Summary: A Rhetorical Response To Roland Barthes Toys

Jessica Callis
Crook
Eng102-24130
November 13, 2014
Toys vs. Technology:
A Rhetorical Response to Roland Barthes’ Toys Children’s toys, from generation to generation have no doubt changed. I’ve seen the sock monkeys, rubber-band guns, and blinking baby dolls pulled from dusty boxes in the attic which at one point in the ancient past had been the favorite toys of my parents when they were kids. Somewhere stashed away in my own attic lays my Fisher-Price Music Box Record Player, my Barbies, and my brother’s G.I. Joes. Now, in a time when popular toys from my childhood are being auctioned off on eBay with price tags in the thousands, I’m saddened by the realization: my young children rarely play with toys at all. Despite the mountains of toys
they have accumulated in their rooms, any interest they might have in playing with them continues to dwindle by the minute as it seems touch-screen laden smartphones, tablets, and video game consoles have more often than not replaced the traditional “toy box” known to generations past.
In Toys, written in 1957, Roland Barthes illustrates his opinion of how, “All the toys one commonly sees are essentially a microcosm of the adult world; they are all reduced copies of human objects” (25), in other words, these toys are merely smaller versions of everyday adult items meant to familiarize the child with adult routines and responsibilities, leaving the nature of the toy in all actuality cold, unimaginative and bland.
But currently Barthes’ point is only half the argument, and could even be considered obsolete in an age when children are submersed in technology from infancy as more often young children are choosing electronic touchscreen devices over traditional dolls, action figures, board games, and things of the like. In fact, a recent poll conducted in February of this year “found more than 60% of parents claiming that their child uses a touchscreen […] and experts say their popularity is still rocketing” (Prigg
1).
Taking into consideration Barthes’ point of view, while it offers valuable perspective to reflect upon the pining’s of adults from previous generations and their perception of children’s toys whose blinking lights and electronic, self-moving parts may have seemed scary and unfamiliar to them, Barthes’ trepidation toward the next generation of toys in 1957 could never have accounted for today’s growing technology trend. While it is alarming to think of the traditional toys and play we remember as children becoming an antiquity due to our fascination with technology, it is still difficult to deny the beneficial aspect of familiarizing children with technology at an appropriate age. With access allocated responsibly by parents, I believe some applications can help prepare kids and provide them with the valuable skills needed to adapt to the ever-changing world of technology, which they must be prepared for when eventually entering an educational (and later, a professional workplace) setting. It’s also nice to be able to ask my 8 year old to program the settings to my iPhone when I get frustrated and can’t figure it out myself. At the same time, I’m concerned by this growing trend of replacing toys with technology for the specific reason that “[e]lectronics are by nature pre-programmed and simply cannot provide the same open-ended play opportunities as traditional toys” (Stanek 1). Yet an increasing number of parents and children are substituting them for traditional toys and play. Whenever one of my children attempts to argue with me over how much time they should spend playing with their electronics of choice, they are doled out a solid helping of how back in my day we played outside instead of inside on computers. They are bored by the telling of how when I was their age, I built towers with actual blocks I could touch. I knocked them over with my hands and feet; whereas each one of my kids would prefer to chuck surly, electronic birds at computer-generated blocks, so they can cheer at the digitally-simulated crash on a hand-held screen.
Consider for a moment the popular electronic games Angry Birds or Minecraft. While these games offer some element of creativity, an electronic building-block structure can never offer the physically tangible exercise of the child experimentally creating a structure block by block through trial and error, culminating in the ceremonious knocking down of the newly created structure to pieces on the floor, providing the always excitable crashing sound of which electronic games and touchscreen applications just cannot effectively duplicate. “And what if the child decides in the course of block building that it’s not that structure or any structure he or she wants to build but would rather invite a friend to play knights and pretend the blocks are bricks of gold they’re loading into a wagon to haul to the king?” (Stanek 2). Electronic games and touchscreen applications just don’t offer the child that type of diversity, and instead perpetuate isolated, single-child play providing little to no person-to-person interaction for the child. This is where we as parents have a responsibility to protect traditional play, restrict our children’s use of electronics during playtime, and educate ourselves about the developmental growth offered only through traditional play.
As stated by Michael Rayal, MD on his website, Parenting 101, “traditional games [and play] can help kids learn to acknowledge their emotions […] kids learn to deal with frustration after a loss, with excitement after a win, with anger after getting a “bad turn,” with anxiety when pride is on the line […] kids also learn how to communicate politely with other players” (1). I believe these are essential interactions which directly contribute to a child’s social development which he or she cannot experience while using electronic games and touchscreen applications. Just as Barthes acknowledges “toys always mean something, and this something is always entirely socialized, constituted by the myths or techniques of modern adult life” (27), we have a responsibility as parents to heavily consider if this technological aspect of adult life is an appropriate replacement for traditional toys and play. More importantly we must ask ourselves, what will become of future generations if they never play with toys or each
other?
Works Cited
Barthes, Roland. “Toys.” 1957. Reading Pop Culture: A Portable Anthology. By Jeffrey Ousborne. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2013. 25-29. Print.
Prigg, Mark. “How The iPad Replaced The Toy Chest.” Dailymail.co.uk. 21 Feb. 2014. Web. 4 Nov. 2014.
Rayel, Michael G., MD. “Parenting 101: “How Can Traditional Games Benefit Your Child?” Selfgrowth.com. 2104. Web. 7 Nov. 2014.
Stanek, Nancy. “Electronic vs. Traditional Toys: The WhooHoo Factor.” Your Neighborhood Toystore.org. 26 Nov. 2012. Web. 4 Nov. 2014.