren who
live far away, dreams of daughters or sons who were desired but
never born, and evocations of the growth of the doll collector
herself. And not incidentally, they are also little people in their
own right. Yes, they really are. Look at Jenny: “Show her how
much you care. Mail your order today.”
In this chapter we piece together how this transformation of
things into persons happens, examining how the doll acquires
its personality (“Sarah”), how it stands in for real persons (“my
daughter”), and how it involves its owner in relationships with
others (“grandma,” “collector”). We shall pay a lot of attention
to the advertisements for the PCDs, since they provide the most
graphic evidence of the manufacturers’ collusion with the
collectors in these elaborate acts of social invention. In the
chapters that follow we shall try to detect how the work of the
women in creating “real little people” finds expression in the
physical form of the dolls as things, thus closing the circle with
the work of the firms in designing and manufacturing a saleable
commodity.
Children are very good at personalizing almost anything that
falls to hand, and in doing so they apparently invented the doll.
Reporting on their pioneering survey more than a century ago,
Hall and Ellis noted that a “doll” can be almost anything on
which a child confers the qualities of a person: pillows, sticks,
corn cobs, toothpicks, half-burned matches, newspapers,
glasses, forks and spoons, flowers, vegetables, “a piece of
Porter house steak,” a hitching post, chickens, cats, other
children, and even the child’s own hand. Victor Hugo’s heroine
Cosette “dressed, hugged and put to sleep a naked sword.”1 If
we include the child’s capacity to make playmates who are
completely invisible to the rest of us, we might even say that a
doll can be nothing.
“Dollification,” according to Hall and Ellis, “always involves
ascribing more or less psychic qualities to the object, and
treating it as if it were an animate and sentient thing.” The
imputed personality may actually be more important than the
materialness of the object itself: in their survey Hall and Ellis
found that “if a doll has its head replaced it usually retains its
118 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

identity.” “Children are often under a long delusion concerning

the material of which dolls are made. Even long after it is known
that they are wood, wax, etc., it is felt that they are of skin,
flesh, etc.” To help sustain the illusion, broken dolls are
mended in “hospitals,” not “workshops.” Finding sawdust or
kapok oozing out of their dolls, little children may simply
assume that they themselves are like that inside. The eventual
discovery that this is not so can be terminally disillusioning for
the child—the end of a relationship with dolls.2 This break is
encouraged in our societies as part of the process of growing up,
but as the PCD phenomenon testifies it is not always actually
completed.
Curiosity is vital to a child’s growth, and learning to
discriminate among persons and things is an essential social and
psychological skill. Sooner or later a child will be struck by the
ambiguity of the doll as a person/thing. Curiosity is piqued: if
the outer shell is palpably plastic or porcelain, maybe the “real”
person is hiding inside? This rang bells with our student
researchers, who remembered unstitching their dolls and
popping their heads off. Down the decades, wicked brothers,
motivated by envy or malice, have been a grave threat to the
precious illusion, exposing, dismembering, destroying. “The
overriding desire of most little brats” said Baudelaire a century
and a half ago, “is to get at and see the soul of their toys, either
at the end of a certain period of use, or on occasion
straightaway” The child attacks, tears the toy apart. “But
where is its soul? This moment marks the beginnings of stupor
and melancholy.”3
As they grow up, children are expected to learn how to restrain
their imaginative relationships with things. A failure to do so
becomes, in an adult, the psychic disorder of fetishism.4 “When
detected ‘dollifying’ very intractable objects children often show
signs of self-consciousness and even shame.” Hall and Ellis
viewed this disappearing magic with some regret. “The rudest
doll has the great advantage of stimulating the imagination by
giving it more to do, than does the elaborately finished doll. It
can also enter more freely into the child’s life, because it can be
played with more freely without danger of being soiled or
injured.”5 The impression we get is that this childish
 DOLLIFICATION 119

inventiveness has been curtailed by the mass-produced,

washable, bashable plastic dolls of the twentieth century.
As we grow up there is an interesting shift in our
understanding of “doll”: from any thing on which we may
confer the qualities of a person, to a particular thing whose
basic quality is that it looks like a person. This comes through
clearly in the (adult) dictionary definitions of the doll: “a child’s
toy, puppet, marionette, etc. made to resemble a human
being.”6 Children may be content with a doll that looks like
almost anything, but for adults it is important that a “real” doll
actually look like a person. This is especially important for
adults who take more than a casual interest in dolls. We might
even say that the older you are, the more like a real person you
want your doll to look. At the age of 70 or 80, petting a shoe
or “a piece of Porter house steak” would be a convincing
symptom of senile dementia. Playing with any doll, especially if
it looks like a child’s doll, is at best a bit shameful. The most
dignified way of representing yourself is to put the dolls on
display and say you are a collector. But this little trick need not
detract from your belief, deeply rooted in childhood experience,
that the doll is in fact a special sort of person. “Dollification” is
a game that modern advertisers know and play very well. They
use it to help us form warm relationships with such unlikely
products as pastry dough and car tires by giving them friendly
human faces.
As the anthropologist Margaret Mead pointed out long ago,
we become in many respects more rather than less adept at
mystification as we get older.7 There is something ironic about
the adult urge to make dolls look more explicitly like real
people so that they can look more explicitly like real dolls. But
for outsiders, making the PCDs look more and more lifelike
only makes the discrepancy with real children more obvious,
and the fetishism more apparent. For their part, the collectors
are at some risk of seeing the resemblance between dolls and
children a little too clearly, becoming susceptible to the old
shock of bereavement when they are forcibly reminded that
they are “just things” (the shattered porcelain, teddy losing his
stuffing). People can get very attached to all sorts of collectible
objects (thim bles, knives, bubblegum cards) but their “thing-
120 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

ness” is usually more obvious and less troubling. The PCDs are
not simply collected as clever porcelain artifacts, they are
collected because they are like real children. But for the most
part the PCD enthusiasts and the doll makers have evidently
learned to deal with the ambiguity. The advertisements play up
the “person-ness” of the dolls for all it’s worth, but when they
draw our attention to their material value or details of their
manufacture they can bring us back to their “thing-ness” with a
jolt: Billy comes to us “brimming with personality” but unlike
your own son he “is inscribed with the artist’s signature on his
upper back” (ouch!).

PERSONIFYING THE COMMODITY

NAMES
Realism depends not simply on appearances, but on fleshing
out a personality with which the purchaser can identify. The
most obvious starting point is the name. Naming dolls is a long-
established merchandising practice, as the “Fifis” and “Janes”
in any nineteenth-century doll collection will testify.8 Sixty-
eight percent of the dolls in our sample have unambiguous,
conventional, gendered names like Allison or Jonathan. The
importance of the name is signaled by the frequency with which
it is repeated in each advertisement—nine times in the case of
Stephanie. The main doll companies have worked hard to
differentiate this aspect of their product, virtually exhausting
the supply of familiar names, and spellings of these. The range
in our small sample is impressive, nevertheless there are four
Heathers, three Hopes, and three Julies.
A further 13 percent of dolls in our sample have
circumstantial names like “Cherry Pie” or “Mr Mischief.”
“She’s so sweet, so dainty, so enchanting that there was only
one name we could give her… ‘Peaches and Cream’!” says
designer Dianna Effner of this Ashton-Drake doll. “Her name is
Peaches & Cream,” insists designer Ann Timmerman of a rival
Georgetown doll.
The remaining 19 percent have narrative titles rather than
names: “Tickled Pink,” “Roly Poly Harvest,” or “First
 DOLLIFICATION 121

Communion.” The new-borns and infants are more likely to

have titles than names: “It’s a Girl,” “Homecoming,” or “Good
as Gold.” For these, an explicit selling line is that the doll needs
you, the purchaser, to give it an identity, much as you would
your own baby. The few dolls whose gender is inexplicit are in
this age category. Ashton-Drake’s “Special Deliveries” series
allows the purchaser to choose name and birthdate as well as
clothes and accessories—the only visible gender distinction.
“Your baby will have its own, personalized Certificate of
Originality and Wrist Tag, with your child’s name and birth
date!” The package in the mail has something of the gender-
neutral pregnancy, the unwrapping being akin to a birth,
followed by the discovery: “It’s a boy!” or “It’s a girl.”9
Birth certificates (for infants) and adoption papers (for
children) were offered until the early 1990s, when the practice
evidently faded. While some purchasers welcomed the official
assurance that their “children” were legitimate, others were
more interested in product documentation, the certificates of
authenticity and guarantees of satisfaction which vouched for
the doll as a commodity rather than as a person. Combining
both sorts of document in the packaging could be an unwelcome
confusion.

ROLES AND RELATIONSHIPS

Tilt Stevie’s “fully poseable head, and it looks as if he’s just
discovered Mommy is watching.” To be satisfactorily lifelike,
the dolls must “do,” as well as simply “be.” Picking flowers is a
favorite activity for the girls, readily elaborated with
accessories. Text and titles spin a yarn: “Mommy I’m Sorry,”
“My First Tooth,” “Caught in the Act,” “Playing Footsie,”
“Tickles.” Sometimes the tale is very familiar—Little Bo Peep,
Red Riding Hood, Jack and Jill (there are tears and lost sheep,
but no wolves or broken crowns). It helps if the doll is already a
known character like Shirley Temple or one of the girls from
Little House on the Prairie. The pose and the advertising copy
work together to build up the sense of involvement: “Julie’s
wishing so hard, it feels like she’ll burst. She wants to wear that
pearl necklace more than anything else in the world. Mommy
122 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

just has to say yes!” “Today is Grandma’s birthday, and

Annabelle can’t wait to give Grandma her special present!”
For many collectors, the dolls offer the certainty of stable,
unconditional, “affectionate” relationships, and the
advertisements labor to establish the character of the doll in
these terms. A rich vocabulary lubricates the process of bonding
with the dolls: they are adorable, darling, sweet, affectionate,
enchanting, delightful, tender, heart-warming, beloved,
charming, and so on. The mishaps and tantrums, the unfurled
toilet rolls and scratched knees, only serve to underscore their
sweetness. “Don’t Have a Cow Mom” says Becky, a very
successful doll from the Hamilton Collection, “created by
European-born designer Bets van Boxel”:

Who’s that spunky little girl in her “udderly” adorable

new “cow” dress? She’s “Becky” and she’s sure to win
your heart with her sassy charm and bubbly personality.
This spirited little girl, with her hands on her hips and the
exasperated tilt of her head, is simply irresistible. “Becky”
has silky blonde hair that bounces with each hop, skip and
jump. Her blue eyes are as merry as can be and her rosy
cheeks simply glow with happiness. Crafted of fine hand-
painted bisque porcelain, this adorable doll is hand-
numbered and accompanied by a same-numbered
Certificate of Authenticity.

“All children talk to their toys” said Baudelaire.10 The

advertisements draw the purchaser into dialogue with the dolls,
and thus into specific identities and relationships. Mommies are,
of course, the stars. Timmy (“A tender childhood portrait at a
captivating price”) has been “quietly playing in his toy-filled
room since dinner. As his eyes become heavy with sleep, he
decides he better go find Mommy. He pitter-patters down the
steps, finds her in her favorite chair, then says in his most
concerned voice, ‘M-o-m-m-y, I’m sleepy.’”
A whole series titled I Want My Mommy is “a heartwarming
collection of porcelain dolls that portrays the early relationship
between toddlers and their ‘Mommies.’” One of these is in
trouble:
 DOLLIFICATION 123

Even though Mommy had said “no playing in the living

room,” Tommy kind of…well, he forgot…Then (oops!)
the ball knocked over the planter and the fun sort of
stopped. So, when bedtime arrives, he can’t help saying
with heartfelt sincerity, “Mommy, I’m sorry…”

Quality Craftsmanship at a Remarkable Value!

Little Tommy’s sweetly sculpted face, pouty chin, and

hand-painted lips convey the whole story at a glance. His
pleading hand-set blue eyes beg for forgiveness under
raised brows. His fine bisque sculpted fingers “clasp”
behind his back.

Will Mommy ever forgive him? You bet. Her indulgence knows
no bounds. She has dressed Bobby up “in a clown costume of his
very own, and Bobby’s adding a few finishing touches—with
Mommy’s lipstick!” “Mommy has lovingly put a bandage on
Kayla’s boo-boo.” She scratched her knee, but “wiping her
tears away with a chubby hand, she will soon be on her way
again.” Kayla is “crafted of fine, bisque porcelain and expertly
hand-painted. With her turned down lips, button nose and big
blue eyes, this adorable pigtailed toddler is irresistible. Make
this precious little girl with her sweet-but-sad expression your
very own.”
Both sellers and buyers work hard to weave the dolls into the
web of family relations. Now that there are a lot more
grandparents around for a lot longer, their importance in family
networks has increased. Critics have recently complained that
Freudian psychology has made too much of the triangular
relationship between parents and children, and has paid too
little attention to the emotional and practical importance of the
third (and increasingly even the fourth) generation.11 “No
moments are more precious—or more warmly remembered—
than those shared between grandmother and grandchild” says
the advertisement for Susan. People need grandchildren (and
vice versa), and if her own children are not cooperating, dolls
help fill this next period of emptiness in a woman’s life. If being
a grandparent is, as one of our informants put it, “parenting
124 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

without the mess, pain and responsibility,” the dolls can be an

effective substitute for the real thing. Some of the PCDs are
directly represented to her as a granddaughter seeking her
affection, wisdom, and indul gence. “Nothing could be more
dear than Grandma’s special love. Annabelle loves her
grandmother more than anyone.” Occasionally, grandma
herself makes an appearance in the display, as in this
“heartwarming moment between grandmother and
granddaughter, sensitively captured in fine bisque porcelain” by
Danbury:

Cuddled safely in Grandmother’s arms, little Susan listens

intently to her favorite fairy tale…. The sweet expressions
of both grandmother and child are astonishingly lifelike.
Artful hand-painting makes little Susan’s face radiate with
joy, and brings a glow of contentment to Grandma’s rosy
cheeks. The dolls’ posable heads and arms, as well as their
lower legs, are handcrafted in fine bisque porcelain. The
ottoman, fairy tale book and Granny’s glasses are included
at no extra charge.

Grandma may not feel the need for dolls if she is warmly
attended by real grandchildren—until they in turn grow up.
Bernice, from Washington, has just bought Mandy on a TV
sales show: “She reminds me so much of my granddaughter.
My granddaughter is nine months old. Her little clenched fists,
and open hands. Darling. I babysit her and so I am with her all
day. And when she is all grown up and I don’t get to baby-sit
her any more I will have Mandy to remind me of her.”12
These days grandparents commonly provide a great deal of
material and emotional support to the hard-pressed “nuclear”
family. During the twentieth century many aspects of
grandmotherhood have been expanded and redefined.
Nevertheless, it seems as far as the PCDs are concerned older
women still hanker to be mommies, and the advertisements
recruit them in this role. Grandma is more usually evoked
indirectly as an important figure in the family environment of
the child, but she has the wisdom to keep a discreet distance.
There are even hints of rivalry:
 DOLLIFICATION 125

“I want my mommy!”
Nicole has been very good for Grandma—almost the
whole afternoon. But after a while, there comes a time
when a little girl just wants to go home. Biting her lip…
hugging her Teddy…she bravely manages not to cry. And
everyone’s happy to hear Mommy’s footsteps coming up
the walk. Don’t make her wait any longer. Give your
heart to Nicole today. After all—she just wants to go home
—with you!

In a similar way, other family members who are unlikely to be

direct marketing targets are evoked by the dolls and their
scripts. Blackberry Blossom “is having her portrait painted by
her grandfather, whom she adores.” Some collectors may like
to imagine themselves as aunts, but they are mentioned in only
three advertisements, and in each case the doll is a visitor.
“Mama has brought Clarissa to visit Aunt Emily, who gave her
the fancy dress she’s wearing. Now Clarissa reaches to be
picked up, so she can thank Aunt Emily in her own way. …Let
little Clarissa come calling at your house.” It seems that the
dolls are drawn into the idealized family network as extensions
of Mommy’s relationships. Daddies appear quite often,
evidently as the sorts of people mommies think daddies really
ought to be, rather than as potential buyers. Karen T., who
owns a daddy doll rocking and feeding his baby, feels that the
figure “amazingly resembles my husband and baby girl and
brings back loads of memories from our daughter’s infancy.”13
Little girls are skilled at drawing this at times elusive parent
into the emotional web. In one advertisement it’s Mommy’s
voice that urges Shannon to “smile big for Daddy.”

[Daddy] calls her his “Peanut,” and indulges her every

whim. “Peanut,” designed by Jeanne Singer, is the first
issue in the My Heart Belongs to Daddy doll collection,
capturing the love between little girls and their doting
fathers.
“Daddy’s Home!”…The words “Lindsay’s” been
waiting to hear all afternoon. Breaking into a great big
smile, she reaches for him to pick her up. “Lindsay” knows
126 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

that in just a moment, he’ll sweep her into his arms and
lift her high over his head…. “Lindsay” premieres an
irresistible new collection of Daddy’s Little Girls…. As
her owner, you will have the opportunity to acquire each
doll in the collection…. Dressed in her adorable romper
sprigged with flowers and trimmed in eyelet lace
“Lindsay” is just waiting for you to pick her up and bring
her to your home today! “Lindsay’s” very special pendant
tells everyone she is “Daddy’s Little One.”

Sibling relationships are rarely referred to in this matricentric

fabric of relations. Paired dolls are occasionally portrayed as
siblings, usually twins, but more often they are sweethearts,
posed kissing or holding hands. Even when they are arranged
by collectors into larger displays, the dolls are imagined as
friends and playmates rather than siblings. It is certainly hard to
imagine why an adult woman might want a surrogate baby
brother or sister, rather than a son or daughter, or why
manufacturers would emphasize this in their sales talk. By
contrast, dolls designed for children are often explicitly sold as
substitute siblings. In an interesting twist these make an
appearance with quite a few of the PCDs—dolls with dolls:

It’s Megan singing a lullaby to her baby! The day her baby
sister came home, Megan got a new baby, too. At first,
she didn’t know what to think, but now she’s proud to be
the big sister. And like Mommy, she’s rocking her baby
off to sleep singing “Lullaby and good night” She hasn’t
even noticed Mommy’s peeking in! Share in the sweetness
of this tender young mother.

This theme emerges strongly in the characterization of

Grandma, drawing a line through four generations, the doll
marking the granddaughter’s own “child.” “When ‘Amber’s’
mother brought home a new baby, her Grandma knew that this
was an important time for ‘Amber’ to be reassured that she was
indeed a very special person. So Grandma made ‘Little Amber’—
a doll that looks just like this wonderful little girl, and even
made matching dresses and hair ribbons!” The doll with a look-
 DOLLIFICATION 127

alike doll of her own was a popular motif around the turn of the
twentieth century, recapitulated in many PCDs today. This
points to an intriguing involution in the way the collector is
drawn into relationships with her dolls: Megan is acting the
role of Mommy with her doll, just like the collector herself. The
tableau is a demonstration both of what a good mother and a
satisfactory relationship with dolls should be. Amber carries the
refraction further, with sisterly, motherly, grandmotherly
relations all converging in “Little Amber,” the doll’s doll. This
image of a child carrying an image of itself is surely a very
curious notion: the three levels of representation must pose
quite a challenge for the designer. Although Amber declares
triumphantly “I Have a Doll That Looks Just Like Me!” of
course it does not—it looks like a doll. But why Amber, or the
collector herself, would want a doll that “looks just like me”
rather than somebody else is an intriguing question to which we
shall return later.
Unlike most real children, dolls will be and do whatever you
imagine. They have the capacity to be completely submissive,
acting out the little roles the manufacturer and the collector
devise for them, absorbing affection and admiration
unconditionally. But the relationship with any doll is not
without its anxieties. Because people trust their dolls and
extract so much comfort from them, there is always the muted
fear that they might be disloyal, untrustworthy, malicious.
This, says one of our researchers, Marilyn, is “like the tension
of a love affair: many have an actual fear of commitment
because they are afraid of betrayal.” If dolls have a life, they
may also have a life of their own. “One look at Sweet
Strawberry and you have entered her world …you wonder,
what’s she thinking of now?” In the daylight hours they sit
there oozing charm but—a recurrent neurosis among doll
owners young and old—who knows what this little gang gets
up to at night?

BOYS AND GIRLS

In the PCD range there is a very marked preference for girl dolls
—81 percent of our sample, counting those in the eight boy-girl
128 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

pairs. Apart from the traditional association of dolls with girls,

there are several reasons why women may prefer feminine
symbols of, and substitutes for, “real” relations in later life. As
the Oakland study indicates, the mother-daughter bond was
particularly important for the Depression and wartime
generation. As they age, women depend increasingly on their
daughters and value their company. And insofar as the
collectors see the dolls as reflections of themselves, the
preference will obviously be for girls.
Gender is discriminated quite clearly in the design of the dolls
and in their accompanying texts. Looking through the
advertise ments, it is easy to get a feeling for the distinct ways in
which boy and girl dolls are presented. Girls are portrayed as
beautiful, pure, dainty, serene, precious, adorable, innocent,
elegant. Words that suggest passive femininity seem to jump
out of the text: wait, daydreams, sweet, hopeful, fresh, sweet-
natured, delicate beauty, soft loveliness, wistful expression,
imploring, tears. According to our student observer Susie, “the
tone of their advertisements is more euphonic and the flow of
speech is gentler and slower.” Poses and dress are explicitly
nostalgic, evoking values of feminine prettiness, childish
docility, and timeless dependability, which hark back to the
Depression years and beyond. If they are active, girls gather
bouquets, make tea, play with pets. The very few who are
“working” are picking or selling fruit or flowers, like Annie the
Victorian lavender girl, or Nalo the African market girl.
“Come into the garden…” invites an advertisement for the
Georgetown Collection’s classic Caroline (see picture 2), “and
dream your cares away.”

She spent the morning gathering flowers in Aunt Martha’s

beautiful garden. But now, the sun is so wonderfully warm
and the flowers smell so sweet…she can’t help stopping
just for a bit and letting her thoughts drift far, far away.
Caroline is the very first in an elegant and extraordinary
collection, “Sweethearts Of Summer” ™. Created by
acclaimed doll artist Pamela Phillips, the collection
celebrates the special beauty of old-fashioned girls—and
the charm of classic country gardens….
 DOLLIFICATION 129

Keep the enchantment of a summer garden in your

home forever. …Send for Caroline today!

This role modeling came in for stern criticism from our student
researchers. Advertisements that try to insist on the little
accomplishments of girls were especially mocked, like the black
doll Shawna who has “just learned to stack her blocks all by
herself,” and Beautiful Dreamers, “a doll collection portraying
little girls who aspire to the fine arts.” The several “first day at
school” dolls were viewed cynically, especially one with a
product tie-in: “Smiling brightly, ‘Katie’ has every reason to be
proud. Her good work at school has earned a gold star, and
now she gets to go to her favorite place, McDonald’s!” Nor
were the students greatly impressed by attempts to make the girl
dolls look feisty, like Erin—Up at Bat (“A real winner”) or
Julie (a “mischievous girl”) or Jo, from “Little Women”
(“passionate and independent”). The boisterous behavior of
“The Little Girl With a Curl,” scowling, strutting, and
stamping her foot around the broken flowerpot, did not cut
much ice. Tantrums just reinforce the gender stereotype.
Scanning the advertisements, we find boy dolls represented as
busy, active, noisy, naughty, messy, but entirely lovable:
“Bobby can’t help but grin in his hand-tailored blue-jeans with
rainbow-colored suspenders, bright-yellow boots, and junior
Fire-Chief hat. He ‘struts’ with a garden hose in hand and a
stuffed Dalmatian pup beside him. Brown, handset eyes shine
with mischief and little-boy plans.” Some characteristically boy
words are: mischief, trouble, antics, grin, charm, decide, plan,
explore, steal, animated, rambunctious, impish, scamp,
attentive, thoughtful, earnest. However, our student critics were
quick to point out that the boy dolls were not exactly portrayed
as macho. The tendency to infantilize them is suggested by the
fact that 45 percent of them are babies or toddlers, compared
with 21 percent of the girl dolls. For all the boy talk in the
advertisements, they clamor for caring, cuddling, and
reassurance.

Elke Hutchens combines both mischief and innocence in

Christopher’s adorable features. Who could say “no” to
130 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

such a cute little boy? With that mischievous grin, those

deep blue eyes and incredible dimples, Christopher can get
away with just about anything—including stealing your
heart!”
Billy is the cutest little buckaroo…brimming with
personality and boyish charm, from his sandy blond hair
to his pudgy fingers and toes.

Dirt and the need for a motherly wipe down is a recurrent theme.
So too are references to the toilet: Stevie “holds a miniature roll
of ‘toi let paper,’ which you can unwind to display any way you
please.” Brian, absorbed in a “special moment in the life of a
little boy,” sits pensively on his potty, drawers down round his
ankles. “I’m a big boy now,” he insists:

There’s nothing more appealing than a young child trying

to be grown up. Sometimes it takes every ounce of
determination a little tyke can muster…but it’s worth
every bit of the effort just to see Mommy and Daddy so
proud…. The minute you see Brian’s win-some face and
the wishful expression in his big blue eyes, you’ll recognize
Elke Hutchens’ magical ability to evoke the innocence and
sweetness of young children. Just look at the way he’s
sitting, with his little mouth set and his chin cupped in his
hands.

Although scanning the texts gave a strong impression of gender

distinctions, we spent a lot of time analyzing the advertisements
to get a “more scientific” picture of the differences in language
and style (see appendix B1, B2). We began by sorting out the
most frequently used words into eight categories: those
referring to personal qualities, actions, relations, the body, and
touch; then words that dealt with the dolls as a commodity, the
techniques of their production, and their realism. We
discovered that big, countable differences were not as significant
as we had imagined. Predictably, the sales and technical
vocabulary was much the same for boy and girl dolls, and for
dolls of all ages.
 DOLLIFICATION 131

On “qualities” the girls were definitely more beautiful than

the boys, the word occurring in 32 percent of the girl doll
advertisements, compared with just 7 percent of the boys. The
difference between boys and girls emerged more clearly in the
less frequently used words, confirming our impression that for
gender differences the range of the vocabulary is more telling
than the frequent use of particular “code” words. Counting
“quality” words that appeared in at least 10 percent of the
advertisements, girls were distinctively precious, charming,
exquisite, innocent, gentle, enchanting, and angelic, they also
sparkled and inspired. Boys were proud, captivating,
mischievous, happy, and cute, they were twice as likely to have
a future than the girls. At this 10 percent-plus level, the
language of “body” and “touch” was much the same, except
that girls were more delicate. On relationships, the boys were
about three times more likely to have a mommy or daddy, and
more than twice as likely to have a personality.
There was much gender overlap in the “action” words. The
boys had more fun than the girls, but rather to our surprise they
slept, dreamed, and were cuddled more. This again points to
the infantilization of the boy dolls. We were tempted to imagine
that notwithstanding all the boy-talk the boys were being
feminized as well as infantilized. However, it does seem that
both collectors and manufacturers want their boys to be
recognizably boys. Our student researchers remarked that the
boy dolls generally “look more real.” In contrast, it was the girl
dolls (which dominate the PCD range and thus give it its general
identity) that “looked distorted”—somehow “more feminine”
than one would ever expect a real child to be.
We broke our sample up into four age categories:
Infant: up to one year (usually prone, held, or propped up).
Toddler: one to three years (often sitting—the soles of their feet
typically turned inward).
Child: over three years to puberty.
Adult: past puberty.
We later found this roughly matches the Ashton-Drake sales
categories of “babies, toddlers, children, adults and brides.”14
We classified two thirds of the girl dolls in our sample of
132 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

advertisements as “children.” A significant proportion, a little

more than 10 percent, looked older that this, and we classified
them as “adults,” but not without much discussion, because of
their often ambiguous appearance. Half of them were dressed
as brides, a long-standing tradition in doll making and a souvenir
of happy times in the collector’s own life. We found no “adult”
male PCDs (although men make an appearance in the
expensive, custom-made range), and nothing remotely
resembling a male adolescent. “Teenagers” as we would clearly
recognize them are absent from the PCD range. This fits what
we know about family life over the last fifty years: while many
mothers put a bright face on it, the teenage phase is the most
stressful and the least reward ing emotionally for parents.15
Family photo albums that burgeoned with childhood snapshots
become extremely skimpy at this stage, with more scowls than
smiles. When asked, collectors say frankly that they have no
interest in bringing “all that” back into the empty nest.
It seems that adult collectors who are nostalgic about this
adolescent life phase gravitate to Barbie, the teenage icon.
Whatever vices Barbie may have, mothering is not among them
(a brief experiment with “Maternity Barbie” was not a
success). Rebecca, one of our researchers, commented:

Barbie is independent in every sense of the word. She relies

on no one to take care of her, and in return refuses to take
care of anyone. Instead, Barbie is a solitary individual,
missing ties to both past and future. Existing without a
navel, Barbie lacks even the most basic universal
connection to her mother…. Barbie does not give any
indication of stooping to marriage, let alone having
children of her own. Barbie’s boyfriend Ken and little
sister Skipper are mere accessories, and her relations with
them vague and insubstantial. Barbie switches roles and
identities with breathless ease, astronaut one minute,
doctor the next, all with a change of clothes.
 DOLLIFICATION 133

A COMMUNITY OF DOLLS
Encouraged by the manufacturers’ designs and texts, collectors
build relationships among the dolls, much as children piece
together Lego. “I just love the little ones. I put them all together
in poses and put them with the little watering cans. And I have
one holding up a tiny basket of apples. Little baby bunnies. And
it just brings them to life. They are so beautiful.”16 Family life
is strongly implicated in these projects: “School is over and
‘Laura’ is anxious to be on her way, for she eagerly anticipates
one of Ma’s home-cooked meals. After dinner, Pa will fiddle a
few merry tunes before bedtime. It looks like another happy
night for the family that lives in the little house on the prairie!”
It’s Mommy who holds the whole community together.
However, if the object is to build a whole surrogate family, the
effect as we see it in larger displays can be bizarre: dozens of
sons and daughters in various sizes, shapes, and accouterments,
with an invisible circle of daddies, grandmas, and the occasional
aunt, hinted at by the children themselves.
Abundant motherly love can embrace the whole collection.
Although it is very much a private world, it ranges quite freely
in time and space, drawing in characters from exotic places and
from history. The neo-antiques dwell on fin de siècle Paris or
London, revisiting the workshops of Jumeau and Bru Jeune.
This is history viewed through rose-tinted spectacles—it is
startling to see “Dickens’s London” described as “a gentler
time and place” (Annie the lavender girl). Dara is from
Thailand and the series “Faraway Friends.” She comes with a
kite and a packet of pen-pal letters. To meet Serena, you are
invited to “fly off to a far-away place on the wings of your
heart.” She is “the first issue in the Passport to Friendship
collection…your introduction to life in a small village near
Nairobi, Kenya…. Her basket with several ‘fresh vegetables’ is
included.”
Native American dolls are popular exotic visitors to the PCD
range. Meadowlark is an “authentic portrayal of a young native
American toddler of the Chippewa tribe.” Although we have
only 14 Native American dolls in our sample, the distinctive
vocabulary is apparent (see appendices B-3, B-4). Proud and
134 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

dream are high on the list. The advertisements are more than
three times as likely to use the word tradition(al). Tales loom
large, and qualities like timeless, forever feature prominently.
Their homelands range from the Southwest to the Arctic: “Tulu
of the raven hair. Daughter of Teremuit. Her dark eyes gleam
like jewels in the firelight. Tonight the sun will never set. Her
people will hold a midnight feast. And Tulu will ask a great
favor of her father, holy man of the Eskimos…for she yearns to
keep an orphaned baby seal.” Their customs are likewise
charming and picturesque:

It’s a special day for a little Pueblo boy…today he will

perform the sacred Eagle Dance for the first time! Draped
in a splendid feathered Cape, he darts and circles,
sweeping his arms skyward in tribute to the powerful
eagle. Now, inspired by this proud Native American
tradition, award-winning doll artist Elke Hutchens has
created a unique porcelain collector doll, Little Eagle
Dancer.

These characterizations are “reverent,” but even the dolls that

are designed by tribally accredited artists are oriented to the
romantic fictions of non-Native Americans, rather than to any
plausible ethnic reality, past or present.17 “Morning Song’s
authentic Cheyenne wedding attire was designed by Lady
Scarlet Whirlwind—a direct descendant of the great Chief
Sitting Bull, and a leading authority on Native American
customs.” Well-known ethnic accessories play a large part in
authenticating these dolls. Golden Flower by Carol Theroux
(“who celebrates in her work her own Cherokee heritage”)
shyly steps up to meet the medicine man for her “naming
ceremony.” “An authentic Osage pattern decorates the ribbon
on her skirt. Her medicine bag will protect her as she grows.”

“Sleeping Bear” dreams the proud dreams of his people!

Tucked into his cradleboard, laced and beaded, “Sleeping
Bear” is the pride of his family…and his people. His sweet,
sleeping face is bisque porcelain, beautifully hand-painted.
His cradleboard is soft, faux chamois, trimmed with faux
 DOLLIFICATION 135

fur…and a tiny “dreamcatcher” above his head

guarantees good dreams! He’s first in the Precious
Papooses collection.

Anyone fantasizing about traces of Native American blood in

her lineage may be attracted to dolls in this “ethnic” category,
no matter how kitsch and infantilized they may appear. But it is
extremely unlikely that people living on Native American
reservations today are in the market for these dolls. The price
of dolls in all ethnic categories is similar: $114 on average for
African American dolls, $105 for Caucasian, and $97 for Native
American ($106 for the whole sample). This points to the
uniformity of the market—there is no evidence that the ethnic
minority dolls are being priced up or down for a distinct
clientele. Although the buyers and the dolls are preponderantly
white, they are not exclusively so: African American women,
too, are avid collectors. The market is more obviously defined
by level of disposable income, and our studies indicate that
white women commonly include some black dolls in their
collection, and black women include white dolls.
The manufacture of black dolls for white children is as old as
the industry. The tradition has been attributed to the role of
black women in raising middle-class white children in the
United States, and similar European experiences of colonial
family life.18 In recent decades black dolls have been treated
with great anxiety by liberal parents: whatever comfort the
Golliwog may have given to children down the years, he has
now been banished for his caricature features and dress. The
mass of “black” dolls are simply white dolls painted over.
Walterhausen Puppenmanufaktur produced “The Dolls of Four
Races” between 1890 and 1910, but they are the company’s
standard bisque socket heads with different colored glazes,
hair, and eyes. Likewise, the African American Barbies that
Mattel began manufacturing in the mid-1960s were cast in the
same Caucasian mold.19
Our researchers had little difficulty identifying the 17
“black” or African American dolls in our sample of
advertisements by their dark color and hairstyle, but opinions
varied greatly about whether they were “genuinely black”: no
136 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

more than seven were admitted to this category. Predictably,

the non-white students were most critical of the “blacked-up-
white” dolls. They “perpetuate the notion that white, and only
white, is beautiful,” said Roya, who is of Iranian descent. She
attributes her deep-seated disgust for all dolls to the blue-eyed,
blondhaired stereotype that dogged her childhood in the almost
exclusively white community in Arizona where she grew up.
Where, she asks, “are the [ethnic] facial features of these dolls,
and why isn’t anyone complaining? …We need the features! We
need the hair and eyes and nose and lips.” But the older doll
collectors seem oblivious to these complaints, and evidently
content with their dusky but reassuringly familiar features.
Manufacturers are well aware of the problem of ethnic
representation and how easily they can be wrong-footed in their
efforts to address it. Kenya “is the doll she’ll love for all the
right reasons…. Best of all Kenya comes in three natural
skintones, so your girl is bound to feel pretty and proud.”20
However, although they accentuate the facial features that
Roya feels are missing, self-consciously “appropriate” or
“anthropologically correct” black dolls have lacked popular
appeal. Some up-market African American designers have
worked consciously in the long-standing tradition of
“character” dolls, with effects that others have found grotesque.
Yet it is mainly through the efforts of such designers that both
the child and adult markets have been able to offer more
convincing and pleasing black dolls. But PCD design remains
conservative in this regard: the exotic should be, at most, skin
deep and in all other respects comfortably familiar. That also
means conforming to stereotype: in the advertisements the
black dolls tended to be joyful, happy, and innocent, and were
twice as likely to sing and be angelic as all the rest.
Latino dolls and doll collectors are, given the rapid expansion
of this ethnic category in the U.S. population, conspicuously
absent. The only example we have is Marisa: “It’s market day
in a tiny Mexican village, and Marisa’s too excited to sleep.
Rising long before the rest of her family, she brushes her long
dark hair to a radiant lustre.” One of our Chicana researchers,
Jennifer, addressed this gap in the PCD range, concluding that
Latinas lack the disposable income and earning opportunities
 DOLLIFICATION 137

of their “Anglo” sisters. Nor do they have an obvious empty

nest or empty womb motive for collecting dolls: they bear
children earlier, have larger families over longer periods of their
lives, they don’t live as long, and a smaller proportion of those
over 65 (22 percent, compared with 31 percent for whites and
35 percent for blacks) live alone.21 Nor are they likely to have
had the same Depression experiences that boosted the collector
doll boom in the United States. As more Latina women become
more prosperous, however, and changing family patterns
expose them more to loneliness and alienation, perhaps they,
too, will start collecting dolls.

THE COMMODITY AS PERSONIFIER

If she has truly found a place in the collector’s home, the doll
does not simply sit passively on a shelf, a pretty concoction of
porcelain and lace. She embodies much socially creative energy.
She has an identity and a personality, she has relationships with
other dolls in the collection, and she is drawn into the
collector’s own circle of family and friends. She substitutes for
children who have grown up or who were perhaps never even
born. She is kept busy on Mommy’s account reminding the
daddies and grandmas and children how they should behave.
Displayed prominently at home, or despatched to the front line
as a personal gift, she can play a very active role in fostering
warm relationships among these people. Above all, she is
constantly at work on the identity of Mommy herself, repairing
and remaking relationships eroded by the relentless processes of
family growth and change.
The identities that are built into the dolls are important in
spinning these webs of relationship. Women are given, or buy, a
PCD that bears the same name as, or “looks just like” a child
or grandchild, expanding the collection as more children arrive.
A century ago, Hall and Ellis noted that most children said
their doll was named after a real person, usually a friend, while
“a small number took the owner’s name.”22 Old habits die
hard. “A lot of you out there shared with me that you buy the
dolls based on name,” says a TV doll show presenter. “A lot of
you of course tend to get all of the names for your children.”23
138 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

Patricia, talking to doll designer Pauline on one of these shows,

has a particular suggestion: “Shawna Viane. S-h-a-w-n-a, that is
my youngest daughter’s name. Oh, I love it, she was named
after my grandmother. And I would love to have a doll with the
name Shawna. And I don’t think anyone could do my Shawna
justice but Pauline.” Patricia has another of Pauline’s dolls
which is a ringer for her great-niece: “Oh my Lord have mercy!
If the doll was smiling a little bit more it would be Andrea.”
Matching names and identities in this way is quite common,
especially in dispersed families, and several of our student
researchers remarked on the oddity of finding themselves and
their siblings in a cabinet round at Grandma’s house. One of
them wondered whether painted portraits and photographs
originally had the same faintly disturbing impact.

GIFTS AND HEIRLOOMS

Dolls are often on the move. They are given by family or
friends to people who are thought to need them. Someone
recently bereaved will be given a doll or a cuddly toy. A
daughter leaving home to go to college or work will entrust her
own dolls to her mother’s care. Birthdays, anniversaries, and
Mother’s Days become the excuse to give more dolls, helping to
establish the reputation as a collector. At least to start with, the
recipient may be unenthusiastic: Beth, raising a teenage son
single-handed, keeps getting PCDs from her mother as “pointed
gifts”—“something to add to your collection.” When it becomes
a gift, virtually any commodity acquires some extra, personal
qualities. This makes it more difficult to sell or throw away—
which may be why unwanted trinkets and keepsakes so often
are given to other people or to charity. If the dolls are intended
more for display than play, children may find themselves with a
collection on their hands regardless of their feelings. Jamie’s
grandfather gave her a “good” doll every birthday and
Christmas, some of them PCDs that she would never have
chosen herself. Although there could be no question that they
were all in the family, accommodating the whole mob is
awkward now that she is at college.
 DOLLIFICATION 139

Columnist Ann Landers received a telling letter from a new

mother who signed herself (with her husband) “Not Doll
Lovers in Dixie.” Her “sweet and thoughtful” older sister
bought the baby a porcelain doll, promising another one for
each birthday in perpetuity, and insisting, “They will make a
beautiful collection.” But this couple protest that they are “not
into collecting things, especially breakable dolls.” The child
would not be able to play with them, or even touch them, until
she is older. “I don’t want to insult my sister by storing these
dolls and not displaying them. She would be terribly hurt.” So,
should she tell her sister to get the baby something else? Ann
Landers opined that “a gift is whatever people choose to give”
and should be accepted unconditionally. Even if the child can’t
play with them now, the dolls will be “considered treasures
when she is older.” Accept the gift graciously, she advised,
because she is going to have “a priceless collection down the
road.”24
Gifts are messengers in the making of relationships, but
masquerading as “real live” intermediaries, the dolls go a step
further than chocolates or flowers. In case the point should be
missed, you can buy a special “Messenger Doll,” like the 23-
inch angel designed by Joanne Claire Schneider, which has a
“patented time capsule” built into her back, a “cache” into
which the owner or giver can insert messages or memorabilia.
Joanne tells Home Shopping Network viewers: “With Mother’s
Day coming, the beauty part of it is a daughter could buy it for
her mother, or a mother could buy it for her daughter and put
their own personal treasures in it.” The recipient could then
return the doll, with new stuff inside—“and keep that going for
year after year.” The doll even comes with a “keepsake
registry” to keep track of these transactions. “I hope that
everyone that buys her and opens her up feels all the love, joy,
and peace that we felt when we created her,” says Joanne.25
A gift that moves through family networks, marking out
special relationships between parent and child, or between very
close friends, has the special qualities of an heirloom.
Kathleen’s grandma was born in 1906 “in a small pioneer town
in Idaho.” Since “she was always on the road” she had few toys
as a child, and as an adult started collecting girl dolls because
140 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

her two children were boys. “My dad remembers as a boy my

grandma displaying the dolls in her room and the rest of the
house.” She passed them on, one by one, to her granddaughters,
including Kathleen:

We were too young, so most of the time they were lost,

sold at garage sales, poked in the face with thumbtacks, or
colored on. Now that I am a young woman at the age of
23, I have taken on the responsibility of preserving what is
left of my grandma’s remaining dolls. I sometimes, very
briefly, show them to my five-year-old niece, and then I
hurry and put them back where they belong [in a big blue
suitcase] out of fear they might just get damaged. I always
knew how sacred these dolls were to her because they
were a huge part of her life history…. I will eventually
pass them on to my children and grandchildren because to
me, they symbolize a sort of family history and large piece
of my grandma’s life.

Passed on from one generation to the next, dolls come bearing

moral messages as well as material and emotional values. In the
late nineteenth century girls were encouraged to practice
needlework, dress decorum, good manners, and so on with
their dolls in preparation for “true womanhood.”26 The
didactic tradition continues, notably in the American Girls
collection, from the Pleasant Company of Middleton,
Wisconsin (now owned by the Barbie manufacturer, Mattel). In
the late 1980s, there were four dolls, each with a matching
book, depicting four fictional nine-year-old heroines: Felicity,
Kirsten, Samantha, and Molly. Sales were exclusively through
catalog, which described Felicity, for example, as “a spunky,
spritely colonial girl who lived a life in Williamsburg, Virginia,
during the Revolutionary War.” Pleasant Rowland, a former
teacher and founder of the firm, says that the American Girls
collection “was designed to teach young girls about American
history and give them a sense of pride and self-awareness of
traditions in growing up female in America.”27 The company’s
aims are to “reinforce positive social and moral values”: “The
girls we inspire today will become the women who make a
 DOLLIFICATION 141

difference tomorrow.” But unlike the Victorian dolls, the

American Girls are more concerned to prolong childhood than
promote adulthood. “Basically, what we’re saying is that it’s
okay to be a little girl,” says a Pleasant spokesperson.28 The
American Girls are great favorites with grandmothers, who buy
these dolls in phenomenal quantities (sales in 1994 rose to $152
million, and the company tripled its workforce to deal with the
seasonal demand). The success of these dolls is that their highly
modalized features and dress appeal to little girls, but they also
contrive to convey Grandma’s nostalgic yearning for a new
generation that will conform to memories of perfect children
long ago and far away. Take Kit Kitterege, described in the
company’s 1999 catalog as “a clever, resourceful girl growing
up in 1934, during the hard times of the Great Depression”: “It
is a time when many people lost their jobs, their money, and
even their homes. Kit’s stories describe how this smart, freckle-
faced girl responds when the hard times hit her family. With
spirit and determination, Kit keeps their hopes up through the
Depression’s darkest days.”
Our student commentators were in no doubt that the PCDs,
as gifts, were delivering similar gendered propaganda,
immortalizing childish innocence and docility rather than
offering preparation for a career and modern womanhood.
Claire, an angel doll, comes with a little book that delivers a
pointedly self-interested message to the little children in
Grandma’s life. It’s “about love and how to respect other
people’s property and how, when they did something wrong,
how to repair it, how to say I am sorry”:

It is a story about two children going to visit grandma and

grandma tells them, you know, the house that she has
isn’t big enough for growing boys and girls to play in but
if they do play to be very careful and to not knock her
shelf off the wall. And it has all the treasures that grandpa
had given her over the years…. Well of course, like all
children, they were rambunctious and they knocked the
shelf off the wall and they broke grandma’s treasures.29
142 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

Lest we imagine that all is sweetness and light in the society of

dolls, let us consider the plight of James K., now in his
twenties, who developed a special fear of porcelain collector
dolls. He was an only child and his mother encouraged him to
form intense relationships with his own dolls. He alternately
poured affection on them and punished them savagely, and
spent fearful nights worrying that they would gang up on him
and kill him. His mother was already collecting PCDs when
James was in his preteen years. Although he was not supposed
to touch them he would sometimes take them out of their
display cabinet and hold them. One day, one of them came to
pieces in his hands. All the others in the cabinet stared at him,
but he could not tell from their bland faces whether they were
angry. For years after, he would heap the bedclothes up around
himself at night, hoping that the sharp little porcelain fingers
would get entangled before they could dig into his sleeping
body. “Bad emotions are better than no emotions at all, and
angry friends are better than angry strangers,” he told us.

A COLLECTOR COMMUNITY
Adults who collect dolls know they are a bit odd. There are
feelings of guilt and shame about the extravagance and clutter,
about playing with toys, and about substituting things for real
people. The vice is a very private one for many collectors, its
full extent hidden even from their immediate families. Many
have dolls that they have kept since childhood, have retrieved
from their own children, or have been given.
Not all of them would welcome the label “collector,” with the
sense of purpose and obsession which that word implies. But
for those who “come out,” the experience can be liberating,
exhilarating. “I turn 40 this coming feb 23 2001. What a great
feeling to know a lot of people like playing with Barbie as much
as I do.”30 The community of doll collectors has gained impetus
from the Web. The Internet chat rooms have been busy with
people exchanging information about designs and repair,
favorite artists, and above all the relief of discovering that there
are so many like-minded people “out there,” and building a
sense of solidarity. For example, VirtualDOLLS.com is “a
 DOLLIFICATION 143

virtual community and ezine publication—’Where Doll

Collectors Gather.’” Links from these pages will introduce you
to collectors in your state, and incidentally help you track down
other relationships, like who was in your high school class.
Older people who lack access to the virtual forums still have
more familiar media through which they can connect. The
magazines that carry the PCD advertisements also have articles
and correspondence columns on dolls and their collectors. The
range of custom magazines for enthusiasts—many of them
available on local book stands— is astonishing: Dolls, Antique
Doll Collector, Doll World, Doll Crafter, Contemporary Doll
Collector, Soft Dolls and Animals, Doll Reader, Doll Artisan,
Doll-Making, Doll Castle News, The Cloth Doll…31 Later in
the 1990s, the TV sales shows on channels like the Home
Shopping Network or QVC provided the first live interactive
opportunity for many collectors. Running for several hours at a
stretch, often in the middle of the night, these shows draw
shoppers into conversation with the hostess and her studio
guests. Callers phoning in orders for dolls are intercepted and
encouraged to talk about themselves and their collections—a
valuable source of information for our researchers. Some are
initially embarrassed, but most warm to the occasion, treating
the opportunity almost as a religious confessional. The sheer
number of dolls that these night-birds have accumulated is
astonishing: thirty dolls is barely a collection, two hundred or
three hundred far from unusual. The mood is often electric, the
anxiety of missing a purchase (little monitors on the screen tick
away the surviving number of dolls) merging with the anxiety of
buying too much too fast. For people who fear their ability to
resist temptation, there are even help lines and Web sites
offering counsel in the manner of Alcoholics Anonymous.
The TV networks have encouraged this clublike atmosphere,
and now give air time to callers who are not actually making
purchases. An invitation to talk opens the floodgates:
Kim (the host): Fewer than 50 now remaining as we welcome
in Anne in California. Hi Anne.
Anne: Hi.
Kim: What do you think about little Inesse here?
144 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

Anne: Well, I think she is absolutely gorgeous. I love her hair.

The minute I saw the hair I went oh, I was trying to talk
myself out of buying her actually but then I couldn’t
resist, she is absolutely beautiful. And I was really
surprised, I didn’t realize the dress was purple at first, I
thought it was black, but it is just absolutely amazing. It
is a wonderful choice. She will stand out in my
collection. I love the hair, it just looks like so much fun.
Beautiful. She is just going to be so much fun. I have
quite a few dolls, I have to say this is my second doll of
yours. I have one of the tiny babies of yours that I got
last year. But part of the problem is as I watch you I am
trying to make up my mind about which one I want, and
by the time I decide they are usually sold out. So I get
very frustrated. You are so popular and I just love this
doll and I know I am going to enjoy her. Bye.32
Increasingly the collectors want to chip in ideas about design
and names, and requests for bigger dolls have become more
insistent. The main constraint on air-time is competition from
other sorts of collector mania, conspicuously jewelry and plates
for women, knives and sports memorabilia for men.
The “real” as opposed to “virtual” clubs for doll enthusiasts
are still mostly the domain of long-established “serious”
collectors of antiques. The United Federation of Doll Clubs
(UFDC) is a strictly adult organization devoted mainly to
“offering members a variety of educational opportunities about
doll collecting.” At the affiliated clubs we visited we found the
aficionadas took a clinical interest in our PCD range, though
usually conceding that anything which boosted a broader
enthusiasm for dolls was probably a good thing. They tend to be
dismissive about mass-produced, kitsch, low-value dolls,
although they will admit to having “picked up” or “been
given” one or two PCDs because of some specific personal
interest. However, they find themselves increasingly brought
into contact with PCDs at fairs or in the specialty shops where
“dollers” of all levels get together.
Though lacking the cachet of the antique dolls or the
passionate rivalries of the rich collectors who frequent the
 DOLLIFICATION 145

auction rooms, the PCD world already has its heroes and
demons, its ideals and taboos. Celebrity collectors like
Roseanne have given the community a boost. Demi Moore is a
“serious” doll collector, with her own full-time agent, Mr.
Hinkle (in 1996 correspondents in Dolls magazine complained
of his aggressive buying). Marie Osmond collects dolls and sells
her own designs through her own company, Marian LLC, and
(since 1991) through the QVC channel.33 But the high
priestesses of the PCD world are, without a doubt, the “artists”
who design and make the original casts. They feature in the
advertisements, magazines articles, and the TV shows, and they
have graduated from shadowy craftspersons in the early days to
full-blown artist personalities today.
The Ashton-Drake Web site offers biographical details of its
regular artists. Cindy McClure was born in Southern California
and now lives in Washington. She has five daughters, loves
cookies, and has designed for Ashton-Drake since 1987. “You
Need a Hug, Pooh” was “a tremendous popular and critical
success,” nominated for an industry Doll of the Year (DOTY)
award in 1998. Cindy “taught anatomy and physiology in
college,” where she once forgot to wear a skirt to class. She
would like to be a doctor if she were not a doll artist. She
herself collects “bunnies, candle holders, thimbles, prints…
perfume bottles and juicers.”34
Yolanda Bello lives in Des Plaines, Illinois. Her first doll for
Ashton-Drake was Michael (1991). She has five children and
collects “dolls, miniatures, J.Fred Muggs items and monkeys.”
Kathy Barry-Hippensteel, designer of 15 dolls in our sample,
“has received widespread acclaim for her sculptural mastery.”
She is “one of Ashton-Drake’s most enduring and popular
artists because of her instinctive insights into the experience of
childhood. She says…‘If I can make a doll that hugs
somebody’s heart and makes them smile, then I’ve done what I
set out to do.’”35
The TV shows provide a rare opportunity to meet the artist-
stars, like Pauline Bjonness-Jacobsen, selling a batch of her
dolls on QVC with the help of the host, Kim:
Kim: Oh, we have a caller on the line, Dina. Dina welcome
and meet Pauline.
146 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

Deanna: Hi, this is Deanna. How are you? Hi Pauline. Oh, I

just love your dolls. And this particularly beautiful one,
Mandy, she is so cute. She is lovely. I have some of
your other ones too, and they are just gorgeous. They
are all gorgeous…
Kim: We are going to talk to Linda. Hi, Linda.
Linda: Hi.
Kim: Tell me now, about your Pauline collection, or tell
Pauline.
Linda: Hi Pauline, I had to call and tell you how wonderful
your dolls are.
Pauline: Oh, thank you.
Linda: Absolutely wonderful, I have probably thirty of them.
Kim: Is it the detail that keeps attracting you back to
Pauline’s dolls?
Linda: It is, I just love the beautiful detail on the dresses and
the faces are so serene, they are so peaceful they are like
pieces of art in my home….
Kim: Patricia is also calling in, and I think she has a couple
of your dolls. Let me be nosy and ask her. Patricia how
many of Pauline’s dolls do you have?
Patricia: I have between 25 and 30.
Pauline: Uh, oh. That’s a lot.
Patricia: No, uh oh. Joy, joy, joy…Pauline, they are just
beautiful. I got Mandy today tonight. I love your vinyl
baby dolls and I am looking at Lucinda in my curio
[cabinet] right now…. I talked to you last October
19th and I was so nervous I even stuttered.36

POLITICS
Because of their direct resemblance to human beings, dolls have
been recruited to political causes of all sorts. As effigies they
have been paraded, burned, and dismembered, and as symbols
of innocence and vulnerability they have become part of the
standard apparatus of public demonstration. An anti-abortion
protester outside the Supreme Court in Washington is pictured
with an armful of black and white dolls and a placard:
 DOLLIFICATION 147

“President George Bush won because our lord Jesus wants the
babies to live.”
As the adult market for dolls expands, and as collectors
become more aware of each other’s identity and interests, a new
political motif is emerging. Much of the adult doll collector’s
sense of shame has been put there by the very passionate
critiques of modern femininity, of which no woman we talked
to was unaware. Modern feminists have consistently attacked
children’s dolls as embodying the worst sorts of conservative,
patriarchal ideal. Miriam Formanek-Brunel lays most of the
blame for gender stereotyping on the tendency of businessmen
to “appropriate the dolls they marketed as symbols of an
idealized feminine domesticity.”37 She complains that “scholars
have overlooked the struggle waged by women and girls for the
cultural control of dolls as representations of their gender
identity”:

Dolls continue to be typically misunderstood as trivial

artifacts of a commercialized girls’ culture, static
representations of femininity and maternity, generators
only of maternal feelings and domestic concerns,
hindrances to the development of girls as individuals,
creations of socially conservative dollmakers, and
products of a single national culture.38

Barbie has been the prime focus of onslaught. Perhaps if she

were not such a big seller this subliminally sexual figure would
not have become such a monster, vamp, fem, or dyke.39 Barbie
was modeled on Bild-Lilli, a German doll created in 1952 by
Hausser-Elastolin, which was in turn modeled on wartime
pinup posters. Ruth Handler, a native of Colorado and long-
term California resident, bought Bild-Lilli for her toy firm,
Mattel. Recast and named Barbie after Handler’s daughter, she
sold 350,000 in her first year. Since she was “born” in 1959,
more than a billion Barbies have been sold in 150 countries.40
Sales topped $1.8 billion in 1997, and have been sustained
mainly by product diversification into clothes and accessories,
and by an increasing emphasis on high-priced collectible
Barbies.41
148 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

Every year more than a thousand enthusiasts get together at

the National Barbie Doll Collectors Convention, not just to
saturate themselves in Barbiana, but to become Barbies. The
2002 convention, held in Ruth Handler’s hometown, Denver,
had “Rocky Mountain Mod” Barbie as its theme, to which the
“mostly middle-aged and up and mostly women” participants
responded with a flurry of “tie-dyes, go-go boots and bouffants
—8 to 10 costume changes per attendee over the four days.” Up
there on the catwalk, “For one brief, glorious moment, Joane
Baumer was a living, breathing Barbie doll—’67 Beautiful Dress
Blues Gift Set Barbie.” Contrary to expectations, Joane is, like
so many of the conventioneers, a career woman: a physician in
a major public hospital in Fort Worth who has raised a family
of her own. Dr. Baumer is well aware of the heavy feminist
critique of her behavior, but is uncontrite: “We were really
active in the feminist movement. But it tended to ignore
sexuality, which was kind of silly.”42 If Barbie helps some
women to recapture teenage joys, complete with the sauce of
rebellion, the PCDs are doing a different sort of job. So far,
they have escaped the very public criticism to which Barbie has
been subjected, perhaps because they are less conspicuous,
although the women academics to whom we have introduced
the dolls are often appalled.
Although the gender composition of the big PCD companies
is surely as male-biased as most other enterprises in the United
States, and although men are selling the dolls and profiting from
them, there is no doubt that this is very much a commodity
constructed for women by women. Male entrepreneurs have
clearly ceded the design of the dolls to women—many of them
exactly the same sort of person as the firms’ main customers.
The tendency is not new. Women like Beatrice Behrman, alias
“Madame Alexander,” began making dolls at the kitchen table
for themselves, family, and friends. Quite a few seem to have
come to the job with art school, sculpting, and dressmaking
backgrounds, like so many of today’s PCD designers.
Biographical details suggest that far from being mere victims of
patriarchal ideology they were vigorously and explicitly
concerned with making dolls “as representations of their gender
identity.” Those who established larger enterprises are often
 DOLLIFICATION 149

recorded as bringing their husbands into the business as

managers, and possibly “front men.” It is interesting to see
these husband-and-wife teams working the stalls together at
local doll fairs today.
If dolls are at odds with modern feminist ideals, it signals a
political gap between different generations of women, rather
than between women and men. It is the middle-aged, college-
educated cohorts that seem most hostile. The attitudes of older
women might be dismissed as “old-fashioned,” but during the
course of our project, the sympathies of women in their late
teens and early twenties were often strongly articulated. As
Maria Cristina, one of our researchers put it, the PCDs express
a femininity that collectors “may feel that our current society is
losing due to current trends and the women’s movement”: “I
feel that porcelain doll collectors do not collect dolls because of
their monetary value. I believe that they collect them as a
replacement for a family that they once raised and because it
represents ideals that are rapidly disintegrating.” An emerging
counter-critical theme is that if the enthusiasm for PCDs seems
bizarre or even erotic to some of us, the collectors should be
accorded the same tolerance for “otherness” that properly
underlies contemporary political attitudes. The new electronic
and TV forums bring very explicit relief from the doll
collector’s hitherto very private sense of guilt. The collectively
induced boost in confidence is reminiscent of, and indirectly
builds on the shift in political values engineered by gay
solidarity over the past three decades. Engendering passion in
some observers and disgust in others, the PCDs are evocative of
what has become known among cultural critics as “queering”—
an allusion not simply to homosexual interests but to something
that “looks weird” to others.43

ENDING THE AFFAIR

As objects that become persons, and as agents in the making of
personal relationships, the PCDs have moral power. The
manufacturers know how to put this quality of their product to
work. You don’t buy one of these dolls, you “apply” for them,
150 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

“reserve” them, or “commission” them. “Submit your

reservation for ‘Kayla’ today.”
Having “invited the doll into your home,” established her
personality, and fitted her into your social scheme, it is unlikely
that you, the collector, will reject her or feel happy about
despatching her back to her maker. Gentle conversational
probing makes it clear that this thought is as disturbing and
alienating as seeing teddy come apart at the seams, or Dolly
lying with her head cracked open. While offering sterling
guarantees for their product, the doll manufacturers are cruelly
matter-of-fact about the dreadful translation of the little person
back to the status of an unwanted thing. If you are dissatisfied,
they will buy it back, a gesture that reminds you that your doll
is “just a commodity” and that you are not just wantonly
forgoing its investment prospects, you are killing her.
There’s the carrot and the stick, hanging over the delightful
picture of Becky in her cow frock: “Of course your satisfaction
is assured with our 100% Buy-Back Guarantee!” But even if
Becky fails to lay claim to your heart, your feelings about
sending her back to the Hamilton depot in Jacksonville, Florida,
are a little more complex than your decision to return a faulty
toaster.
 Chapter Six
More Than Real

“…an enchanting young lady with blue glass eyes.”

Realism is the big selling line for the porcelain collector dolls.
The designers work very hard on the illusion, and the
enthusiasts are deeply complicit in breathing life into the
commodity. The starting point in the modeling of many dolls
has been a real child, from the granddaughters of Simon and
Halbig in the 1880s, through the sons and daughters who
became Sasha or the Dreamkids in the 1960s and 1970s, to the
young friends and offspring who inspire the PCD designers
today. But the result is always something that goes beyond
reality as less passionate observers would see it. How does this
life-giving process work?
As we have seen, children make dolls by imbuing almost any
object with life and personality. The younger they are, the less
demanding they seem to be about physical cues, and the more
ready to introject human qualities. To satisfy adult urges, “real
dolls” have to look more explicitly like “real children.” The
PCD owners put the power of their imaginations to work on
the artistry of the dolls, animating the inert body. The
manufacturers know this very well, and within the limits of
price and technique, they build every possible cue into the form
and appearance of the doll, seeking to lock their product into
the imagination of the purchaser. The collusion of designers
and collectors in the quest for realism is largely lost on those
who are not party to the pact. Even in adulthood, skeptical
males still pose a threat: “It’s only a doll,” growls Eileen G.’s
152 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

husband. Eileen cuts back “‘It’s only a doll?’ Whaddya mean

‘Only’ a doll?”
In this chapter we shall take a close look at the dolls’ bodies,
comparing them with real bodies to get a better idea of what,
physically, is being manipulated in the making of the PCDs.

BODY FORMS AND FUNCTIONS

The most obvious, and yet the most readily suppressed unreal
aspect of the collector dolls is their size: on average just over 14
inches in our sample of 267 dolls, in a range between 8 and 24
inches. It follows that infants are most easily reproduced to
scale, which has the odd effect of making these dolls look larger
than those modeled on older children. Life-size toddlers and
young children bring corresponding increases in cost which
puts them outside the PCD range. The effect is also rather
disturbing—more of an effigy than a doll.
According to Hall and Ellis in their study of dolls a century
ago, “Smallness indulges children’s love of feeling their
superiority, their desire to boss something and to gain their
desire along lines of least resistance or to vent their reaction to
the parental tyranny of anger.”1 A massive stuffed animal from
FAO Schwarz may be more intimidating than fun. “Little” is
plainly a useful emotive word—it is used at least once in 61
percent of the PCD advertisements. But it is also a cautionary
statement of fact: the advertisements are careful to state height
or length, although they also emphasize that the dolls are
“shown smaller than life size” or are “larger than illustrated.”
Nevertheless, we may wonder how many women, having
absorbed the real-talk of the advertisement, are surprised by the
diminutive form of the actual product when it emerges from its
wrapping. But it is, after all, only a doll…
The elaborate detailing of the PCDs relates directly to the
desire for clearly individualized appearances and personalities.
By contrast, children’s dolls are highly standardized once a
successful design has been established, and the finishing process
is mostly mechanized. The sameness of Barbies, Sashas, or
Cabbage Patch Kids is very obvious. The American Girls series
goes to great lengths to distinguish the identity and biography of
 MORE THAN REAL 153

each of the dozen or so dolls in the collection, but like every

other successful, mass-produced child’s doll, the manufacturer
has stuck rigidly to a stylized basic design (picture 8). This is
usually characterized by a significant deformation, like Barbie’s
tapered hips and legs, the extreme width of the Cabbage Patch
face, or the dimpled toothy mouth of the American Girl. The
mass-produced faces look empty when compared with the
detailed brushwork of the PCDs. Children are more concerned
about functionality in play (bathability, the removability of
clothes) than mere prettiness. For them, torsos and limbs matter
at least as much as recognizable faces, which may be why
children around the world and throughout history have
cherished dolls with cuddly bodies and very rudimentary facial
features.
At least from a parent’s point of view, if you’ve seen one
Cabbage Patch Kid, you’ve seen ’em all. Little girls seem
undisturbed by the swarming clones of Barbie, mainly because
they are much less concerned with abstracting identity and
personality from the dolls than with projecting their own
fantasies onto the mannequin in active play. The clothes and
accessories get swapped around from one Barbie to another,
and are at least as important as the doll itself. This is in marked
contrast to the PCDs, where detail and distinctiveness are all-
important. Adult collectors who have dozens of Barbies would
never consider buying more than a single Ashton-Drake
Danielle, unless they were gifts for other people. Unlike Barbie,
Danielle has to take the initiative, communicating her own
personality vividly to her owner’s gaze. In advertisements, the
PCDs are always photographed solo, graphically detailing
individual identity, whereas Cabbage Patch Kids can be
illustrated in cuddly heaps. Designers of the PCDs tread a fine
line between developing a recognizable product line or collector
series within the broader definition of the commodity, and
giving each doll its essential, distinctive appearance.
Manipulating one of the main proportions (cheek width, eye
spacing) is risky, although there is ample scope for
individuality in detailed molding, brushwork, clothes, or
accessories.
154 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

Picture 8: Two American Girl play dolls, and the collector doll
Gwendolyn.
Top left: American Girl Samantha.
Top right: American Girl look-alike doll, supposedly modeled on a real
child.
Bottom: Gwendolyn (Delton Collectibles).
Photos by A.F.Robertson.
 MORE THAN REAL 155

Although in display the appearance of the doll may be very

convincing, touch may quickly betray the unreality. The shock
of this disjunction lurks in the advertising copy: “the porcelain
is smooth to the touch—just like a baby’s skin” (“Cute as a
Button”). But the tragedy of porcelain is that while it allows
such marvelous visual representations of human flesh, the
material itself has a deathly chill. This is counteracted in the
advertisements with frequent use of words like “soft” and
“warm” to describe complexion. Visually, no other material—
gutta percha, vinyl, various sorts of “composition”—can
approach the subtle matte texture of fine bisque. With skillful
application of color it can capture the quality of “baby skin,”
which seems so fundamental to perceptions of female beauty
and is the holy grail of the cosmetics industry.2 “His face, arms,
and legs are skillfully crafted in fine porcelain, then
handpainted for a look of luminous realism” (“You Deserve a
Break Today”). “Delicate,” occurring in 19 percent of the
advertisements, is a useful word implying both fine artistry and
fragility. “Untouched” is another rather ambiguous evocation of
innocent beauty in the advertisements. But as often as not the
advertisement invites buyers to make contact: “cuddle him,
dress him, and rock him to sleep” (“It’s a Boy”).
True to the play/display distinction, the Santa Ynez “Doll
and Teddy Bear Tea Fair” in southern California distinguishes
categorically between “collectibles” and “huggables.”
Separating material and emotional values in this way can put
doll buyers in a quandary. The “partial” or “porcelain-
beanbag” doll is a compromise: the head, hands, and feet may
be fine bisque, but the torso has the cuddly resilience and heft of
a “real” baby. Although body composition was not mentioned
in nearly two thirds of the PCD advertisements, one third were
explicitly “partial,” and over a quarter of these were also
described as “posable.” Amy, for example, has “porcelain
hands, feet, face and eyes, generously stuffed cottony-soft body
and life-like combable golden blond hair.” “Beanbag” or
loosely stuffed torsos and legs can be pushed into poses quite
easily, and have a more cuddly, relaxed heft than the pricier all-
porcelain dolls: “Her beanbag body makes her posable in so
156 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

many lifelike ways. Cuddle her just a little, and she’ll win your
heart forever!” (Sweet Carnation).
Two thirds of the PCDs we surveyed are designed as set
pieces, in the process of doing something (teatime, playing
baseball, visiting grandmother) or acting someone (Little Bo
Peep, Laura from “Little House on the Prairie”) rather than
simply “being” a Native American or Shirley Temple or a
sleeping infant. One advantage of this is that the doll may not
need much further manipulation to display it. Recumbent dolls,
15 percent of our sample, are obviously easiest to display, and
very much more likely to be infants. Thirty-six percent, almost
all of them children and toddlers, were either sitting or kneeling.
Fifty-one percent, including all but one of the adults, were
shown standing. Most of the fully upright dolls need supports,
usually a rod behind their backs, which can look cumbersome.
Poseability is a virtue mentioned in 16 percent of our sample,
but articulating joints convincingly is one of the designer’s
oldest challenges, especially in full-bodied porcelain dolls.
Cords, springs, and rubber bands are needed to hold the
members together and allow a little movement, but all of these
are liable to some sort of mechanical failure in childish hands.
Necks or wrists have to be set in insulating material like felt or
plastic to prevent them squeaking or grinding. Advertisers tend
to make it very clear if the doll is all porcelain, and thus more
valuable and “genuine.”
With her stiff articulated joints, a “100% porcelain” doll like
Lil’ Punkin needs a little extra massage from the copywriter. She
is “so incredibly real, you’ll want to sweep her into your arms!
For little babies, every day is full of discoveries! There are
chubby toes to explore, tiny fingers to examine, and a cute
round belly button to locate. Look…there it is! This ‘Lil’
Punkin’ is proud—she’s found her belly button for the very first
time!”
For all this body-talk, the dolls are “hyperreal” for what they
don’t do. Most obviously, of course, they don’t move. It seems
that women have never hankered after creepie-crawlie, walkie-
talkie dolls. Mechanization is an enthusiasm of male doll
designers, and doll museums testify to their ingenuity, especially
around the beginning of the twentieth century.3 But
 MORE THAN REAL 157

manufacturers have resisted the tempta tion to mechanize the

PCDs. Complete passivity is preferred to jerky movements that
are more likely to disrupt than enhance the illusion of reality.
One or two dolls (usually ballerinas) rotate slowly on their
plinths, but only older children, not the collectors, seem much
interested in this sort of animation.
The PCDs are also free of other unwanted body functions.
Here is Daniel Harris’s disenchanted and characteristically male
view of the matter:

Behind the pleasure we take in the bodies of such cartoon

heroes as Kermit and Snoopy is the fear of another sort of
body altogether; the distasteful subtext of our plush toys:
the excreting bodies of real live babies which, far from
being clean and dry, are squalling factories of drool and
snot. Our unenviable role as the hygienic custodians of
children, whose dirty bottoms we must regularly wipe,
noses we must blow, and soiled underwear we must
launder, has led to a recurrent parental fantasy, that of the
diaperless baby, the excretionless teddy bear, a low-
maintenance infant whom we can kiss and fondle free of
anxiety that it will throw up on our shoulder as we rock it
to sleep or pee in our laps as we dandle it on our knees.4

It is clear that even the most motherly of PCD collectors is not

interested in such “real child” traits. In this respect, realism in
children’s dolls runs along a very different axis. In their survey
in the late nineteenth century, Hall and Ellis found that play
dolls had voracious and indiscriminate appetites—they were
served liberal dinners of mud, water, and other substances. One
informant remembered that “in my doll weddings, something
nice to eat was the chief thing.” Some children persevered with
the illusion of a full belly to the extent of sewing stones into their
doll’s clothes.5 Apart from the odd lollipop or cup of tea, the
PCDs are quite abstemious. Piddling dolls gratify little girls’
inexhaustible enthusiasm for diaper changing, and if that is not
enough there are quite a few dolls which extrude pulp. (“There
is a hole in the bottom of each doll’s torso,” explains doll
specialist Audrey Vincente Dean helpfully.)6 Close inspection of
158 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

one such pee poop doll reveals that the holes, one large and one
small, are indeed set in the base of the torso, in a shallow
boxlike structure that positively shrieks this is not an authentic
body part!
A few dolls in the PCD range emphasize the wrinkles, pouchy
eyes, and splayed legs of the newborn, and clearly respond to a
particular sort of maternal craving. In addition to its range of
weepy, wetty, drooly dolls, the Peterkin company of Leicester,
England, has an Early Moments neonate with a newly healed
belly button and chunky, uncircumcised genitals. These may
appeal to women in the “empty womb” phase, but the PCDs
are overwhelmingly children, and we know of no PCD that
possesses what we primly call “private parts.” With today’s
extreme anxieties about pedophilia, few manufacturers are
prepared to cater, however innocently, to the wrong market.
Any explicit sexuality is conveyed by the extremities of the doll,
its face and also its feet, but not the palpably sexual trunk. In
the advertising copy, many of the PCDs have “hearts,” some
have “tummies,” but none has bowels or a bladder. Our average
porcelain doll collector’s enthusiasm for “realism” does not
extend either to precision about genitals or to the excitement of
plural incontinence. The nearest we get is Brian sitting
demurely on his potty and a couple of other little lads waving
toilet rolls. If you have spent many years dealing with these
messy aspects of motherhood, this is one feature of the child
you may be happy to forgo. The PCD, immortalized in
porcelain, has triumphed over death and its Freudian analogy,
feces. The only reference to body fluids we could find in our
PCD sample is to tears, as with the “tiny teardrop” of crystal
that “rolls down” Little Bo Peep’s cheek.
The PCDs emit nothing more disturbing than pleasant odors
and tunes. Quite a few of the “angel” dolls play carols and
hymns (Angelique “doesn’t just have the voice of an angel—she
has the heart of one too!”), but very few of them actually talk.
This may be because technically this is still very difficult to “get
real.” Around the turn of the twentieth century there were
numerous attempts to give dolls voices. This usually involved
pulling and releasing a string which made the dolls croak
“mama” or more elaborate phrases. Bellows produced bleating
 MORE THAN REAL 159

noises, and one model screamed shrilly when dis turbed.

Although very elaborate voices are now put into toys (the
various Elmos and Furbees) the PCDs are above this sort of
vulgarity. The poet Rainer Maria Rilke recalls being enraged as
child by his dolls’ reluctance to converse with him, but more
receptive owners have always enjoyed their whispered
confidences.7
We all know the mysteriously primeval, evocative power of
smells. A dog’s nose tells it whether you are really there or not.8
Odor is a subtle medium for the PCD manufacturers. Babies
and little children have a distinctive smell, very perceptible to
childless adults if not to the parents themselves. Homes at this
broody stage are pervaded by this milky-poopy odor, which
seems to resist efforts to dispel it. So far the doll firms have
shown no interest in capturing and synthesizing it with a view
to enlivening their product, the way auto manufacturers spray
leathery smells into new cars. It is certainly important that dolls
should smell right when they are unwrapped. Delicate perfumes
are used, mainly in the tissue or accessories, to mask
commercial odors like glue. Caroline, for example, carries a
fragrant bouquet. The most common olfactory additive to the
PCDs is baby powder: Meagan Rose is “a porcelain-beanbag
baby who’s truly Heaven Scent…. Arriving from a special
garden up in heaven, this newborn beauty looks as if she is
about to break into an enchanting baby giggle. And the fluffy
‘cloud’ she lies on bears the fragrance of sweet baby powder.”

FACES
“The face,” says doll dealer Debbie Madrigal, “is where the
money is.” For the connoisseur, a cracked leg or loose arm is as
nothing compared to a small abrasion on the cheek. How faces
look and how they change matter a great deal to humans. Facial
expressions, along with gestures and other “body language,”
play a major part in our communications with each other. Our
features are flexible, and we are continually manipulating them
to convey a mood, an attitude, an identity. We narrow our eyes
shrewdly to look older and wiser, or widen them ingenuously to
look younger. “Human perceivers are sensitive to age-related
160 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

changes in facial appearance and can readily judge the relative

age of different faces shown in photographs.”9 We react badly
to faces that give us the wrong age and sex cues. In men,
“babyish” features are perceived in psychological tests as
warm, weak, and naive, and in some contexts wicked (those
gangster characters with names like “Babyface” Molloy).10
Faces are always being scrutinized for information that is
conveyed unintentionally as well as intentionally: hence the
unfortunate effects for a child of having a face whose layout is
“older” than its age, and which therefore has more expected of
it and less given to it, and is more exposed to abuse.11 The
“beautiful-is-good” stereotype is hard on us plainer folk, and
downright dangerous to the ugly.12
Despite differences in facial structure and culture, human
beings around the world make remarkably similar judgments
about how strong or submissive, sexy or frigid, fickle or
trustworthy a person looks. Such basic distinctions were as
perceptible to the sixteenth-century physiognomists as they
have been to experimental psychologists in the late twentieth
century.13 Biologists have assumed that our ability to “read”
faces in this way is one of our important evolutionary
adaptations, essential to the social as well as the sexual
intercourse on which our species depends. A positive, caring
response to the infant face is vital to our survival both
individually and as a species, and perceptions of youthful
attractiveness are important in finding a mate.
The concern with realism concentrates on the head and face
of the PCD. A century ago, heads were often sold separately,
German artistry in porcelain merging with French expertise in
couture to produce the perfect complete doll. Heads were also
sold to private purchasers who added bodies and clothes of
their own design. It would be very hard to infuse a headless
doll with life and personality, much easier to empathize with a
doll with a missing leg or hand. Especially in antique dolls,
hands and feet have been tiny in proportion to the head. The
attention paid to the head is understandable, not least because
little children do have proportionately bigger heads than adults.
This is linked to the expansion during the course of human
evolution of our brains, which outgrew the pelvic capacity of
 MORE THAN REAL 161

our mothers and now have to achieve more than three quarters
of their size outside her body. In its first year after birth the
brain doubles in weight, sopping up half the body’s available
energy, and continues to grow throughout the first two
decades of life. One effect of this is that after birth we continue
to look a lot more like fetuses than do other closely related
mammals.
We have devised some simple diagrams to show as clearly as
possible the distinctions between older and younger male and
female faces, and how different bits of these faces have been
manipulated to make the PCDs. (For an explanation of how
these diagrams are composed, please refer to appendix F.)
Between birth and early adulthood, both the shape of the head
and the layout of the features change markedly. Relative to the
size of its skull, the “facial mask” of the infant is very small (see
figures 6-a and 6-b). After a couple of years the balance shifts,
and the facial proportions increase relative to the cranium. By
about ten years of age, the cranium is nearly adult size, but the
face continues to grow and change well into adulthood.14
“Compared to a mature adult, a baby’s face has relatively large
and wide-set eyes, dainty eyebrows, small jaws, a more concave
profile, a small mouth with short lips, a relatively large and
protuberant forehead, a low nasal bridge, a smallish pug nose,
and smooth skin.”15 As growth is completed, adipose tissue is
lost, hair color and distribution change, wrinkles and bags
appear on the skin. At this stage we look back with envy at the
prettiness of youth (see figure 6-b).
Capturing the distinctive early features of growth is very
important in the design of dolls. Most basically, you can make
a head look more childlike by increasing the size of the skull,
expanding the cheeks, contracting the features toward the center
of the face, and dropping them on the vertical plane (see
figure 6-c). By contrast, shrinking the skull, emphasizing the
chin, nose, and ears, and moving the features upward makes
the face look older.16 If the intention is to make it look
aesthetically pleasing rather than “characterful,” the left and
right sides of the face should appear symmetrical. The PCDs all
play safe on this, but the expensive custom-made dolls often do
outrageous things with asymmetry to assert “personality”—a
162 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

Figure 6-a: Development of facial mask

George, age 3 months, and Tony, age 10 years.
Photos by Elizabeth Stanger.
 MORE THAN REAL 163

crooked smile, or quizzical eyes, one a little higher than the

other.
Since the attractive qualities of infantile features were noted
by Charles Darwin, they have been the subject of study by
biologists, most notably Konrad Lorenz. The assumption is that
the more pleas ant we look to our long-suffering mothers, the
less likely they will be to abandon us. We evolved physical
signals on the infant’s side, and receptivity to them on the
mother’s, which strengthened the bond. Mothers respond
affectionately to infant eyes, mouths, and cheeks, and to some
degree fathers, too, are drawn into the nurturing conspiracy.
Lorenz’s summary of these traits in animals seems a little
clinical: “a relatively large head, predominance of the brain
capsule, large and low-lying eyes, bulging cheek region, short
and thick extremities, a springy elastic consistency, and clumsy
movements.”17 These features, and the psychic chemistry that is
at play, are at the heart of doll design. (It has been argued that
over the centuries they have also been bred into lapdogs.)18
The evolutionary scientist Stephen Jay Gould points out that
“market researchers (for the doll industry in particular) have
spent a good deal of time and practical effort learning what
features appeal to people as cute and friendly.”19 Biologists
have noted an interesting quirk in design: over time, dolls tend
to “evolve” along the same axes as the development of humans,
but they tend to do so “backward.” They begin with more
adult shapes, and track back to more attractive infantile
patterns. The most famous example of this is the historical
development of Mickey Mouse, who appears as a rather nasty
pointy-nosed mature rodent in his earliest manifestations, and
develops into the chubby-cheeked, wide-mouthed, bug-eyed,
chinless megastar we know and love today Hinde and Barden
measured teddy bears in the Cambridge Folk Museum and in a
Cambridge store, and found that over time they became
decreasingly bearlike and more emphatically babylike. Their
heads became rounder, their snouts smaller and shorter, and
their eyes dropped lower down their faces. As with Mickey, the
effect of this infantile regression was to make them less stern
and more lovable.20
164 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

Figure 6-b: Facial development.

Doris, age 5 month, 10 years, and 86 years.
Photos © A.F.Robertson
 MORE THAN REAL 165

Figure 6-c: Infantilizing facial features.

Amy, Photo by Elizabeth Stanger.
Dana, Photo by A.F.Robertson.
166 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

According to Dunbar, the market is what exerts the

“evolutionary” pressure here. The designers themselves are not
genetically programmed to make imitation babies—that’s why
they so often start out with adult forms. “It seems likely that as
the design team sits down to consider next year’s production
models, they opt for those lines that have sold best the year
before. They themselves need have no pre conception about
how bears should look: they merely try the designs that they
think people will buy, some of which sell and some of which
get left on the shelves.”21 The doll aficionadas would be aghast
at such cynicism: doll design is not hard science, not a matter of
identifying and replicating infantile forms. Of course dolls, like
all successful commodities, are moulded by their commercial
niche, but we should not underrate the creative artistry of the
designers themselves.
There comes a point when making the doll’s face look
younger no longer adds to its appeal. The fetus is not cute:
“Makers of horror movies often design aliens that look like
fetuses…. With startling regularity, the fetus has been regarded
as dangerously anomalous, a symbolically charged entity.”22 If
evolutionary design is at work, this repulsion is possibly a
disincentive to expending costly mothering effort on premature
babies. In tests, pre-term infants are regarded as much less
“cute,” and hospital staff have to be reminded that they need to
be touched and caressed. Perceptions of baby “cuteness” peaks
at 9 months for girls and 11 months for boys. The cuddliness
ratings of 6-month to 2-year-old boys are much higher than for
the new-born.23 This dangerous fetal threshold may be why
“cuteness,” especially its commercialization, has recently taken
a critical beating. It is, says Daniel Harris, “closely linked to the
grotesque, the malformed”:

Cuteness, in short, is not something we find in our

children but something we do to them. Because it
aestheticizes unhappiness, helplessness, and deformity, it
almost always involves an act of sadism on the part of its
creator, who makes an unconscious attempt to maim,
hobble, and embarrass the thing he seeks to idolize, as in
the case of “Little Mutt,” a teddy bear with a game leg
 MORE THAN REAL 167

that a British manufacturer has even fitted with an

orthopedic boot.24

Nevertheless, many cute doll designs, such as the Precious

Moments series or the famous Kewpie, look decidedly fetal.
Kewpie was the creation, around 1909, of Rose O’Neill, who
was twice married but childless, and adored children. She was
enraptured with her baby brother Eddie, and devastated when
he died at age two. The Kewpies began as magazine drawings
based on Eddie, often making serious social observations, and
mutated into three-dimensional doll form. The original Kewpie
was a naked androgynous “he,” which became more
infantilized and feminized in the hands of the market and the
manufacturers.25
A problem about the infant face, from the designer’s point of
view, is that it is not very characterful. Here’s the technical
explanation:

Those of us who are parents imagine all sorts of facial

expressions in the young neonate. Actually, observing the
infant objectively, we must admit that the expression is
often rather blank. The reason is that the facial muscles
are busy being used for the massive efforts of mandibular
stabilization during infantile swallowing. Eventually the
mandible becomes controlled and stabilized more by the
muscles of mastication, particularly during unconscious
reflex swallowing, and the delicate muscles of the seventh
cranial nerve become truly “muscles of facial
expression.”26

Up to puberty, “real” girls and boys are quite similar in

physique and physiognomy. Except for the genitals, babies are
virtually indistinguishable. Two of the advertisements present
newborn PCDs with no reference to gender, and two others
encourage the buyer to make her own choice. The difference is
the clothes: apart from their pink and blue jump suits the two
newborns “It’s a Girl” and “It’s a Boy” are identical dolls. But
from toddlers upward, the older the doll, the more emphatic
the gender distinctions. The advertisements are peppered with
168 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

personal pronouns, so important in the humanizing of the

dolls, making it abundantly clear that 81 percent of our sample
are girls, 19 percent boys (counting those in the seven boy-girl
pairs). Only when the copywriter is deeply in technical mode
(jointing, firing, numbering) is the doll referred to as “it.”
Gender differentiation in real kids is very much a matter of
upbringing—naming, dressing, role training, and so on. If
nature is not much concerned to inscribe gender differences on
the human body before puberty, it seems that doll designers feel
they must. One way of characterizing the effect is to say that
while all the dolls should look cute, the girls have to do better
than that. Psychological experiments have shown that “girls are
expected to be cuter than boys, so their cuteness is judged more
stringently. Thus, a particular infant will be perceived as cuter
if he or she is believed to be male since the standards for
cuteness in boys are lower.”27 In the PCDs, and probably in real
children too, the implication is that to look better than cute, little
girls should also look attractive, a notion with strong sexual
undertones, which finds expression in the physical design of the
doll. We shall explore this in the next chapter, but the effect,
stated very bluntly, is to make many of the boys look more
babylike, and many of the girls more adult.

EYES
Let us look a little more closely at the various components of
facial design. Eyes are how we fix on people—we gaze with
them, and we gaze at them. They are, we are told, the window
to the soul. They can burn, sparkle, dazzle, they can quench
and dim, and they can scare you to death. As the ladies of his
local Doll Club got to work on the skeptical Frank, plying him
with cookies and juice, he began to get a feeling for the
“reality” of the dolls clustered around the participants. “I
stared into their eyes. It was as if I was staring at another
person. Perhaps it was the ambience of the event but the eyes
sparkled, and looked very natural and real.”
The aflcionadas agree that “the eyes are the most outstanding
feature on a doll’s face.”28 They are of central importance in
the design of the doll and the imaging of reality, and are the most
 MORE THAN REAL 169

vital signal in attracting or repelling a prospective purchaser.

Imagine substituting Nicole’s “deep brown eyes, framed by
feathery eyelashes” with a pair plucked from a Cabbage Patch
Kid. With such treatment Viola’s “sweet, allusive look” would
surely vanish. Eyes are mentioned in 40 percent of the
advertisements, more than any other body part. We found that
there is a more than even chance that anyone, young or old,
will refer to the eyes when asked to comment on a doll, and
they mention eyes more than any other feature of the face or
body.
Jenny is “wide-eyed and eager to please.” Our attention
pivots on the eyes, and they seem to change, both momentarily
with our moods and more durably as we get older. The notion
that little children have much bigger eyes is something of an
illusion. The size of our eyes does not change much as we grow,
but their proportions and position in relation to other facial
features do. During the first 15 years of life they seem to get
smaller as the jaw lengthens, the cheeks get less chubby, and the
cranium becomes proportionally smaller in relation to the
whole “facial mask.” Accentuating the illusion of sweet, wide-
eyed childish innocence in doll design is more a matter of
tinkering with cheeks, chin, and brow than simply blowing up
the eyes themselves (see figure 6-d.) To do so produces gross
effects that may please some but can easily look grotesque.
Children examining the PCD advertisements were quick to spot
the general tendency to exaggerate the eyes (Emily: “too big,
too wide…too many lashes…she has a funny look”). By
comparison, play dolls usually have quite small and
unostentatious eyes, and baby effects are achieved mostly by
expanding cheeks and foreheads and reducing chins.
The eyes of most PCDs are acrylic, which is cheaper, more
easily molded and colored, and can look more convincing than
glass, which is preferred in antiques and higher quality PCDs.
Technical references to the eyes have a particularly alienating
ring (Peanut has “big blue glass eyes”), and there is something
about repeated use of the phrase “hand set” that induces a
wince (A Friend in Need’s “hand set brown eyes are tender and
warm”).
170 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

Nearly all the dolls’ eyes are set centrally, presumably

because they have the virtue of returning the gaze directly.
However, there is no doubt that part of the striking success of
Georgetown’s Caroline is her meaningful sidelong glance. In the
early 1920s Simon & Halbig made a doll with “flirty” eyes,
capable of sidelong movements, but none of the PCDs have
eyes that move.29 Nor do any of the PCDs have mechanical
eyes that open and close. While this is important in children’s
play dolls, adults find the recessed, clacking eyes distractingly
unreal, and unnecessary if display is the prime function. Liza,
now a grandmother, said she never liked mechanical eyes,
mainly because the eyeballs rolled down drunkenly as the lids
descended, and they tended to jam. To release them involved
screwing the head off the doll and poking around inside.
Nearly half of the neonate and infant dolls in our sample had
closed eyes, the advertising copy drawing attention to other
features like the “Soft folds of skin under his eyes.” The dolls
with permanently closed eyes were disliked by children—for
play they must wake up. While many people point out that the
fixed stare of the porcelain doll can be disturbingly unreal, our
suggestion that they might be equipped with an intermittent
blink was greeted with amused horror by adults and children
alike. Realism has its limits.
Of the dolls with open and clearly visible eyes in our
advertisement selection, half had blue eyes, two fifths brown,
and one fifth green. The preference for blue partly reflects the
Caucasian bias of our sample (86 percent), 60 percent of which
had blue eyes; and partly the fact that the iris and sclera of even
dark-skinned children may appear blue when they are very
small.30 As with hair, the color darkens in the first two or three
years of life. Of the 71 (26 percent) that we classified as infants
or toddlers, nearly a third had closed or indistinct eyes; of those
we could see, 64 percent were blue, and 29 percent were brown.
While this roughly corresponds to what we would expect of real
children, we noted that the blue in the PCDs is very bright and
limpid, not the rather dull hue of the newborn.
There’s more to a doll’s eye than a glass marble or acrylic
chip. Eyebrows and eyelashes are very important in the
modeling of children, probably because as they look upward at
 MORE THAN REAL 171

Figure 6-d: Comparison of doll face forms.

Play doll—Cabbage Patch, photo by A.F.Robertson.
Real child—Amy, photo by Elizabeth Stanger.
Becky, © 1992 The Hamilton Collection, Inc. Bets Van Boxel, Artist.

us as adults, their eyes widen, and their eyelids and brows are
raised.31 “Looking up at you with his bright blue hand-set eyes,
he’s sure you’ll take him home to love” (“You Deserve a Break
Today”). Eyelashes are proportionately longer in children,
which is why adults have to exaggerate them cosmetically to
recapture this youthful appearance. Cinderella’s “enormous
172 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

blue eyes are framed with real lashes.” They are of course
synthetic, probably nylon or “Kanekalon.”32 In the antique or
high-priced dolls they are made of fine bristle or animal hair.33
On the other hand, eyebrows are much finer on small children,
thickening after puberty, so we have to pluck them later in life
to keep that innocent look. Advertising copy for the PCDs
stresses the delicacy with which they are painted, and there’s no
doubt that bushy eyebrows would look unappealing, or scary,
on a doll.

MOUTHS, LIPS, TEETH, CHEEKS

In studies of facial attractiveness, the mouth is second in
importance only to the eyes.34 The formation of the mouth may
be a decisive difference between dolls for play and the PCDs.
But once again, the facial environment of the mouth matters at
least as much as its specific size or shape. Cheeks therefore loom
large in the calculus: “When children are very young, their
cheeks are puffed out with ‘sucking pads.’ These fleshy areas on
either side of the face elicit a powerful emotional response in
adults, particularly women.”35 A by-product of plump cheeks is
the dimple, most visible when the facial muscles are pulled into
a smile. Babies can be persuaded to smile quite readily,
doubtless because it encourages us to reward them with our
attention.36 This reinforcement may be related to the capacity of
dimples to signal prettiness into adulthood, and (on the
principle that girls have to try harder to look cute) for the
observed tendency for dimples to last longer in girls than
boys.37 However, as the proportions of the face mature, pudgy
cheeks look much less attractive. In tune with the lengthening
of the adult face, aesthetic interest seems to switch to the
“height of the cheekbones.” Hollywood gossip about facial
modification among the stars has it that “In order to create the
caved-in facial look that was uniquely hers, Marlene Dietrich
had her upper rear molars removed early in her career.”38
Cheeks are mentioned in 12 percent of the doll
advertisements, lips in 7 percent, and teeth in just 1 percent.
Prominent pink cheeks are an assurance of health, a matter of
obvious maternal interest. With their full, flushed cheeks and
 MORE THAN REAL 173

clear translucent eyes, the PCDs lose no opportunity to signal

the bloom of youth. Stevie is “handpainted to highlight his look
of glowing good health.” Alicia has “cheeks all aglow with a
hint of blush.” In the nineteenth century new materials and
production techniques allowed manufacturers to pursue more
exact realizations, especially in skin texture and color and the
luminosity of the eyes. Today, only the most expensive
“character” dolls look pale, skinny, or misshapen.39 This is
probably a “runt of the litter” stimulus designed to elicit a
protective or nurturing response. One student observer felt that
PCDs took images of health to the point of deformity: with
their “swollen legs, stubby fingers, and bloated cheeks…their
bodies appear defenseless and dejected, begging for our
attention.”
There are some marked differences in the mouths of antique,
collector, and children’s dolls, and real live kids (see figure 6-e).
The nineteenth century bisque and parian dolls have vast
cheeks and tiny cupid-bow mouths. Designers of children’s
dolls also inflate the cheeks, and the relative unimportance of
the mouth is suggested by the thinness of the upper lip, and
minimal attention to details of texture or color. Some are
distorted with a circular hole to take a feeding bottle. Highly
stylized dolls like the Cabbage Patch Kids have vastly
exaggerated cheeks and rather mean little lips. By contrast,
many of the PCDs have very mature-looking mouths. The
inflated lower lip is often suggestively wrinkled and may be
picked out with artful brushwork in two or more colors:
Hannah’s “hand-painted lips are softly puckered, a rosy peach
to match her cheeks.” “Pouty” is a word which recurs in the
advertisements and TV sales shows.
The mouths of many antique dolls were executed very
perfunctorily: a sketchy cupid’s bow, a simple split line, even
just a red dot. The breakthrough came around the middle of the
nineteenth century when dolls started to smile: “The effect was
enhanced when two bisque teeth moulded in a block were
pasted into the mouth behind the upper lip.”40 Upper teeth seem
to have been considered prettier than lower teeth—though one
classic German doll has an open laughing mouth with two
lower teeth and a protruding tongue.41 Toothy effects are not
174 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

always pleasing, though they appear quite often in play dolls

(for example the American Girls series). Although mouths loom
so large in the PCDs they are usually shut, smiling or not.
Representing teeth and the moist inside of a mouth
convincingly requires careful modeling and painting, and is thus
more likely in the expensive dolls. Realistic representations of
children must also confront the awkward problem of “mixed
dentition” in five-to-nine-year-olds, the “ugly duckling” stage
with its concatenation of baby teeth, gaps, and emergent “big
teeth,” which can look quite scary in a small mouth. Adult
teeth help to give the jaw its heavier, grown-up appearance, and
without them the older face can seem to collapse into an
unpleasant caricature of an infant. Perhaps because we
associate tooth loss with aging, toothlessness is not generally
considered attractive, even in a neonate.42

NOSES AND EARS

The cartilage of ears and noses continues to grow slowly
throughout life, which may be why these appendages never
loom large in dolls, unless they are adult caricatures.43 In the
European traditions from which the PCDs emerged, the
aesthetic preference has been for daintiness. The modeling of
the ears is a good indication of quality and price, and they are
prominent only in the more expensive “character” dolls. The
PCD designers have not gone to great lengths to replicate those
strange whorls, folds, and flaps of skin. In cheaper dolls
attention to the ears is minimal, and they are occasionally
entirely absent, especially if they are covered by hair or
headgear.
Ears may be tucked out of sight, but it would be hard to
avoid the nose, sitting as it does right in the center of things.
“Every doll has a nose, however minimal its indication.”44
Noses are mentioned in just 5 percent of advertisements,
usually accompanied by the word “dainty.” Tiffany “is lovingly
hand-painted right down to the sprinkling of freckles across her
pert little nose.”
 MORE THAN REAL 175

Fig 6-e: Mouth forms.

HAIR
Hair, on the other hand, is the crowning glory. On the cheaper
dolls and on infants, hair is lightly molded on the skull and
176 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

painted, or simply brushed on with light color. Representing

“real” hair is a major technical challenge. The wooden dolls of
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries often had wigs nailed
to their heads, and the later wax dolls had hair painstakingly
inserted into their scalps, half a dozen at a time, with hot
needles. With the nineteenth-century concern for realism,
elaborate wigs of human hair or mohair were pasted onto the
scalps of the pricier porcelain dolls.45 Although rarely specified,
the hair of all dolls in the PCD range is clearly synthetic. To get
real human hair you have to move up several hundred dollars
to the expensive custom-made range.
Hair is important for rather different reasons in play dolls
and the PCDs. Children like to work on the hair, brushing,
washing, and trimming. This has been the cause of much
devastation wreaked on expensive dolls that parents might have
hoped would be carefully preserved. The child, subjected to
many haircuts herself, may reckon that if the doll is as real as
she imagines it to be, its hair will soon grow back. When she
was little, Doris cut Rose Vanilla’s (real) blond hair to shreds,
and for nearly a century she has had to hide her shame under a
little embroidered cap (picture 9). Eileen G. remembers: “I had
my mother’s doll when I was little. Her doll would go back to
about 1906 or 1908. And it had a long wig with curls, but they
made me have a Dutch bob. And I didn’t know what I was
thinking but I cut my doll’s hair…. It was just why should she
have curls when I didn’t? That was it.”
Eileen’s grandchildren are up to the same game:
Q: Do you like Barbie? Do you have any Barbies?
A: I had one, which I shaved his head—her head. [Laughter]
Q: Why?
A: I don’t know! I just felt like it. She’s like—keeechh!
[whipping hair off]
Q: Did you actually cut it all off with scissors?
A: Yeah—it still has a little hair.
E: We actually got rid of most of our Barbies. I just have about
three now.
A: We were cutting their hair before we got rid of them. And I
thought it looked really cool with a shaved head.
 MORE THAN REAL 177

While some have criticized the hipless, skinny-legged design of

Barbie as a fashionable inducement to anorexia, the more
plausible explanation emerges if you watch little children at
play: Barbie’s legs function as a handle (picture 10). This is one
reason why the wide-hipped “Happy-to-Be-Me” substitute
offered to progressive mothers never caught on. Even a very
small child can grasp Barbie’s legs in one fist, while the hair
(profuse and loose on the basic play versions) is groomed
vigorously with the other hand. For the convenience of the
budding hairdresser, there are Barbie-type dolls which consist
simply of a head, mounted bustlike on a stable plinth. There are
even “cut-and-come-again” models which allow the child to
pull more hair out through holes in the scalp after each trim.
Attention is drawn to the hair explicitly in 17 percent of the
PCD advertisements. Catering for the play-display ambivalence,
a few of the more expensive dolls have hair that’s brushable.
Neatly and permanently coiffed hair is an important selling
line, and TV presenters point out that up-market dolls get the
individual attention of “real live hairdressers.” It is clear that
hair can be overdone, especially if it gives the toddler or child
doll a precocious, adult appearance. A common criticism was
that the hair on some PCDs was “just too much.” One little girl
described The Gibson Girl’s emphatically big hair as “flumpy.”
As for color, all the blond-haired dolls (38 percent of our
sample) were of course Caucasian. We classified 34 percent as
“brown” or “auburn,” 14 percent “black,” and 5 percent
“red.” All of these were clear, positive hairdresser hues. We
identified 5 percent as “fair,” that almost uncategorizable
“mousy” color so common in Caucasian populations, which is
rather too drab for the doll reality.

EXTREMITIES: HANDS, LEGS, AND FEET

“From her crimped honey-blonde tresses to her shapely pink
toenails, she’s absolutely detail-perfect” (Sunday’s Child).
Although a little lower on the schedule of design priorities, the
limbs, hands, and feet of the PCDs can be very important in
building the illusion of reality. Legs are referred to in 27
percent of the advertisements, mostly to affirm that they are
178 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

Picture 9: Rose Vanilla, without her bonnet.

Doris’s doll, acquired sometime between 1910 and 1920. Porcelain head
and full, painted composition body, about 15 inches, made in Japan.
Rose Vanilla was named after a favorite dessert. She wears Doris’s own
first baby dress. As a child Doris cropped its hair.
Photo by A.F.Robertson.
 MORE THAN REAL 179

Picture 10: Rosie, age 3, grooming Barbie.

Photo by Elizabeth Stanger.
180 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

fully modeled in porcelain. Convincing articulation of the limbs

to the torso is another big challenge. Historically, “well-
designed thighs were an essential feature in a doll, to enable her
to sit as naturally as possible.”46 Like real infants, baby dolls
usually have curving legs, the soles of their feet pointing inward
to assist balance. All-porcelain dolls can feel clunky, but the
joins between cloth or beanbag bodies and the porcelain
extremities on the “partial” dolls can be disconcerting.
“Everywhere, one trait parents play close attention to is
how plump the baby is.” Unlike many other mammals, a
human infant is designed to survive for many days off its own
body fat.47 No doubt high infant mortality rates in the
nineteenth century made pudgy dolls particularly appealing.
The hands of play dolls often look like stubby paws. Accurate
details seem to matter less than the capacity to pass easily
through sleeves, or to grasp with opposed thumbs and fingers.
For their part, the PCD advertisements linger lovingly on
“chubby little hands” and “delicate curled toes.” Hands don’t
seem to have quite as much sensuous appeal as feet. Detailing
the crinkles and crevices adds to the affective allure of a doll—
indeed there is a whole barefoot doll collection called
“Footsies.” Good as Gold’s “pudgy baby toes look so real, you
expect them to wiggle!” Hannah’s have “the natural dimples of
a little girl,” and Little Bit of Sunshine has toes that have “the
natural creases of an infant.” On Holly, “even her miniature
toenails have been painted.” The advertisement for Playing
Footsie asks us to admire how it “pulls its bootee off and
wiggles those tiny pink toes!” (note the avoidance of gender
pronouns for this infant):

Superbly sculpted in a lifelike pose, the baby actually seems

to be caught in action. Just look at that exuberant
expression, those chubby legs and the dimpled hand
tugging at the bootee! The baby’s head and limbs are
crafted from fine bisque porcelain to reflect every adorable
detail. Its precious features are painted entirely by hand.
Notice the radiant complexion and rosy knees. Even the
baby’s eyebrows are delicately colored to match its wispy
 MORE THAN REAL 181

blond hair. From head to toe Playing Footsie is a

collecting treasure!

Scrupulous attention may be paid to shoes (mentioned in 8% of

the advertisements):

“‘Kimberly’ is amazingly realistic, from the top of her

glossy dark curls to the tips of her pretty summer shoes.”
“…from her bright little face to her polished shoes,
[Roxanne] looks a picture.”

One of the Shirley Temple dolls boasts “lace-trimmed white

socks and white lace-up shoes on her little feet.” A selling point
on the most expensive dolls is that the shoes are made by “a
real shoemaker.”

CLOTHES AND ACCESSORIES

Clothes and shoes have a sensuous quality that is very
important in realizing the dolls. “Peeking from below her dress
are pristine white pantaloons and a slip trimmed in delicate
white lace. And, her real leather shoes are tied with blue satin
ribbons!” (Virginia). Clothes are very important for the “play”
element in PCDs:

“Mommy has just finished dressing little ‘Stephanie’ in her

brand new pink romper. Accented with dainty flowers,
mauve piping and delicate bow collar, it’s just the outfit
for such a precious little girl.”
Lauren “has been trying so hard to be good! Mommy
said she could wear her new pink romper all day long if
she promised to be a precious little angel.”
Danielle is “all cozy and warm in a custom-designed
romper suit of softest flannel and delicate lace, with lovely
little rosebuds around the neckline. With a matching
bonnet and darling, hand-tied booties.”

Describing clothes is plainly important in conveying quality and

value, and on this topic the advertisements are in full gush.
182 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

Sensuality matters a great deal, but so too do the material values.

A change of garments, even a few home-made touches, can
decimate the value of a “serious” collector doll. Here, the
copywriter can make technical connections with the dress-
making skills of enthusiasts. Alicia, the Gibson Flower Girl
wears “pretty peach shoes adorned with lovely baby rosebuds”
and is “authentically dressed in sumptuous ivory satin with five
full yards of delicate lace and 180 full inches of pretty peach
ribbons.” “‘Tiffany’s costume has been lavished with loving
detail too, from the rosebuds and lace on her bonnet, to the
eyelet and ribbon trim of her pale pink dress, with scalloped
lace edged petticoat and ribbon tied shoes peeking from
beneath.” But it’s not necessarily all lace and frills: Buckwheat
may be “crafted of fine, hand-painted bisque porcelain,” but
“he is dressed just as we remember him…baggy sweater, shorts,
droopy socks and scruffy shoes that were always too big.”
Eighty-one percent of our PCD sample were “accessorized”
in some specified way, other than their garments. These objects
ranged from rocking horses to toilet paper, from caterpillars to
kittens, and from bowers to bassinets. Flowers and fruit made
frequent appearances, often in conjunction with the name of
the doll: Apple Dumpling, Sweet Strawberry, Peaches and
Cream, Cherry Pie, Blackberry Blossom, Blushing Rose, Shy
Violet, Lavender Dreams. Accessories are very important in
adding verisimilitude: the advertisements invite us to marvel at
the real wooden chair, or 24–carat gold-plated charm, or
“silvery” buttons.

AUTHENTIFICATION
The text that accompanies the dolls—the advertising copy,
packaging, birth and adoption certificates, the guarantees of
satisfaction—works hard to authenticate them and to boost the
illusion of reality. A word that crops up frequently in the
advertisements is faux, French for “false.” This is applied to
clothes, accessories, trimmings, and even to body parts: “faux
fur,” “faux pearls,” “faux eyelashes.” Faux is a classier word
than “imitation” or such kitsch phrases as “leather-like,”
“suade-cloth,” or “pearlized.” The ambiguous reality of the
 MORE THAN REAL 183

dolls is often maneuvered into “quotes” or italics: Little

Teardrop’s “tiny mouth seems to quiver as she ‘weeps,’ and her
hand-set blue eyes are filled with tenderness.” The dolls’ names
and title themes, their miniature accessories, and many other
hyperreal touches are rendered this way.
The way we use the word “incredible” these days is loaded
with irony. We usually mean that something is “wonderful” or
“amazing,” rather than literally “unbelievable.” Still, the
frequent use of the word in the doll advertisements seems to
put our credibility to the test:

“This baby is incredibly lifelike” (“Someone to Watch

Over Me”).
“Such an incredible likeness of Shirley Temple—from
her renowned dimples, to her cute button nose and
radiant smile—has never before been available in a
collector doll!”
“Elke Hutchens has given Little Eagle Dancer a
charming, incredibly lifelike face.”
“Expertly sculpted; incredibly lifelike” (Julia).

Stretching credibility is dangerous. Take it in one direction or

another and it becomes either brilliant or stupid, blissful or
dreadful. Such effects should never amount to more than simple
reality in the eyes of the beholder for whom they are intended.
In the case of the PCDs this involves some delicate collusion
between producer and consumer.

THE ARTIST AS TECHNICIAN AND

MAGICIAN
“Let the grace of Ann Timmerman’s artistry take you to a more
perfect world” (Apple Dumpling). The artist-designer (some
prefer the phrase “doll artisan”) is the central figure in this
collaboration between manufacturer and collector.48 She is
technician and magician, the link between craft and art. It is she
who authenticates the doll as an object with both life and
material value. She puckers lips and curls eyelashes, and her
name is stamped on the back of the finished product along with
184 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

the registration number and logo. Her reputation translates into

cash values. She is almost indispensable to the presentation of
the product—only 13 percent of the PCDs in our sample of
advertisements have no named artist-designer.
It is possible that a manufacturer could achieve the full
hyperreal effects by evolutionary trial and error of the sort
imagined by Dunbar (see above), or by employing a skillful
cynic who has studied the development of the product.
Competition has certainly brought ruthless imitation of one
manufacturer by another. But these are clumsy and risky tactics
when it is possible to capture and incorporate into the
production process the imagination of the collector herself. This
is done very directly. There is ample testimony that many of the
“doll artists” are, or were, enthusiasts like the collectors
themselves. Manufacturers are well aware that such women can
cut through the mysteries to design the little masterpieces that
sell so well. The companies advertise in the same media they
use for sales (magazines, TV, the Web) for people with a flair
for design. They are invited to submit samples for inspection,
and if they are successful they are recruited on a freelance basis,
part of the “outsourcing” network on which the industry
depends. With the development of a personal profile and
possibly a name change, they may eventually be contracted to
the company as a star designer, like Ann Timmerman and
Pamela Phillips of the Georgetown Collection, Elke Hutchens
of Danbury, or Diana Effner and Kathy Barry-Hippensteel of
Ashton-Drake.
The identity, real or possibly fictitious, of the “doll artist”
responsible for each individual creation has become a central
feature of the PCD merchandising and packaging of the dolls.
She is written up in the magazines and makes celebrity
appearances on the TV specials. She is represented to the
clientele as a sort of spiritual sister with the special capacity to
“bring the dream to life.” My Little Ballerina, for example, “is
issued exclusively from the Ashton-Drake Galleries under Ms
Hippensteel’s From Her Heart to Your Home seal, your
assurance of the finest in quality and craftsmanship.” Although
she is very rarely pictured, the doll artist is represented in the
advertisements as a vibrant youngish woman with special gifts
 MORE THAN REAL 185

and qualifications in art and design. She appears on the TV

merchandising shows as an older woman who has made a
hobby of modeling and dressing dolls, and has graduated to
“serious” craft work. Her children have grown up, and she now
has the time and resources to experiment, sculpting and firing
her own dolls and selling them on a modest scale.
On the Home Shopping Network’s Gallery of Dolls sales
show, Rose Pinkul tells the host, Tina Berry, how she came to
design dolls like Heidi (“a closed edition, only 500 pieces
worldwide, two payments of $69.50…”):

I used to be a design draftsman, and I worked with men

all day. I supervised the drafting room, and I had to get
out with some women, I just really did. And so I went to a
doll class—I just happened to be passing a doll shop, and I
said wow! I didn’t know people did this! So I went in, and
I started taking classes. I’m an old art student from way
back, I’ve always been a painter and I’ve sold work in
galleries and things like that, so I picked it up pretty
quickly. And in pretty much no time at all I was sculpting
my own dolls. I was a victim of the recession and got laid
off, and my husband said, well, you know, you’ve always
wanted to do something with the dolls, now’s the time.
And he stood behind me, and I started sculpting and really
surprised myself, because I never thought I’d be a
sculptor. I was always into graphics.49

Rose has designed PCDs including Brittany—All Tuckered Out

for Danbury, but also makes one-off originals that sell for more
than a thousand dollars. “My men and ladies are around fifteen
hundred. But they wear silk, and human hair wigs, glass
eyes…”
In the advertisements the artists are “acclaimed” or
“celebrated,” and a large proportion of them have won
industry prizes. The French and German origins of the antique
dolls means that any sort of European connection is stressed in
the advertisements: Nicolette offers “exquisite European
artistry at a noteworthy price!” Danielle, designed by
“renowned European doll artist Gudrun Haak,” is “an
186 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

heirloom selection from Franklin Heirloom Dolls’ exclusive

European Doll Artists Collection. This outstanding collector
doll represents the ‘best of the best’ from Europe’s top artists.”
Only 5 percent of dolls with named artists in our sample
were designed by persons who are not clearly identifiable as
women. The most conspicuous of the male PCD designers is
“Titus Tomescu,” whose “Cute as a Butt-on” was a best seller
and a winner of the industry’s Doll of the Year award in 1994.
This all-porcelain doll comes from the “Barely Yours Baby Doll
Collection,” and appears in the advertisements with her
buttocks coyly displayed. The artist’s first design for Ashton-
Drake, it “touched a responsive chord in the public’s heart.”
The company’s Web site explains: “As a classically trained artist
influenced by the European Great Masters, Tomescu’s
understanding of human physiology extends beyond his ability
to craft lifelike facial features. Collectors also exclaim over the
realistic sculpts of his dolls hands and feet. With care and
sensitivity, he suggests the play of muscle and tendon beneath
porcelain ‘skin.’”50 People of both sexes tend to rate this as one
of the “most realistic” dolls in our sam ple of advertisements.
Like other dolls designed by men it is more simply “childlike”
than other dolls in the PCD range that incorporate adult female
facial characteristics. The men also design explicitly female
adult mannequin dolls. There are a few male designers who
enjoy a special celebrity status among the enthusiasts for their
costly custom-made dolls. Those produced by Phillip Heath are
among the most spectacularly realistic, by any standards, we
have ever seen.

HYPERREALITY
For Baudrillard, the French philosopher who gave currency to
the term, “hyperreality” is the situation when a model of
something becomes in some respects more real than the thing it
is supposed to depict. In the past, for example, we drew maps by
looking at landscapes, but now we make landscapes by drawing
maps.51 In some respects the PCDs have become a means for
measuring-up children rather than the other way round, in the
way that we depend on maps rather than the landscape itself
 MORE THAN REAL 187

tell us “how things really are.” Feminist scholars have written a

great deal about how dolls have served as models of etiquette
and lady-like behavior for young girls over the last couple of
centuries.52 Popular phrases like “she’s a doll” suggest that we
do indeed project doll qualities (perfect looks, perfect passivity)
onto women.
The designers play on the ancient magic of dolls—their
power as imitations of ourselves and the people around us, or
as we would wish ourselves and those around us to be. Simply
scaling down a real child and turning it into porcelain would
not be enough. The effects must be boosted by deforming the
body, especially the facial features, in particular ways. What is
excluded (genitals, movements, sounds) is as interesting as what
is added—the manipulations of the eyes and mouths, or the
inscription of numbers and signatures. Also intriguing is the
way the dolls play on a different combination of senses (sight,
touch, smell) than are normally at play in our perceptions of
real kids. As if to compensate for the difference, manufacturers
stress the authenticity of brushwork, clothes, accessories, and
biographical details.
The dolls are locked into the bodies and lives of the collectors
in ways that the women can feel even if they cannot find the
words to describe it. It is the rest of us, lacking the passion that
gives the dolls their veracity, who are at a loss to understand.
For the collectors, “perfect” (occurring in 16 percent of the
advertisements) is never too finely distinguished from “real”
(21 percent). Of course, it’s the skeptical observer rather than
the women themselves who think the realism is overdone. The
collectors are content with the plain, breathtaking actuality they
see, and regard the likeness of doll and child as a bit of magic
that allows them to establish a virtually human relationship.
Many doll makers, especially the smaller artisanal ones
producing special and expensive dolls, have a very explicit sense
of vocation—they are proud and happy in their magic-making.
This is not without risks: the magic of any doll is its capacity to
foster make-believe, but overstepping the bounds of reality in
the creation of a doll (making a fantastically accurate imitation
of a child, or believing that a chunk of wood or a bundle of
rags is a child) can be dangerous. The company of dolls can be
188 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

immensely gratifying or very dreadful, depending on how the

thing looks and how you feel about it.
A central theme of this book is that the doll collectors
themselves are complicit in this magic, and in the making of the
commodity at every level. They know what they want, and they
are able and willing to talk about it. But they cannot answer all
our questions—why this eye shape rather than some other, why
the delicate lip puckering that few children’s dolls bother with.
To know more about why the PCDs look the way they do we
have to dig more deeply into the lives of the collectors than
even they themselves may be able to dig. Ironically, this means
that we have to part company with them for a while, to use a
bit of physiology to detect exactly which features of these dolls
are distorted in the pursuit of hyperreality.
We have touched several times on one basic aspect of the
unreality of the PCDs that requires an agonizing suspension of
belief: unlike the collector herself, the doll defies death. She or
he is a small bastion against the ravages of time as they affect
us as mere human beings, a consolation for the absence of real
children or their loss to the wider world, and for the shadowy
immanence of our own mortality. But it is this very inertia, this
stillness of the doll, that allows us to inscribe on it any truth, or
any lie, we wish.
 Chapter Seven
Forever Young

“Her timeless features are alive with curiosity.”

In this chapter we return to our title theme: these dolls are

lifelike, but in the collector’s dreams life is also doll-like: stable,
immortal, perfected. The magic of the dolls is in their exquisite
resolution of the contradiction that they must look so much
alive, while defying the most basic principle of life, that change
is inevitable. So much is expected of them: they must convey
perfected, timeless images of children who were never born and
children who have grown up. But most challenging of all, they
hold a magic mirror up to the collector herself, presenting
palpable, composite images of childhood enriched by a lifetime
of experience and yet secure from the ravages of time.
In this chapter we look more closely at how these
complicated expectations are realized in the bodies of the dolls.
What are the techniques for constructing the physical features of
the dolls so that they can, in the eyes of these particular
beholders, say more about human bodies than even a real
human body can?

CAN DOLLS GROW?

The question is a matter of anxiety to some children. “Will my
dolly ever grow up to be a real lady doll?” asked one child a
century ago. In their classic study, Hall and Ellis found that
children often imagined that their dolls grew as they did,
although some were perplexed by the illusion that as they
190 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

themselves got bigger the dolls seemed to grow smaller. In the

hands of their owners, dolls could live expansive family lives.
The dolls of one twelve-year-old got married and had children:
“She tucked them up under the clothes and pretended they were
born the regular way, when they grew up one was Longfellow
and the other Louise Alcott [sic].”1
For developmental psychologists, the doll is a “transitional
object,” whose function is to assist its owner in moving from
one life stage to another—infancy to childhood, pubescence to
adulthood. In practice, there is some ambiguity about this:
must the doll part company with the owner, or can it
accompany her? Transitions are painful: the effectiveness of the
doll’s mediating role depends on how thoroughly it has bonded
with the child, but this only makes the agony of eventual
separation more intense. In guiding this process, adults can
appear horribly capricious. It is usually they, not the children,
who choose the dolls in the first place, and encourage the child
to identify with them. We have, says Bernard Mergen, “a subtle
mirroring process in which the adult world imagines the child
in the form of the doll while the child is simultaneously
encouraged to recognise itself in that form.”2 And then, having
encouraged the child to be doll-like (stable, charming, docile),
the adults insist that the child “grow up” and put away childish
things. “Persius tells us how the young Roman girl, when ripe
for marriage, hung up her childhood’s dolls as a votive offering
to Venus.”3 Little wonder that the shock of separation can then
be intense and very confusing. Around 1812, Jane Welsh, an
only child who was later to marry the writer Thomas Carlyle,
was admonished by her middle-class parents that “a young lady
reading Virgil must make an end of doll play.” Taking the
literary cue, Jane decided that her favorite doll “should die like
Dido.” She staged an elaborate suicide, in which the doll
stabbed herself and set herself ablaze. When the flames
dramatically engulfed the funeral pyre, Jane collapsed in a fit of
hysterics.4
When its transitional task is done, the best a doll may expect
of the human growth cycle is to retire to a closet to await the
appearance of the next generation of children. As she enters this
limbo the bond between herself and her owner may be marked
 FOREVER YOUNG 191

in some special way. When Rose Vanilla (see picture 9) was

retired, Doris put her own christening gown on her, investing
the doll with part of her childhood. This is a variant of the
custom in which a woman put the dress of her last baby on a
doll, usually her own, sometimes that of her child. The doll
would then be displayed as a token of the transition of the
woman out of the childbearing stage of her life.
But owners who have invested much of themselves in their
dolls may hope to see them accomplishing life’s transitions in
parallel. The classic teddy bear seems to have had a knack for
fudging his age and continuing to live companionably with his
owner. The multiple manifestations of Barbie make her more
versatile than other dolls in adapting to her owner’s changing
expectations (hair-on-a-handle, fashion mannequin, cabinet
collectible). But if she is to survive, the doll may also have to be
given a thorough makeover to meet the redefined expectations
of the adult. Or else a new actor, like the PCD, may be brought
into play.
“Today’s baby dolls are so realistic that they can do
everything except grow.”5 But that may be their greatest virtue
for the woman who feels abandoned by her children, relegated
to the empty nest, and confronted with old age and intimations
of mortality. The irony for the doll is that she must be both
lifelike and timeless—an eternally ambiguous “transitional
object.” Translating this into body language is an intriguing
technical challenge in the manufacture of the doll.

MAKING FACES
The facial signals of the PCDs may at first sight seem
confusing. Some aspects are babyish, others are very adult, and
the “unnatural” mixture disturbing. Various analogies came
up: the playful incongruities of Mr. Potato Head and his
infinitely variable plastic features; police Identikit or Photo-Fit
pictures; or the “age progressions” on the missing-children cards
that accompany junk mail.
Malleability of this sort is actually important for the
development of real bodies. Our various parts (legs, guts,
noses) are genetically programmed to develop together in a
192 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

particular way, but there are subtle differences in the

arrangement of details that give each of us our distinctive—and
changing—appearance. Later in childhood, for example, our
feet get embarrassingly large, in preparation for the additional
body weight that puberty will pile up on top of them. The fact
that the basic scheduling of body-part development can be
“rearranged” is very interesting for biologists: the potentially
variable timing of the growth of one body part in relation to
others (“heterochrony”) is one of the mechanisms of evolution.
A much-discussed aspect of humans, for example, is that three
quarters of our cranial growth is delayed until after we have
been born. Compared with our primate relatives we look
premature, but we are predisposed to think of this as “cute.”
For us ordinary mortals, appearances of “normal timing” are
basic to our understanding of good looks. We are unhappy if
we have a very old-looking nose in the middle of our otherwise
young-looking face, and we may make big cosmetic efforts to
disguise the incongruity. Our understanding of our changing
selves lags: we usually feel younger than we evidently are, and
we resent that nose, these ears, or this stoop for betraying the
more youthful selves we would prefer to be. If we are a bit
vain, we work on our bodies continually, seeking to arrest or
redirect natural processes of growth, whether by dress, diet,
makeup, or surgical interventions. But the best we can do is
tinker with the different parts of our bodies before the battery
of clocks that control them finally snuff us out altogether.
The doll is immune to the way of all flesh, and on her we can
play at will with tricks of heterochrony, reassembling body
parts, changing proportions, hiding and revealing, overlaying
older features with younger ones. On the doll we can
reorganize the human physique, refashioning in porcelain
images of ourselves that are freed from the constraints of time
and growth. Like a surgical nose job or the application of
rouge, the effects will be a “lie,” pleasing some and startling
others. One effect of these manipulations is to make it difficult
to give a doll (or someone heavily made up) a precise “age.”
Unlike us, dolls can deviate from normal patterns of growth.
They can ignore genetic rules and “grow younger” as well as
older. In surveying and measuring the PCDs we noticed both
 FOREVER YOUNG 193

these apparently contradictory tendencies. Some dolls have

regressed: although dressed and described as little children, they
have the facial proportions of newborn infants. A larger
proportion in the PCD range have developed in the opposite
direction: they look precociously adult. This older appearance
can be difficult to pinpoint because it is usually superimposed
on the babylike face: the doll has been simultaneously
infantilized and matured—“adultified.” Although this very
ambiguous appearance can be achieved by tinkering with all
parts of the facial mask, the most noticeable tendency is to keep
the upper part of the face babylike, while making the lower
part, especially the mouth and jaw, look grown-up.
In the following discussion of these two sorts of facial
distortion, the infantile and the adultified, we shall compare the
PCDs with the faces of some real children. We must recognize,
of course, that the arrangement of these kids’ features is
continually developing, and matching their growth with the
“ageless” dolls is tricky. Nor should we hold up any of these
children as an ideal: there is no such thing as 100 percent
normal growth, which is why some children sometimes look
prettier, or older, or more doll-like than others. Nevertheless,
there are some striking contrasts.

LOOKING CUTE: INFANTILIZATION

“The brink of toddlerhood is a time when a child’s proportions
seem so perfect—so rounded, cuddly and appealing,” says Diana
Effner, the designer of Angel Face, Sugar Plum, and other
successful Ashton-Drake dolls. Our word for this is “cute,”
which usually means, says biologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, “a
round head, big eyes, and plump cheeks.”6 In tests, people give
higher “cuteness ratings” to faces with more prominent
foreheads, lower eye heights, bigger eyes, and smaller features
below eye level—the immature faces in our growth diagrams.7
These infantile characteristics seem to be the foundation on
which we build a lifetime’s appreciation of good looks. Careful
testing indicates that even babies like looking at babies; and
young adults prefer little children’s faces to older faces.8
“Mean,” an older-sounding quality, is usually the word offered
194 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

in these experiments as the opposite of “cute,” especially in

children’s ratings.9
Why little children should like cute dolls, and why this
preference should linger on in the PCDs, is not entirely obvious.
If, as is often argued, the business of play is to socialize children,
would we not expect to see a lot more adult-looking dolls?
Instead we find, around the world, a more obvious tendency for
children to have dolls that are younger, “cuter” looking than
themselves.10 The conventional, adult logic here is that the
children are practicing to be parents. This is what doll play
often looks like, and some people’s memories of this are very
categoric. When she clapped eyes on the baby doll she had
longed for on Christmas morning, one little girl was deeply
moved: “I don’t remember being able to speak at all. I simply
clutched my baby to me in ecstasy…. It was very like birth. I
was a mother, no doubt about it.”11
A view that has surfaced relatively recently is that the doll is
at least as likely to be substituting for a younger sibling as for a
daughter or son. Little children are not simply “playing” at
being fathers and mothers, they are enacting their very serious
responsibilities as auxiliary parents (“alloparents”).12 Human
babies can—and need to be able to—attach themselves to
anyone who will care for them. If our physical survival and
socialization depends so much on the attention of people even
just a little older than ourselves, then signaling our cuteness and
dependency to everyone is a vital adaptation. In the hurly-burly
of the subsistence community, the most immediately accessible
“alloparents” are likely to be siblings or other children.
Anthropologists in the field are very familiar with the sight of
tiny children competing to lug even tinier siblings around on
their hips or backs. Those who lack little brothers and sisters
make do with doll substitutes. “As the child grows he or she
may need a charge of some kind,” says doll specialist Audrey
Vincente Dean, “and it is then that the doll—requiring to be
dressed, undressed and tended—comes into its own.”13
The small child may make little distinction between a new doll
and a real baby, which is why the gift of a baby doll may
successfully distract its attention from the arrival of new
brother or sister (picture 11). This may partly explain why little
 FOREVER YOUNG 195

Picture 11: Rosie nursing doll.

Rosie, age 2, was given the doll by her grandmother upon the birth of her
brother.
Photo by Elizabeth Stanger.
196 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

boys, unless they are specifically discouraged by social rules,

may be as interested in dolls as are girls. They are not
“mothering” or “fathering” so much as “brothering.” If the
experience of alloparenting comes before parenting, it might
even make more sense to think of mothering as a development
of sisterly practice. It may also explain why “the oldest child
often cares less for dolls or is interested in them later than the
younger children.”14 The elder child is busy looking after the
“real thing,” and it’s the younger child who has to make do
with a surrogate.
This view of doll play doesn’t square with the entrenched
psychological view of siblings as potentially lethal rivals. Is it
our modern, patronizing view of the incompetence of children
which leads us to assume that play that is affectionate and
careful rather than hostile or abusive is “mothering” rather
than “sistering” or “brothering”? Should we not think of the
child-child bond, and its extension to doll play, as an aspect of
human reproduction separable from the usual adult, sexualized
sense of the word? The Freudian assumption that a small child
sees in her doll an image of the penis she envies or of her own
self in erotic entanglements with her mother seems a good deal
less obvious than the simpler notion that she is commonly
charged with the care of people younger than herself—and may
feel anxious or guilty about being negligent. If so, the signals to
which children respond in play dolls (yielding bodies, big
searching eyes, extended arms and clinging fingers), may be
subtly different from those directed at the breast-feeding
mother. Study of doll “play” would surely tell us something
important about how humans organize reproduction, but alas
“the doll barely exists in psychological theory…. Together with
the psychology of the female child, [dolls] have been dismissed
from the history of psychology.”15 In the meantime we are left
with more questions about the “infantilization” of dolls in
general, and the PCDs in particular, than we can hope to
answer. But at least we are alerted to the probability that the
PCDs contain layers of imagery extending back to the
experiences both of the care-receiving infant and the care-giving
child.
 FOREVER YOUNG 197

Figure 7-a: Infantilization.

Sarah Jane, photo by A.F.Robertson.
Tulu, © Linda Mason.
Val, photo by A.F.Robertson.
Some PCDs push infantile appeal very close to the fetal form.
The downward displacement of Sarah Jane’s facial mask and the
size of Tulu’s eyes are exaggeratedly babylike (see figure 7-a).
To the extent that they are distorted at all, the boy dolls are
infantilized, not adultified—they do not bear detectable traces
of either adult female or adult male features. Stevie, often rated
“quite normal-looking” has exaggeratedly large eyes compared
with the real four-year-old Peter, but looks much less fetal than
the “You Deserve a Break Today” doll (see figure 7-b). Early in
198 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

Figure 7-b: “Infantilized” and “normal” boys.

Break (“You Deserve a Break Today”) ©: Dianna Effner.
Peter age four years—photo by ELizabeth Stanger.
Stevie (“Catch Me if You Can”)
© The Ashton-Drake Galleries. Mary Tretter, Artist.

the project we thought that the boys would be made to look

effeminate, but on closer inspection we could see few indications
of this. Skewing of physical features toward those of girls
would in any case be hard to detect, since in reality children of
both sexes have very similar bodily proportions until puberty.
Nor was there any tendency toward the frocks and frills in
which Victorian mothers dressed up their little boys. Instead,
cute boylike behavior was more likely to be stressed (dirtiness,
 FOREVER YOUNG 199

mischief, busyness, and so on), eliciting motherly attention.

“Catch me if you can,” cries Stevie, “a mischievous little boy
caught in the act” of unfurling toilet paper.

LOOKING ATTRACTIVE:
ADULTIFICATION
Studies of what people find appealing in faces have noted a
basic distinction between the “cuteness” of little children and
the “attractiveness” of adults.16 “Attractive” has more sexual
undertones than “cute”: perhaps we could say that while little
children emanate cuteness to solicit caring responses from all
parties, attractiveness draws the attentions of adults to one
another.17 From an evolutionary point of view, an implication
of this, not always pleasing to women themselves, is that
“looking attractive” is basically about pleasing men. Visible
nubility (hormonal status, fecundity) has been the key to a
“well-designed female,” says the evolutionary psychologist
Donald Symons. “That adult female sexual attractiveness
declines systematically with observable cues of increasing age is
a theme that runs through the ethnographic and historical
records, folk tales, great literature, less-than-great literature,
movies, plays, soap operas, jokes, and everyday experience.”18
Little wonder that older women should prefer to hark back to
their reproductive heyday in visualizing “good looks.”
Women also find women attractive, but how their ideas
differ from those of men is still, we have found, wide open to
happy-hour debate. The differences are not simply a matter of
cultural conditioning or personal whim; they diverge according
to age and growth. Set the experimental task of designing
“beautiful” female faces, 40 20-year-olds (20 men, 20 women)
produced a composite whose nose-chin proportions were
significantly shorter (“typical of an 11- or 12-year-old girl”)
than the composite of their own faces. The “beautiful” ideal
also had fuller lips in the vertical dimension and smaller mouth.
They looked, we might say, pretty cute. What, Symons
wonders, is the evolutionary logic of this apparent enthusiasm
of fertile males for prepubescent females? And why should their
female age-mates concur? The answer seems to be that for all
200 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

its infantilization, the beautiful composite still “appears to be a

sexually mature woman.”19
Our conclusion is that these 20-year-olds (drawn from that
inexhaustible experimental pool of college students) have a
characteristic way of assembling an idealized face that includes
features younger than their own—some of which may be a
holdover of the sibling care signals. Certainly, they are not
assembling an attractive face in a way that would appeal to doll
collectors some 30 to 60 years their senior. The dainty jaws and
“pouty” lips of earlier mating days may matter to some of these
women, but others evidently like a more robust jaw. This,
Symons notes, is a characteristic women acquire during and
after childbearing. The assertion of this motherly feature in the
PCDs confirms his intuition that the template for attractiveness
is not static or confined to a single life stage, but is “updated
throughout life.”20

CUTE AND ATTRACTIVE

How our appreciation of facial attractiveness grows is not well
understood.21 It seems that as we grow up our aesthetic
preferences do not so much change as accumulate, adding new
layers of definition to what we consider appealing. Since people
generally rate younger faces as more attractive, middle-aged
and elderly people give relatively high attractiveness ratings to
more mature (female) faces.22 This has interesting implications
for the PCDs: older people may find certain features attractive
that younger people would find displeasing.
While baby dolls designed for little children don’t have to do
much more than imitate babies, many of the PCDs look beyond
the child and add facial features that are distinctly adult. It is as
though these dolls, making their late entry into women’s lives,
look back across a wide range of life experiences, bringing a
broader conception of attractiveness to bear on design. The doll
is thus less an idealization of a child at a particular age than a
collage of features that were idealized at different ages. The
simplest example of this is the ever-popular bridal doll, which
appears not only as an adult effigy but as a child or baby doll
wearing a wedding dress: a fusion of two blissful but separate
 FOREVER YOUNG 201

transient episodes in a woman’s life. It is the tendency of many

of the dolls to include nubile features that observers find
sublimely disturbing. If a child’s face and body are designed to
inspire nurturing and protective behavior rather than eliciting a
sexual response, more mature come-on signals are
disconcerting.
The nubile component was added to the PCDs mainly by
keeping the eyes unnaturally large and the cheeks plump, while
emphasizing the cheekbones and increasing the proportions of
the lips and jaw. Caroline (see figure 7-c) is a fair representative
of these tendencies. In the words of her designer, Pamela Phillips,
she is “both childlike and ladylike.” She has a very different
facial mask from the more infantilized Gwendolyn, although
the prominence of Gwendolyn’s lips adds adult weight to the
lower part of her face. The Lenox Christening Doll is a curious
example of the tendency to adultify (picture 12). Her mouth
and jaw are much more robust than we would expect of an
infant. “Crafted of bisque porcelain and meticulously hand
painted, she is portrayed sleeping sweetly, with an expression
of pure innocence.”
Careful examination of all the doll faces in our sample
suggested that a convenient measure of the general tendency to
infantilize or adultify was the height of the nasal septum (where
the nose meets the upper lip) in proportion to the length of the
whole face. An infantilized face with a small jaw and large
forehead would tend to draw the septum down the center line of
the face; and an adultified face would tend to raise it, making
way for the bigger jaw. To check this, we picked out 118 of the
girl dolls we classified as “children” in our sample, notionally
in the post-toddler to pre-pubescent category, and for which
we could take satisfactorily clear measurements. On average, the
septum was placed about a third of the way up the chin-to-
crown line, but there was a surprisingly wide range of variation
in septum height, amounting to a quarter of the length of the
face (see figure 7-d). The dolls were distributed quite evenly
along this range, with a slight bunching at the higher and lower
septum heights—suggestive of the divergent infantilizing and
adultifying tendencies.23 More tellingly, the mean position of the
septum—35 percent of the way up the face line from the chin—
202 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

Figure 7-c: Adultified dolls.

Gwendolyn © 1992 The Ashton-Drake Galleries. Sandy Freeman, Artist
Sarah, photo by David Lawson.
Caroline © Pamela Phillips, photo by Dave Tuemmler, Stretch Studio.
was considerably higher than one would expect of a real child.
Modal images of facial growth suggest a septum height of
about 15 percent for toddlers and 26 percent for girls close to
puberty.24 A rapid survey of a dozen (real) girls in the same
child category as the dolls produced an average septum height
of 25 percent, with a much smaller range of variation—7
percent. Mature adult women have a septum height around 29
percent up the face line.
 FOREVER YOUNG 203

Picture 12: The Lenox Christening Doll.

© Lenox, Incorporated 1992.
We wondered who, specifically, might be the model for the
nubile features we detected in the dolls. Assuming that it might
204 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

Figure 7-d: Mean and variation in the height of the nasal septum in
sample of 118 girl dolls.

be an iconic face from the typical collector’s nubile years, we

thought the emphasis on cheekbone and jawline suggested
Katharine Hepburn. In her studio portraits, the proportions of
her lower face are indeed very similar to those of a PCD like
Caroline. We asked as many women as we could who they
regarded as the most conspicuous beauty icon of the 1950s and
1960s, and the answer almost invariably was Marilyn Monroe.
Looking at various publicity stills, we could see a strong
resemblance to the ambiguous cute/attractive dolls. In many
shots, Marilyn’s eyes (heavily made up and probably retouched
in the photos) look very babylike. Laurence Olivier, with whom
she starred in The Prince and the Showgirl, is said to have
remarked of Marilyn: “Look at her face. She could be five years
old.”25 Marilyn herself was painfully aware of the massive
public attention paid to her appearance. Among the many
rumors (it was even said she had six toes) she is supposed to
have had plastic foam implanted very early in her career to
correct a receding chin. Cosmetic surgery not long before she
died indicated that most of the foam had been absorbed.26 In
 FOREVER YOUNG 205

her movies and publicity stills she usually drops her jaw,
suggesting her concern to emphasize her mouth and chin. Her
makeup was less of a secret: her formula for beautiful lips in
the 1950s “included three shades of lipstick, plus a gloss of wax
and Vaseline.”27 But beyond mere physical appearance there
are some affecting similarities between Marilyn and the
timeless, lifelike doll. For Gloria Steinem she is “the woman
who will not die.” In her own unfinished autobiography
Marilyn says, “I knew I belonged to the public because I had
never belonged to anything or anyone else.”28
Until we know much more about the forms and functions of
bodily appeal later in life, these observations about cuteness
and attractiveness can only be speculative. Now that we live so
much longer, the physical, social, and emotional processes of
aging have become much more interesting, raising such new
and intriguing questions as what attracts a child to a
grandparent, and vice versa. Nature—so say the biologists who
study it—is not much concerned with what happens to the
organism when its reproductive days are over. But we, as
individ ual organisms, have a personal interest in our
continuing lives that may or may not have much to do with the
survival of our species. Theories of evolutionary adaptation and
natural selection, preoccupied with the activities of nubile
women, could not readily predict the face forms that would
please a woman who has already grown up and raised a family,
or which of these she would want to see inscribed on a doll. At
this stage in her life it seems likely that her preferences are
retrospective, more concerned with how she has actually lived
than with her mating prospects. A doll that can express her
cumulative experiences as a child, a mother, and a grandparent
may be particularly gratifying. Superficially, the appearance
may be disturbing to others, but to “read” this palimpsest you
need a sympathetic understanding of the life that it inscribes.
We are ruled by time. In real life our bodies and our
experiences are inexorably arranged in sequence, connected by
the imperfect links of memory. As life proceeds we need to stem
the flow, to make some durable sense of our own identity:
“This is who I am, because this is who I have been.” We try to
make the things that matter to us tangible. Transposed to the
206 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

doll, life’s experiences are inscribed in three dimensions, not

four: the memories are laid one on top of the other, a
palimpsest that begins with a child’s doll and an antique
fashion doll, and piles upon it images of a son, daughter, or
grandchild, and serial memories of a self. The result, from the
perspective of biological science, is of course an intricate lie.

NARCISSISM AND NOSTALGIA

On reflection, it is understandable that the collectors should
have found it hard to pin down for us exactly who they felt a
particular doll represented. A much-loved doll could bring
together images of somebody else’s child, of the collector’s
child, of her own self, or of all three. This triple identity is
hinted at in advertisements: “Stevie is sure to bring a smile of
recognition to anyone who has raised a family…or was ever a
child!” Nostalgia is an ever-present motif. Roxanne “looks a
picture”:

With butterflies in her tummy and pencil and notebook at

the ready, Roxanne takes her seat at her brand-new desk.
And she pre pares herself for the most exciting day of her
life. Because now, she’s “almost a grown-up,” you see.
Immaculately dressed in her new green-and-white checked
uniform, she’s made sure her straw boater is on straight.
Her well-brushed hair shines in a perfect plait, complete
with matching green ribbon. And from her bright little
face to her polished shoes, she looks a picture—just the
way you did on your first day at school.

The practical problem so cleverly addressed in PCD design is

how to convey on one small porcelain body an image of
childhood refracted by the experiences of parenthood. Sibling,
child, other, self, youth, maturity…. If dolls have to say so
many things, is it any wonder you might need to collect a
couple of hundred of them to hear all the voices?
What does a collector really mean when she says of a doll,
“She reminds me of me”? The most obvious answer is that she
sees in the doll an image of herself at some specific, blissful,
 FOREVER YOUNG 207

earlier stage in her life. For many collectors, that may be

enough. But viewing the dolls as reflections of the full passage
of a woman’s life suggests another interest: their design was not
simply bent on capturing the qualities of childhood but also of
the collectors’ own emergent adult selves. This makes the
adultification of the dolls look less simply erotic. The doll can
compound a series of autobiographical images that
superimpose memories of being a mother on memories of being
mothered; and memories of being an attractive young woman
on memories of being a cute child.
The child is ever present in all of us. How could it be
otherwise? You only get to be an adult by virtue of having been
a child—not the other way round. The difference today is that
we have become more self-conscious about this inherent
childishness to the extent that we have turned it into another
self, a little person crouching inside us, rather than an
accumulation of life experiences which actually are us. “Inside
every woman is an adult and a child” says an advertisement for
Barbie Collectibles. “They should get to know each other
better.”29 “The child in you will dream of bright summer days
in the park…. The adult in you will admire her authenticity,
craftsmanship and timeless quality.”30 Marilyn Ivy traces
connections between the post-1960s fixation on child abuse,
the ADVO cards (“Have you seen me?”) for missing children
that accompany junk mail, and the adult’s quest for the lost
“inner child” today. All three are concerned with finding and
healing, and restoring the functional family. “To assert that we
can reclaim our inner child,” says Ivy, “is potentially to deny the
fragility of a temporally limited childhood in a desperately
narcissistic attempt to subsume child, adult, and parent within
oneself.”31
Many of the PCDs seem bent on this act of healing, of
encapsulating a self and a whole life. “Dolls are a passion and a
fantasy to me,” says Coleen E. of Virginia:

I came from an abusive home and was moved around

quite a bit; each time my favorite dolls and toys were left
behind in the shuffle. I have been able to replace these
long-lost dolls. I can play with them and look at them,
208 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

seeing their beauty and feeling that I can almost rewrite

my childhood to one of beauty and pleasure with carefree
thoughts as it should have been.32

The fusion of self and doll is an old tradition that lives on. In
the nineteenth century, little girls were given dolls that
supposedly looked like them and with whom they could
identify directly in play. Early in the twentieth century doll
manufacturers sponsored annual “Children’s Days,” featuring
doll contests and parades in which girls dressed as dolls
competed with one another for prizes.33 A current version of
this is the American Girl series, in which the child can dress like
the doll and act out the various “historical” personalities
described in the accompanying texts. In 1993, the My Twinn
Doll Workshop of Englewood, Colorado, struck the mother
lode of matching dolls. The firm specializes in dolls

individually created to resemble one special person…your

child. Starting with the Personal Profile (TM) and recent
color photos of your child, artisans carefully select the
face shape, skin tone, eyes and hair color. Then they cut
and style the hair, paint the eyebrows, fit the eyelashes,
and more, to capture your child’s look… right down to
the freckles. My Twinn dolls are created to be more child-
like than doll-like, which makes them more fun to play
with. They are soft, cuddly, and durable; and they become
a treasured keepsake for years.34

The My Twinn Workshops place much of the responsibility for

composing the doll on the purchaser, who must select eyes, skin
color, face shape, hairstyle, and so on. from the catalog. Parents
tend to be more delighted with the results than are the children,
which is good enough for the manufacturer. Sarah sent hers
back for remedial treatment, and other girls we spoke to were
frankly skeptical (picture 13). Anna does not identify with her
American Girl look-alike (see picture 8), a doll produced on the
same principles: “the hair’s too long, for a start.” Other firms
have been quick to get onto the bandwagon, producing more
exact replicas of the child—for a price. These of course are
 FOREVER YOUNG 209

more likely to be display dolls for parents rather than play dolls
for the child. We know of at least one case where a doll was
produced to memorialize a child who had died.
The My Twinn repertoire has expanded to include matching
clothes for the child and the dolls, and a mass of other
accessories like beds and stands. Further spin-offs from the
original idea are Cuddly Sisters and Cuddly Brothers dolls for
your My Twinn doll (even dolls need dolls); and Lovable
Sisters, a pair of dolls, one on the same scale as My Twinn (20
inches) and one smaller (14-inch) Cuddly Sister. The next
development was seemingly inevitable. The firm now offers the
When She Was a Child doll, which is assembled by referring to
photos which the buyer supplies. “Now teens, mothers and
grandmothers can also have a My Twinn doll made to resemble
them when they were 3–12 years old…. Like portraits, these
beautiful dolls become personalized home decor pieces.”35 This
narcissism offers much scope for psychoanalysis. Of all toys
“the doll comes closest to imitating the child’s own body.”36
The child becomes the doll becomes the adult: at one stage it
acted out the child’s grown-up fantasies (playing parent,
teacher, doctor, shopkeeper). Resurrected later in life as a PCD
it acts out an adult’s place in the child’s world: the adult
becomes the doll becomes the child. This may involve some
subliminal auto-eroticism. One of our researchers found
evidence of this in the passionate hues (reds, purples, mauves)
and the persistent theme of consumption (peaches, cherries,
cream, candy, lollipops) that abound in the PCDs. But “it
should be noted that I never found a boy doll with a piece of
fruit.”
The nostalgia and narcissism have another dimension. “To
collect artifacts from the past is to own the past—and
sometimes to imagine a better past than the one that actually
existed.”37 If the dolls help to place the person in a life, they
also help to place that life in history, real or imagined. “Those
innocent eyes…that soft loveliness. Where have you seen such a
girl before? In the Portraits you remember—of children long
ago” (Peaches and Cream). The dolls are of course
idealizations: “That’s how I wanted to be.” Most little girls like
to look grown-up now and then, and many of the dolls are
210 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

Picture 13: Sarah with her My Twinn, and My Twinn’s own look-alike
doll.
Photo by David Lawson.
 FOREVER YOUNG 211

depicted dressing up, making up, and looking precocious.

Imitating antiques, many of the dolls reach back to the older
woman’s own childhood, and bear her back to a “sweeter,
calmer, gentler” world. “Alice recalls the very feeling of a place
and time you thought was gone forever.” These variants on the
PCD theme are described as “Victorian” or (in the United
States) “turn-of-the-century” or “1900s” or, more vaguely,
“period” dolls. In this category too are “portrait” dolls, some of
them “recreated from famous paintings.” But these nostalgic
dolls could never be mistaken for a nineteenth-century Bru or a
Jumeau with their bulbous cheeks, tiny mouths, and bug eyes.
“I think the features on the more modern dolls have softened
and seem to reflect some long-lost memories and/or innocence
for us collectors…. For me they become part of my family and
home. And, of course, they know they are loved.”38
Dolls are “transitional” in the further sense that they help us
to find our place in society, as children and then as grown-ups.
We take our places in history as particular sorts of persons
(rich, French, black, female), and the dolls take their place in
history as particular styles (Kewpie, Bébé Bru, Kachina). Our
understanding of how we were or how we are, at particular times
and in particular places, may in some small way be measured
by the sorts of doll we treasured. Already, the collector doll of
the late twentieth century is becoming a curiously distinctive
marker of a particular sort of person and historical period. But,
to complete the circle, if a particular type of doll, famous in one
period of history, fails to “grow” and change, she dies— she
becomes junk or, at best, museum stock. The marvel of
Barbie (two are sold every second) is that she has developed,
moving cautiously along the fine line of teen/preteen trendiness,
pleasing those who love her “timeless” qualities while adapting
to the next generation of enthusiasts. 39 “I was a Barbie girl,” a
young mother told us, a little ruefully. “So is my daughter.”

DEATH AND RESURRECTION

The PCD advertisements are rich in the vocabulary of
timelessness: forever, endless, always, cherish year after year, for
years to come. But the agony of imminent mortality always
212 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

seems to lurk behind those assurances of permanence. The

memento mori is the death of the doll in its owner’s
adolescence, often at the hand of the owner herself: witness the
guilty allusions to abuse and abandonment, and the purposeful
efforts to make reparations through doll collecting later in life.
The often vexatious role of the doll in life’s transitions may
make it ambiguously an object of hate as well as love. In his
poem Hope, written in 1782, William Cowper declared:

Men deal with life, as children with their play,

Who first misuse, then cast their toys away.

Hall and Ellis’s inquiries turned up numerous cases of doll

abuse by children, echoed in the guilty admissions of careless
treatment by the women with whom we spoke.40 Dolls have
been spanked, whipped, stabbed, hanged, and dismembered;
and more routinely scolded, or deprived of sleep, food, and
company. Designing dolls that can withstand the punishment is
a challenge for manufacturers. Perhaps the most advanced
abusable doll is “My Blim Blam Baby,” designed in Canada and
made by Zapf in England, whose vinyl body “can sustain any
amount of manipulation.”41 Is it a little ironic that dolls, on the
receiving end of so much violence, should be used so widely in
the diagnosis and treatment of the abuse of small children?42
In the nineteenth century, death was a central feature of
children’s doll play. Children fantasized endlessly about
languishing illnesses, funerals, burials, and resurrections.

We had a regular graveyard at the end of the garden

where we buried pets and dolls. When dolly had lain there
a few days we dug her up and played she was a new baby
and dressed her in long clothes.
When my brother set the dog on my doll, it was so
badly torn that I put it in a box and had a funeral. We
cried real tears, but at night it pained me so that I went
alone and dug her up, kissed, hugged her and said I was
sorry.43
 FOREVER YOUNG 213

When her much-repaired doll finally broke, one little girl had a
little funeral for her in the backyard with a cold cream jar for a
headstone. “And it broke my heart,” she later recalled.44
Mourning clothes were routinely included in the wardrobes of
more elaborate French dolls in the mid- to late-nineteenth
century. In the United States, middle-class girls were
encouraged to imitate the fashionable funeral rituals, and
“fathers constructed doll-sized coffins for their daughters’ dolls
instead of what we consider the more usual dollhouses.”45
We should remember that in those days death was a frequent
and intimate domestic fact of life, and that one of the advances
of the twentieth century was to make it much less so. People
normally died at home, and their bodies were laid out there. The
heavy toll of infant mortality made small corpses—and the
anguish, guilt, and fear they inspired—all too familiar. For
centuries, dead infants had been fetishized as cherubs, and it
seems very probable that the putti that swarm over Baroque
religious architecture influenced doll design— or possibly vice
versa. In Freudian analysis, “The angel is the idealized, pure
form of Eros prior to organic involvement and differentiation
into sexes—the archetypal image of primary narcissism. The
doll, on the other hand, embodies the victory of death and
destruction over the life of the organism—the archetypal image
of primary masochism.”46 If this is so, it makes the angel-dolls
in the PCD range (a dozen in our sample of advertisements)
doubly and dreadfully interesting (picture 14).
Part of this morbid ritualization was the assertion that the
dolls had souls. “Doll funerals probably appealed to girls in
part because the domestification of heaven (along with the
beautification of ceme teries where families found rest and
recreation) made the afterlife sound fun. For others, the staging
of doll funerals was an expression of aggressive feelings and
hostile fantasies”—dramas of resistance, according to
Formanek-Brunell.47 We could find no evidence of doll
collectors today having funerals for their dolls, but something
very evocative of burial and resurrection is apparent in the
rituals of wrapping and unwrapping, opening and closing
boxes, which are so much a part of PCD play (picture 15). The
link to the antique tradition of the “trunk doll”—one that
214 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

Picture 14: Noelle, the Christmas Angel.

Georgetown Collection, c. 1996.
Photo by A.F.Robertson.
 FOREVER YOUNG 215

“lives” in a display box, along with her wardrobe and

accessories—is sustained in recent PCDs like “My Little
Ballerina.”
If nineteenth-century children were much affected by the
immanence of death at home, the doll collectors today are more
affected by the immanence of death in their own lives. Unlike
the earlier period when this was a routine, even fashionable
topic of conversation, death in our times has been described as
a kind of obscenity. It was not easy to pursue this topic with our
informants; indeed denial of mortality seemed to be central to
the passion for dolls.
Twenty percent of the doll advertisements use the word
“forever,” but in two distinct sorts of context. The first
suggests that the doll, your relationship with it, and the special
gifts it brings will be immortal:

“Reach for the sunlight, and bring warmth into your heart
forever.” (Amber)
“You are assured of Shannon’s heirloom quality—in a
signed, hand-numbered, limited edition that you will
treasure forever.”
“A Victorian Beauty of unparalleled splendor. An
heirloom to cherish forever.” (Rose)
“Order now…To enjoy the magic forever.” (Winter
Romance)
A best friend to last forever! (Mary Elizabeth)

The second context suggests an altogether darker meaning:

“Issued in an edition ending forever in 1994, after which

molds for this doll will be broken and no more porcelain
will ever be made.” (A Friend in Need)
“Hurry…Boo Bear and Me is issued in an edition
ending forever in 1991, after which molds for this doll
will be broken and no more porcelain will ever be cast.”
“…limited forever to 100 firing days.” (Clarissa)
“A hand-numbered Limited Edition which will close
forever after just 45 firing days.” (Heather)
216 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

Picture15: Unwraping and wraping Noelle, the Christmas Angel.

Photos by A.F.Robertson
 FOREVER YOUNG 217

Here, the collision between the sacred object and the

commodity is devastating. Little wonder that quite early in the
1990s the advertisements steered away from dreadful words
like “broken.” The advertisement for Cute as a Button explains
more palliatively that she is “issued in an edition ending forever
in 1995, after which no more porcelain will be cast.” Today,
even the hellish evocation of “firing” is used very sparingly.
These double promises of immortality and mortality express
the age-old ambiguity of the doll as a live/dead object. The
passion of life and the dreadful intimations of death that are
embodied in dolls are densely evident within and beyond the
Western traditions. The theme runs through paintings,
literature, drama, the movies. Maybe men, already very much
on the edge as far as dolls are concerned, are more sensitive to
their dangerous ambiguities. For observer Dan Fleming, dolls
like Fiene, “a little girl of curly-haired, pouting, dark-eyed
provocativeness is unforgettable in a slightly disturbing way:
except for enthusiasts immune to the thought, it is somewhat
unnerving to find such a ‘realistic’ child frozen for our gaze.”48
The most famous discussion of this is an essay by the German
poet Rainer Maria Rilke on the macabre wax dolls created by
the artist Lotte Pritzel early in the twentieth century. He could
be reacting to the PCD genre today:

To determine the realm in which these dolls have their

existence, we have to conclude from their appearance that
there are no chil dren in their lives, that the precondition
for their origin would be that the world of childhood is
past. In them the doll has finally outgrown the
understanding, the involvement, the joy and sorrow of the
child; it is independent, grown up, prematurely old; it has
entered into the unrealities of its own life.49

Rilke dreaded dolls, and in his later writing raged against them
and toys in general, mainly because they would not express the
“real live” feelings he expected of them:

At a time where everybody made an effort to give us quick

and soothing answers the doll was the first who made us
218 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

suffer this immense silence. And finally, the doll lies before
us without disguise: as that gruesome alien body for which
we have wasted our purest warmth; as that superficially
painted drowned corpse, lifted and carried by the floods
of our tenderness until it dried out and we forgot it
somewhere in the bushes.50

If we are happy and well adjusted as children, we may return to

the doll with nostalgic affection. If we are Rilke, we return to it
in fearful, vengeful, masochistic mood.51 In Freudian terms, the
doll can be a source of uncanny experience, which we carry
through our lives.52 This may be the dark wellspring of creepy
stories and horror movies: The doll really comes to life, this time
with truly malicious intent. One of the most memorable
contemporary evocations of this is the movie Child’s Play, in
which “Chucky,” the reincarnation of a murderer, comes back
to torment a small boy (see appendix E). Such stretches of the
imagination give us a clue why many people find the
hyperreality of the PCDs disturbing, even ghastly. If it is too
lifelike, or if it confuses distinct phases of a normal person’s
development, or if the doll were really to cross the line from
passivity to life as many children have dreamed, the chances are
it would end up on the side of evil rather than good.
Our researchers kept encountering people with a dread of
one sort of doll or another—mannequins, clowns, antiques. Lili
G., 52, is so terrified of the statue in front of Bob’s Big Boy
restaurants that she can’t drive past, far less eat there. A lot of
people couldn’t bear the ventriloquist Edgar Bergen’s dummy,
Charlie McCarthy. Once again, it’s the eyes that do much of
the signaling. The PCD manufacturers labor mightily to make
them warm, touching, expressive, but if they are too large, or
too blue, or if the pupils are a little too big or too small, they
cross the danger line. Big, limpid eyes can have a disconcerting
emptiness, reminiscent of the studied blankness of beggar
children in Asia, or pictures of African kids dying of starvation,
or of a corpse. Eyes watch, eyes fascinate, and the sense that
they are staring at you and into you can be very alienating. For
small children one of the virtues of mechanical eyes is that they
can be closed and the doll put innocently to sleep.
 FOREVER YOUNG 219

Marilyn, in her twenties, has lots of dolls from her childhood

from which she finds it very difficult to be parted. She says she
has never formed a personal relationship with them, but they
sit on shelves around her bedroom, watching and waiting.
Marilyn explains:

I make the nightly ritual of turning my dolls around

towards the wall. If I merely close my eyes, I feel as if they
are looking at me, and I would never be able to sleep with
a feeling that my dolls are watching and waiting until I’m
asleep. I feel that if they cannot see me, they do not know
when I am asleep…They have no power if they do not see
me when I am most vulnerable. If you do not let them see
you in a vulnerable state, they cannot attack.

Somewhere close to the heart of the matter is the tragedy that

we grow out of our dolls: in a sense they die long before we do.
To the adult women collectors, the PCDs are a gesture of
resistance, an affirmation that this need not happen, and that in
old age we can still embrace the childish magic. Gathering
around you not just one or two but hundreds of dolls is a vivid
gesture of resurrection. Collectors often talk of exultation,
rejuvenation, revitalization. “With my dolls,” Annie K. told us,
“I feel so much more alive.”
In the guise of angels, some of today’s PCDs come quite close
to the icons of “serious” religion. We might even say the same
of the numerous Princess Diana and Jackie Kennedy figurines,
which have certain cult qualities. Whether in religion or in play,
we make dolls, and we may hope that they in turn may make
us. A recurrent theme in the advertisements for PCDs is the
promise of change and redemption:

Sunshine and joy are her golden gifts—making all your

wishes come true! …She’s Adriana, the Harvest Angel,
and bringing nature’s glory to the waiting world is all
she’s ever wanted to do. Every whisper of her wings
showers the earth with her love—and the golden promises
of nature are fulfilled! Let an angel’s love make your
wishes come true…. Send for Adriana today!
220 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

“I wish…Oh, I wish…” exclaims Lavender Dreams. And then,

“Lost in a daydream, she turns into a beautiful princess from
long, long ago…. Lavender Dreams is issued as a hand-
numbered, limited Artist’s Edition. Make your own wish and
keep her forever. Send for your Lavender Dreams today!”
 Chapter Eight
Innocence and Fear

“The precious innocence of a little boy sound asleep,

warmly captured in fine porcelain.”

I have been fascinated with dolls since I was 10 years

old…. In early adulthood I sort of lost touch with my
hobby. But I still loved dolls and bought some
occasionally, but my focus (time-wise and
financially) was taking care of my family. A little
over a year ago I discovered ebay, because a family
member auctions glassware there. I checked out the
Dolls category, and all my enthusiasm came back. I
bought some dolls that I owned as a child but lost,
and then I expanded my interests. I realized that I
didn’t know alot about dolls, so I bought books,
joined a doll club, and took every opportunity to
learn about dolls. I live in North Carolina and have a
daughter beginning college this year. (She has NO
interest in dolls.) My other passion is lilies of the
valley. I collect anything with lilies of the valley—
china, hankies, etc.1

In this book I have used the small matter of doll collecting to

draw attention to larger questions of how people’s personal
lives are actively intertwined with history and culture. I have
explored the inti mate connections between the physical forms
of the PCDs, their diffusion as a commodity through time and
space, and the lives of the women who collect these dolls—
222 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

sometimes in large numbers. The lineage of the PCDs extends

back through some of the more elaborate children’s dolls of the
twentieth century to the fashion dolls of the nineteenth century
that are now prized as antiques. The lives of today’s collectors
are threaded through a large part of this history. Many of them
were born in hard times, raised their families in the years of
postwar recovery, and are now aging in relative isolation and
loneliness. Others have deferred or forgone child rearing in
their pursuit of other opportunities. Their needs and the
demands they place on manufacturers and markets are
structured by their experiences, and it is hardly surprising that
they should want things that do not interest other people—
notably their own offspring.
Having focused in this book on what it is about these dolls
that enthralls and delights some people, I must finally return to
what repels and disconcerts others. Such an emphatic difference
of attitude reminds us that we are seldom in complete
agreement about the meaning of the things that surround us—
that “culture” does not always imply consensus. Meaning does
not have an independent, stable existence, floating “out there”
in social space. It is variable and mutable because it is body-
bound and life-bound. Culture lives in the intergenerational
transactions of life itself: people take it and make it very
selectively as they grow, inevitably believing that what matters
to them today is what matters most.
Since supposedly we were all children once, it is astonishing
how thoroughly, with the imperative of “growing up,” we
suppress our earlier understandings. What is it about adulthood
that disrupts our sentimental attachment to our dolls? Why are
they so variously the stuff of dreams and of nightmares? Is the
guilty pleasure of doll collecting later in life a delayed rebellion
against earlier parental hegemony? Or is the disjunction
something inherent in the dolls themselves, the tragedy that
while we grow, they can’t?
All dolls, in varying degrees, distort, merge, confuse “real”
bodily appearances, and all of them are, potentially, dangerous.
In her study Purity and Danger, the anthropologist Mary
Douglas draws attention to how we use our bodies as very
basic frameworks for thinking about and symbolizing all sorts
 INNOCENCE AND FEAR 223

of social and moral qualities. For example, we use our right and
left hands to make important contrasts (dextrous and sinister,
this or that political party) and we use “head” and “foot” to
signify political or economic distinctions (head of state, foot the
bill). What bothers us is when something doesn’t fit the normal
body scheme, or is not in its proper place. Saliva in my mouth
is warm, friendly, and lubricating; if I spit into a glass and let it
cool, it seems very unappetizing, even to me. By metaphoric
extension, boots on the dinner table, or a priest in a brothel, is
matter out of place—“dirty.” But what really troubles us is
when we can’t clearly categorize something, when we can’t tell
for sure if it’s in or out of place: it’s neither left nor right, good
nor bad, food nor shit. Ambiguity, says Douglas, is dangerous.
To deal with it we need special rules and procedures (rituals,
medicines, laws). The trouble is, the natural processes of
growing confront us continually with hazardous changes: the
dangerous condition of adolescence is neither childhood nor
adulthood, and around the world we humans have quite
elaborate coming-of-age ceremonies to get us safely across the
threshold.2
Dolls can be dangerous. I have already noted many of their
ambiguities: they seem poised on the threshold between life and
death, the real and unreal, persons and things; and thresholds,
according to Mary Douglas, can be the most dangerous place in
the house (neither inside nor outside). Dolls that take some
features that properly belong in one stage of bodily growth (the
nubile mouth and jaw) and add it to what is otherwise a baby
face may be more than usually dangerous.
The biologist Eibl-Eibesfeldt remarks that “in commercial art
the childish attributes of women are frequently exaggerated as
well as the sexual attributes.”3 If infantilizing is a familiar way
of enhancing adult feminine appeal, why should features of adult
attractiveness not be used to enhance the appeal of little
children? The very thought rouses indignation: “Only in a
nation of promiscuous puritans could it be a good career move
to equip a six-year-old with bedroom eyes,” laments journalist
Richard Goldstein.4 The sense of outrage is not new. Shirley
Temple—still the most favored “live” model for the current
collector dolls—was the ideal child of the Depression years.
224 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

In 1936 Graham Greene, then editing the magazine Night and

Day, pointed out her sexual coquettishness. In the resulting
storm of protest, he was sued for libel, and the magazine was
forced to close.5
Today, says Marina Warner, the precocious eroticization of
children has become especially fearsome—“little angels, little
monsters.”6 It subverts our efforts to keep childhood in its
proper place: “Never before have children been so saturated
with all the power of projected monstrousness to excite
repulsion—and even terror.”7 Loading a doll with these
different meanings can be magically gratifying for the collectors.
But for others whose lives are not in sympathy with this
collage, the effect is of physical abnormality, freakishness.
In the cynical, knowing world of the new millennium, the
mixture of cute and attractive is explosive, but whatever erotic
effects there may be, they are repressed by the doll collectors
themselves. We found it virtually impossible to discuss with
these women the possibility that they might be sexually aroused
by the dolls; tentative inquiries made clear that such questions
were ridiculous or offensive. Innocent is a key word in selling
the dolls. It occurs in 12 percent of the advertisements,
apparently seeking to reassure but also betraying some moral
anxiety on the manufacturers’ part (see appendix C). “Victorian
Lullaby” is advertised as “a timeless portrait of innocence”; but
was childhood in Victorian times really so “innocent”? And are
children today as “innocent” as we would wish? It is “an
entirely modern view of childhood,” says cultural theorist Neil
Postman, that it should be “sheltered from adult secrets,
particularly sexual secrets.” This gives “innocence” an
awkward twist: “without a well-developed idea of shame,
childhood cannot exist.” The problem today, Postman
complains, is that modern media give children ready access to
adult secrets, stripping them of innocence and of childhood
itself.8
A favorite example of the decay of innocence and the
confusion of infancy and nubility are the baby shows and
pageants so popular in Middle America. These have “blurred
the boundary between child and adult” and deepened our
confusion about the meaning of innocence.9 They became the
 INNOCENCE AND FEAR 225

object of international media attention through the unresolved

murder in 1996 of child beauty pageant star JonBenet Ramsey.
It is not hard to understand why people looking at the PCDs
for the first time should remark on their resemblance to
JonBenet—the child’s facial proportions and elaborate makeup
match quite a few of our “adultified” PCDs. “The JonBenet
Ramsey case revealed not only how regressive notions of
femininity and beauty are redeployed in this conservative era to
fashion the fragile identities of young girls but also how easily
adults will project their own fantasies onto children.”10 Part of
the public censure resulting from the case was that in being
made to look more adult, JonBenet seemed to be inviting abuse
—an extension of the old innuendo that women who contrive
to look more feminine are “asking for it.” Suspicions in this
case have been loaded with assumptions about “bad
parenting.”
It is strange that although we now claim much professional
understanding of the rights, needs, and capacities of the child,
we are as much at a loss as we ever have been about the “Eros
of childhood” and, even more troublesome, the “Eros of
parenthood.” The angst seems to have turned against child
raising itself, witness the rash of fin de siècle book titles like
Who’s Fit to Be a Parent? Uneasiness about the PCDs reflects
the moral crisis about childhood, in which all kinds of physical
interest in children, even the “maternal,” is suspect. Noelle
Oxenhandler protests: “Not touching children can also be a
crime.”11 The idea that “sibling appeal” is an important part of
a child’s (and a doll’s) physical appearance may mitigate some
of our fears about the attractions of small children, and help us
to understand how and why the Eros of child care and the Eros
of conjugality differ.
In recent history our attitudes to these matters has been far
from stable. In some ways the PCDs are heirs to the Victorian
bourgeois tradition that produced mawkish, naively erotic
images of children. The twentieth century saw middle-class
intellectuals vacillating between extremely repressive and very
liberal attitudes on child rearing. The work of Freud and his
disciples has served both purposes. A repressive attitude at the
turn of the century (mechanical restraints for sucking and
226 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

masturbation) was followed by more lenient attitudes in the

1930s and 1940s. The writings of Spock, Kinsey, Mead, and
others fostered a tolerance of infantile sexuality. For all the
rigors of the Depression, it was a relatively benign time to be
raised: ordinary kids were less likely to be tortured with guilt
and could still enjoy the company of their peers in the streets
and parks with little fear of wicked prowlers. If the 1960s are
remembered for naked flower children and freely available
pornography, it was also the decade in which child abuse was
officially “discovered” by the medical profession in the United
States, preparing the way for the sexual molestation paranoia
of the ‘80s and ‘90s and a harsh backlash against earlier
“permissiveness.”12 The sexual libertines of the 1960s were now
overwrought parents, scrutinizing the most intimate details of
their children’s lives, and subjecting them to mountains of
profoundly ambiguous professional and literary wisdom. “We
know what you’re thinking—we’ve been there.”
According to psychologist James Kincaid, the problem is that
while we insist on the innocence of childhood, we have found
that innocence itself erotic and have become hopelessly
confused by it.13 We turn our own guilt on the child, “and in
despair, in an attempt to protect, we demand even greater
disclosure of the child to the adult.” We strip away the child’s
privacy, leaving it “little with which to protect itself from the
invasions of the adult.”14
The dolls would seem to allow a fantasy of total possession,
power, and knowledge—a perfect guilt-free innocence. And yet
the power of the dolls also lies in the secrets that are implanted
subliminally by both their owners and their manufacturers. In
the eyes of some beholders, the wantonness of some of the dolls
is very striking (the dilated pupils, the pouty mouth, the plump
limbs). But for the collectors, if there is any obscenity it is in the
cheapest and crudest dolls or, more likely, in the prurient eyes
of these other beholders.
In writing up this project I was goaded by three memorable
comments from senior anthropologists. The first was a woman,
the other two were men. They were respectively a cultural, a
biological, and an economic anthropologist, and all were in
their fifties. Having listened patiently to an illustrated talk on
 INNOCENCE AND FEAR 227

the dolls, the woman’s comment was succinct: “Nauseating.”

The biological anthropologist was struck by the fact that
“everything about these dolls is a lie.” And looking over an
early draft of our report, the economic anthropologist doubted
the general interest of our topic. There have been hugely
successful books on other commodities, “sugar and cod come
to mind—but these are heroes of economic history with
universal consequences,” he said. A reader whose great virtue is
his unremitting candor, he declared that he “could never bring
himself to care about what seems to be a relatively arbitrary
feature of western U.S. culture in the late twentieth century.”
Why some serious and thoughtful people should find these
dolls disgusting, mendacious, or boring, while others are
sufficiently beguiled to buy them in large numbers, is a
passionate difference of opinion on which I would wish to bring
to bear our analytical framework of growth. I value these
scholarly comments, but I recognize that they are also the
opinions of real human beings, historically situated in Europe
and North America at the turn of the twenty-first century, with
lifetimes of particular experiences, and well equipped with the
visceral feelings that underlie such judgments. Collegial protocol
disallows a detailed description of who they are and how they
have lived, but it will already be clear that none of them is in
the market for porcelain collector dolls.
How much does something have to matter—and to whom—
before it can be counted as “culture” and thus as a truthful and
respectable object of academic attention? In classic
ethnography, religious beliefs, myths, taboos, and the orderly
structures of kinship were all thought of as constituting the
hard core of culture. The anthropological task was to tease out
the important, general, and durable from the trivial, local, and
ephemeral. Classically, this meant seeking out the authoritative
old men who, unlike the diffident children and women, had a
well-rehearsed tale to tell. To ethnographers interested in trivia
(decoration, children’s games, dress, cooking) the challenge was
to show how even such details slotted into the cultural master
plan. What has always been unclear is the logic that justifies
these greater and lesser degrees of ethnographic relevance. Why
should dolls be of lesser account in the cultural catalog than,
228 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

for example, religious icons? The reason, it seems, is not simply

a bias of anthropology—it’s a bias of adulthood itself.
As we grow up, things drop into and out of our lives. One
meaning elides with another, linked by our cumulative
experiences of life. We put away childish things, only to
rediscover them later, through our own children, and perhaps
again in the second childhood of old age. Such changes and
mutations are not irrelevant to culture, they are the living
processes that sustain it and imbue it with emotional meaning.
“Culture,” as anthropologists and others have sought to
define it, is at best a very partial truth: fragmentary images of
something that is presumed to be an inclusive dynamic whole
but that can be described only in static parts and from
particular points of view. It is the abstraction of a few ideas and
actions from the immense busyness of real life, which we
immobilize and pin like a butterfly on the academic display
board. “Culture” is life like, but in much the same limited way
that the collector dolls are life like. Both struggle to represent
living things, in written texts or on porcelain, but these images
are basically timeless. We can write and rewrite the grand
outlines of culture, but as a compound of millions of lived lives
stretched out through history its whole truth is beyond our
intellectual grasp. One of the well-known frustrations of
ethnography is that however comprehensive we try to make it,
our audience is very narrow, and books are destined to be
unreadable and unrecognizable by nearly all the people they beg
to portray. Similarly, the record of past lives inscribed on the
small body of the doll caters to a very narrow range of
perceptions. It will always be a partial record, profoundly
meaningful to some and perplexing or repugnant or simply
meaningless from other life-bound points of view.
Today, contemporary cultural studies have worked hard to
help us come to terms intellectually and morally with social
difference. A better intellectual grasp of race, class, gender,
religion, or nationality has improved our tolerance of these
social categories. It is now unlikely that we would describe any
of these manifestations of “otherness” as nauseating,
mendacious, or boring, but there are evidently other axes of
social difference that we have not yet learned to treat in the same
 INNOCENCE AND FEAR 229

tolerant terms. What we loosely describe as “generation” is

embedded in the experience of every one of us, and yet has
persistently eluded our best analytical efforts. However, recent
changes in the demographic history of our societies make the
need to understand these relations of human growth a matter
of increasing political, economic, and social urgency. The
cultural phenomenon of the generation gap widens inexorably
with each passing decade. Today the old and the young live
apart as they never did before, but they still communicate
through intensely “feelingful” objects like dolls. For reasons
that run deeper than culture or history, little children may come
to terms much more readily than their parents with why
Grandma should do something so weird as fill her home with
lifelike dolls.
It is a biohistorical fact of some importance that there are a
lot more grandmas around now than ever before. Greater
longevity has increased the risks of isolation in old age, but it
has also expanded the scope for relationships across the life
span and through history. In our study, these life experiences
were shared, sometimes very poignantly, in conversations
between grandmothers and granddaughters. Our challenge has
been to translate some of these sentiments back into words.
While we may find it difficult to make objective, scholarly sense
of the PCD phenomenon, the contradictions are resolved for
the women themselves at the level of feelings. They do not care
to dwell on the psychology, economics, sociology, or semantics
of their passion for dolls. That is our scholarly business, and if
the collectors (and the manufacturers) are not very sympathetic
to us, it’s because our analyses impinge on their enthusiasm in
rather dry, surly, critical, and sometimes guilt-inducing ways.
Modern intellectual styles tend to split things rather than see
them as continuous wholes: dolls are for children, not adults;
for girls rather than boys; they are either for play or display;
they are things, not persons. In the disciplinary mosaic of
modern scholarship, the doll makes its fragmentary appearance
in pediatrics or gerontology, museology, or developmental
psychology. It appears definitively intact in the arms of a child;
and once again, changed by the passage of a life, in the arms of
an elderly woman.
230 LIFE LIKE DOLLS

Picture 16: Mary Jane.

Photo by A.F.Robertson.
 Appendix A
“Precious”
some quotations from the sample of PCD
advertisements

Precious and all porcelain, she’s Cute as a Button.

Accented with dainty flowers, mauve piping and delicate bow
collar, it’s just the outfit for such a precious little girl.
(Stephanie)
“Angel Face” is a precious and gentle girl dressed like a little
angel for her preschool pageant.
Little “Sugar Plum” has a big sister in ballet class and tries to
be just like her. But without taking a single step, this sweet
baby girl is as precious a ballerina as you could ever wish for!
Make this precious little girl with her sweet-but-sad
expression your very own. Submit your reservation for “Kayla”
today.
The precious innocence of a little boy sound asleep, warmly
captured in fine porcelain. (Ryan)
Kimberly’s precious features are expertly painted by hand.
She’s Sunshine, Lollipops, and precious as she can be!
Sweet and precious and adorable in all porcelain, she’s
“Clean as a Whistle,” a baby doll you’ll love to “shower” with
love and affection.
Award winning doll artist Gudrun Haak brings to life a
precious heirloom baby doll. An exclusive offering in the
prestigious European Doll Artists Collection!
Dolls as precious as little girls’ dreams. (Erin)
Joshua’s head, arms and legs are superbly crafted of fine
bisque porcelain, and his precious facial features are lovingly
painted by hand.
It’s a precious scene from the gentle, sunlit world of a child’s
imagination. (Brittany—Tea for Teddy)
232 APPENDIX A

Her precious features brought to life in fine porcelain,

painted by hand. (Baby Bliss)
As pink and precious as the flower she’s named for! (Sweet
Carnation)
His precious facial features are skillfully painted by hand in
soft, natural colors. (Karl)
Precious in porcelain, with a poseable beanbag body. (Baby
Mickey)
 Appendix B-1
Doll Words
Analyses of the doll advertisements

GENDER AND FREQUENTLY USED

WORDS IN THE COLLECTOR DOLL
ADVERTISEMENTS
The words are arranged in order of the frequency with which
they occur in the sample of 267 advertisements. Extensions of all
the listed words are included: * marks stems which are not
complete words. For example, LOVE* includes lovely,
loveliness, and so on; LOV* includes all of these, plus lovable,
loving, lovingly, and so on.
Words which occur in more than 10% of the ads in one list
but not the other are underlined.

QUALITY WORDS

(Occurring in more than 20% of advertisements):

Girls Boys
LOV* LOV*
BEAUTIFUL TIME
LOVE JOY
TIME REMARKABL*
SWEET LOVE
ACTIV* SWEET
HEART ACTIV*
ADOR* ADOR*
DELIGHT DELIGHT
234 APPENDIX B-1

(Occurring in more than 20% of advertisements):

Girls Boys
FOREVER HEART

RELATION WORDS

(Occurring in more than 10% of the advertisements:)

Girls Boys
HOME HOME
FRIEND FRIEND
DADDY
MOMMY
PERSONALITY

ACTION WORDS

(occurring in more than 20% of advertisements:)

Girls Boys
CAN CAN
COME COME
BRING PLAY
LOOK
SLEEP
MAKE
FUN

BODY WORDS

(Occurring in more than 10% of the advertisements:)

Girls Boys
LITTLE LITTLE
EYES BOY
DRESS EYES
GIRL DRESS
 APPENDIX B-L 235

(Occurring in more than 10% of the advertisements:)

Girls Boys
CHILD LEGS
LEGS FACE
FACE CHILD
BABY BABY

TOUCH WORDS

(Occurring in more than 10% of the advertisements:)

Girls Boys
DELICATE SOFT
SOFT WARM
WARM

REALITY WORDS

(Occurring in more than 10% of the advertisements:)

Girls Boys
ACTUAL ACTUAL
LIFE LIFE
REAL REAL
LIFELIKE LIFELIKE

COMMODITY WORDS

(Occurring in more than 20% of the advertisements:)

Girls Boys
COLLECT COLLECT
FINE GUARANTEE
GUARANTEE FINE
COMPLETE COMPLETE
EXCLUSIVE VALUE
VALUE SATISFACTION
236 APPENDIX B-1

(Occurring in more than 20% of the advertisements:)

Girls Boys
HEIRLOOM AFFORD
SATISFACTION EXCLUSIVE
QUALITY QUALITY
CONVENIENT PREMIER
PREMIER HEIRLOOM

TECHNICAL WORDS

(Occurring in more than 20% of the advertisements:)

Girls Boys
HAND HAND
ARTIST ARTIST
CRAFT CRAFT
EDITION FIRST
FIRST BISQUE
BISQUE EDITION
AUTHENTIC AUTHENTIC
SCULP* HANDCRAFT
SCULP*
CAPTURE
 Appendix B-2
Words which are more likely to be
used in advertisements for girl dolls
than boy dolls: (i) quality words, (ii)
action words

For example: in (i) below, “beautiful” occurs in 32% of the

advertisements for girl dolls and just 7% of the advertisements
for boy dolls—that is, it occurs in 25% more of the
advertisements for girl dolls than boy dolls. “Mischief” occurs
in 16% of the boy advertisements and just 1% of the girl
advertisements—a difference of 15% in favor of boys.
“Enchant” is as likely to occur in advertisements for girl dolls
as boy dolls—roughly 11% in both sets of advertisements.

(i) Quality Words: Difference between < Girl Words and Boy Words >
238 APPENDIX B-2

(ii) Action Words: Difference between < Girl Words and Boy Words >
 Appendix B-3
Words which are more likely to be
used in advertisements for Native-
American and Caucasian dolls

For example: “Artist” is used in 93% of the advertisements for

Native American dolls, and 66% of the Caucasian dolls—that
is, it occurs in 27% more of the advertisements for Native
American dolls. “Little” occurs in 62% of all the
advertisements for Caucasian dolls, 26% more than in the
advertisements for Native American dolls.

Words Occurring in 10% or More of the Advertisements: Differences

between < Native American Dolls and Caucasian Dolls >
 Appendix B-4
Native American/Caucasian/African
American contrasts in frequently used
words in the collector doll
advertisements

The words occur in more than 10% of the adverts in each

category, and are arranged in order of the frequency with which
they occur. Extensions of all the listed words are included; *
marks stems which are not complete words. For example,
LOVE* includes lovely, loveliness, and so on; LOV* includes
all of these, plus lovable, loving, lovingly, and so on.

ACTION WORDS
Native American Caucasian African American
COME COME COME
LOOK CAN CAN
BRING BRING LOOK
DREAM PLAY WANT
WONDER LOOK BRING
LOVING* MAKE MAKE
SMILE/ing WONDER WONDER
SLEEP* LOVING* SMILE/ing
NEED DISCOVER
SMILE/ing
EXPRESSI*
SLEEP
WISH
DREAM
 241

QUALITY WORDS
Native American Caucasian African American
BEAUTIFUL LOV* LOV*
TIME* TIME* LOVE*
PROUD LOVE* ACTIV*
ATTRACT SWEET HEART
TALE BEAUTIFUL FOREVER
LOV* ACTIV* FAVO(u)RITE
SWEET ADOR* TIME*
ACTIV* HEART DELIGHT
FOREVER DELIGHT JOY
CHARM FOREVER INNOCEN*
REMARKABL* PRECIOUS BEAUTIFUL
BEAUTY ADORABLE IRRESISTIBLE
INSPIR* JOY GENTLE
CAPTIVAT* CHARM HAPPY
SHY REMARKABL* SWEET
ENCHANT PRECIOUS
EXQUISITE CHARM
INNOCEN* BEAUTY
IRRESISTIBLE ANGEL
SPARKL* PROUD
GENTLE DARLING
 Appendix C
Doll Technicalities
“Full Socketed Head”

Tina Berry is presenting a sequence of collector dolls in classic

Home Shopping Network mode: lingering closeups on the
product, continuous suasive, quasi-technical patter, while sales
and other details are posted permanently on a window on the
left of the screen. There is a clublike atmosphere, but the mood
is urgent: phones ring, sales meters click away each item, a
clock counts the seconds to the closure of the sale. The
indomitably cheerful Tina, more motherly than glamorous,
projects herself as a serious collector in her own right. She
wears sensible, dark clothes, perhaps not to out-glamorize the
dolls. Her hands, continually working the dolls over, are clearly
important, seriously manicured, with long, chisel-shaped,
heavily enameled nails. Tina urges persistently “Don’t let this
one slip through your fingers!” The program is punctuated by
chats with dial-up shoppers, who much appreciate Tina’s bright
personality:
Sandy, from North Carolina: I watch every doll show you do.
You give them so much life. It’s
almost like you invest a
personality in each doll.
Tina: Oh you’re so sweet. What did you
pick up tonight?
Sandy: I got Heather, and while I was on
hold I saw the number for
another one that I’m going to
check back with the operator, to
see if they still have it. It’s really
funny—I’m single, and a lot of
 APPENDIX C 243

times somebody will ask me to go

out, and I say, “No, no, no, my
doll show is tonight.” …It’s
amazing—I have cats, and they
know not to bother my dolls…. I
just sit here, and even if it’s one I
know I’m not going to get, I enjoy
listening to you—you describe
them beautifully.
Tina: It does take having a passion, and
I can tell you, as a collector, we
have here my extra, extra special
favorites, and here tonight we
have been able to offer you just a
random sampling of some of the
finest dolls from all over the
world….
Here, Tina is selling Tamsin by artist Christine Orange (Court
of Dolls, price $198.75) on the HSN program Gallery of Dolls:
“Look at how believable this little girl is. And you’re going to
find of course she has her legs gently crossed, you’ll also notice
that her little arms are down by the sides supporting, if you
will, the overall body. I want to share with all of you out there
just the extensive amount of porcelain that goes into this one,
because there’s quite a bit.” Tina at this point pulls the larger-
than-average, 36-inch doll out of the chair where Tina herself
usually sits, and wrestles her around so that she can unbutton
the back of the dress and expose the neck and shoulder areas,
which bear stamps and signatures, and where some important
mechanics of the doll are normally hidden. The doll is
unsmiling, impassive, her head clunking on Tina’s shoulder.
Those crossable legs flop about as Tina works.

Here you can see the artist’s signature mark, and also the
limited edition piece at the back of the neck, the beautiful
pearlized buttons that hold this beautiful dress together,
and there’s the breast plate, OK? Quite an extensive
breast plate as well. Notice something else that’s the mark
244 APPENDIX C

of quality: wherever the porcelain is joined to porcelain

you’ll see a little bit of felt in here and that keeps it, of
course, from grinding, because porcelain is a form of glass
and you want to of course have that separation…. OK?
Full socketed head, huge upper body done in porcelain,
there’s a lot of porcelain that goes into this doll….
Take a look at these faces—they so much look like real
children. And because of the size, the structure and the
size of them, you’re going to find that you may place these
in any room of your home, people will actually come in,
look at them, and think they’re talking to real children.
The doll’s name is Tamsin, and she is an exceptional
masterpiece …even down to the little satin shoes.

[Home Shopping Network, Gallery of Dolls (host Tina Berry),

February 17, 1999, 10–12 P.M. Pacific time.]
 Appendix D
“Innocence”
some quotations from the sample of PCD
advertisements

Cherry Pie is as sweet as her name…so gentle and innocent, she’s

like a picture from a perfect world.
“Gwendolyn”—a masterpiece of elegance and innocence!
“Special Delivery”—A PORTRAIT OF INNOCENCE
“Chelsea” is everything collectors love in a Connie Walser-
Derek original—innocence, charm and captivating personality.
Donna RuBert has captured all of the heartwarming
innocence and wonder of childhood in this astonishingly lifelike
doll. (Sara)
“Beneath the Mistletoe,” by artist Titus Tomescu, is a fine-
porcelain collector doll that will fill your home with childhood
innocence.
“Lauren’s” big blue eyes are fringed with long, sweeping
eyelashes and her sweet, innocent face is brightened by an
endearing smile and rosy-pink cheeks.
Look at the way Grace’s face lights up…with those chubby
cheeks …those innocent dimples.
A heartwarming new porcelain collector doll capturing a
special moment of childhood innocence. (Brittany)
To complement her innocent sweetness, Kimberly’s dress is
hand-tailored of rosebud-patterned fabric with a pink ribbon
sash.
“Hope” is the first issue in a collection called Gardens of
Innocence.
This face, rounded cheeks, and handpainted, pursed lips
convey a timeless portrait of innocence. (Victorian Lullaby)
246 APPENDIX D

“Amber” will surely delight your heart, and add a very

special touch of childlike innocence wherever she is delivered.
Order now.
“Snowbird’s” head…the look of innocent wonder in her
beautiful brown eyes.
Hand-set eyes in innocent blue. (Jack and Jill)
Amber Afternoon draws you into her golden world of
innocence.
You can see she’s full of hope and innocence, and right now
just a little bit shy. Tansie is also everything you could wish for
in a collector’s doll.
Those innocent eyes…that soft loveliness. Where have you
seen such a girl before? In the Portraits you remember—of
children long ago. (Peaches and Cream)
An adorable porcelain collector doll capturing the innocent
playfulness of a little boy. (Bobby)
The minute you see Brian’s winsome face and the wishful
expression in his big blue eyes, you’ll recognize Elke Hutchens’
magical ability to evoke the innocence and sweetness of young
children.
Her delicate beauty and tender innocence are as sweet as the
blossoms she carries. (Shy Violet)
An adorable first edition collector doll capturing a little boy’s
innocent charm. (Christopher)
Jessica captures the tender innocence of a child.
An adorable porcelain collector doll capturing a baby’s
playful innocence. (Playing Footsie)
She’s tiny. Angelic. Blushed with innocence. It’s love at first
sight with adorable Baby Bliss.
Look into her soft brown eyes, and see all the love and
innocence that makes babies irresistible! She’s “Sweet
Carnation.”
 Appendix E
Chucky’s Back!

In movies, the bad-doll genre flourished with early animation

techniques. In The Devil Doll (MGM, 1936), an adaptation of
Arthur Merritt’s novel Burn, Witch, Burn!, an old woman
sends her dolls on stealing and killing missions. But she is in fact
a he, a convict on the run, played by Lionel Barrymore in drag,
and the dolls are actually little people (Grace Ford and Arthur
Hohl) trained to wreak vengeance on his behalf. “Creepy,”
concludes a recent New Yorker review (April 5, 1999). “Some
bits are fairly certain to return in nightmares.”
Much the same could be said of Child’s Play (MGM-United
Artists, 1988) the best-known modern version of this genre.
The plot is rudimentary: single mom (Catherine Hicks) raising
small son on wretched shop job buys “Chucky” doll from
peddler who stole it from a toy store burned down by
thunderbolt as Strangler, gasping vengeance against detective
who has just shot him, migrates into convenient doll.
Chucky, alias the Strangler, is very much a child’s doll, but
with features hyped along the scary axis: big blue eyes, small
pupils, nasty little mouth with sharp teeth. He is from a doll
series called Good Guys (“He wants YOU to be his Best
Friend,” say the boxes stacked up in the toy store). He is
intended as a sibling surrogate for six-year-old Andy (Alex
Vincent) who, with his big blue eyes, dainty chin, and
dolichocephalic head looks somewhat hyperreal himself. The
movie plugs away at the theme that dolls can get real despite
adult skepticism. Chucky makes his point by ejecting Andy’s
skeptical aunt/babysitter messily from the apartment window,
early in the movie. Later, the detective’s sidekick is bouncing
248 APPENDIX E

Chucky’s head around like a football to show the principals that

the doll is just a doll—at which point Chucky’s scorched and
dismembered torso tears into him. Only when he is shot
through his newly forming heart (spatter-spatter) by the
detective (Chris Sarandon) does Chucky quiet down—biding
his time for resurrection in Bride of Chucky. The movie closes
with the Chucky-afflicted principals heading out of the
apartment, stabbed and chewed, wondering how they will
break the news of doll hyperactivity to the rest of the world.
 Appendix F
Key to Face Diagrams

These diagrams focus on the facial mask, the arrangement of

primary features (eyes, nose, mouth) to which we pay most
attention in looking at faces. In the diagrams, the length of the
head from crown to chin (A-B) is held constant to show
proportional differences and changes in the mask. The breadth
of the face (D-E) is recorded by noting the greatest width of the
cheeks: this is much closer to the level of the mouth in the case
of infants, and usually at the height of the cheek bones, just
below the eyes, for adults. Key coordinates are the eye line (G-
H), centered on each pupil and extended to the corners of each
eye; the point (N) on the crown-chin line at which the upper lip
meets the nasal septum; and the point (M) at which the line of
the mouth, from its corner creases, meets the crown-chin line.
The diagrams also note two other important facial signals: the
width of the irises (L), and the thickness of the upper (R-S) and
lower (R-T) lips.

A-B Crown-chin (MAIN index line). Base of chin (first if

double!) to scalp at highest point of crown estimated
where not fully visible. Height of open mouth is
deducted from MAIN line.
D-C-E Cheek width: face at widest point below eye line.
B-F Chin to eye line running through center of pupils.
G-H Eye width: between corner of each eye, centered on
MAIN line.
J-F-K Distance between pupils, centered on MAIN line.
L Iris diameter.
B-N Nasal septum height: chin to septum at lip crease.
250 APPENDIX F

Appendix F: Key to Face Diagrams

B-M Mouth height: chin to mouth line below center of

upper lip.
P-Q Mouth width, corner to corner.
R-S Upper lip at point of maximum width along mouth
line.
R-T Lower lip at point of maximum width along mouth
line.
 Notes

PREFACE

1. See especially Robertson 1991, 1996, 2001.

CHAPTER 1
The epigraphs opening this and subsequent chapters are all
drawn from our sample of doll advertisements.

1. Stevie is illustrated in figure 7-b. In this book we shall use the

convention that the names of dolls will be in italics, real people in
normal type.
2. Novelist Anne Rice, http://www.dollreader.com/vampire_0898.html
(February 15, 2001).
3. Star Free Press (Ventura, California), March 6, 1994.
4. Hall and Ellis 1896:171.
5. Lorna Scott Fox’s review of Rand’s Barbie’s Queer Accessories
(1995), in the London Review of Books (July 20, 1995:13). “But
the premise of mickey-mouse academics is often fruitful: that the least
cultural droppings are microcosms of a wider political dynamic, to
be prodded and tested in a reflexology of the social body.”
6. When Caroline died in 1824, age nine, she was about 20 inches tall
—about the same size as the larger PCDs in our sample.
7. Simms 1996:663–64.
8. C.Carter 1993:16–17.
9. “In Memory of the Late Mr. and Mrs. Comfort.” Fashion photo
essay by Richard Avedon, New Yorker, November 6, 1995.
10. Rossi 1985, Woodward 1995.
11. Bengtson, Rosenthal, and Burton 1990:270.
12. Wise 1990:5.
13. Hall and Ellis 1896:165, 172–73.
252 NOTES

14. Hall and Ellis 1896:167–68.

15. See, for example, Wilson 2002, Pearce 1995:211.
16. Dean 1997:108–11.
17. Hall and Ellis 1896:161.
18. Kenneth Loyal Smith, http://www.virtualdolls.com/kensmith.htm
(November 6, 2000).
19. Hall and Ellis 1896:159.
20. Piot 1999:84–86.
21. LaFleur 1992:8–9.
22. L. Martin 1994:20.
23. I have described this biohistorical perspective in much greater detail
elsewhere: see Robertson 1991, 1994, 1996, 2001.
24. Toren 1993:474. Toren rejects conventional views of the child as an
asocial and ahistorical receptacle for adult meanings: “The child is
taken to be biologically an a-social individual who becomes social/
cultural by virtue of actions performed upon it by others. Thus the
child is made the locus of a split between ‘individual’ and ‘society,’
between ‘biology’ and ‘culture,’ and processual relations with others
are reified as ‘structures’ that are outside and beyond the particular
persons who are cognitively constituting them as such” (469).
25. “The child’s toys and the old man’s reasons are the fruits of two
seasons,” said William Blake two centuries ago (quoted in Mergen
1984:149). And “beads and prayer books are the toys of age,” said
Alexander Pope a century before that.
26. See especially Aries 1962, Atran 1990, Elder, Modell, and Parker
1993, Cox 1996, James, Jenks, and Prout 1998, Walkerdine 1997.
27. Cox 1996:207.
28. Students of culture, says Sahlins, need take little interest in biology,
beyond recognizing that it places “a set of natural limits on human
functioning” and “puts at the disposition of culture a set of means
for the construction of a symbolic order” (Sahlins 1976:66).
29. Birke 1999:138, 157.
30. Birke 1999:2.
31. Birke 1999:172.
32. Birke 1999:157.
33. McDonough and Braungart 2002.
34. Hard-nosed journalists have encountered the same problems. Forbes
magazine’s Phyllis Berman (1992) found that Theodore Stanley, the
boss of Danbury (one of the main PCD producers), “is an extremely
private person who doesn’t even meet with the big-name artists like
Roger Tory Peterson who design collectibles for his company….
Stanley has taken care to avoid publicity for MBI products, but why
take a chance on telling some journalist what he makes and how
much he makes?” (Berman 1992)
 NOTES 253

35. See, for example, Rand 1995; and Fleming 1996:207.

CHAPTER 2

1. Fleming 1996:87.
2. Fleming 1996:109.
3. Barbie is classified as a “fashion doll” by the advertising trade
(Mansfield 1983).
4. Dean 1997:118–19.
5. Dean 1997:130, 131.
6. Dean 1997:104–107.
7. Fleming 1996:87.
8. Hall and Ellis 1896:134.
9. Dean 1997:178.
10. Postman 1994:67.
11. Hall and Ellis 1896.
12. Formanek-Brunell 1998:371.
13. Formanek-Brunell 1993:186.
14. Dean 1997:189.
15. Postman 1994:123.
16. Mansfield 1983.
17. Taylor 1999.
18. Appadurai 1986:41.
19. Ehrenreich and Ehrenreich 1979:325.
20. Appadurai 1986:41.
21. Appadurai 1986.
22. Loro 1995a.
23. Loro 1995a.
24. The remaining 26 advertisements in our final selection included
dolls manufactured by several smaller producers, including Gorham
and Paradise Galleries. The list is a selection, based on what
appeared during the 1990s in the print media. It is far from
comprehensive—for example, Harper’s Bazaar established its own
range of porcelain dolls in the mid-1990s (Underwood 1996).
25. Loro 1995.
26. Berman 1992:54–5.
27. Berman 1992.
28. Ashton-Drake: http://www.collectiblestoday.com (October 15,
2000).
29. Loro 1995a.
30. Moody’s Company Data Report, 1998, Moody’s Investors Service.
31. Dean 1997:132.
32. Loro 1995b.
33. Shiffrin 1995.
254 NOTES

34. Byrnes 1995:44.

35. Moody’s Company Data Report, 1998, Moody’s Investors Service.
36. U.S. Department of Commerce 1983, 1993, 1997.
37. “Hand” came out top of our list of key words, occurring in some
form in 84 percent of the sample of 267 PCD advertisements.
38. Dean 1997:74, Ogando 2000:64.
39. Harvey 1990:300.
40. Berman 1992.
41. Moody’s Company Data Report, 1998, Moody’s Investors Service.
42. “America Past and Pleasant,” Economist, no. 337 (December 16,
1995), p. 62.
43. We have no artist names for the five Lenox dolls in our sample, but
all of them were offered for sale in 1991–92.
44. Ashton-Drake Galleries: http://www.collectiblestoday.com (October
15, 2000).
45. Home Shopping Network, Collectors Day (hosts Tina Berry and
Tim Luke) April 13, 2001, 4–5 a.m. Pacific time.
46. QVC-TV, Dolls by Pauline-7th Anniversary Show. November 4,
2001, 10–11 P.M. Pacific time.
47. Of the 95 clearly named doll artists in our advertisement sample, 12
were male, including 3 working in male-female couples. The
remaining 86 artists were female (judging by their names), and
between them they designed 95 percent of the dolls that bore an
artist’s name.
48. Sunday Post Magazine (UK), April 6, 1997.
49. M.Carter 1994.
50. Home Shopping Network, Gallery of Dolls (host Tina Berry),
February 17, 1999, 10–12 P.M. Pacific time.
51. Seiter 1993:14
52. Loro 1995b.
53. Hodges and Loro 1995:4.
54. Loro 1995a.
55. Loro 1995a.
56. Schiffrin 1995; Moody’s Company Data Report, 1998, Moody’s
Investors Service.
57. Hodges and Loro 1995.
58. Loro 1995b.
59. Schnorbus 1987.
60. Loro 1995b.
61. http://www.mylittlepeople.com (May 2, 2001).
62. Loro 1992.
63. Star Free Press (Ventura, California) March 6, 1994.
64. Dowling 1997.
 NOTES 255

65. http://www.DollHaus.com; http://www.dollmarket.com (April 2,

2001).
66. Fenn 1985.
67. Ashton-Drake Galleries: http://www.collectiblestoday.com
(November 15, 2000).
68. Dean 1997:158.
69. Home Shopping Network, Gallery of Dolls (host Tina Berry),
February 17, 1999, 10–12 P.M. Pacific time.
70. Quoted in Loro 1995b: 33.

CHAPTER 3

1. http://www.collectdolls.guide (chat room) (November 1, 2000).

2. Dale Graham, publisher of Antiques and Collecting Hobbies,
reported in Ehrenfeld 1993.
3. Harrison 1996:15.
4. Pearce 1995:274.
5. Murphy 2000:176.
6. See, for example, Pearce 1995.
7. Pearce 1995:412.
8. Fulkerson 1995:17–18.
9. Contributor CWEATHER to Doll People chat room at http://
www.collectdolls. guide (November 1, 2000).
10. Pearce 1995:272–75.
11. New York Times, May 15, 2002.
12. Ehrenfeld 1993:94.
13. Harrison 1996:19.
14. Harrison 1996:17.
15. Ehrenfeld 1993:98.
16. One collector professes to be a member of 30 car clubs and 15 train
clubs (Ehrenfeld 1993:97).
17. Murphy 2000.
18. Harrison 1996:17.
19. Pearce 1995:190.
20. Murphy 2000.
21. Ehrenfeld 1993:95.
22. Murphy 2000, Wilson 2002.
23. Ehrenfeld 1993:94.
24. “Above all, play is not trivial,” says Bernard Mergen sternly.
Mergen quotes Johann Huizinga’s definition of play as “a free
activity standing quite consciously outside ‘ordinary’ life as being
‘not serious,’ but at the same time absorbing the player intensely
and utterly” (Mergen 1984:149).
25. Stephens 1995:345.
256 NOTES

26. Ogando 2000.

27. Washburn 1997:127.
28. Baudelaire 1994 [1853]: 24.
29. Seiter 1993:131.
30. “Displaying Your Doll Collection,” http://www.dollreader.com/
display.html (February 15, 2001). And see Dean 1997:214.
31. Loro 1992.
32. “Displaying Your Doll Collection,” http://www.dollreader.com/
display.html (February 15, 2001).
33. Seiter 1998:303; and see Cowan 1986.
34. Los Angeles Times Magazine, June 9, 2002.
35. Home and Life, October 1997.
36. The classic account of this is William J.Goode’s World Revolution
and Family Patterns (1970).
37. Survey in 1994 by Unity Marketing, reported by Jennifer Fulkerson
(1995: 17–18).
38. Home Shopping Network, Collectors Day (hosts Tina Berry and
Tim Luke), April 13, 2001, 4–5 A.M. Pacific time.
39. Sunday Post (UK), August 10, 1997.
40. Pearce 1995:253.
41. Pearce 1995:253.
42. http://www.dollreader.com/vampire_0898.html (February 15,
2001).
43. Pearce 1995:237.
44. Contributor DEBBIESDOLLI to Doll People chat room at http://
www.collect-dolls.guide (November 1, 2000).
45. Home and Life, October 1997:58.
46. The following paragraphs draw on my book Greed: Gut Feelings,
Growth, and History (Robertson 2001:111–39).
47. Lord 1994:282.
48. Ehrenreich 1989.
49. Counts and Counts 1985:138.
50. Kant 1978 [1796]: 182.
51. See especially Meillassoux 1981.
52. Coser 1974:98.
53. See, for example, Demos 1970, Garrett 1977, Noddings 1989.
54. Harrison 1996:17.
55. Los Angeles Times, March 16, 1985. “Greed—for lack of a better
word—is good,” says Gordon Gekko, anti-hero of the movie Wall
Street. “Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through,
it captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed in all of its
forms: Greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge, has marked
the upward surge of mankind, and greed—you mark my words—
 NOTES 257

will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning
corporation called the USA.” (Applause).
56. Ehrenfeld 1993:97.
57. Ehrenfeld 1993:96.
58. Letter from Sherrie H. of Wheaton, Maryland, in Dolls—The
Collector’s Magazine, August 22, 1996 (responding to the editor’s
question “What is a doll?”).
59. “Heirloom” occurs in 23 percent of our sample of advertisements
(Polly— “Heirloom quality at only $78”) and is a generic label for
several manufacturers (“Franklin Heirloom Dolls”).
60. Pearce 1995:251.
61. See, for example, Goody 1976.
62. Pearce 1995:211.
63. Pearce 1995:248.
64. Pearce 1995:176, 235, 272.
65. Ehrenfeld 1993:96.
66. Times (London), March 7, 1998.
67. Roha 1992.
68. Harrison 1996.
69. Home Shopping Network, Collectors Day (hosts Tina Berry and
Tim Luke) April 13, 2001, 4–5 A.M. Pacific time.
70. Woman caller on Home Shopping Network, Collectors Day (hosts
Tina Berry and Tim Luke) April 13, 2001, 4–5 A.M. Pacific time.
71. Berman 1992.
72. Fulkerson 1995:17.
73. Fulkerson 1995:17–18.
74. Fulkerson 1995:17–18. “The average doll collector is willing to
spend more than $600 annually and may have 200 to 400 dolls,”
according to one firm’s product planning director” (Mansfield 1983).
75. Seiter 1993:202.
76. My grandmother was a slave to the Indian Tree pattern of crockery,
my mother a devotee of the Regency pattern. Each of these was
collected diligently over many years. My wife and I fell heir to the
Indian Tree.
77. Berman 1992.
78. Woman’s Realm (UK), April 1998.
79. QVC-TV, Dolls by Pauline—7th Anniversary Show. November 4,
2001, 10–11 P.M. Pacific time.
80. Ehrenfeld 1993:98.

CHAPTER 4

1. Seiter 1993:74, 129.

258 NOTES

2. Scheper-Hughes and Stein 1998:186–87. The authors report that at

Christmas 1985 a new line in doll orphans appeared—the Rice
Paddy Baby, which came with “a British passport and voice that
coos ‘I want to immigrate. Will you sponsor me?’”
3. The name Lenci is an acronym for ludus est nobis constanta
industria—“To us, play is a constant industry.” The Lenci factory in
Turin employed over 1,000, specializing in child dolls with “striking
eyes” and notably colorful clothes (Dean 1997:172–73).
4. See, for example, Berry 1994:38–42.
5. I have discussed this at length in Robertson 2001.
6. Berry 1986:82.
7. Bâ 1981:28–29.
8. See especially Anderson 1985, Hess 1985, Wells 1971, and U.S.
Census Bureau: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1999.
9. Hall and Ellis 1896:139.
10. See especially Elder 1999 [1974], Children of the Great Depression.
The Oakland study was supplemented by a slightly later Berkeley
study, augmenting later-life data, reported in Clausen 1993,
American Lives: Looking Back at the Children of the Great
Depression.
11. In their forties, a third of the women in the sample “engaged in
crafts and hobbies—painting, knitting, gardening, and a wide
variety of types of collecting” at least once a week. More than half
of men and women had such pursuits when they were in their
seventies (Clausen 1993:438, 479).
12. Elder 1999:57, 272–75.
13. Elder 1999:18.
14. Elder 1999:51.
15. Elder 1999:5.
16. Elder 1999:28.
17. Kline 1993.
18. Elder 1999:80–82.
19. Elder 1999:278.
20. Elder 1999:215.
21. Elder 1999:112.
22. Elder 1999:293.
23. Elder 1999:117.
24. Elder 1999:226.
25. Elder 1999:238.
26. Elder 1999:5.
27. Elder 1999:212.
28. Elder 1999:206.
29. Clausen 1993:433–34.
30. Lopata 1971:363.
 NOTES 259

31. Elder 1999:297.

32. Clausen 1993:504–505.
33. Clausen 1993:503.
34. Clausen 1993:505.
35. Star Free Press (Ventura, California), March 6, 1994.
36. Fee 1995.
37. Wise 1990:5.
38. Hewlett 2002:257.
39. See especially Robertson 1991, Roberts 1993, U.S. Census Bureau:
Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1999.
40. Hewlett 2002.
41. Hewlett 2002:91–92.
42. Hewlett 2002:253.
43. Hewlett 2002:27.
44. Hewlett 2002:254.
45. Hewlett 2002:194, 189.
46. Ehrenfeld 1993.
47. Hewlett 2002:99–100.
48. Hewlett 2002:102.
49. According to Melanie Klein, “Beneath the little girl’s ever-recurring
desire for dolls there lies a need for consolation and reassurance. The
possession of her dolls is a proof that she has not been robbed of
her children by her mother, that she has not had her body destroyed
by her and that she is able to have children” (Klein 1975:56–57).
50. http://www.dollsales.com/dolls/Doll%20Factory/original%
20newborn. htm (October 6, 2000).
51. Flo, who has been collecting Barbie dolls for some 11 years,
“underwent a mastectomy, which required extensive corrective and
reconstructive surgery. Flo now has a complete collection of the
outfits manufactured by Mattel for Barbie, and it is difficult not to
relate her satisfaction at this completeness, associated as it is with
the very full feminine form of the dolls, with her own difficulties
following the removal of her breasts. Flo’s Barbies are the
acceptable face of vamping, desirable but well within the accepted
constraints of Middle America” (Pearce 1995:211). It may be more
than a coincidence that Barbie’s designer, Ruth Handler, was herself
a breast cancer survivor, and a pioneer of post-mastectomy
implants.
52. Formanek-Brunell 1993:157–59.
53. Formanek-Brunel 1993:85–88.
54. Darlin 1995.
55. www correspondent RMS4-collectdolls.guide chat room (November
13, 2000).
260 NOTES

CHAPTER 5

1. Hall and Ellis 1896:159. After more than a century there is still no
parallel for Stanley Hall and Caswell Ellis’s remarkable Study of
Dolls. A pioneer psychologist, sociologist, and educator, Hall
started the Pedagogical Seminary as a forum in the psychology of
teaching, to which schoolteachers around the United States and in
the United Kingdom contributed. Hall and his colleagues typically
issued a list of queries or test stimuli, which were then administered
voluntarily by interested teachers. The results were collected,
computed, and analyzed by Hall. In this way, hundreds, sometimes
thousands of “cases” could be drawn into the study framework.
Topics in Vol. 4 of the Pedagogical Seminary include children’s
capacity to remember details of a story; analysis of their drawings;
“suggestibility”; “youthful degeneracy”; teasing and bullying; and
notes on “peculiar and exceptional children.”
2. Hall and Ellis 1896:135.
3. Baudelaire 1994 [1853]: 24.
4. Hall and Ellis 1896:132–34, 159.
5. Hall and Ellis 1896:134.
6. Webster’s New World Dictionary.
7. Mead 1967 [1932].
8. Pearce 1995:251.
9. “Mattel introduced Magic Nursery Babies in 1990 (the ‘magic’
being that the doll had to be brought home and a special packet
immersed in water before discerning the doll’s sex)” (Seiter 1993:
203).
10. Baudelaire 1994 [1853]: 16.
11. See, for example, Woodward 1995.
12. QVC-TV, Dolls by Pauline-7th Anniversary Show, November 4,
2001, 10–11 P.M. Pacific time.
13. Internet chat room: http://www.suite101.com/print_article.cfm/
1973/42795.
14. http://www.collectiblestoday.com (November 15, 2000).
15. See Clausen 1993:431, 451.
16. QVC-TV, Dolls by Pauline—7th Anniversary Show. November 4,
2001, 10–11 P.M. Pacific time.
17. This is very evocative of the Barbie experience: “Just as the Native
American Barbie does not copy the uniform of a specific tribe but
reflects an outsider’s interpretation of Native American identity, the
upper-class Barbies reproduce not real upper-class clothing, but an
outsider’s fantasy of it.” They are “a proletarian daydream of how a
rich person would dress” (Lord 1994:186).
18. Formanek-Brunell 1998:373.
 NOTES 261

19. Seiter 1993:88.

20. Bordo 1993:265.
21. U.S. Census Bureau: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1999.
22. Hall and Ellis 1896:147–48.
23. Home Shopping Network, Gallery of Dolls (host Tina Berry),
February 17, 1999, 10–12 P.M. Pacific time.
24. Los Angeles Times, October 29, 2001.
25. Home Shopping Network, Collectors Day (hosts Tina Berry and
Tim Luke), April 2001, 4–5 A.M. Pacific time.
26. Formanek-Brunell 1998:372.
27. Neal 1992.
28. “America Past and Pleasant,” Economist, no. 337 (December 16,
1995), p. 62.
29. Home Shopping Network, Collectors Day (hosts Tina Berry and
Tim Luke) April 13, 2001, 4–5 A.M. Pacific time.
30. Correspondent HELENEKAREN, chat room—http://
www.collectdolls.guide (November 1,2000).
31. These were all offered as a sequence of trial subscriptions by http://
www.magazine-of-the-month.com.
32. QVC-TV, Dolls by Pauline—7th Anniversary Show, November 4,
2001, 10–11 P.M. Pacific time.
33. http://www.marianllc.com (November 20, 2002).
34. http://www.collectiblestoday.com (October 28, 2000).
35. http://www.collectiblestoday.com (October 28, 2000).
36. QVC-TV, Dolls by Pauline—7th Anniversary Show, November 4,
2001, 10–11 P.M. Pacific time.
37. Formanek-Brunel 1993:2.
38. Formanek-Brunel 1993:1.
39. See especially Rand 1995: Barbie’s Queer Accessories.
40. Los Angeles Times, April 28, 2002. Any of these original Barbies
now fetch up to $10,000 in auction.
41. Los Angeles Times, February 8, 2002.
42. New York Times, June 15, 2002.
43. See Chin 1999, Rand 1995.

CHAPTER 6

1. Hall and Ellis 1896:160.

2. Alley 1988:58.
3. See Wood 2002.
4. Harris 2000:11.
5. Hall and Ellis 1896:140–42.
6. Dean 1997:200.
7. Rilke 1994 [1913].
262 NOTES

8. I have a hand-puppet raccoon who is a master at deceiving humans,

but not dogs (although I must admit to a moment’s anxiety while
testing this hypothesis on a neighbor’s pit bull terrier).
9. Alley 1988:55.
10. Berry and Zebrowitz-McArthur 1988:81.
11. See McCabe 1988:92.
12. Alley and Hildebrant 1988:136–38.
13. Berry and Zebrowitz-McArthur 1988:83–84.
14. Mark, Shaw, and Pittenger 1988:19.
15. Alley 1988:51.
16. See for example Alley and Hildebrant 1988:110.
17. Lorenz 1950, Ganzheit und Teil in der Tierischen und Menschlichen
Gemeinschaft, cited in Gould 1980:100–101.
18. Bogin 1988:98.
19. Gould 1980:100.
20. Hinde and Barden 1985.
21. Hinde and Barden 1985; Dunbar 1998:96.
22. Hrdy 1999:472.
23. Alley 1988:53–54.
24. Harris 2000:5–6.
25. Formanek-Brunel 1993:5, 117–34.
26. Moyers and Carlson 1988:276.
27. Alley and Hildebrant 1988:134.
28. Dean 1997:28.
29. Dean 1997:95.
30. Berry and Zebrowitz-McArthur 1988:67.
31. Berry and Zebrowitz-McArthur 1988:64.
32. Chin 1999:315.
33. Dean 1997:124.
34. Alley and Hildebrant 1988:109.
35. Landau 1989:97.
36. According to Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, “Human infants have been
selected to be activists and salesmen, agents negotiating their own
survival” (1999:484).
37. Landau 1989:132.
38. Landau 1989:86.
39. Early in the twentieth century the German firm of Kammer and
Reinhardt produced “character dolls” with open wet mouth,
smallish eyes, and big ears (Dean 1997:122–23).
40. Dean 1997:31.
41. Dean 1997:137.
42. Alley 1988:60.
43. Alley 1988:51.
44. Dean 1997:30.
 NOTES 263

45. Dean 1997:32–33, 74.

46. Dean 1997:24.
47. Hrdy 1999:474, 476–83.
48. See, for example, http://www.thedollmarket.com/artist.html (March
23, 2001).
49. Home Shopping Network, Gallery of Dolls (host Tina Berry),
February 17, 1999, 10–12 P.M. Pacific time.
50. http://www.collectiblestoday.com (October 27, 2000).
51. Baudrillard 1998. In this context, Shakespeare’s amusingly arrogant
“Summer’s Day” sonnet (XVIII) comes to mind as an early claim to
hyperrealism. He tells his lover that by turning her into a poem he will
make her immortal,

…When in eternal lines to time thou grow’st. So long

as men can breathe, or eyes can see, So long lives
this, and this gives life to thee.
52. See especially Formanek-Brunell 1993.

CHAPTER 7

1. Hall and Ellis 1896:14, 135, 150.

2. Mergen 1984:150, and see Fleming 1996:86–87.
3. “Veneri donatae a virgine puppae” (Hall and Ellis 1896:157).
4. Hall and Ellis 1896:157.
5. Dean 1997:198.
6. Hrdy 1999:474.
7. Alley 1988:53.
8. Alley 1988:52.
9. Berry and Zebrowitz-McArthur 1988:71.
10. Hall and Ellis 1896:136.
11. Formanek-Brunel 1993:184.
12. Hrdy 1999:493–510.
13. Dean 1997:8–9.
14. Hall and Ellis 1896:135.
15. Simms 1996:664.
16. Alley & Hildebrant 1988:133.
17. Alley 1988:60–61.
18. Symons 1995:88.
19. Symons 1995:98.
20. Symons 1995:107.
21. Alley 1988:58–59.
22. Alley and Hildebrant 1988:104.
264 NOTES

23. Although the differences were not large, the septum height of two
thirds of the African American dolls was below average, whereas
three quarters of the Native American dolls were above average.
24. See Landau 1989:34.
25. Wagenknecht 1969.
26. BBC-TV program Hollywood Knives broadcast May 2, 2001.
27. Landau 1989:222.
28. Steinem and Barris 1986:9.
29. http://www.barbie.com (February 12, 2002).
30. Advertisement for Promenade in the Park Barbie. Homes and
Gardens, November 1998.
31. Ivy 1995:98.
32. Letter from Coleen E. of Virginia, in Dolls—The Collector’s
Magazine, August 22, 1996.
33. Formanek-Brunell 1993:178.
34. My Twinn catalog, August 1998.
35. My Twinn catalog, August 1998.
36. Simms 1996:672.
37. Lord 1994:283.
38. Letter from Kelly L. of Truckee, California, in Dolls—The
Collector’s Magazine, August 22, 1996.
39. Los Angeles Times, December 20, 1996.
40. Hall and Ellis 1896:148–49.
41. Dean 1997:200.
42. See Simms 1996:664.
43. Reported in Hall and Ellis 1896:139. Thirty children in Hall and
Ellis’s survey reported digging up their buried dolls “to see if they
had gone to Heaven, or simply to get them back.”
44. Formanek-Brunell 1993:163.
45. Formanek-Brunell 1998:370.
46. Simms 1996:676.
47. Formanek-Brunell 1998:374–75.
48. Fleming 1996:88.
49. Rilke 1994 [1913]: 26–27.
50. Rilke, “Dolls” in Werke, Vol 3, pp. 357–58, 535–36, translated
here by Simms (1996:670).
51. Eva-Maria Simms subjects Rilke to some stern Freudian
psychoanalysis, focusing on his macabre story about Frau Blaha’s
maid, who gives birth to a child which she strangles, wraps in a blue
apron, and keeps as a doll in her trunk. When he was little, Rilke’s
mother dressed him as a girl and for a while called him Sophie.
Simms says “I think that a large part of the rage, hatred, and
aggression against the doll is a memory of the lost union with the
mother, for which the doll is merely a poor substitute.” The child
 NOTES 265

has to work hard to imbue the object with “life,” and “part of the
terror the doll inspires in Rilke comes from her lifelessness and her
indifference and unresponsiveness to the child’s emotions.” “The
toy would not absorb the narcissistic urges as would a mother—
hence its transitional function in the child’s discovery of self-
consciousness, and the doll’s eventual ‘death.’” How, we may
wonder, could loving parents inflict such a “thickly forgetful, hate-
inspiring body” on their child? (Simms 1996:663, 670–71.)
52. Uncanny: “weird: unearthly: savouring of the supernatural:
ungentle: formidable” (Chambers Dictionary). “An uncanny
experience” says Freud, “occurs when either infantile complexes
which have been repressed are once more revived by some
impression, or when primitive beliefs which have been surmounted
seem once more to be confirmed” (quoted by Simms 1996:674).

CHAPTER 8

1. Contributor CWEATHER to Doll People chat room at http://

www.collectdolls. guide (November 1, 2000).
2. Douglas 1966.
3. Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1971:21.
4. Goldstein 1997:48.
5. Walkerdine 1998:259.
6. Warner 1994:43–62.
7. Warner 1994:56.
8. Postman 1994:9.
9. Giroux 1998:270.
10. Giroux 1998:270.
11. Oxenhandler 1996. “Between the two extremes of the molested
child and the withered child, we make our way” (Oxenhandler
2001:302).
12. See Hacking 1999:125–62.
13. Kincaid 1998.
14. Cox 1996:206.
 Bibliography

Abbott, Andrew. 2001. Chaos of disciplines. Chicago: Chicago University

Press.
Alley, Thomas R. 1988. The effects of growth and aging on facial
aesthetics. In Social and applied aspects of perceiving faces, ed.
Thomas R.Alley. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 51–62.
Alley, Thomas R., and Katherine A.Hildebrant. 1988, Determinants and
consequences of facial aesthetics. In Social and applied aspects of
perceiving faces, ed. Thomas R.Alley. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum, pp. 101–140.
America past and pleasant. 1995. Economist 337, no. 7945:62.
Anderson, Michael. 1985. The emergence of the modern life cycle in
Britain. Social History 10, no. 1:69–87.
Appadurai, Arjun (ed.). 1986. The social life of things: Commodities in
cultural perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aries, Philippe. 1962. Centuries of childhood: A history of family life.
New York: Alfred Knopf.
Atran, Scott. 1990. Cognitive foundations of natural history: Towards an
anthropology of sci-ence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bâ, Mariama. 1981. So long a letter. African Writers Series, London:
Heinemann.
Bateson, Gregory. 1972. A theory of play and fantasy. In Steps to an
ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry,
evolution, and epistemology. San Francisco: Chandler.
Baudelaire, Charles. 1994 [1853]. The philosophy of toys. In Essays on
dolls, ed. Idris Parry and Paul Keegan. Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp.
13–25.
Baudrillard, Jean. 1988 [1986]. America, London: Verso.
Behrents, Rolf G. 1990. Adult facial growth. In Facial growth, ed. Donald
H.Enlow. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: W.B.Saunders, pp. 423–443.
Beisel, David R. 1984. Thoughts on the Cabbage Patch Kids. Journal of
Psychohistory 12, no. 1:133–142.
Berman, Phyllis. 1992. Getting even. Forbes, vol. 150, no. 5, pp. 54–55.
Bengtson, Vern, Carolyn Rosenthal, and Linda Burton. 1990. Families
and aging: Diversity and heterogeneity. In Handbook of aging and
the social sciences, ed. Robert H.Binstock and Linda K.George. New
York: Academic Press, pp. 263–287.
Berry, Chistopher J. 1986. Human nature. London: Macmillan.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 267

——1994. The idea of luxury: A ocnceptual and historical investigation.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Berry, Diane S., and Leslie Zebrowitz-McArthur. 1988. The impact of age-
related craniofacial changes on social perception. In Social and
applied aspects of perceiving faces, ed. Thomas R.Alley. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 63–87.
Birke, Lynda. 1999. Feminism and the biological body. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Björk, A., and V.Skieller. 1976. Postnatal growth and development of the
maxillary complex. In Factors affecting the growth of the midface,
ed. James A.McNamara. Craniofacial Growth Series Monograph 6,
Center for Human Growth and Development. University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, pp. 61–99.
Blacking, John. 1977. Towards an anthropology of the body. In The
anthropology of the body, ed. John Blacking. London: Academic
Press, pp. 1–28.
Bogin, Barry. 1988. Patterns of human growth. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
——. 1998. Evolutionary and biological aspects of childhood. In Biosocial
perspectives on children, ed. Catherine Panter-Brick. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 11–44.
Bordo, Susan. 1993. Unbearable weight: Feminism, western culture, and
the body. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Burdi, Alphonse R. 1976. Biological forces which shape the human
midface before birth. In Factors affecting the growth of the midface,
ed. James A.McNamara. Craniofacial Growth Series Monograph 6,
Center for Human Growth and Development. University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, pp. 9–42.
Burman, Erica. 1994. Deconstructing developmental psychology. London:
Routledge.
Byrnes, Nanette. 1995. Are those Marie Osmond dolls really worth $12
million? Business Week, no. 3440, p. 44.
Camaren, Marjorie Marian. 1968. Dolls as causal agents effecting
socialization behavior. Master’s thesis, University of California, Los
Angeles, Education Deparment.
Carneiro da Cunha, Manuela. 1995. Children, politics and culture: The
case of the Brazilian Indians. In Children and the politics of culture,
ed. Sharon Stephens. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp.
282–291.
Carriker, Kitti. 1998. Created in our image: The miniature body of the
doll as subject and object. Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University Press.
Carter, Curtis L. 1993. Eye of the doll: Art and personal identity. In Dolls
in contempo rary art: A metaphor for identity, ed. Curtis L.Carter.
268 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Patrick and Beatrice Haggerty Museum of Art, Milwaukee,

Wisconsin, pp. 7–32.
Carter, Meg. 1994. Kitsch pickings, Marketing Week 17, no. 2:34–35.
Caspi, Avshalom, and Glen H.Elder Jr. 1988. Childhood precursors of the
life course: Early personality and life disorganization. In Child
development in life-span perspective, ed. Mavis E.Hetherington,
Richard M.Lerner, and Marion Perlmutter. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, pp. 115–142.
Cederquist, Robert. 1990. General body growth and development. In
Facial growth, ed. Donald H.Enlow. 3rd ed. Philadelphia:
W.B.Saunders, pp. 396–422.
Chan, J.C.M., D.Sculli, and S.K.Wong. 1988. Costs of production in the
Shenzhen special economic zone of China. Engineering Costs and
Production Economics 14, no. 3:199–209.
Chin, Elizabeth. 1999. Ethnically correct dolls: Toying with the race
industry. American Anthropologist 101, no. 2:305–321.
Clark, Alison J. 1997. Tupperware: Product as social relation. In
American material culture: The shape of the field, ed. Ann S.Martin
and J.Ritchie Garrison. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, pp.
224–250.
Clausen, John A. 1993. American lives: Looking back at the children of
the Great Depression. New York: The Free Press.
Coser, Lewis A. 1974. Greedy institutions: Patterns of undivided
commitment. New York: The Free Press.
Counts, Dorothy Ayers, and David R.Counts (eds.). 1985. Aging and its
transformations: Moving toward death in Pacific societies. Lanham,
MD: University Press of America.
Cowan, Ruth Schwartz. 1986. More work for Mother. New York: Basic
Books.
Cox, Roger. 1996. Shaping childhood: Themes of uncertainty in the
history of adult-child relationships. London: Routledge.
Cross, Gary. 1997. Kids’ stuff: Toys and the changing world of American
childhood. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Darlin, Damon. 1995. Dolls from hell. Forbes, vol. 156, no. 12, pp. 186–
187
Dean, Audrey Vincente. 1997. Dolls. Glasgow: HarperCollins.
Demos, John. 1970. Underlying themes in the witchcraft of seventeenth-
century New England. American Historical Review 75, no. 2:1311–
1326.
Douglas, Mary. 1966. Purity and danger: An analysis of concepts of
pollution and taboo. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Dowling, Melissa. 1997. Mailer dolls up dolls. Catalog Age, vol. 14, no. 9,
p. 22.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 269

Dullemeijer, P. 1971. Comparative ontogeny and craniofacial growth. In

Cranio-facial growth in man, ed. Robert E.Moyers and Wilton
M.Krogman. Oxford: Pergamon, pp. 45–75.
Dunbar, Robin. 1998. Behavioural adaptation. In Human adaptation, ed.,
Geoffrey Harrison and Howard Morphy, Oxford: Berg, pp. 73–98.
Ehrenfeld, Temma. 1993. Why executives collect. Fortune, vol. 127, no.
1, pp. 94–98.
Ehrenreich, Barbara. 1989. Fear of falling: The inner life of the middle
class. New York: Harper Collins.
Ehrenreich, B, and J.Ehrenreich. 1979. The professional-managerial class.
In Between labor and capital, ed. Pat Walder. Boston: South End
Press, pp. 5–45.
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Irenäus. 1971 [1970]. Love and hate: On the natural
history of basic behavior patterns. London: Methuen.
Elder, Glen H. 1999 [1974]. Children of the Great Depression: Social
change in life experience. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Elder, Glen H., Jeffrey K.Liker, and Bernard J.Jawarski. 1984. Hardship
in lives: Depression influences from the 1930s to old age in postwar
America. In Life-span developmental psychology: Historical and
generational effects, ed. Kathleen A. McCluskey and Hayne W.Reese.
New York: Academic Press, pp. 161–201.
Elder, Glen H., John Modell, and Ross D.Parker (eds.). 1993. Children in
time and place: Developmental and historical insights. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Elsner, John, and Roger Cardinal (eds.). 1994. The cultures of collecting.
London: Reaktion Books.
Enlow, Donald H. (ed.). 1990a. Facial Growth. 3rd ed. Philadelphia:
W.B.Saunders.
——. 1990b. The structural basis for ethnic variation in facial form. In
Facial growth, ed. Donald H.Enlow. 3rd ed. Philadelphia:
W.B.Saunders, pp. 222–228.
Ennew, Judith. 1986. The sexual exploitation of children. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Erikson, Erik H. 1977. Toys and reasons. New York: Norton.
——. 1980. Identity and the life cycle: Selected papers. Psychological
Issues 1, no. 9.
Fee, Rich. 1995. Nine children and hundreds of dolls. Successful Farming
93, no. 9: 66–69.
Fenn, Donna. 1985. Private Lives: Profiles from the Inc. 500—#39:
Shader’s China Doll. Inc. Inc. 7, no. 12:91.
Fleming, Dan. 1996. Powerplay: Toys as popular culture. Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
270 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Formanek-Brunell, Miriam. 1993. Made to play house: Dolls and the

commercialization of American girlhood, 1830–1930. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
——. 1998 [1993]. The politics of dollhood in nineteenth-century
America. In The children’s culture reader, ed. Henry Jenkins. New
York: New York University Press, pp. 363–381.
Fowles, Jib. 1996. Advertising and popular culture. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Frank, Robert H. 1988. Passions with reason: The strategic role of the
emotions. New York: Norton.
Friedland, Roger, and A.F.Robertson (eds.). 1990. Beyond the
marketplace: Rethinking economy and society. New York: Aldine de
Gruyter.
Fulkerson, Jennifer. 1995. Don’t play with these Barbie dolls. American
Demographics 17, no. 5:17–18.
Garrett, C. 1977. Women and witches: Patterns of analysis. Signs 3, no. 2:
461–470.
Giroux, Henry A. 1998. Stealing innocence: The politics of child beauty
pageants. In The children’s culture reader, ed. Henry Jenkins. New
York: New York University Press, pp. 265–282.
Goldstein, Richard. 1997. The girl in the fun bubble: The mystery of
JonBenet. Village Voice, June 10.
Goode, William J. 1970 [1963]. World revolution and family patterns.
2nd ed. Glencoe, NY: Free Press.
Goody, Jack. 1976. Inheritance, property and women: Some comparative
considerations. In Family and inheritance: Rural society in Western
Europe, 1200–1800, ed. J. Goody, J.Thirsk, and E.P.Thompson.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 10–36.
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1980. The panda’s thumb: More reflections on
natural history. New York: Norton.
Gupta, Akhil. 2002. Reliving childhood: The temporality of childhood
and narratives of reincarnation. Ethnos 67, no. 1:33–56.
Hacking, Ian. 1999. The social construction of what? Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Hall, G.Stanley, and A.Caswell Ellis. 1896. A study of dolls. Pedagogical
Seminary 4 no. 2, :129–175.
Harris, Daniel. 2000. Cute, quaint, hungry and romantic: The aesthetics of
consumerism. New York: Basic Books.
Harrison, Barbara Grizzuti. 1996. Collecting the stuff of life. Harper’s,
vol. 292, no. 1752, pp. 15–20.
Harvey, David. 1990. The condition of postmodernity: An enquiry into the
origins of cultural change. Oxford: Blackwell.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 271

Hess, Beth B. 1985. Aging policies and old women: The hidden agenda. In
Gender and the life course, ed. Alice S.Rossi. New York: Aldine, pp.
319–331.
Hewlett, Sylvia Ann. 2002. Baby hunger: The new battle for motherhood.
London: Atlantic Books.
Hinde, R.A., and Barden, L. 1985. The evolution of the teddy bear.
Animal Behavior 33:1371–1373.
Hodges, Jane, and Laura Loro. 1995. Collectibles cut budgets. Advertising
Age 66, no. 46:4.
Hrdy, Sarah Blaffer. 1999. Mother nature: Maternal instincts and how
they shape the human species. New York: Ballantine.
Hwang, C.Philip, Michael E.Lamb, and Irving E.Sigel (eds.). 1996. Images
of childhood. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ivy, Marilyn. 1995. Have you seen me? Recovering the inner child in late
twentiethcentury America. In Children and the politics of culture, ed.
Sharon Stephens. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 79–
104.
James, Allison. 1998a. Confections, concoctions, and conceptions. In The
children’s culture reader, ed. Henry Jenkins. New York: New York
University Press, pp. 394–405.
——. 1998b. From the child’s point of view: Issues in the social
construction of childhood. In Biosocial perspectives on children, ed.
Catherine Panter-Brick. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.
45–65.
James, Allison, Chris Jenks, and Alan Prout. 1998. Theorizing childhood.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Jenkisn, Henry (ed.). 1998. The children’s culture reader. New York: New
York University Press.
Johnson, Mary. 1984. Women and the material Universe: A bibliographic
essay. In American material culture: The shape of things around us,
ed. Edith Mayo. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University
Popular Press, pp. 218–255.
Johnston, Lysle E. 1976. The functional matrix hypothesis: Reflections in
a jaundiced eye. In Factors affecting the growth of the midface, ed.
James A.McNamara. Craniofacial Growth Series Monograph 6,
Center for Human Growth and Development, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, pp. 131–168.
Kant, Immanuel. 1978 [1796]. Anthropology from a pragmatic point of
view (Anthropologie in pragmatischer Hinsicht). Translated by
V.L.Dowdell. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Kessler, Susanne J. 2002. Defining and producing genitals. In Gender: A
sociological reader, ed. Stevi Jackson and Sue Scott. London:
Routledge, pp. 447–456.
272 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kincaid, James R. 1998. Producing erotic children. In The children’s

culture reader, ed. Henry Jenkins. New York: New York University
Press, pp. 241–253.
Klein, Melanie. 1975. The psycho-analysis of children. London: Hogarth.
Kline, Stephen. 1993. Out of the garden: Toys and children’s culture in
the age of TV marketing. London: Verso.
Kuhn, Annette. 1998. A credit to her mother. In The children’s culture
reader, ed. Henry Jenkins. New York: New York University Press, pp.
283–296.
LaFleur, William R. 1992. Liquid life: Abortion and Buddhism in Japan.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lancaster, Jane B. 1989. Women in biosocial perspective. In Gender and
anthropology: Critical reviews for research and teaching, ed.
S.Morgen. American Anthropological Association, Washington D.C.,
pp. 95–115.
Landau, Terry. 1989. About faces: The evolution of the human face. New
York: Anchor Books.
Lasch, Christopher. 1977. Haven in a heartless world: The family
besieged. New York: Basic Books.
Lopata, H.Z. (ed.). Widows. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.
Lord, M.G. 1994. Forever Barbie. New York: William Morrow.
Loro, Laura. 1992. Magazines make for impressive collections.
Advertising Age 63, no. 43: S6 .
——. 1995a. Infighting nasty for collectibles. Advertising Age 66, no. 39:
30.
——. 1995b. Nostalgia for sale at Franklin Mint. Advertising Age 66, no.
20:33.
Mansfield, Matthew F. 1983. Dolls aren’t merely child’s play. Advertising
Age 54, no. 26: M4–5, M28.
Mark, Leonard S., Robert E.Shaw, and John B.Pittenger. 1988. Natural
constraints, scales of analysis, and information for the perception of
growing faces. In Social and applied aspects of perceiving faces, ed.
Thomas R.Alley. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 11–49.
Martin, Emily. 2002. The egg and the sperm. In Gender: A sociological
reader, ed. Stevi Jackson and Sue Scott. London: Routledge, pp. 384–
391.
Martin, Laura C. 1994. Precious Moments last forever. New York:
Abbeville.
McCabe, Viki. 1988. Facial proportions, perceived age, and caregiving. In
Social and applied aspects of perceiving faces, ed. Thomas R.Alley.
Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 89–95.
McDonough, William, and Michael Braungart. 2002. Cradle to cradle:
Remaking the way we make things. New York: North Point Press.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 273

Mead, Margaret. 1967 [1932]. An investigation of the thought of primitive

children, with special reference to animism. In Personalities and
cultures: Readings in psychological anthropology, ed. Robert Hunt.
New York: Natural History Press, pp. 213–237.
Meillassoux, Claude. 1981. Maidens, meal and money: Capitalism and
the domestic community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mergen, Bernard. 1984. Toys and American culture objects as hypotheses.
In American material culture: The shape of things around us, ed.
Edith Mayo. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University
Popular Press, pp. 149–157.
Merrow, William W., and B.Holly Broadbent. 1990. Cephalometrics. In
Facial growth, ed. Donald H.Enlow. 3rd ed. Philadelphia:
W.B.Saunders, pp. 346–395.
Mitchell, Juliet. 2000. Mad men and Medusas: Reclaiming hysteria and
the effects of sibling relations on the human condition.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Moss, Melvin. 1971. Ontogenetic aspects of cranio-facial growth. In
Cranio-facial growth in man, ed. Robert E.Moyers and Wilton
M.Krogman. Oxford: Pergamon, pp. 109–124.
Mooyers, Robert E., and David S.Carlson. 1988. Maturation of the
orofacial neuromusculature. In Facial growth, ed. Donald H.Enlow.
3rd ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders. pp. 267–280.
Murphy, Victoria. 2000. They’ve Gotta Have It. Forbes, 158, no. 12:176.
Neal, Mollie. 1992. Cataloger gets pleasant results. Direct Marketing 55,
no. 1:33–37.
Nettleton, Sarah, and Jonathan Watson (eds.). 1998. The body in
everyday life. London: Routledge.
Noddings, Nel. 1989. Women and evil. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Ogando, Joseph. 2000. Engineering Barbie. Design News 55, no. 24:64.
Orlean, Susan. 1997. Beautiful girls. New Yorker, August 4, pp. 29–36.
Oxenhandler, Noelle. 1996. The Eros of parenthood: Not touching
children can also be a crime. New Yorker, February 19, 1996, pp. 47–
49.
——. 2001. The eros of parenthood: Explorations in light and dark. New
York: St. Martin’s Press.
Panter-Brick, Catherine. 1998a. Biological anthropology and child health:
Context, process and outcome. In Biosocial perspectives on children,
ed. Catherine Panter-Brick. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 66–101.
——(ed.). 1998. Biosocial perspectives on children, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Parke, Ross D. 1988. Families in life-span perspective: A multilevel
developmental approach. In Child development in life-span
274 BIBLIOGRAPHY

perspective, ed. Mavis E.Hetherington, Richard M.Lerner, and

Marion Perlmutter. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 159–190.
Pearce, Susan. 1995. On collecting: An investigation into collecting in the
European tradition. London: Routledge.
Piot, Charles. 1999. Remotely global: Village modernity in West Africa.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Postman, Neil. 1994 [1982]. The disappearance of childhood. Revised ed.
New York: Vintage.
Rand, Erica. 1995. Barbie’s queer accessories. Durham NC: Duke
University Press.
Richards, Martin. 1998. The meeting of nature and nurture and the
development of children: Some conclusions. In Biosocial perspectives
on children, ed. Catherine Panter-Brick. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 131–146.
Rilke, Rainer Maria. 1994 [1913]. Dolls: On the wax dolls of Lotte
Pritzel. In Essays on dolls, ed. Idris Parry and Paul Keegan.
Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 26–39.
Roberts, Sam. 1993. Who we are: A portrait of America based on the
latest U.S. census. New York: Random House.
Robertson, A.F. 1991. Beyond the family: The social organization of
human reproduction. Cambridge: Polity; Berkeley, University of
California Press.
——. 1994. Evolving, aging, and making culture. Ethnos 59, nos. 1–2:1–
13.
——. 1996. The development of meaning: Ontogeny and culture. Journal
of the Royal Anthropological Institute (N. S.) 2, no. 4:591–610.
——. 2001. Greed: Gut feelings, growth, and history. Cambridge: Polity.
Roha, Ronaleen R. 1992. A passion for collecting. Kiplinger’s Personal
Finance, 46, no. 7:70–74.
Rose, Jacqueline. 1984. The case of Peter Pan. London: Macmillan.
Rossi, Alice S. (ed.). 1985. Gender and the life course. New York: Aldine.
Ruth, Jan-Erik, and Anni Vilkko. 1996. Emotions in the construction of
autobiography. In Handbook of emotion, adult development, and
aging, ed. Carol Magai and Susan H.McFadden. San Diego:
Academic Press, pp. 167–181.
Sahlins, Marshall. 1976. The use and abuse of biology: An
anthropological critique of sociobiology. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Scheper-Hughes, Nancy, and Howard F.Stein. 1998. Child abuse and the
unconscious in American popular culture. In The children’s culture
reader, ed. Henry Jenkins. New York: New York University Press, pp.
178–195.
Schiffrin, Matthew. 1995. “Okay, big mouth.” Forbes, 156, no. 8:47–48.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 275

Schnorbus, Paula. 1987. Sold! (The Home Shopping Network). Marketing

and Media Decisions 22:53–56.
Seiter, Ellen. 1993. Sold separately: Children and parents in consumer
culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
——. 1998. Children’s desires/mothers’ dilemmas: The social contexts of
consumption. In The children’s culture reader, ed. Henry Jenkins.
New York: New York University Press, pp. 297–317.
Shilling, Chris. 1993. The body and social theory. London: Sage.
Simms, Eva-Maria. 1996. Uncanny dolls: Images of death in Rilke and
Freud. New Literary History 27:663–677.
Steinem, Gloria, and George Barris. 1986. Marilyn. New York: Henry
Holt.
Stephens, Sharon (ed.). 1995. Children and the politics of culture.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Strathern, Andrew. 1996. Body thoughts. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Sullivan, Louis R. 1928. Essentials of anthropometry: Handbook for
explorers and museum collectors. New York: American Museum of
Natural History.
Symons, Donald. 1995. Beauty is in the adaptations of the beholder: The
evolutionary psychology of human female sexual attractiveness. In
Sexual nature sexual culture, ed. Paul R.Abramson and Steven
D.Pinkerton. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Taylor, Alex. 1999. It worked for Toyota. Can it work for toys? Fortune,
vol. 4, no. 2, p. 36.
Thompson, D’Arcy Wentworth. 1942 [1917]. Growth and form. Rev. ed.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thorne, Barrie. 2002. Do girls and boys have different cultures? In
Gender: A sociological reader, ed. Stevi Jackson and Sue Scott.
London: Routledge, pp. 291–302.
Toren, Christina. 1993. Making history: The significance of childhood
cognition for a comparative anthropology of mind. Man (NS) 28, no.
3:461–478.
Turner, Terence. 1994. Bodies and anti-bodies: Flesh and fetish in
contemporary social theory. In Embodiment and experience: The
existential ground of culture and self, ed. Thomas J.Csordas.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 27–47.
Underwood, Elaine. 1996. Licensing 96: Hearst’s hustling act. Brandweek
37, no. 26: 22–24.
U.S. Deparment of Commerce and U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1983.
Manufactures— Industry Series: Industry 3942, dolls and stuffed
toys. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
——. 1993. Manufactures—Industry Series: Industry 3942, dolls and
stuffed toys. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
276 BIBLIOGRAPHY

——. 1997. Manufactures—Industry Series: Industry 3942, dolls and

stuffed toys. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Victor, Adam. 1999. The Marilyn encyclopedia. New York: Overlook
Press.
Wagenknecht, Edward. 1969. Marilyn Monroe: A composite view.
Philadelphia: Chilton.
Walkerdine, Valerie. 1997. Daddy ‘s girl: Young girls and popular
culture. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
——. 1998. Popular culture and the eroticization of little girls. In The
children’s culture reader, ed. Henry Jenkins. New York: New York
University Press, pp. 254–264.
Warner, Marina. 1994. Six myths of our time: Little angels, little
monsters, beautiful beasts, and more. New York: Vintage Books.
Washburn, Dorothy K. 1997. Getting ready: Doll play and real life in
American culture, 1900–1980. In American material culture: The
shape of the field, ed. Ann S.Martin and J. Ritchie Garrison.
Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, pp. 105–134.
Wells, Robert V. 1971. Demographic change and the life cycle of
American families. Journal of Interdisciplinary History 2 no. 2:273–
282.
Wilson, Mark. 2002. Well hello, dolly. Sunday Star Times (Auckland),
January 6, p. D5.
Wise, David A.1990. Overview. In Issues in the economics of aging, ed.
David A.Wise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 1–11
Wolfenstein, Martha. 1998 [1955]. Fun morality: An analysis of recent
American child-training literature. In The children’s culture reader,
ed. Henry Jenkins. New York: New York University Press, pp. 199–
208.
Wood, Gaby. 1998, The smallest of all persons mentioned in the record of
littleness. London: Profile.
——. 2002. Living dolls. London: Faber.
Woodward, Kathleen. 1995. Tribute to the older woman: Psychoanalysis,
feminism, and ageism. In Images of aging: Cultural representations of
later life Routledge, ed. Mike Featherstone and Andrew Wernick.
London: Routledge, pp. 79–96.
Zelizer, Viviana A. 1985. Pricing the priceless child: The changing social
value of children. New York: Basic Books.
 Index

abortion, 96, 109, 110, 146 American Girl dolls, 45, 50, 140,
abuse: 152, 153, 207, 208
of children, 207, 211, 225 angels, 212, 213, 218, 219
of dolls, 4, 79, 117, 211 anthropology, xi, xi, 10, 15, 17,
accessories, 23, 52, 71, 152, 182 85, 135, 226–29
acrylic, 169 antique dolls, 6, 17, 20–23, 27, 63,
Action Man, 27, 70 83, 84, 89, 102, 144, 160.
adolescence, 77, 78, 104–5, 131– See also neo-antiques
33, 147, 167, 189, 198 artists, 29, 40, 43–46, 53, 58, 108,
adoption, 96, 110, 121 144–47, 147–49, 166, 183–86,
adultification, 25, 192, 198–205, 254
222, 225 Ashton Drake Galleries, 36, 38, 43,
advertisements: 47, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 71,
of porcelain collector dolls, 18– 89, 119, 121, 144, 145, 152,
19, 29, 30, 54, 58, 128, 152 184, 185, 192
vocabulary of, 19, 40, 58, 93, attractiveness, 160, 168, 198–205,
96, 98, 122, 128–33, 149, 154, 224
181, 182–83, 187, 219, 224– authenticity, 54, 182–83, 186
25, 230–42, 244–48
advertising, 23, 28, 33–35, 36, 46– baby boom, 109
48, 94–95 baby shows, 224–25
African American dolls, 52, 53, Barbie, 6, 19, 22, 27, 45, 67, 69,
134–37 70, 76, 85, 89, 114, 132, 135,
ages: 140, 142, 146–48, 152, 176–79,
of dolls, 131 190, 206, 210, 259, 260
of doll collectors, 88–89 Barry-Hippensteel, Kathy, 145,
akuaba, 8 184
Alexander, Madame, (Beatrice Baudelaire, Charles, 70, 117, 122
Alexander Behrman), 28, 69, beanbag bodies, 29, 154
148 bébé dolls, 6, 23, 25, 29, 99, 210
alloparenting, 193–96, 199, 225 Bello, Yolanda, 43, 54, 91, 144–46

277
278 INDEX

bereavement, 86, 101, 113, 118, children’s dolls. See play

137 China, 22, 45
Beverage, Frank Stanley, 37–38 Chucky (doll), 217, 246–50
biology, ix, 10–12, 14–17, 162, class, social, 35, 61, 80, 89, 228
192, 251 clothes, 102, 112, 152, 160, 167,
Bjonness-Jacobsen, Pauline, 45, 92, 181, 198, 208
145–47 clubs, 61, 63, 101, 143
black dolls. See African American collecting, xi, 17, 27, 59, 60–94
dolls art, 86
bodies, ix, 14–16, 92, 97–99, 151– history of, 61, 67
59, 186, 205 Aserious, @ 53, 60, 63, 68–69,
body fat, 180 84, 88, 89, 102, 143–45
body symbolism, 16, 221–24 collections, size of, 72, 76, 77, 84–
boudoir dolls, 25 85, 142
boy dolls, 128–33, 198, 210 Acoming out@ as a doll collector,
boys and dolls, 4, 6, 70, 79, 117, 3, 142, 148
141, 195, 217 commodity, 18, 19, 29, 31–35, 94,
Bradford Exchange, 36, 38, 47 116, 149, 152, 221, 227
bride dolls, 21, 131, 200 composition dolls, 26, 154
Bru, Casimir, 6, 23, 25, 133, 210 connoisseurship, 62
Butcher, Samuel. See Precious contraception, 109
Moments dolls corporate collectibles, 55–58
Bye-Lo Baby, 114 Crachami, Caroline, 3, 250
crockery, 22, 28, 89, 91
Cabbage Patch Kids, 27, 96, 152, crucifix, 8
168, 170, 173 culture, 8, 10, 11–17, 59, 67, 76,
Caroline (porcelain collector doll), 97, 220, 221, 227–29
30, 128, 159, 169, 200, 204 cute, 166, 168, 172, 191, 192–99,
celluloid, 26 199–6, 224
certification of dolls, 54–55, 56,
92, 121, 122 Danbury Mint, 36, 45, 47, 50, 91,
character dolls, 22, 27, 136, 162, 124, 184, 185
172 death, 10, 76, 80, 83, 86, 87, 149,
Chase, Martha, 114 158, 187, 189, 210, 211–20
cheeks, 172–73, 200, 204 decor. See display
cherubs, 8, 212 definitions of dolls, 3, 4, 12, 116–
child pageants, 224–25 19, 118
childhood: 13, 17, 77, 79, 101, Depression (1930s). See Great
104–6, 225–26 Depression
invention of, 25, 105, 206–8, designers. See artists
224, 225 desire, 98–99
Child’s Play (movie) 217, 246–50 dimples, 172
childlessness. See empty womb; disgust, 1, 7, 148, 166, 221, 227,
empty nest 228
 INDEX 279

display, 25, 67–75, 118, 138, 154, feces, 157–58

179, 208, 255 feelings, viii–v, xi, 1, 9–12, 19, 35,
divorce, 83, 100, 109 58, 65–67, 87–88, 92–94, 94–
Doll of the Year (DOTY) awards, 99, 100, 111, 148, 181, 186–87,
55, 144, 185 205, 207, 227–29
dolls’ dolls, 126–28, 208, 209 feet, 158, 160, 180–81, 191
domestic space, 72, 77, 108 female property, 85, 89
Don Juan, 81 feminism, 13, 15–16, 146–49, 195
dwarfism, 3 fertility, 109, 110
fetishism, 6, 7, 115, 117, 118
Early Moments doll, 158 fetus, 162, 166, 195–98, 198
ears, 175 firing of porcelain dolls, 22, 55,
editions: 216
limited, 55 fostering, 100
numbered, 55 France, 22, 23, 50, 51, 58, 160,
Effanbee dolls, 28 185, 212
Effner, Dianna, xiii, 119, 184, 192 Franklin Heirloom Dolls, 36, 37,
emotions, See feelings 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 57, 185
empty nest, vii, 17, 72, 84, 94, 99– funerals, 211–13, 214
9, 132
empty womb, vii, 94, 97, 99, 108, gender of dolls, 35, 69, 121, 127–
109–13, 158 33, 140–42, 167–68, 228, 236–
eroticism, 4, 9, 65, 98, 148, 195, 39
206, 208, 224–26 genitals, 157–58, 186
ethnicity, 52–53, 77, 133, 179, Georgetown Collection, 29, 36, 38,
228, 238–42 45, 50, 53, 91–92, 119, 128,
ethnography, 227–28; 169, 184
See also anthropology Germany, 21, 22, 26, 45, 102, 160,
evolution, 11, 160, 162–66, 183, 185
191, 205 gifts, dolls as, 21, 33, 137–40
eyes, 159, 168–71, 200, 218 girl dolls, 128–33
grandparents, 11, 70, 78, 101, 102,
faces, 135, 158, 159–75, 190–93, 107, 108–9, 111, 123–26, 126,
248–52 140–42, 208, 29
development of, 161–63, 199 Great Depression (1930s), 17, 25,
expressions, 159–60, 168–69, 27, 101–7, 140, 225–26
190–94, 218, 248–52 great-grandparents, 11, 85
fairs, 50, 102, 144, 148 greed, 65, 79–87, 97, 110, 256
families, 76, 80–83, 99, 100, 104– grief. See bereavement
6, 109, 123–28, 131–33 growth, ix–v, 10–17, 35, 67, 75–
fashion dolls, 21–23, 31, 34, 39 78, 79–87, 99, 107, 116–21,
fathering, 125–27, 195 160–63, 186–87, 189–93, 199–
fear of dolls, 7, 127, 141, 212, 217– 1, 205, 206, 221, 222, 227–28
19, 221 guarantees, 54, 149
280 INDEX

guilt, 1, 7, 79, 96, 141, 148, 211, Internet, 19, 43, 72, 78, 115, 142,
212, 229 184
gum tragacanth, 26 investment values, xiv–1, 54–55,
gutta percha, 26, 154 71, 93
in-vitro fertilization (IVF), 110,
hair, 175–79 111
Hamilton Collection, 36, 48, 50, isolation of older people, 101, 107,
122, 149 108–9, 110, 229
handcraft, 38–40
Handler, Ruth. See Barbie Japan, 6, 8–9
hands of dolls, 160, 180 jizò (mizuko-jizò) 8–9
heads of dolls, 22, 160–63 Jumeau, Pierre François, 6, 23, 25,
Heath, Phillip, 186 133, 210
heirlooms, 33, 55, 65, 83, 84–86,
139 kachina, 8, 210
heterochrony, 191 Kellie, Angela, 77, 85
hina (Japan), 6 Kestner, Johann Daniel, 22
history, ix, 11, 12, 13–14, 16, 17, Kewpie dolls, 9, 26, 27, 166, 210
76, 87, 94, 97–98, 101, 211, kitsch, 62, 182
220–22, 225, 227–9 Knickerbocker, L.L. See
Home Shopping Network (HSN), Georgetown Collection
TV shopping channel, 48–49, Konig di Scavini, Elena. See Lenci,
57, 87, 138–40, 45, 184, 241–45 Madame
Hutchens, Elke, 184
hyperreality, vii–viii, 150–87, 217, Latino dolls, 136
262. legs of dolls, 179
See also realism Lenci, Madame, (Elena Konig di
Scavini), 45, 96, 257
identity of doll collectors, 136–38 Lenox Collections, 36, 37, 47, 50,
idols, 7 59, 71, 200
immortality, ix, 18, 86, 87, 96, life expectancy, 11, 83, 204, 229
188, 190, 204, 211–20, 224 lifelike, See realism;
individualism, 10, 61–62, 82, 83, hyperreality
86 line extension. See series of dolls
Indonesia, 45 lips, 173
infant dolls, 52, 112, 121, 131, loneliness, 69, 83, 84, 96, 101,
155, 158, 160–66, 171 107, 108, 229
infant mortality, 113, 114 longevity. See life expectancy
infanticide, 96 look-alike dolls, 153, 207–11, 209
infantilization, 129–31, 131, 164– Lorenz, Konrad, 162–65
66, 192–99, 222 lust, 65, 81, 86, 98
innocence, 146, 220, 224, 244–48
instructional uses of dolls, 113–15, MacArthur, J.Roderick. See
139–42, 146, 186 Bradford Exchange
 INDEX 281

magazines, 34, 47, 48, 55, 61, 142, museums, 63, 77, 85, 86, 111, 210
184 My Twinn dolls, 207–9, 209
magic, 43, 183, 187
maintenance of dolls, 71–75 names of dolls, 119–23, 137
mannequin, 3, 21–22, 186, 190, narcissism. See self-image
217 nasal septum, 200–4, 249–53, 263
manufacture of dolls, 38–46, 241– Native American dolls, 53, 133–35
45 needs, 94–96, 97–99
manufacturers of dolls, 19, 35–38, neo-antiques, 28–29, 40, 53, 63,
88, 116, 119, 135–37, 147, 184 68, 84, 86, 210
marketing, 46–50, 88, 91–93, 95– noses, 175, 200
97, 123 nostalgia, ix, 84, 133, 205–12
marriage, 106, 109
Marx, Karl, 32 Oakland, California, 102–7, 127
Mason, Linda, xiii, 197 old age, 4, 17
mass production, 39, 40, 46 O’Neill, Rose, 166–67;
Mattel. See Barbie See also Kewpie dolls
McCarthy, Charlie (ventriloquist’s Osmond, Marie, 38, 144
doll), 218 outsourcing of production, 32–33,
McClure, Cindy, 144 45–43, 184
meanings, 9–17, 115–18, 221, 227–
28 packaging, 32, 46, 53, 69, 121,
mechanical dolls, 6, 155–57, 158, 214, 215
169–71 papier mâché, 26
memory, 13, 107–8, 205–12 passion. See feelings
men and dolls, x–xi, 6, 72, 82–83, pedophilia, 6, 158, 222–26
114, 125–27, 148, 212, 216 personality of dolls, 33, 115–149,
as collectors, 65–67, 75, 81, 82, 128–32, 150, 167
143 Phillips, Pamela, xiii, 30, 128, 184
as designers, 6, 185–86 physiology, ix, 187
Messenger Doll, 138–40 Pinkul, Rose, 184
Mexico, 32, 45 play, 13, 17, 23–27, 29, 34, 55,
Mickey Mouse, 165 67–75, 76, 104–5, 138, 152,
millennium, 87 154, 157, 179, 181, 193, 195,
mind-body split, 16, 97–99 208, 255
miscarriage. See infant mortality Pleasant Company. See American
mizuko-jizò (Japan), 8–9 Girl dolls
modernity, 62, 82 politics, 146–50
Monroe, Marilyn, 204 polymer resins (synthetic clays), 46
mortality. See death porcelain, 22, 26, 28, 29, 32, 39,
mothering, 11–12, 85, 105, 112, 46, 53, 55, 70, 154, 155, 206
122–24, 124–27, 127, 129–31, posability of dolls, 132, 154–57
132–34, 136–38, 139, 193, 206 poupées de luxe, 23
mouths, 172–75, 199, 200, 204 poverty, 104
282 INDEX

Precious Moments dolls, 9, 38, 61, sales of dolls, 46–50, 88, 91–93,
93, 166 95–97, 123
pricing of dolls, vii, 47–48, 50–53, Sanitary Dolls, 114
58–59, 119, 134 Sasha dolls, 27, 150, 152
primitive, 7 science, 15, 16, 166
Pritzel, Lotte, 216–18 self-image, ix, 70, 127, 186, 188,
prostitution, 3 191, 205–12
psychology, 3–4, 65–67, 68, 79, senility, 1, 68, 69, 81, 84, 118
80, 92, 104, 113, 117, 123, 168, septum, 200–4, 249–53, 263
189, 195, 198–199, 217, 226, serial numbers, 54–55
229 series of dolls, 89–92, 152
puberty. See adolescence shame, 1, 7, 9, 12, 79, 117, 118,
puppets, 3, 4, 118, 261 141, 146, 224
Putnam, Grace Storey, 114 Shirley Temple, 27, 54, 181, 222–
putti (cherubs) 8, 212 24
shoes, 180–81
Quality Value Convenience (QVC) shops, 49–50, 144
TV shopping channel, 37, 92, sibling relationships, 126, 193,
142, 144, 145 194, 199, 225
queering, 148 Simon & Halbig, 37, 150, 169
size of dolls, 151, 160, 189
rag dolls, 21 smells, 158–59
Raggedy Ann, 26 social status, 64–67, 80, 86, 105,
Ramsey, JonBenet, 1, 224–25 210
realism, vii–viii, 1, 22, 23, 29, 43, Société Française de Fabrication
53, 71, 94, 114, 116–21, 131, des Bébés et Jouets (SFBJ), 23
186, 188, 216–18. spending on dolls, 89, 257
See also hyperreality stamp collecting, 60, 63–64, 75,
relations between doll collectors, 83, 91
136–38, 141–47 Stanhome Inc., 37–38, 48
relations between dolls, 132–37 Stieff, Margaret, 45
religion, 8, 9, 218–20 stillbirth. See infant mortality
reproduction. See growth student researchers, xi–xiii, 18–19,
resurrection, 211–13, 218–20 102, 128, 131, 132, 135, 136,
retirement, 78, 83 137, 148
Rilke, Rainer Maria, 159, 216–18, stuffed toy animals, 36, 76, 165,
263–66 190
role models, dolls as, 21, 137, 207 Symons, Donald, xiii, 198–199
role-playing of dolls, 121–28, 128–
32, 155 teddybear, 165, 190
Rowland, Pleasant, 140; teeth, 173–75
See also American Girl dolls Thailand, 32, 45
Royal House of Dolls, 28 therapeutic uses of dolls, 96, 113–
15, 207
 INDEX 283

thimbles, 92
Timmerman, Ann, 183, 184
toes, 180
Tomescu, Titus, 57, 185
touch, 154–56, 181
transitional object, doll as, 189–91,
210, 211, 222
TV sales of dolls, 28, 37, 43, 46,
47, 48–49, 57, 142–44, 148,
184, 241–45

uncanny experiences, 217, 264

United Federation of Doll Clubs
(UFDC), 63, 144
United States of America, 25–26,
41–43, 45, 47, 50, 147
urine, 157–58

value of dolls. See investment

value;
pricing
vinyl (polyvinylchloride), 26–27,
29, 55, 154

Walterhausen Puppenmanufaktur,
22, 37, 135
Wambach, Laura Lee, 45
wants, 97–99
wax dolls, 26, 175, 216
West Africa, 8, 99–1
widows, 101, 106
witches, 8, 80, 81
World War II, 101
World Wide Web (WWW). See
Internet