It's been a growing trend for years: making and collecting baby dolls which look so realistic that they are regularly mistaken for living infants. The trend is almost, if not completely, restricted to women who may vary in age but are usually of middle class or higher, since having money to spare is necessary for purchasing one these oh-so-lifelike and oh-so-expensive reborn dolls. There are a number of reasons that women might choose to own one or more of these dolls. Perhaps they want to have a child of their own, but feel they are still too young or that they do not have the time to be an actual parent. Maybe they have lost a child, and feel that they need a replacement in the meantime, though this can often be an unhealthy way of prolonging the grieving process. Maybe their real children have grown up and left the home, and, finding themselves with no one left to mother, they are searching for a way to prolong their period of motherhood. In some way or another, all of these women are searching for a way to fulfill or supplement their perceived "maternal instincts." The method they have chosen for doing this, however, is a little disturbing. Some might even say that it's uncanny. :DDolls with realistic skin texture and hair? Check. Dolls with mechanisms that make their chests rise and fall as if they are breathing? Check. Dolls that are able to move their animatronic head, arms, and legs around? Check. In many ways, these dolls have been painstakingly crafted to resemble newborns in almost every way. In fact, making your own realistic baby doll from scratch is known as "newborning," within the reborn doll collecting culture. Otherwise, the dolls can be bought from a
number of different manufacturers, each of which caters to different tastes in customizable reborn dolls, But as realistic as these dolls look, it is impossible to escape the fact that there is something decidely unsettleing about them. Perhaps it is they way that they remain so still, with the neck, arms, and legs rendered stiff, even in the animation versions. Perhaps it is the way that their eyes always remain closed, or if open, always stare back dully, unblinking, never looking away for even a moment. One is reminded of the beautiful puppet Olympia from Hoffman's "The Sandman." Olypmia, too, hardly ever moved or made a sound, instead only staring back at her admirer, Nathaniel, with empty eyes that in his desperate love he filled with false meaning. Like the reborn dolls and other similar works of artistry, Olympia fell just short of being human. The little indescrepensies of her appearance and behavior - the missing pieces of what makes us human - were just enough to render her unconvincing, and thus, uncanny.In his essay, "Das Unheimliche," Freud claims that uncanny, or unheimlich, began as the opposite of homelike or familiar, heimlich, things. But the meaning of heimlich has changed over time, now carrying with it connotations of secrecy and something hidden from sight, whereas heimisch is used instead for the familiar. In this way, heimlich has become much like unheimlich, to the point where the two have become inextricably linked in langague and thought, almost synonyms. Dolls like the reborn ones are a familiar thing, often seen around the home and thus heimisch, but they also hide their inner mechanical workings from sight, so that one cannot be quite sure what lies behind their dull, staring eyes and realistically textured skin, and thus they are also heimlich. This secrecy evokes a feeling of suspicion or wrongness when the dolls are closely viewed, which is finally understood when one realizes that they are in fact dolls and not infants. Thus, the reborn dolls, though still heimlich, have become unheimlich. But Freud is adamant that Olympia is not the only source of the uncanny, or Unheimliche, in the story. Indeed, if he is to be believed, it is not the beautiful puppet's presence which acts as the source of most of the unsettling feeling which pervades the narrative. Rather, it is the titular character, the Sandman, known to Nathaniel as Coppelius, who creates the unpleasant atmosphere. The Sandman is unheimlich is part because his appearances in the story have a surreal quality to them which makes it difficult for the reader to determine exactly what has occurred, such as the scene where Nathaniel is caught spying on his father and Coppelius, and he remembers afterward how Coppelius unscrewed his hands and feet. Furthermore, as Freud notes, the continuous theme of eyes and the idea of the Sandman stealing children's' eyes are a driving force in the uncanny story. Thus, the uncanny nature of "The Sandman" stems not from automatons, but rather from the uncertain ways the more human-like figure of Coppelius behaves.
It is my belief that this same understanding of what is most uncanny equally applies to the reborn doll subculture. Although the dolls are decidedly uncanny in their resemblance to living infants, it is the behavior of the "mothers" of the dolls which is truly the most uncanny thing about the practice. They will "baby" their dolls - feeding, cleaning, and clothing them as they would do for an actual child. They croon and fuss over their empty-eyed, smiling doll children, taking pride in the compliments they receive from friends and neighbors. In the process they spend a significant amount of money just to acquire the dolls, and then even more to provide clothes, food, and toys that the doll will never actually use. Instead of children's eyes, these women desire the emotional connection and mild euphoria that comes with raising a child, but without the difficulties inherent in actually caring for another living human being. Through the reborn subculture, they are able to satisfy their own emotional needs for a part-time child without posing a risk to anyone but themselves.But in order to become part of the reborn doll subculture, one must first be able to recognize the doll as a child for its familiar qualities rather than as something uncanny for its physical and behavioral shortcomings. Look back at these pictures and the links below, particularly the three Youtube videos. How do you feel when you view these children of the uncanny? Does your mind recognize them as the thing they pretend to be, an infant, or as what they in fact are, a lifeless doll? Do your feelings seem to support Freud's understanding of the Unheimliche and the response it evokes, or not? How might Freud describe the phenomena of the reborn doll subculture among middle- and upper-class women, considering his experience with treating "hysterical" women?
http://gizmodo.com/5826240/what-kind-of-doll-can-make-the-police-destroy-a-car
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-06-12/news/0906111114_1_hoax-anti-abortion-miracle-baby
http://jezebel.com/5817658/lonely-a-12000-vinyl-child-should-fix-that
http://www.today.com/id/26970782/ns/today-today_people/t/bogus-baby-boom-women-who-collect-lifelike-dolls/#.UlblixCShuY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_HeWnPIf-A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgW93v923GQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Rnin-SI5u4
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis post was so interesting, though extremely bizarre...
ReplyDeleteI agree that this is an example of the uncanny but I wonder how we address the perspective of the women who buy these dolls? Whatever the reason these women have for buying the baby seems to overcome the uncanniness. Arguably for these women the unheimlich object is heimlich.
To me this reinforces the idea of an uncanny valley. This model allows for the individual differences found among people. For instance, in the reading Freud discussed the uncanny feeling of encountering the same number multiple times in a day. While this may be uncanny for some people, others may be inclined to write it off as coincidence or chance. Perhaps these people are not superstitious or are more "logically inclined," but regardless of the specific reason, personality and situational differences account for how something is perceived as uncanny.
This post was so interesting, though extremely bizarre...
I agree that this is an example of the uncanny but I wonder how we address the perspective of the women who buy these dolls? Whatever the reason these women have for buying the baby seems to overcome the uncanniness. Arguably for these women the unheimlich object is heimlich.
To me this reinforces the idea of an uncanny valley. This model allows for the individual differences found among people. For instance, in the reading Freud discussed the uncanny feeling of encountering the same number multiple times in a day. While this may be uncanny for some people, others may be inclined to write it off as coincidence or chance. Perhaps these people are not superstitious or are more "logically inclined," but regardless of the specific reason, personality and situational differences account for how something is perceived as uncanny.
That being said, I believe Freud would also consider this to be an example of the uncanny. I think that Freud would approach this subculture from multiple angles (depending on the circumstance of the woman). He might say that these are expressions of a traumatic event- perhaps neglect as a child or loss of a pregnancy/child. In the case of childhood trauma, the need/desire to care would come from an unconscious desire for the woman to be cared for herself because she wasn't as a child. However, she has a doll instead of a child because she isn't capable of caring, as she doesn't know how. In the case of loss, Freud might say that the woman has not properly coped with the loss and is in such denial that she continues to care for the doll- which in reality isn't alive like the lost pregnancy/child. Additionally, Freud might say that this is mostly seen in middle/upper class because these women have the means to purchase the baby- but he might argue that similar behaviors could be exhibited in lower income areas just without the baby doll.
I am not entirely sure how to relate this directly to Freud’s treatment of hysterical women. I would say that 1. He would me inclined to them seriously and 2. His development of neurotic expression can be seen here- but arguably this is a corner stone of psychoanalyses itself and as such many things could be connected in this way.