Bratz dolls, which came out in 2001, were manufactured to be positioned as a counterpoint to Mattel’s Barbie doll. Their body proportions are said by many observers to be “more realistic” than Barbie could ever be—measured out as approximately 5’6” as opposed to the 6’2”. Their skin, hair, and eye color tend to be dark, as opposed to their blonde, blue-eyed, blanche-white counterpart.

Their clothing is not directly tied to social occasions like proms or weddings, nor is it occupational dress. Instead, they are styled in the contemporary mode for young girls—tending toward tight, revealing midriff tops and skirts. Bratz wear “heavy” (according to some) makeup and big jewelry (“bling,” according to some). One area where Barbie may be more realistic than Bratz is in facial features: Bratz’s full lips and large eyes have been described as “cartoonish.”

Ethnically indeterminate but sexualized through make-up and costume, Bratz have been described as looking like “party girls” and “pole dancers on their way to work.” Your research in this realm has suggested that the “Tween” marketing category “tends to produce and reproduce a 'female consuming subject' who has generally been presumed to be white, middle or upper middle class and heterosexual.”

Does the worldwide popularity of Bratz suggest that this paradigm is shifting?

Observers seem fond of proclaiming that Bratz are “sexualized,” and a good many have no problem calling them sluts, tarts, or prostitutes—as if the sexual life of these pieces of molded plastic was any of their business. The moral tirade against Bratz registers anxieties about white, middle-class (even suburban) girlhood felt to be under siege from the growing presence of “darker” female images and types in the form of Latina, African-American, and other girls of "color.” Bratz are thus understood to be “urban,” although they can “live" anywhere—as “urban” is code in the U.S. context for non-white and dangerous.

Barbie, who was villianized for decades, now stands for some parents as a desirable (or at least comparatively preferable) female image and model. Unsurprisingly, this new valorization is occurring just when the appeal of the Mattel franchise is on the wane—seen as “uncool” and as “mom’s doll” by many of today’s tweens and teens, who relegate the icon to their under eight sisters.

Outright claims about the dirty sexuality of the dolls and their implied influence on anyone who plays with them relies on a kind of “material determinism”—i.e., the notion that objects have essential properties which exert clear and measurable influence over behavior. Yet, many a feminist played with Barbie in her youth and many a pacifist had toy guns and a GI Joe.

A good deal of the clothing and style of young tween girls (reflected in the Bratz outfits and styles) appear “sexy” to adult observers. But to preteen girls, Bratz’s style represents autonomy, coolness, and, sometimes, fun. Many of these girls would find it sick that someone thought that the dolls were sexy or that they were trying to be sexy by sporting a similar style. Girls this age seek maturity and independence and, when these cannot be obtained in any substantial way, they seek it out stylistically.

The problem and concern here is that maturity has come to be located on girls’ bodies rather than, say, in their actions or knowledge. The dolls in this way represent an aspirational identity for their owners.

Bratz is not just a doll—it is an enormous integrated marketing strategy that includes ancillary Bratz videos, books, and Web sites (themselves vehicles for more advertising), as well as other lines of dolls and products from Gameboy to stationery.

Can you suggest some reasons for MGA Entertainment’s huge international marketing success?

Bratz’ global success in large part rests on the openness of their meaning and use. The indeterminate ethnicity of their skin color and features has allowed them to be incorporated into any number of non-white identities. Many young mothers today do not see the styles as necessarily sexualized, inappropriate, or specifically American—but understand them to be gesturing toward a more global tween image. On the other hand, Barbie is, as cultural analysts say, “overdetermined” or “over-coded”—its meaning hemmed in by decades of use and representation. Barbie has baggage (a lot of it) including being “American.” In part, global success here is about shirking a decidedly stereotypical American image.

One would think that parents in nearly every culture would be uncomfortable with their preteen daughters playing at being “sassy”—the toy industry’s euphemism for sexy. But Bratz's worldwide popularity suggests that their marketing has successfully ignored universal parental discomfort and promotes these images of femaleness with great success.

Do you see a qualitative difference between the “aspirational” maturity for ‘tweens” suggested by these dolls and their marketing promotion and that of previous generations that you chronicled in your article, with Susan Kaiser,"Betwixt and be Tween: Age Ambiguity and the Sexualization of the Female Consuming Subject" in the Journal of Consumer Culture ?

Many young mothers today do not see the styles as necessarily sexualized, inappropriate or, for that matter, specifically American--but understand them to be gesturing toward emulating a generalized tween girl image found in many films, television shows, and magazines. I see it as a convergence toward a global tween silhouette--not completely shared across the board, of course, but nontheless recognizable as a general mode.

Most of the concern expressed about Bratz dolls deflects discussion and analysis away from the larger contexts of children’s commercial lives. From the crib onward, children in the U.S. and other wealthy nations can move through the early years of life having each “phase” accompanied by media characters—from Baby Einstein to Teletubbies to Blues Clues to Dora the Explorer to the Disney princesses. Current criticism against Bratz dolls--in addition to the ethnic and class overtones--pits one commodity against another, rather than questioning the entire trajectory and system whereby childhood and adulthood find significant social expression and meaning through brands and media images.