Roland Barthes’ essay about Toys stressed out the comparison of toys to Man. It is indeed true that we see Toys as another person or thing. Someone or something associated to us which, on one way or another, became a part of our life.
If we will have to analyze what’s really something in our toys we will discover many things which we never thought of thinking. We are already conditioned, in our childhood years, that we should get attached to certain things called toys which will shape what we believe at the present.
Everything at the real world has its own replica in the world of toys. From the furniture in our houses, to the things a girl use to style her hair, up to the soldiers and their weapons who fight in wars. Everything we can find in the real world has its microcosm in another world – a world of fantasies, a world where kids play – a play which sets them in the near future. It places a mind-set on us that what we play is a portrayal of what we will do as we grow older. It is more likely to be a preparatory of our roles as a person – according to gender. Let us put it this way: if you’re a girl, naturally, your parents will buy you Barbie dolls, teddy bears, baby toys – and all other things that a GIRL uses. When kids decided to play “Bahay-bahayan Game”, as what Filipinos call it, of course, the girl stands as the mother, and the boy, the father. They will imitate what these mother and father does in the real world. The father will be out of the house, working, earning a living for his family. While the girl will be left in their home having the custody of their children, doing the household chores. Here’s the explanation: What we expect of the girl with these dolls and other stuff, is for she to tame, take care and treat it as something dear to her. As if she is playing the role of a mother, “babying” her children. Feeding them, taking good care of them, loving them. What’s the implication? As early as maybe two or three years old, the girl is already trained to have a responsibility of being a mother. I’m saying this based on what a typical girl like me had experienced. Now I’m left with the thinking that why is there an inborn culture about this “conditioning” of the kids? Why were girls aren’t given guns as their toys? On the other hand, why were boys aren’t given the chance to play with make-up kits or with dolls? We can’t deny the fact that there is this masculine bias existing even in our young age, in our playing years.
Another point that Bathes said is the user-not-creator function of the child. Wherein the child is only the owner, not the creator. He is provided with things that are already “given” or ready-made. He did not have the opportunity to create and discover on his own. The actions the child has to do depends on what he “should” do based on what is “given”. Let us go back to the girl being conditioned with the role of being a future mother. At a very young age, she didn’t have the chance to play the responsibility of what a father has to do because SHE is a girl and what she SHOULD do is to play the role of a mother, whether she likes it or not. Her gender serves as what is given; it states what the position on the play she has to depict.
He also focused on the difference between the substance used in creating toys. The distinction of Wood to plastic ones – the product of nature and the product of chemistry.
If we could just observe the cycle of Toys in our life, we can conclude this one – Parents buy toys for their child. As time goes, the child grows older. Their toys become inappropriate for them up to the extent that it become obsolete, useless. Where is the relationship there? The sentimental value? LOST. The concept of wood being the main substance of our toys is to make us realize that our toys should grow old with us. In fact, toys aren’t just toys. They should live at the same time with the child. It should last; together with the importance and sentimentality that is present there.
We have toys for entertainment, for joy. We got these from rewards of good behavior or excellent standing at school. We got these as gifts from people who are very dear to us. The insinuation of the endearment of the giver of these toys to us makes us treat that toys the same as how we treat the giver. If we will go deeper to that understanding, we can see what really toys are for. Toys aren’t just toys. They are more than that.
No comments:
Post a Comment