collection of theses and research 10.1111/gec3.12161...
TRANSCRIPT
This work has been submitted to NECTAR, the Northampton ElectronicCollection of Theses and Research.
Article
Title: For geographies of children, young people and popular culture
Creator: Horton, J.
DOI: 10.1111/gec3.12161
Example citation: Horton, J. (2014) For geographies of children, young peopleand popular culture. Geography Compass. 8(10), pp. 726738. 17498198.
It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from thiswork.
Version: Accepted version
Official URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gec3.12161/abstract
Note: This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Horton, J. (2014)For geographies of children, young people and popular culture. GeographyCompass. 8(10), pp. 726738. 17498198, which has been published in final format http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12161. This article may be used for noncommercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for SelfArchiving.
http://nectar.northampton.ac.uk/7094/
NECTAR
1
For geographies of children, young people and popular culture 1
2
Dr. John Horton 3
Centre for Children and Youth, University of Northampton, Park Campus, Boughton Green Road, Northampton, 4
NN2 7AL. 5
01604 892990 7
8
Abstract 9
This paper calls for more direct, careful, sustained research on geographies of children, young people and popular 10
culture. I present three sets of empirical and conceptual resources for researchers developing work in this area. 11
Part 1 signposts classic work from cultural/media studies, marketing and sociology, which has been centrally 12
concerned with meanings of popular culture designed for children and young people (e.g. via critiques of the 13
gendered content of iconic popular cultural phenomena). Part 2 foregrounds nascent conceptualisations of social-14
material geographies of childhood and youth. I argue that these conceptualisations can extend and unsettle 15
classic work on popular culture, by questioning how popular cultural texts, objects and phenomena matter. 16
Halfway through the paper is a o e ial eak . Here, I present some personal reflections on working at the 17
intersection between the ideas discussed in Parts 1 and 2. With reference to a specific popular cultural artefact 18
(the Toys Я Us Christmas toy catalogue), I argue that both meanings and matterings are crucial for geographers 19
engaging with child e a d ou g people s popula ultu es. I o lusio , I argue that more geographers should 20
engage with the literature and issues outlined in Part 1, but also that the geographical concepts discussed in Part 21
2 demand new modes of research, thinking and writing in relation to popular cultural texts, objects and 22
phenomena. 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
2
Introduction 1
A large body of research within the disciplines of cultural/media studies, marketing and sociology has addressed 2
the sha ed eposito of o e ials, tele isio programmes, movies and music...books...toys and mass-market 3
o odities… o e i to the fa i of [ a ] hild e s li es “eite , p.297). However, as Buckingham 4
(2007), Horton (2010, 2012) and Woodyer (2008, 2011) note, surprisingly few geographers have directly explored 5
the considerable importance of popular cultural texts, objects and phenomena for many children and young 6
people s e e da geog aphies. This paper calls for more geographical research directly addressing children and 7
ou g people s popula ultu es. 8
9
The following sections juxtapose three sets of empirical and conceptual resources for geographers developing 10
work in this area. Part 1 signposts key lines of research and critique from cultural/media studies, marketing and 11
sociology. I note that this work – which has been seriously influential in framing academic, popular, political 12
understandings of popular culture – has been centrally concerned with meanings of popular cultural phenomena. 13
To illustrate this point, I highlight feminist critiques of the normatively gendered content of iconic popular cultural 14
phenomena (e.g. Barbie and GI Joe). I argue that geographers working with children and young people have, 15
rather problematically, often shied away from direct engagement with these kinds of popular cultural texts, 16
objects and representational politics. Part 2 foregrounds some nascent – perhaps more tentative, modest, 17
obliquely-related – geographical conceptualisations of childhood and youth. I suggest that these 18
conceptualisations have the potential to extend and unsettle classic work on popular culture, by questioning how 19
popular cultural texts, objects and phenomena matter as o stitue ts of hild e a d ou g people s e e da 20
geographies. I argue that, in a range of ways, recent geographical conceptualisations demand new ways of 21
researching, writing and thinking about children, young people and popular culture. Halfway through the paper is 22
a commercial break . Here, through reflection upon a specific popular cultural artefact (the Toys Я Us Christmas 23
toy catalogue), I develop an argument that both meanings and matterings are crucial for geographers engaging 24
ith hild e a d ou g people s popula ultu es. I also highlight so e oade halle ges of atte pti g to thi k 25
and research at the intersection of the ideas discussed in Parts 1 and 2. In conclusion, this argument is configured 26
as a set of challenges for future geographical research in relation to children, young people and popular culture. 27
3
However, I also contend that these challenges might have a wider resonance, to any human geographers seeking 1
to reconcile classic (characteristically representational) accounts of culture and society and more recent 2
(constitutionally nonrepresentational) geographical conceptualisations. 3
4
5
Part 1: what childre ’s popular culture ea s 6
Classic research in Anglo-American cultural/media studies, marketing and sociology constitutes a significant 7
resource for geographers interested in children and young people popular cultural geographies. Since the 1970s, 8
this body of work has provided an imperative, vocabulary and methodology for studying all manner of popular 9
cultural texts, objects and phenomena. In this context, research has typically been motivated by three kinds of 10
questions about the meaning of popular culture (and, as shall become clear, critiques of particularly iconic 11
popular cultural characters like Barbie and GI Joe recur widely in this work). 12
13
First, many researchers in this context have been concerned with the representational content of popular 14
cultural texts, objects and phenomena – and the effects of these representations. A longstanding arc of research 15
within cultural/media and marketing studies has employed discourse analysis techniques to unpack the images, 16
narratives and iconographies circulated via literature, television, toys, advertisements, magazines or pop music 17
produced for children and young people. This work has been important in u eili g the li ited s ipts , 18
stereotypes and (gendered, heteronormative, consumerist, conformist, conservative Americo/Euro-centric) 19
norms which characterise many of these popular cultural forms (Kline 1993). It is argued that these meanings and 20
representations have become so numerous and normalised within contemporary cultural geographies that they 21
ha e a sig ifi a t effe t upo hild e a d ou g people s so ialisatio , o s a d ideals. 22
23
Research exploring the idealisation of particular forms of femininity in Anglo-American commercials, magazines, 24
commercials and toys designed for young females is a key example of this first line of work. Feminist scholarship 25
in cultural/media studies has been significant in highlighting how many of these popular cultural forms have been 26
p ofou dl ge de ed i o te t a d desig , p o idi g a li iti g set of odels of eha iou fo hild e to 27
4
observe, inte ogate a d ep odu e i thei o ti uous so ialisatio as pa ti ipa ts i pu li ultu e Bi kfo d 1
2008, Bristor & Fischer 1993, Walkerdine 1998, Saltmarsh 2009). Fo e a ple, M ‘o ie s lassi o k 2
drew attention to the overwhelming prominence and normalisation of topics such as fashion, beauty, body image 3
and (heterosexual) romance in popular British magazines for teenage girls. Other critiques made plain the 4
profound, polarised gendering of contemporary Anglo-American toys and toyshops: evident in the (then) 5
commonplace division of toyshops into blue aisles containing toy vehicles, tools, weapons and muscle-bound 6
action figures, and pink aisles containing baby and fashion dolls (Willis 1987, Seiter 1992, Fleming 1996, Cross 7
1997). Iconic popular cultural phenomena like Barbie and GI Joe often feature prominently in critiques of this 8
kind. Barbie, in particular, has been widely critiqued as a o de sed ep ese tatio of normative ideals of 9
e phasised fe i i it a d fe ale od i age (Freedman 1986, Rogers 1999, Messner 2000): 10
11
With her long, silky, blonde hair, perky breasts, cinched waist and mile-high legs Barbie represents 12
mainstream definitions of physical perfection, the paragon of beauty and ideal femininity. Her shiny pink 13
corvette, swa k to house, a d oodles…of perfectly accessorized outfits indicate her success within the 14
consumer culture machine. Collectively, her physical and material assets (Eurocentric beauty, white-skin and 15
class privilege…), represent the collective dream spun by post-WWII advertisers and reinforced by the culture 16
at large (Feminist Fatale, 2010, unpaginated). 17
18
Barbie is thus understood as a li ited odel of ideal tee hood ‘a d , p. ; an icon – perhaps the icon – 19
of t ue hite o a hood a d fe i i it (DuCille 1994); a stark idealisation of pu hase of the p ope high-20
status goods, popularity with their peers, creation of the correct personal appearance, and the visible 21
a hie e e t of fu th ough app op iate leisu e a ti ities Motz , p.122). Indeed, following this line of 22
critique, all manner of scholarly, media, online and popular commentators have argued that popular cultural 23
phenomena like Barbie are instrumental in shaping the desires, self-image, norms and lifestyles of many young 24
females: 25
26
5
the Barbie Body is a part of our collective female psyche. Most [North American females] grew up with 1
Barbie. We changed her outfits and marvelled at her perfect blond hair, her large nippleless breasts, her 2
inconceivably small waist, and, of course, those long, long legs. Barbie has no body fat, no lumps, no bumps, 3
no bulges, no unsightly veins – she is pure plastic perfection. We began to believe (either consciously or sub-4
consciously) that this was what we would look like when we became women...On a logical level, most 5
o e u de sta d that Ba ie s anatomy has little to do ith ealit . Just look a ou d…Yet on a deeper 6
level, most of us, in our heart of hearts, still yearn to look that way (Coopersmith 2006, p.13). 7
8
Second, a slightly more recent line of research has explored the meanings that children and young people make 9
via engagements with popular cultural texts, objects and phenomena. This work has been important in insisting 10
that children and young people do not passively and uncritically absorb normative representations from books, 11
television, toys, advertisements, magazines or pop music. Instead, research in diverse contexts has highlighted 12
how children and young people actively consume contemporary popular culture: they frequently do original, 13
creative, unanticipated, affirmative stuff with popular cultural texts, objects and phenomena, and in so doing 14
make their own meanings. Contemporary popular culture is thus recast as an array of symbolic resources for 15
hild e a d ou g people s age , ide tit -formation and social relations. It is noted that children and young 16
people often effectively subvert, parody or challenge the intended or normative meanings of popular cultural 17
texts, objects and phenomena: and it is argued that new digital and online media create unprecedented 18
opportunities for this kind of resistive play with meanings (Cassell & Jenkins 1999, Kline et al. 2003). 19
20
Research exploring what young Anglo-American females actually do with popular cultural icons of normative 21
femininity illustrates this second line of research (McRobbie and Garber 1976, Brown et al. 1994, Baker 2004). 22
Research of this kind makes clear that there is often a gap between adult interpretations of phenomena like 23
Ba ie, e sus the ea i gs that hild e a d ou g people ake ith the : thus, e o des e d to hild e 24
he e a al se Ba ie s o te t a d the p esu e that it passes u t a sfo ed i to thei i ds ‘a d , 25
p.384). As Messner (2000) observes, young females in diverse social, cultural, economic and ethnic positions play 26
with Barbie quite differently, engaging in creative acts of meaning-making where Barbie dolls are appropriated 27
6
into their everyday spaces, lifestyles and concerns. Fo e a ple, Chi s , p.306) research with African-1
American girls in Connecticut otes ho he ou g esea h pa ti ipa ts worked on their dolls materially and 2
symbolically, blurring racial absolutes by putting their hair into distinctively African-American styles using beads, 3
braids, and foil . Else he e, several studies of Barbie play include instances of humour, a ge pla o to tu e 4
pla i hi h Ba ie dolls a e defa ed, utilated o dest o ed i all a e of i e ti e a s that a ge f o 5
e o i g the hai to de apitatio , u i g, eaki g a d i o a i g G iffi et al. 2008, p.15; Messner 2000). 6
Participants in these studies explicitly describe thei iole e i te s of a eje tio of Ba ie s pe fe t fe ininity 7
(Kuther & McDonald 2004). Other critics des i e i sta es of pla ith Ba ie s ultu al a d se ual ide tit – 8
tu [i g] Ba ie pu k, set[ti g] he o fi e, a[ki g] her f*** Ken, Midge or GI Joe ‘a d 5, p.3, Kehily 1999, 9
Abowitz 2000) – which have been meaningful moments in the articulation of i di iduals sexualities, subcultural 10
identities or political consciousness. 11
12
Third, many classic accounts of popular culture argue that popular cultural texts, objects and phenomena are 13
meaningful because of what they tell us about the state of contemporary childhood, youth and society. For 14
example, it is argued that the shifting form, content and popularity of particular toys, texts or fashions is 15
indicative of much broader social-historical change (Cross 1997, 2004). Likewise, many accounts have suggested 16
that edia a d pa e tal pa i s a ou d pa ti ula popula ultu al edia a e i po ta t o e ts in the wider 17
social construction of notions like childhood and family. Perhaps most influentially, a great deal of research within 18
Anglo-American cultural/media studies, marketing and sociology has considered the way in which children and 19
young people have increasingly been targeted as a market segment within contemporary consumer capitalism 20
(Zelizer 1985, 2002, Steinberg & Kincheloe 1997, Gunter & Furnham 1998, Langer 2002, Marshall 2010). Many key 21
studies have highlighted the sophisticated, globalised and aggressive corporate systems of cultural production, 22
marketing and commodification which have constituted a distinctive hild a ket fo popula ultu al p odu ts 23
(Seiter 1992, McNeal 1992, Kline 1993, Roedder 1999, Cook 2004). The economic value of this market is 24
considerable: for example, in 1999 it was estimated that children in the USA spent $23,000,000,000 on consumer 25
goods, and prompted a further $188,000,000,000 of purchases, each year (McNeal 1999). 26
27
7
‘esea h e plo i g the de elop e t of a lu ati e t ee gi l a ket for popular cultural commodities 1
exemplifies this third line of work. He e it is oted that t ee i.e. et ee hildhood a d adulthood fe ales 2
ha e i easi gl ee positio ed as sig ifi a t pla e s i the e o o a d a ajo ta get of the ultu e 3
i dust ies i a i o it o ld o te ts ‘ussell & Tyler 2002, p.625, also Rogers 1998, Bickford 2008). 4
Attention is drawn to the proliferation of o a ds , toys, fashion/beauty/lifestyle/culture/celebrity magazines, 5
a ds a d etail e pe ie es spe ifi all a keted to t ee fe ales. The sociologists Russell and Tyler (2002) 6
provide an in-depth ase stud of o e su h etail e pe ie e: the UK hai Gi l Hea e . Th ough te tual a al sis, 7
i te ie s ith the hai s fou de s, a d eth og aphi esea h ith ou g shoppe s, they identify some 8
marketing rhetorics a d pe fo ati e/spatial st ategies deplo ed to appeal to the pu hasi g po e of t ee 9
females: 10
11
Gi l Hea e te ds to e lea l disti guisha le f o othe etail outlets…Custo e s a e e ti ed i to the 12
stores by the glittery theatricality of what it has to offe …This is e pe ie ed th ough a o i atio of usi , 13
a u da t use of glitte , ight hite lighti g a d floo i g… h o e fitti gs, pi k lette i g a d i o og aph 14
(hearts and stars) as well as sparkly costumes and make-up…Girl Hea e is a sto e…that sells a relatively 15
narrow range of (largely own brand) hair and beauty products designed for the pursuit of a feminine 16
aesthetic, whilst also seeking to ensure that shopping there is an aesthetic experience in itself (Russell & 17
Tyler 2002, pp.626-627) 18
19
Russell and Tyler note how this retail context has been carefully planned as a spa e fo lea , holeso e fa il 20
fu – normalising o su ptio as leisu e , shoppi g as a agi al e pe ie e – th ough sto e desig a se so 21
o e load of pi k, glitte a d hea ts , the pe fo ati e o k of staff ho perform dance routines to background 22
usi , a d oppo tu ities fo ou g usto e s to e ade o e a d t a sfo ed i to p i esses ia je ellery, 23
costumes, hair, make-up and nail styling. As all this talk of pinkness, make-up and glitter might suggest, popular 24
ultu al te ts, o je ts a d phe o e a a keted to t ee fe ales ha e ee idel iti ued fo alo isi g 25
normative models of femininit i hi h eaut , fashio , gi li ess , a a e ess of a ds a d ele ities, a d 26
8
ownership of consumer goods are assumed to be central to individuals identity, popularity and cool-ness (Cook & 1
Kaiser 2004, Saltmarsh 2009, Allen & Mendick 2012). 2
3
The lines of work outlined in this section raise some major questions for human geographers, especially those of 4
us engaged in research on childhood, youth, families, consumption, gender or identities. However, geographers 5
working with children and young people have rarely engaged directly with the kinds of popular cultural texts, 6
objects, phenomena, representational politics and questions about meanings highlighted in this body of 7
literature. Although geographers have researched and written extensively on child e a d ou g people s pla , 8
identities, consumption, and social/cultural lives in diverse contexts (see Kraftl et al. 2014), specific popular 9
cultural texts, objects and phenomena have typically appeared only fleetingly and obliquely within their work (for 10
a range of examples, see Horton 2012, p.5), and questions about their meanings have rarely been directly 11
addressed in the context of geographical research and scholarship. Given the importance of popular cultural 12
texts, objects and phenomena fo a hild e a d ou g people s li es, f ie dships, fa ilies, play, 13
consumption and social/cultural geographies, I suggest that this shying-away from popular culture is rather 14
problematic and puzzling. Perhaps, as Mitchell and Reid-Walsh (2002) argue, research on children and young 15
people s popula ultu e continues to be somewhat marginalised within the social sciences – even in subdisiplines 16
centrally concerned with childhood, youth or cultural consumption (Martens et al. 2004, Cook 2008) – because it 17
is see as a fai l f i olous , fu , i he a ti it . Or perhaps, as I argue in the following sections, many 18
geographers have tended to avoid thoroughgoing engagement with earlier work on popular culture precisely 19
because of the representational concerns with meaning which characterised this classic literature. Certainly, I 20
suggest that geographers should speak more to and about the questions and work summarised in Part 1; indeed, 21
as I will argue in Part 2, I also feel that geographical concepts should be important in radically extending and 22
contesting much classic work in this area. However, in the following commercial break I develop some 23
reflections on working at the intersection of these two convictions. 24
25
26
27
9
Commercial break: browsing Toys Я Us Christmas catalogues from 1975 and 2013 1
Over the course of this paper, I call for more geographical research directly addressing children and young 2
people s popula ultu es. I a gue that geog aphe s o ki g i this a ea should e i dful both of (broadly 3
representational) questions of meaning from classic cultural/media studies (part 1) and (broadly 4
nonrepresentational) apprehensions of mattering from recent geographical conceptualisations (part 2). However, 5
in this space inbetween parts 1 and 2, I highlight some broader challenges of attempting to think and research at 6
this intersection of representational and nonrepresentational concerns. I will develop this argument with 7
reference to two examples: the earliest and most recent Christmas toy catalogues issued by the North American 8
Toys Я Us corporation (see boxes 1 and 2; see Seiter 1992 for background information about Toys Я Us). 9
10
11
Box 1 Toys Я Us Christmas catalogue, 19751 12
This two-sided flier was distributed in the neighbourhoods near 51 stores in the USA. It consists of a blue page 13
and a pink page, with about a dozen toys per side. On the blue side: various action figures (superheroes; top 14
i e fighte s of TV a d i e a ; GI Joe plus Sea Wolf submarine a d s uid atta k ad e tu e pa k; Six Million 15
Dolla Ma ith io i po e a ; Planet of the Apes General Urko), boxing gloves, toy pistol plus holster, toy 16
hai sa , tool elt ith plie s a d eal ha e . O the pi k side: D i kee a d i ks f o u si g ottle 17
a d ets , Barbie ( ith lo g go a d ui k u l hai ), Miss Ginny debutante doll i t g ee go , la e t i , 18
at hi g hat a d la e t i pa ties , Ba Dea doll sleepi g e es a d pi k p ja as , Happy Family doll set 19
o i es fu a d eati it , Poll P ete d doll lea to use eaut aids . 20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1 Archived, along with many other toy catalogues from the 1970s and 1980s, at http://192.185.93.157/~wishbook/
10
1
Box 2 Toys Я Us online Christmas catalogue, 20132 2
More than 250,000 p odu ts a e pu hased ia a diffe e tiated fa il of a ds a d regionally-specific 3
interfaces in 35 countries. In many territories, Toys Я Us has taken a corporate decision to foste ge de 4
eut alit i its a keti g ate ials. O the UK site, la els like to s fo gi ls a d to s fo o s ha e ee 5
dropped. Instead, products are catalogued into thematic categories (which can be narrowed by age, price range 6
and brands), including: action figures, animals, apps, bikes and ride-ons, cars, collectables, creative, construction, 7
dolls, dress up, electronic learning, games, jigsaws, kids room accessories, musical, numbers and letters, outdoor 8
and sports, preschool, radio control, robotics, role play, sciences, soft toys, technology and gadgets, video games, 9
and top brands. Ba ie is top of the top a ds . A li k of the ouse i gs up 532 Barbie products. A 10
remarkable array of stuff: dolls; accessories, fashions and vehicles for dolls; little pets; accessories and fashions 11
for the little pets; Barbie as a princess, ballerina, mermaid, pop star, ballroom dancer or equestrian rider; limited 12
editio olle ta les ; Barbie on lunchboxes, clothing, trainers, crockery, crayons, tiaras; apps, video games, 13
building blocks, and video games about building blocks; an e lusi e Mali u d ea house . I estimate that about 14
80% of these images feature the colour pink. Not just pink; but really bright, vibrant, eyebright, in-your-face, ultra 15
PINK. 16
17
18
The juxtaposition of boxes 1 and 2 should highlight three challenges for anyone attempting to study children and 19
ou g people s popula ultu e. Fi st, it should be clear that popular culture is, perhaps increasingly, not a static, 20
stable, singular entity. For example, the quantity and range of cultural commodities have apparently proliferated 21
quite remarkably over the last three decades: such that the latest catalogue contains 10,000 times more products 22
(including 500 times more varieties of Barbie product), and is available in 35 more territorially-specific online 23
versions, than the earliest. If nothing else, this makes it hard to keep up with the ever-changing landscape of 24
2 See http://www.toysrus.com/
11
hild e a d ou g people s popula ultu es, a d i easi gl diffi ult to sustai eat, lea , o p ehe si e 1
claims about the state of contemporary popular culture in toto. The two boxes also bear witness to a great deal of 2
social, cultural and historical change: in the different kinds of toys and commodities designed for children; in the 3
cultural phenomena which have waxed and waned in popularity; in the shifting processes through which popular 4
cultural commodities are marketed and purchased; in the mutable social construction of ideal childhoods; in the 5
multinational corporate expansion of the toy market; and in the ostensibly dynamic cultural politics of toy 6
marketing. But then again, there are so many continuities linking the two boxes: the very notion of a Christmas 7
toy catalogue; the persistent popularity of toy tropes such as fashion dolls, baby dolls and poseable action toys; 8
the enduring presence of popular cultural icons like Barbie or GI Joe; and the obstinate, apparently deeper, 9
gendering of many popular cultural commodities. The relative importance of these changes and continuities is 10
contested. For instance, we can take our pick between media/online commentaries claiming that the ge de 11
eut alit of the e Toys Я Us Christmas catalogue marks a new, progressive era in the social construction of 12
childhood (Crouch 2013), versus media/online commentaries claiming that the intense pinkness of many items in 13
the catalogue demonstrates that hild e s popula ultu e is more deeply, hopelessly and corrosively gendered 14
than ever before. 15
16
Second, the boxes may prompt us to consider how tempting and comfortable it is to write and think about 17
popular culture in terms of its meaning. Certainly, as I browsed those catalogues and wrote those boxes, I felt it: 18
the desire to jump to easy conclusions, to critique representations, to analyse images and iconography, to 19
develop a neat argument, to write a surefooted narrative, to hone a critique, to make a point. However, I argue 20
that it is problematic to always/only write and think about popular culture in this way. Admittedly, documents like 21
the 1975 Toys Я Us catalogue do lend themselves to straightforward critical readings: it includes a manageable 22
array of popular cultural phenomena; it is easy to occupy a critical, politicised standpoint when confronted with a 23
pink page of dolls and a blue page of action figures. There is a kind of satisfaction to be had, writing polemically 24
a out de uta te dolls e sus io i a s . This kind of angry, urgent criticality is necessary, important and valid. 25
But I find that this mode of clear- ut iti ue is less sustai a le he su e i g hild e a d ou g people s 26
popular culture in 2013. It is harder to locate neat, singular conclusions when confronted with 250,000 different 27
12
objects, in 30 thematic categories, purchased by their millions in 35 countries. It is hard to be sure where to begin, 1
what is going on, or what to think. So it is tempting to withdraw from making large, coherent claims about the 2
meaning of popular culture, and focus instead upon more local, personal, microgeographical apprehensions of 3
how popular cultural texts, objects and phenomena matter for individual children and young people. 4
5
Moreover, third, I find that if one jumps to write about meanings of popular culture, it is all too easy to overlook 6
how popular cultural texts, objects and phenomena matter in practice within people s everyday geographies. For 7
example, as I browsed online archives of toy catalogues, I was so caught up in the immediacy of reading images 8
and text, that I found myself not really thinking about the considerable work, care and dedication (probably 1000s 9
of hours of scanning) which led to these archives being compiled. Similarly, it takes a certain degree of scholarly 10
willpower to think not only about how debutante dolls and Malibu Barbie houses should be critiqued for their 11
gendered normativity, but also about how these popular cultural items might be actually encountered, used, and 12
cared for in practice by all kinds of people in all kinds of spaces. And now I realise that in jumping to write about 13
all this, I have suppressed (or at least distanced myself from) what I felt as I browsed the 1975 To s Я Us 14
catalogue and other decades-old to atalogues: feeli gs of aww , umph , wow , cool , I remember that , that 15
are not easy to put into words. 16
17
So, I feel caught between two sensibilities: on one hand, I recognise the importance of continuing the lines of 18
enquiry and criticality outlined in Part 1; on the other hand, there are a number of senses in which this work 19
seems (perhaps increasingly) ill-suited to understanding engagements with popular cultural texts, objects and 20
phenomena in practice. In Part 2 I suggest that recent conceptualisations of social-material geographies of 21
childhood and youth might expand and unsettle the chief concerns of much classic research in this context. In this 22
pape s o lusion, I argue that future geographical research in relation to children, young people and popular 23
culture should be concerned with both questions of meaning articulated in part 1 and questions of mattering 24
articulate in part 2 . 25
26
27
13
1
2
Part 2: how childre ’s popular culture matters 3
To date, as Crewe and Collins (2006) note, relatively few geographers have directly engaged with the literatures 4
and issues outlined in Part 1. Likewise, few researchers addressing these issues within cultural/media studies, 5
marketing or sociology have drawn upon geographical concepts or empirics. However, I argue that recent 6
geographical research on the everyday social-material geographies of children and young people should be an 7
important resource for any future studies of popular cultural texts, objects and phenomena. I suggest that 8
geographical conceptualisations have the capacity to extend and enliven the key lines of research discussed in 9
Part 1 – and to unsettle and challenge some limiting conceptual habits and working assumptions which 10
characterise that work – in several senses. 11
12
Fi st, e e t o k hild e s geog aphe s alls for a radically expanded apprehension of the complex 13
materialities hi h o stitute hild e a d ou g people s geog aphies. This should p o pt e og itio of the 14
complex materialities which constitute popular cultural texts, objects and phenomena. For example, geographical 15
research on popular cultural phenomena like Sylvanian Families (Houlton and Short 1995), Postman Pat (Horton 16
2008) and Pokémon (Buckingham & Sefton-Green 2003, Horton 2012) show how these characters exist in 17
thousands of mass-produced, multi-textual material forms: what Thrift (2003, p.395) calls complex i o-18
o tologies ; little fa tas o lds a isi g f o edia a ati e a d total a keti g , available for purchase in 19
multiple, interlinked material forms. All this popular cultural stuff takes such a profusion of forms, distributed 20
across so many everyday spaces, that it typically defies easy categorisation and exceeds neat, singular forms of 21
narration. Buckingham (2000), Lee (2001) and Thrift (2003) also argue that the popular culture industries often, 22
and increasingly, produce entirely new categories of material object, affording new allia es et ee hild e , 23
young people and material objects: for instance, they note that the toy market has been a notable space of 24
innovation and early adoption in relation to digital and interactive commodities. 25
26
14
“e o d, a geog aphe s ha e paid lose atte tio to hild e a d ou g people s take -for-granted, everyday 1
practices in diverse contexts. This should prompt careful reflection upon things that are actually done with, and in 2
relation to, popular cultural stuff. Geographical studies of play show how popular cultural texts, objects and 3
phenomena are mobilised in play practices which are embodied and sensuous – i ol [i g] sights, sou ds, 4
smells, tou h, tastes, to a i g deg ees – and whose meanings may not be sayable: as a pe so ho pla s 5
knows, there is always part of the practice which cannot be described directly – something elusive, at both a 6
ph si al a d e otio al le el Ha ke 5, p.54, 51; also Woodyer 2012). Indeed, Rautio (2013, p.6) notes that 7
play practices may be literally meaning-less: so we should acknowledge that popular cultural texts, objects and 8
phenomena may be mobilised in thi gs that a e do e fo o appa e t easo other than for doing 9
them,…[practices which are] see i gl poi tless, et i he e tl e a di g fo those ho e gage ith it . This 10
a k o ledg e t should ide the s ope of esea h i estigati g hild e a d ou g people s e gage e ts 11
with popular culture: beyond a focus upon practices which are self-evidently meaningful, to an acknowledgment 12
of the multiple practices done with popular cultural texts, objects and phenomena, even those which are 13
ostensibly banal, pointless, meaning-less and irrelevant to the concerns mapped out in Part 1. 14
15
Third, geographical research has highlighted the complex socialities and relationships which constitute and 16
ha a te ise hild e a d ou g people s li es. The e is a se se that much classic social-scientific research about 17
childhood and youth – including that summarised in Part 1 – underestimated how social relationships and 18
sociotechnical connections matter to children and young people. Studies of hild e a d ou g people s so ial-19
cultural geographies have noted how popular cultural texts, objects and phenomena are frequently important in, 20
and constitutive of, friendship, family and peer relationships, not least through practices like peste po e , pee 21
p essu e a d pla g ou d o e satio s (Dover 2007). It is noteworthy that practices like being a fan of a pop 22
band, or swapping a particular series of collectable cards, often entail interactions between a large cast of 23
children, young people and adults. Moreover, such practices may cut across established social groups and 24
divisions: perhaps creating new friendships, dividing extant friendship groups, prompting encounters between 25
groups or individuals who would not otherwise interact, or fostering new group identities, inclusions and 26
exclusions. Note, too, that engage e ts ith hild e s popula ultu e a e ot solely the preserve of children 27
15
and young people. This is evident in the intergenerational nature of many popular cultural activities, or i adults 1
communities of collection, fandom and enthusiasm (Tierney 2010) – or, alternatively, campaigning and critique – 2
around particular popular cultural texts, objects and phenomena. Recognising this extensive cast of people 3
interconnected through popular cultural practices also raises political-ethical questions: starkly exposed in 4
research revealing the exploitative multinational labour practices involved in the production of toys like Lego or 5
Barbie. I suggest that the frame of questions and concerns summarised in Part 1 tended to underestimate the 6
importance of these different kinds of relationships – both for children and young people themselves, and in 7
terms of understanding the complex processes through which popular cultural texts, objects and phenomena are 8
encountered and consumed (Buckingham 2011). On this latter point, Woodyer (2008; also Rautio 2013) calls for 9
esea he s to ette a k o ledge the o ple elatio alit of hild e a d ou g people s popula ultu es. 10
She argues that locating popular cultural texts, objects and phenomena as elements within heterogeneous, 11
contingent socio-material assemblages of interrelated (human and nonhuman) bodies problematises many chief 12
social scientific accounts of childhood and youth (including the classic research outlined in Part 1). 13
14
Fourth, a number of geographers have investigated the importance of diverse modes of consumption, exchange 15
and economic activity. Here it is noted that chief accounts of contemporary consumerism and popular culture 16
have habitually overlooked the existence of diverse, alte ati e and socio-economically-patterned practices 17
through which commodities are exchanged, consumed and purchased. For example, Clarke (2000), Gregson and 18
Crewe (2003) and Hall (2013) highlight the importance of spaces like charity shops, car boot sales and other 19
modes of second-ha d pu hase/e ha ge i a fa ilies a uisitio a d di est e t of branded and popular 20
cultural commodities. We ight also o side hild e a d ou g people s o p a ti es of swapping, bartering, 21
gambling, sharing or stealing popular cultural stuff (Buckingham & Sefton-Green 2003, Horton 2012); or the 22
spaces through which adult enthusiasts collect, auction, value or exchange second-hand popular cultural objects, 23
past and present (Tierney 2010); or the spaces through which illicit, cut-price, forged or replica versions of 24
popular cultural merchandise are bought and sold. These examples – and the particular forms of expertise and 25
knowledge each entails – should expand our awareness of the diverse ways in which popular cultural texts, 26
objects and phenomena are purchased in practice. They suggest that the research outlined in Part 1 tended to 27
16
reproduce some narrow, normative – and, it must be said, consumerist, minority-world-centric – understandings 1
of popular cultural consumption (see Collins and Hitchings 2012). 2
3
Fifth, a hild e s geog aphe s ha e alled atte tio to the emotional-affective conditions of children and 4
ou g people s li es, a d the emotions/affects mobilised in discourses of childhood and youth. I suggest that 5
conceptualisations of emotion and affect should be important in extending the lines of work outlined in Part 1: 6
particularly by problematising the presumption that popular cultural texts, objects and phenomena are 7
only/mainly important inasmuch as they are meaning-ful. In my own experiences of researching with children 8
engaged with popular cultural phenomena. I have been struck by how research participants did not, typically, 9
neatly talk about what their favoured popular cultural texts, objects and phenomena meant in terms of the 10
approaches summarised in Part 1. Instead, they talked, at length and with considerable care, emotion and 11
personal, contingent detail about the multifarious ways in which this popular cultural stuff mattered, often 12
intensely, for their everyday geographies, relations, habits and moods. Children and young people can really care 13
about popular cultural texts, objects and media, but not necessarily (or, in my experience, particularly), in the 14
terms outlined in Part 1. Research on geographies of enthusiasm (Geoghegan 2012), care (Conradson 2003), 15
friendship (Bunnell et al. 2011), nostalgia (Moran 2002), fun (Woodyer 2012), hope (Kraftl 2008), or the multiple 16
emotions afforded by particular consumer goods (see Pain et al. 2005 on mobile phones, Elliot & Leonard 2004 on 17
trainers) offer ways of extending this line of thought. 18
19
Sixth, taking the preceding points together, hild e s geog aphe s ha e pa ti ula l fo used upo the o plex 20
spatialities of hild e a d ou g people s e e da li es. B o t ast, it is ota le that u h of the o k 21
summarised in Part 1 tended to say little about spaces in which popular cultural texts, objects and phenomena 22
are encountered, or the constitutive role of popular culture in everyday geographies. The geographical 23
conceptualisations summarised here can, collectively, be thought of a set of demands to key understandings of 24
children, young people and popular culture: to explore the complex spaces in which children and young people 25
actually encounter and consume popular culture; to recognise that their complexity makes neat accounts of the 26
meaning, effect or reception of popular culture seem problematically reductive; to understand that popular 27
17
cultural enthusiasms and practices frequently transform or animate spaces and time-space routines; to accept 1
that hild e a d ou g people s geog aphies a e ofte opa ue, disruptive, impossible, unintelligible , a d thus 2
resist and unsettle attempts by adult onlookers to write about them in confident, comprehensive, categorical 3
terms (Lury 2005, p.308). 4
5
Collectively, these lines of thought demand new ways of thinking, researching and writing about children, young 6
people and popular culture. They demand: 7
8
a shift in focus, away from neat value judgements and readings of meaning (Buckingham 2011), towards more 9
careful, modest apprehensions of matterings; 10
a shift in register, away from spectacular and iconic examples, and clear-cut political standpoints, towards 11
more nuanced, subtle, complex, modest engagements with details and particularities; 12
an open and expanded conceptual range, encompassing concepts of performativity, socio-materiality, 13
embodiment, emotion/affect; 14
a turn to include detailed, in-depth, ethnographic, multi-site studies of popular cultural texts, objects and 15
media in circulation in everyday lives; 16
a move away from categorical, reductive, deterministic modes of thinking (this must mean something) towards 17
more modest, hesitant, complex understandings of how heterogeneous popular cultural texts, objects and 18
media are distributed and matter in/through everyday spaces; 19
a shift in analytic style, from the delivery of firm, finished, decided statements which pin down meaning, 20
towards more open engagements with play and popular culture in its becoming (Harker 2005) – let[ting] go of 21
an i siste e o ausalit , li ea it a d eat ess i ou o eptualisatio s ‘autio , p.3). 22
23
24
25
26
27
18
1
2
Conclusions 3
In writing this paper I have found myself making two arguments: on one hand, more geographers should engage 4
with the literature, issues and representational politics outlined in Part 1; on the other hand, the geographical 5
concepts and nonrepresentational sensibilities discussed in Part 2 render many aspects of this classic work 6
fundamentally problematic, and demand new modes of research in relation to popular cultural texts, objects and 7
phenomena. These two arguments (and these two bodies of work) can seem antithetical. However, in the space 8
of the o e ial eak I ega to de elop a ase fo o ki g inbetween the political-representational bite of 9
Part 1 and the modest, subtle, conceptual particularities of Part 2. That is, I suggest that geographers should both 10
atte d to the o ati e, i t a ta le ea i gs a d ep ese tatio s i ulated ia hild e a d ou g people s 11
popular cultures and seek to extend, enliven and critique classic research in this context by noticing how 12
heterogeneous popular cultural texts, objects and phenomena are complexly encountered and matter in 13
particular, diverse everyday spaces. I suggest that these challenges are broadly pertinent to any human 14
geographers seeking to reconcile classic (characteristically representational) accounts of culture and society and 15
more recent (constitutionally nonrepresentational) geographical conceptualisations. 16
17
Certainly, I suggest that this inbetween position prompts some specific questions for future geographical research 18
on children, young people and popular culture. Geographers working in this area, and researching children and 19
ou g people s so ial a d ultu al geog aphies o e broadly, could consider the following prompts for reflection: 20
21
What ea i gs a d ep ese tatio s a e i ulated ia hild e a d ou g people s popula ultu es in these 22
contexts? How are these meanings encountered, noticed, accepted, valued, affecting or contested in practice? 23
What popular cultural texts, objects and phenomena matter (and how) in contexts in which you work? 24
Which elements of the discussions in Part 1 and Part 2 might extend understandings of children and young 25
people s so ial-cultural geographies in the contexts where you work? 26
19
How might it be possible to conduct research acknowledging both the political-representational concerns of 1
Part 1 and the excessive contingent detail of Part 2? What new understandings might emerge when one works 2
at this intersection of meaning and mattering? 3
References 4
Abowitz, K. (2000). Fun with Barbie: culture jamming an American icon. 5
[www.units.muohio.edu/eduleadership/courses/282/jambarb.html] 6
Allen, K. and Mendick, H. (2012 . You g people s uses of ele it : lass, ge de , a d i p ope ele it . Discourse 34(1), 7
pp.77-93. 8
Baker, S. (2004). Pop in(to) the bedroom: popular music in pre-tee gi ls ultu e. European Journal of Cultural Studies 7(1), 9
pp.75-93. 10
Brown, J., Dykers, C., Steele, J. and White, A. (1994). Teenage room culture: where media and identities intersect, 11
Communication Research 21: 813-827. 12
Bickford, T. (2008 . Kidz op, t ee s a d hildhood usi o su ptio . Consumers, Commodities and Consumption 10(1), 13
unpaginated. 14
Briggs, M. (2006). Beyond the audience: Teletubbies, play and parenthood. European Journal of Cultural Studies 9(4), pp.441-15
450. 16
Bristor, J. and Fischer, E. (1993). Feminist thought: implications for consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research 19(4), 17
pp.518-536. 18
Buckingham, D. (2000). After the death of childhood: growing up in the age of electronic media. Cambridge: Polity. 19
--- (2007). Childhood in the age of global media, Childre s Geographies 5(1), pp.43-54. 20
--- (2011). The material child: growing up in consumer culture. Cambridge: Polity. 21
Buckingham, D., Sefton-Green, J. (2003). Gotta at h e all: st u tu e, age a d pedagog i hild e s edia ultu e. 22
Media, Culture and Society 25(3) pp.379-399. 23
Bunnell, T., Yea, S., Peake, L., Skelton, T. and Smith, M. (2012). Geographies of friendships. Progress in Human Geography 24
36(4), pp.490-511. 25
Cassell, J. and Jenkins, H. (1999). From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: gender and computer games. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. 26
Chin, E. . Eth i all o e t dolls : to i g ith the a e i dust . American Anthropologist 101(2), pp.305-321. 27
Clarke, A. (2000). Mothe s appi g : the t affi ki g of ea l - e hild e s ea . In: Jackson, P., Lowe, M., Miller, D. and 28
Mort, F. (eds.) Commercial cultures: economies, practices, spaces. Oxford: Berg, pp.85-100. 29
20
Collins, R. and Hitchings, R. (2012). A tale of two teens: disciplinary boundaries and geographical opportunities in youth 1
consumption and sustainability research. Area 44(2), pp.193-199. 2
Conradson, D. (2003) Geographies of care: spaces, practices, experiences. Social and Cultural Geography 4(4), pp.451-454 3
Cook, D. (2004). The Commodification of Childhood. Durham NC: Duke University Press. 4
--- (2008). The missing child in consumption theory. Journal of Consumer Culture 8(2), pp.219-243. 5
Cook, D. and Kaiser, S. (2004). Betwixt and be tween: age ambiguity and the sexualisation of the female consuming subject. 6
Journal of Consumer Culture 4(2), pp.203-227. 7
Coopersmith, G. (2006). Fit and female. Hoboken, John Wiley. 8
Crewe, L. and Collins, P. (2006). Commodifying children: fashion, space, and the production of the profitable child. 9
Environment and Planning A 38(1), pp.7-24. 10
C ou h, D. . To s ‘ Us s Stockholm superstore goes gender neutral. 11
[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/23/toys-r-us-stockholm-gender-neutral] 12
Cross, G. (1997). Kids stuff. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. 13
--- (2004). The cute and the cool: wondrous innocence and moder A eri a hildre s ulture. Oxford: Oxford University 14
Press. 15
Dover, C. (2007). Everyday talk: investigating media consumption and identity amongst school children. Particip@tions 4(1), 16
unpaginated. 17
DuCille, A. (1994). Dyes and dolls: multicultural Barbie and the merchandising of difference. Differences 6(1), pp.46-68. 18
Elliott, R. and Leonard, C. (2004). Peer pressure and poverty: exploring fashion brands and consumptions symbolism among 19
hild e of the B itish poo . Journal of Consumer Behaviour 3(4), pp.347-359. 20
Feminist Fatale (2010). Doll parts: Barbie, beauty and resistance [http://www.feministfatale.com/2010/06/doll-parts-barbie-21
beauty-and-resistance/] 22
Fleming, D. (1996). Powerplay: Toys as Popular Culture. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 23
Freedman, R. (1986). Beauty bound. New York: Lexington. 24
Geoghegan, H. (2012). Emotional geographies of enthusiasm: belonging to the Telecommunications Heritage Group. Area 25
45(1), pp.40-46. 26
Gregson, N. and Crewe, L. (2003). Second-hand cultures. Oxford: Berg. 27
21
Griffin, C., Nairn, A., Wickes, P., Phoenix, A., Croghan, R. and Hunter, J. (2008). Girly girls, tomboys, and microwaving Barbie. 1
In: Proceedings of Association for Consumer Research Conference 2008. 2
[http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/gmcb_v08/CP%20paper%201C%20Griffin.pdf] 3
Gunter, B. and Furnham, A. (1998). Children as Consumers. London: Routledge. 4
Hall, S. (2013). Family, austerity and consumption: outlining a new research agenda. Paper presented at Royal Geographical 5
Society / Institute of British Geographers Annual Conference, London, 30th August. 6
Harker, C. (2005). Playing and affective time-spaces. Childre s Geographies 3(1), pp.47-62 7
Horton, J. (2008). Postman Pat and me: everyday encounters with an icon of idyllic rurality. Journal of Rural Studies 24(4), 8
pp.399-408. 9
--- (2010). The est thi g e e : ho hild e s popula ultu e atte s. Social and Cultural Geography 11(4), pp.1470-1497. 10
--- (2012). Got shoes, got Poké o : e e da geog aphies of hild e s popula ultu e. Geoforum 43(1), pp.4-13. 11
Houlton, D. and Short, B. (1995). Sylvanian families: the production and consumption of a rural community. Journal of Rural 12
Studies 11(4), pp.367-385. 13
Kearney, M. (2001). Productive spaces: bedrooms as sites of cultural production. Journal of Children and Media 1(2), pp.126-14
141. 15
Kehily, M. (1999). More Sugar? Teenage magazines, gender displays and sexual learning. European Journal of Cultural Studies 16
2(1), pp.65-89. 17
Kline, S. (1993). Out of the garde : toys a d hildre s ulture i the age of TV ulture. London: Verso. 18
Kline, S., Dyer-Witheford, N., de Peuter, G. (2003). Digital Play: the interaction of technology, culture and marketing. 19
Montreal: McGill-Quee s University Press. 20
Kraftl, P. (2008). Young people, hope and childhood-hope. Space and Culture 11(2), pp.81-92. 21
Kraftl, P., Horton, J. and Tucker, F. (2014). Children's geographies. Oxford Bibliographies Online: Childhood Studies. 22
Kuther, T. and McDonald, E. (2004 . Ea l adoles e ts e pe ie es ith, a d ie s of, Ba ie. Adolescence 39(153), pp.39-51. 23
Langer, B. (2002). Commodified enchantment: children and consumer capitalism. Thesis Eleven 69(1), pp.67-81. 24
Lee, N. (2001). The extensions of childhood: technologies, children and independence. In: Hutchby, I. and Moran-Ellis, J. 25
(eds.) Children, technology and culture: the i pa ts of te h ologies i hildre s everyday lives. London: Routledge, 26
pp.153-169. 27
Lury, K. (2005). The child in film and television. Screen 46(3), pp.307-314. 28
Marshall, D. (ed.) (2010). Understanding children as consumers. London: Sage. 29
22
Martens, L., Southerton, D. and Scott, S. (2004). Bringing children (and parents) into the sociology of consumption, Journal of 1
Consumer Culture 4(2), pp.155-182. 2
McNeal, J. (1992). Kids as Customers. New York: Lexington. 3
--- (1999). The Kids Market. Ithaca: Paramount. 4
McRobbie, A. and Garber, J. (1976). Girls and subcultures, in Hall, S. and Jefferson, T. (eds) Resistance Through Rituals: Youth 5
Subcultures in Post-War Britain. London: Hutchison, pp.209-222. 6
McRobbie, A. (ed) (1991). Fe i is a d Youth Culture: fro Ja kie to Just Seve tee . London: MacMillan. 7
Messner, M. (2000). Barbie versus sea monsters: children constructing gender. Gender and Society 14(6), pp.765-784. 8
Mitchell, C. and Reid-Walsh, J. (2002). ‘esear hi g Childre s Popular Culture. London: Routledge. 9
Moran, J. (2002) Childhood and nostalgia in contemporary culture. European Journal of Cultural Studies 5(2), pp.155-175. 10
Motz, M. . I a t to e a Ba ie doll he I g o up . I Geist, C., Na h a , J., Weise , D. a d W ight, J. eds. The 11
popular culture reader. Bowling Green: Bowling Green University Press, pp.122-136. 12
Pain, R., Grundy, S., Gill, S, Towner, E., Sparks, G and Hughes, K. (2005). “o lo g as I take o ile pho e : o ile pho es, 13
u a life a d geog aphies of ou g people s safet . International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 29(4), 14
pp.814-830. 15
Rand, E. (1995). Bar ie s Queer A essories. Durham NC: Duke University Press. 16
Rand, E. (1998). Older heads on younger bodies. In: Jenkins, H. (ed.) Childre s Culture ‘eader. New York: New York 17
University Press, pp.382-393. 18
Rautio, P. (2013). Children who carry stones in their pockets. Childre s Geographies 11(4), pp.394-408. 19
Roedder, J. (1999). Consumer socialisation of children. Journal of Consumer Research 26(3), pp.183-217. 20
Rogers, D. (1998 . The “pi e t ade. Brandweek 39(37), pp.32-36. 21
Rogers, M. (1999). Barbie culture. London: Sage. 22
‘ussell, ‘. a d T le , M. Tha k hea e fo little gi ls: Gi l Hea e a d the o e ial o te t of fe i i e hildhood. 23
Sociology 36: 619-637. 24
Saltmarsh, S. (2009). Becoming economic subjects: agency, consumption and popular culture in early childhood. Discourse 25
30(1), pp.47-59. 26
Seiter, E. (1992). Toys are us: marketing to children and parents. Cultural Studies 6(2), pp.232-247. 27
--- (1993). Sold Separately: Parents and Children in Consumer Culture. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. 28
23
--- (1998). Child e s desi es / othe s dile as: the so ial o te ts of o su ptio , i Je ki s, H. ed. The Childre s 1
Culture Reader New York: New York University Press, pp.297-317. 2
Steinberg, S. and Kincheloe, J. (1997). Kinderculture: the Cultural Construction of Childhood. Boulder: Westview. 3
Thrift, N. (2003) Closer to the machine? Intelligent environments, new forms of possession and the rise of the supertoy. 4
Cultural Geographies 10(4), pp.389-407. 5
Tierney, K. (2010) Toying with identity: understanding Star Wars and the expanded universe. 6
[http://www.livjm.ac.uk/HSS/HSS_Docs/Tierney.pdf] 7
Tinkler, P. (1995). Constructing Girlhood: Popular Magazines for Girls, 1920-1950. London: Taylor and Francis. 8
Walkerdine, V. (1998) Daddy s girl: you g girls a d popular ulture. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. 9
Watso , ‘. . He , To s ‘ Us, stop th usti g ge de oles o kids. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-10
watson/hey-toys-r-us-stop-thrusting-gender-roles-on-my-kids_b_4025214.html] 11
Willis, S. (1987). Gender as commodity. South Atlantic Quarterly 86, pp.403-421. 12
Woodyer, T. (2008). The body as research tool: embodied practice a d hild e s geog aphies. Childre s Geographies 6(4) 13
pp.349-362. 14
--- (2011) Toys. In: Southerton, D. (ed.) Encyclopaedia of Consumer Culture. Lodnon: Sage, pp.1468-1470. 15
--- (2012) Ludi geographies: ot erely hild s play. Geography Compass 6(6). pp. 313-326 16
Zelizer, V. (1985) Pricing the Priceless Child. New York: Basic Books. 17
--- (2002) Kids and commerce. Childhood 9(4), pp.375-396. 18