Academic literature on the topic 'Young-adult=2013-02-24'

ImportanceA cancer diagnosis is associated with substantial economic burden for patients and their families. Young adult cancer survivors with dependent children may be particularly vulnerable to financial hardship.ObjectiveTo examine associations of parental cancer with their children’s unmet economic needs.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cross-sectional study used data from the nationally representative 2013 to 2018 US National Health Interview Survey. Children aged 5 to 17 years living in families with and without parental cancer history were queried about recent 1-year experiences. Statistical analyses were conducted from January 2022 to April 2023.ExposureParental cancer history.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe main outcomes were children’s unmet economic needs, including family-level food insecurity, parent’s financial worry about paying for monthly bills and housing costs, and delayed child medical care owing to lack of transportation. Multivariable logistic regressions adjusted for (1) child’s characteristics (ie, age group, sex, and race and ethnicity), (2) parent’s characteristics (ie, age group, sex, health insurance coverage, comorbid conditions, and obesity status), and (3) family’s characteristics (ie, family structure [married or cohabiting parents vs single parent families], highest educational attainment in the family, and family income). Additional analyses focused on children with a parental cancer history to identify potentially modifiable characteristics associated with unmet economic needs.ResultsIn this cross-sectional study of 22 941 children with (812 children; weighted number, 860 488 children) and without (22 129 children; weighted number, 24 545 463 children) a parental cancer history, the majority of children were aged 5 to 11 years (12 022 children [52.4%]), male (11 920 children [52.0%]), and non-Hispanic White (11 863 children [51.7%]). In adjusted analyses, parental cancer history was associated with more severe family-level food insecurity, including worrying about food running out (odds ratio [OR], 1.97; 95% CI, 1.56-2.49; P < .001), food not lasting (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.56-2.58; P < .001), and inability to afford balanced meals (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.06-1.79; P = .02). Moreover, parental cancer history was associated with parent’s worry about paying monthly bills (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.15-1.74; P = .001) and housing-related costs (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.07-1.60; P = .009) and delays in child medical care because of lack of transportation (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.49-3.59; P < .001). Among children with parental cancer history, female children, non-Hispanic Black children, children whose parents had multiple comorbidities, and children living in low-income families were especially vulnerable to unmet economic needs.Conclusions and RelevanceParental cancer is associated with greater likelihood of food insecurity, unaffordability of housing and other necessities, and transportation barriers to medical care for minor children. Strategies to identify such children and address their needs are warranted.

All of the region's raptors are listed in the Red Book of the Novosibirsk Region and are rare and protected, and thus their sightings by bird watchers are of interest to the professional community of ornithologists. We have summarized our sightings in of the White-Tailed Eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) and Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) in Novosibirsk Region in recent years, and we present them below. Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) was sighted 04/11/2019 near Elbashi in Iskitimsky District and 9/01/2022 above garden cottages, 3 km southeast of Novosibirsk-Akademgorodok. Steppe Eagle (Aquila nipalensis) was sighted in the Karasuk District on 30/04/2017 near the Krotovo Lake and in Toguchinsky District (2 km north of the village of Gorny) on 25/07/2021. Greater Spotted Eagle (Aquila [Clanga] clanga): In Zdvinsky District, observations occurred 07–10/05/2021, 18–21/06/2021, 29/08–04/09/2021, 10–13/05/2022, 10–15/08/2022, 05–08/09/2022, 10–13/05/2023, and 27/08–01/09/2023. Over these time intervals, Greater Spotted Eagles were sighted in every instance excepfor May 2021 and May 2022. On a 7-km long section, bounded by the Zolotye Rossypi watercourse and the adjacent swampy area on one side and by Chulymenok River near Chanovsky Research Station (Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences), 7–12 Greater Spotted Eagle sightings occurred on 28–30/08/2023 and 01/09/2023. In May 2023, the maximum number of Greater Spotted Eagle was recorded along the road between Chulym and Shirokaya Kurya – four birds per 8 km. On 31/08/2023, a light morph (fulvescens) Greater Spotted Eagle was encountered near the scientific station. On 03/09/2021, a Greater Spotted Eagle killed by a power line was found near the Chulym–Shirokaya Kurya road. On 29/05/2023, a Greater Spotted Eagle was sighted sitting on the traverse support of a bird-hazardous power line near a currentcarrying wire near Zdvinsk-Chulym Road. In the Karasuk District, a Greater Spotted Eagle has been repeatedly observed near Krotovo Lake, Astrodym Lake, and Bolshaya Zamaranka between May and September in different years (observations have been conducted sporadically since the autumn 2014 at the Karasuk Research Station of the Institute of Economics and Life Sciences of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The earliest sightings occurred on 02/05/2021 and 02/05/2022, and the latest occurred on 25/09/2014. In summer it was recorded on 27/06/2021 and 02/07/2021. On 24/09/2014, a light morph (fulvescens) Greater Spotted Eagle was recorded (Karyakin et al., 2014) near Lake Krotovo. Greater Spotted Eagle have been observed near Rasskazovo (09/04/2018), near lakes Kundraki (12/09/2020), Titovo (22/08/2021), Kruglenkoye (26/08/2021), Stelkyannoye (27/08/2021), Karasuk (near Novokarasuk village, 07/09/2021), and Studenoye (04/09/2022). A Greater Spotted Eagle was sighted in Bagan District near Matveychikovo Lake (08/21/2021), near the uninhabited village of Chulakovo (28/08/2021), and near Osinniki 18/08/2022. On 01/09/2021, three sightings were documented in Barabinsky District: near Ust-Tandovka, near Kozhevnikovo and near Lake Domashneye. A Greater Spotted Eagle was sighted in Iskitimsky District on 07/19/2020 near Dubinsky. A Greater Spotted Eagle was encountered in Novosibirsk Oblast on 03/04/2020 above Klyuchi-1 Non-commercial Gardening Partnership. A Greater Spotted Eagle was seen in Novosibirsk-Akademgorodok and the Central Siberian Botanical Garden on 09/04/2011, 22/09/2012, and 14/04/2013. Based on our observations in Novosibirsk Oblast, the Greater Spotted Eagle is the most common eagle species. The White-Tailed Eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) has been observed nesting since 2008 on a spit between the Ob River and a lock channel at Novosibirskaya HPP (Andreenkov et al., 2009). Eagle sightings occur yearround above Novosibirsk-Akademgorodok, Central Siberian Botanical Garden, across Novosibirsk Region south and southeast of Akademgorodok, over the Ob River below the HPP on the outskirts of Novosibirsk and in Iskitimsky District. A sighting occurred on 27/02/2021 near Shipunovo in Suzunsky District, 97 km from the HPP reservoir, presumably the nearest unfrozen water (the bird fed on the remains of the animal). In addition, a White-Tailed Eagle was encountered near Verkh-Koen (28 km from the Ob Reservoir) on 18/10/2020 and on 11/03/2023 near Mikhailovka in Iskitimsky District (40 km from the HPP). In the Zdvinsky District, there is a White-Tailed Eagle nest in a forest belt within a rook colony near Chanovsky Hospital. According to hospital employees, it has existed for over 30 years, but in August 2022 the nesting tree fell. On 08/05/2021, a disturbance of a pair of eagles near the nest was noted. On 19/06/2021, a nestling was sighted in the nest and one young female flew nearby. On 11/05/2022, unsettled adult birds were also observed near the nest. Also, according to hospital staff, there was another nest in its vicinity that fell in summer of 2023. They also reported a new nest, which appeared in the vicinity of the hospital in May 2023 (both of the latter were in hard-to-reach forest stands). Another nest was found near Zdvinsk-Chulym Road with sightings of an adult bird departing the nest on 10/05/2021, 13/05/2022, and 11/05/2023; an inspection on 21/06/2021 did not spot the eagle. During counts on 28–30 August 2023 and 01/09/2023, up to four White-Tailed Eagles were noted on 19/09/2016 at the site described earlier near Chanovsky Research Station. In Karasuksky District two White-Tailed Eagles were observed on 19/09/2016 near Krotovo Lake, and one bird was noted on 20/08/2021 near Zhuravlinka Wetland (near Rasskazovo). An occupied nest was observed in Yuzhny Nature Refuge on 08/05/2023 (discovered 09/08/2010 by A. Bazdyrev, pers. comm.). On the same day, the eagle was encountered near Zimnoye Lake (possibly from the same pair). On 15/08/2023, a White-Tailed Eagle was sighted near Karasuk Lake. In Bagansky District, an eagle was encountered on 31/08/2022 near the uninhabited village of Chulakovo. In the Ordynsky District, a White-Tailed Eagle was sighted on 29/04/2017 near Vagaitsevo and on 17/07/2021 near Novy Sharap. An Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) has only been sighted on its fall migration: above the Koen River not far from Morozovo on 22/09/2019 and twice 1.5 hours apart on 17/09/2022, 3 km from Burmistrovo over the Miltyush River.

Мета. У статті відображено результати теоретичного огляду вітчизняних та іноземних наукових видань щодо питання гендерних відмінностей у сприйнятті особистістю власного онкодіагнозу. Проведене детальне науково-теоретичне обґрунтування гендерних відмінностей у психологічному дистресі осіб, які зіткнулись з онкологічним діагнозом, буде корисним для розробки відповідних програм психологічного втручання заради зниження дистресу онкопацієнтів. Методи дослідження передбачали всебічний аналіз відомостей щодо гендерних відмінностей у психологічному дистресі осіб, які зіткнулись з онкологічним діагнозом. Для цього використано систематичний огляд та узагальнення даних, представлених низкою українських та зарубіжних досліджень стосовно психологічного стану онкопацієнтів. Результати продемонстрували, що пацієнти, які зіткнулись з онкологічним діагнозом, виявляють значний рівень психологічного дистресу як під час діагностики та лікування, так і на етапі ремісії онкозахворювання. Нами було виявлено певний зв’язок між клінічними та демографічними характеристиками пацієнтів: існує кореляція між молодшим віком пацієнтів і вищим рівнем психологічного дистресу при діагностиці раку; рівень дистресу коливається у різних груп пацієнтів, зокрема у тих, в кого виявлено останню стадію, він зазвичай вищий. Гендерні відмінності в реакції на рак, свідчать про те, що реакція чоловіків та жінок може варіюватися, зокрема в плані рівня психологічного дистресу та емоційних відповідей на онкологічні захворювання. Висновки. На основі отриманих результатів встановлено, що психологічний дистрес у пацієнтів з онкологічними діагнозами є відомою психологічною проблемою. Гендерні, так само як демографічні та клінічні, характеристики виявилися важливими у визначенні рівня дистресу: молоді жінки, а також ті, хто стикається з більш серйозними стадіями онкологічних захворювань або має декілька діагнозів, зазвичай схильні до більшої емоційної реакції. Отримані результати дослідження свідчать про необхідність врахування гендерних та індивідуальних особливостей пацієнтів при розробці підтримки в психоонкологічній практиці.
 Література
 
 Будкіна, О.В., & Волинець, Н.В. (2017). Особливості психоемоційних станів онкологічних хворих.Збірник наукових праць Хмельницького інституту соціальних технологій Університету Україна, 14, 184–188.
 Кирилова, О.О., Кирилова, Є.І., & Вострокнутов, І.Л. (2020). Особливості соматопсихічних проявів в онкології на різних етапах протипухлинного лікування (оглядова стаття).Актуальні проблеми сучасної медицини, 6, 84–92.
 Кривоніс, Т.Г., & Жулкевич, І.В. (2020). Гендерні особливості прояву клініко-психологічних феноменів у онкологічних пацієнтів. Здобутки клінічної і експериментальної медицини, 1, 115–119.
 Мухаровська, І.Р. (2016). Особливості психологічного реагування на захворювання у онкологічних хворих.ScienceRise: Medical Science, 11(7), 16–20.
 Піонтковська, О.В. (2013). Гендерні аспекти психоемоційного стану батьків онкохворих дітей. Медична психологія, 8(2),12–18.
 Родіна, Н.В. (2012). Копінг-поведінка пацієнтів з раком молочної залози. Структура та детермінанти. Наука і освіта, 3, 86–91.
 Ayubi,, Bashirian, S., & Khazaei, S. (2021). Depression and anxiety among patients with cancer during COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Canc, 52, 499–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12029-021-00643-9
 Brain,, Williams, B., Iredale, R., France, L., & Gray, J. (2006). Psychological distress in men with breast cancer. J Clin Oncology, 24(1), 95–101. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.10.064
 Buccafusca, G., Proserpio, I., Tralongo, A.C., Giuliano, S.R., & Tralongo, P. (2019). Early colorectal cancer: diagnosis, treatment and survivorship care. Critical reviews in oncology/hematology, 136, 20–30.
 Carroll, B.T., Kathol, R.G., Noyes, Jr R., Wald, T.G., & Clamon, G.H. (1993). Screening for depression and anxiety in cancer patients using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. General hospital psychiatry, 15(2), 69–74.
 Faller, H., Weis, J., Koch, U., Brähler, E., Härter, M., Keller, M., ... & Mehnert, A. (2016). Perceived need for psychosocial support depending on emotional distress and mental comorbidity in men and women with cancer. Journal of psychosomatic research, 81, 24–30.
 Ford, S., Lewis, S., & Fallowfield, L. (1995). Psychological morbidity in newly referred patients with cancer. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 39(2), 193–202.
 Gallagher, J., Parle, M., & Cairns, D. (2002). Appraisal and psychological distress six months after diagnosis of breast cancer. British journal of health psychology, 7(3), 365–376.
 Goldzweig, G., Hubert, A., Walach, N., Brenner, B., Perry, S., Andritsch, E., & Baider, L. (2009). Gender and psychological distress among middle-and older-aged colorectal cancer patients and their spouses: an unexpected outcome. Critical reviews in oncology/hematology, 70(1), 71–82.
 Hamilton, J., & Kroska, E.B. (2018). Distress predicts utilization of psychosocial health services in oncology patients. Psychooncology, 28, 61–67. DOI: 10.1002/ pon.4910
 Hampton, M.R., & Frombach, I. (2000). Women's experience of traumatic stress in cancer treatment. Health Care for Women International, 21(1), 67–76.
 Han, C.J., Yang, G.S., & Syrjala, K. (2020). Symptom experiences in colorectal cancer survivors after cancer treatments: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer nursing, 43(3), E132.
 Kim, G.M., Kim, S.J., Song, S.K., Kim, H.R., Kang, B.D., Noh, S.H., et al. Prevalence and prognostic implications of psychological distress in patients with gastric cancer. BMC Cancer, 17(283). Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12885-017-3260-2
 Koyama, A., Matsuoka, H., Ohtake, Y., et al. (2016). Gender differences in cancer-related distress in Japan: a retrospective observation study. BioPsychoSocial Med, 10. Retrieved from https://bpsmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13030-016-0062-8
 Lim, C.Y.S., Laidsaar‐Powell, R.C., Young, J.M., Kao, S.C.H., Zhang, Y., & Butow, P. (2021). Colorectal cancer survivorship: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative research. European Journal of Cancer Care, 30(4), e13421.
 Maguire, R., Kotronoulas, G., Simpson, & M., Paterson, C.A. (2015). systematic review of the supportive care needs of women living with and beyond cervical cancer. Gynecologic oncology, 136(3), 478–490.
 Mehnert, A., Hartung, T.J., Friedrich, M., Vehling, S., Brahler, E., Harter, M., et al. (2018). One in two cancer patients is significantly distressed: prevalence and indicators of distress. Psychooncology, 27, 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.4464
 Mols, F., Schoormans, D., de Hingh, I., Oerlemans, S., & Husson, O. (2018). Symptoms of anxiety and depression among colorectal cancer survivors from the population‐based, longitudinal PROFILES Registry: Prevalence, predictors, and impact on quality of life. Cancer, 124(12), 2621–2628.
 Mosher, C., & Danoff-Burg, S.A. (2005). Review of Age Differences in Psychological Adjustment to Breast Cancer. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology, 23, 101–114.
 SEER Cancer Statistics Review 1975 – 2005. (2008). National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD. 
 NCCN. (2020). Дистрес під час лікування раку. Retrieved from https://www.nccn.org/patients/guidelines/content/PDF/Distress-uk-patient.pdf
 Obispo-Portero, B., Cruz-Castellanos, P., Jiménez-Fonseca, P., et al. (2020). Anxiety and depression in patients with advanced cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. Support Care Cancer, 30, 3363–3370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-021-06789-3 
 Peng, Y.N., Huang, M.L., & Kao, C. H. (2019). Prevalence of depression and anxiety in colorectal cancer patients: a literature review. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16(3), 411.
 Pitman, A., Suleman, S., Hyde, N., & Hodgkiss, A. (2018). Depression and anxiety in patients with cancer. BMJ, 361, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k1415
 Reese J. B., Handorf E., Haythornthwaite J. A. Sexual quality of life, body image distress, and psychosocial outcomes in colorectal cancer: a longitudinal study. Supportive Care in Cancer, 2018, 26, 3431-3440.
 Schnittker, J. (2005). Chronic Illness and Depressive Symptoms in Late Life. Social Science and Medicine, 60,13–23.
 Tamura, S., Suzuki, K., Ito,, & Fukawa, A. (2021). Factor related to the resilience and mental health of adult cancer patients: a systematic review. Support Care Cancer, 29, 3471–3486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-020-05943-7.
 Taniguchi, K., Akechi, T., Suzuki, S., Mihara, M., & Uchitomi, Y. (2003). Lack of marital support and poor psychological responses in male cancer patients. Supportive Care in Cancer, 11, 604–610.
 TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours. (2009). (7th edition). L. Sobin, M. Gospodarowicz, Ch. Wittekind (Eds.). West Sussex : Wiley Blackwell, A John Wiley & Sons.
 Vyas, A., Babcock, Z., & Kogut, S. (2017). Impact of depression treatment on health-related quality of life among adults with cancer and depression: a population-level analysis. J Cancer Surviv, 11(5), 624–633.

Image 1: A Little Free Library. Image credit: Nadine Kozak.IntroductionLittle Free Libraries give people a reason to stop and exchange things they love: books. It seemed like a really good way to build a sense of community.Dannette Lank, Little Free Library steward, Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin, 2013 (Rumage)Against a backdrop of stagnant literacy rates and enduring perceptions of urban decay and the decline of communities in cities (NCES, “Average Literacy”; NCES, “Average Prose”; Putnam 25; Skogan 8), legions of Little Free Libraries (LFLs) have sprung up across the United States between 2009 and the present. LFLs are small, often homemade structures housing books and other physical media for passersby to choose a book to take or leave a book to share with others. People have installed the structures in front of homes, schools, libraries, churches, fire and police stations, community gardens, and in public parks. There are currently 50,000 LFLs around the world, most of which are in the continental United States (Aldrich, “Big”). LFLs encompass building in multiple senses of the term; LFLs are literally tiny buildings to house books and people use the structures for building neighbourhood social capital. The organisation behind the movement cites “building community” as one of its three core missions (Little Free Library). Rowan Moore, theorising humans’ reasons for building, argues desire and emotion are central (16). The LFL movement provides evidence for this claim: stewards erect LFLs based on hope for increased literacy and a desire to build community through their altruistic actions. This article investigates how LFLs build urban community and explores barriers to the endeavour, specifically municipal building and right of way ordinances used in attempts to eradicate the structures. It also examines local responses to these municipal actions and potential challenges to traditional public libraries brought about by LFLs, primarily the decrease of visits to public libraries and the use of LFLs to argue for defunding of publicly provided library services. The work argues that LFLs build community in some places but may threaten other community services. This article employs qualitative content analysis of 261 stewards’ comments about their registered LFLs on the organisation’s website drawn from the two largest cities in a Midwestern state and an interview with an LFL steward in a village in the same state to analyse how LFLs build community. The two cities, located in the state where the LFL movement began, provide a cross section of innovators, early adopters, and late adopters of the book exchanges, determined by their registered charter numbers. Press coverage and municipal documents from six cities across the US gathered through a snowball sample provide data about municipal challenges to LFLs. Blog posts penned by practising librarians furnish some opinions about the movement. This research, while not a representative sample, identifies common themes and issues around LFLs and provides a basis for future research.The act of building and curating an LFL is a representation of shared beliefs about literacy, community, and altruism. Establishing an LFL is an act of civic participation. As Nico Carpentier notes, while some civic participation is macro, carried out at the level of the nation, other participation is micro, conducted in “the spheres of school, family, workplace, church, and community” (17). Ruth H. Landman investigates voluntary activities in the city, including community gardening, and community bakeries, and argues that the people associated with these projects find themselves in a “denser web of relations” than previously (2). Gretchen M. Herrmann argues that neighbourhood garage sales, although fleeting events, build an enduring sense of community amongst participants (189). Ray Oldenburg contends that people create associational webs in what he calls “great good places”; third spaces separate from home and work (20-21). Little Free Libraries and Community BuildingEmotion plays a central role in the decision to become an LFL steward, the person who establishes and maintains the LFL. People recount their desire to build a sense of community and share their love of reading with neighbours (Charter 4684; Charter 8212; Charter 9437; Charter 9705; Charter 16561). One steward in the study reported, “I love books and I want to be able to help foster that love in our neighbourhood as well” (Charter 4369). Image 2: A Little Free Library, bench, water fountain, and dog’s water bowl for passersby to enjoy. Image credit: Nadine Kozak.Relationships and emotional ties are central to some people’s decisions to have an LFL. The LFL website catalogues many instances of memorial LFLs, tributes to librarians, teachers, and avid readers. Indeed, the first Little Free Library, built by Todd Bol in 2009, was a tribute to his late mother, a teacher who loved reading (“Our History”). In the two city study area, ten LFLs are memorials, allowing bereaved families to pass on a loved one’s penchant for sharing books and reading (Charter 1235; Charter 1309; Charter 4604; Charter 6219; Charter 6542; Charter 6954; Charter 10326; Charter 16734; Charter 24481; Charter 30369). In some cases, urban neighbours come together to build, erect, and stock LFLs. One steward wrote: “Those of us who live in this friendly neighborhood collaborated to design[,] build and paint a bungalow themed library” to match the houses in the neighbourhood (Charter 2532). Another noted: “Our neighbor across the street is a skilled woodworker, and offered to build the library for us if we would install it in our yard and maintain it. What a deal!” (Charter 18677). Community organisations also install and maintain LFLs, including 21 in the study population (e.g. Charter 31822; Charter 27155).Stewards report increased communication with neighbours due to their LFLs. A steward noted: “We celebrated the library’s launch on a Saturday morning with neighbors of all ages. We love sitting on our front porch and catching up with the people who stop to check out the books” (Charter 9673). Another exclaimed:within 24 hours, before I had time to paint it, my Little Free Library took on a life of its own. All of a sudden there were lots of books in it and people stopping by. I wondered where these books came from as I had not put any in there. Little kids in the neighborhood are all excited about it and I have met neighbors that I had never seen before. This is going to be fun! (Charter 15981)LFLs build community through social interaction and collaboration. This occurs when neighbours come together to build, install, and fill the structures. The structures also open avenues for conversation between neighbours who had no connection previously. Like Herrmann’s neighbourhood garage sales, LFLs create and maintain social ties between neighbours and link them by the books they share. Additionally, when neighbours gather and communicate at the LFL structure, they create a transitory third space for “informal public life”, where people can casually interact at a nearby location (Oldenburg 14, 288).Building Barriers, Creating CommunityThe erection of an LFL in an urban neighbourhood is not, however, always a welcome sight. The news analysis found that LFLs most often come to the attention of municipal authorities via citizen complaints, which lead to investigations and enforcement of ordinances. In Kansas, a neighbour called an LFL an “eyesore” and an “illegal detached structure” (Tapper). In Wisconsin, well-meaning future stewards contacted their village authorities to ask about rules, inadvertently setting off a six-month ban on LFLs (Stingl; Rumage). Resulting from complaints and inquiries, municipalities regulated, and in one case banned, LFLs, thus building barriers to citizens’ desires to foster community and share books with neighbours.Municipal governments use two major areas of established code to remove or prohibit LFLs: ordinances banning unapproved structures in residents’ yards and those concerned with obstructions to right of ways when stewards locate the LFLs between the public sidewalk and street.In the first instance, municipal ordinances prohibit either front yard or detached structures. Controversies over these ordinances and LFLs erupted in Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin, in 2012; Leawood, Kansas, in 2014; Shreveport, Louisiana, in 2015; and Dallas, Texas, in 2015. The Village of Whitefish Bay banned LFLs due to an ordinance prohibiting “front yard structures,” including mailboxes (Sanburn; Stingl). In Leawood, the city council argued that an LFL, owned by a nine-year-old boy, violated an ordinance that forbade the construction of any detached structures without city council permission. In Shreveport, the stewards of an LFL received a cease and desist letter from city council for having an “accessory structure” in the front yard (LaCasse; Burris) and Dallas officials knocked on a steward’s front door, informing her of a similar breach (Kellogg).In the second instance, some urban municipalities argued that LFLs are obstructions that block right of ways. In Lincoln, Nebraska, the public works director noted that the city “uses the area between the sidewalk and the street for snow storage in the winter, light poles, mailboxes, things like that.” The director continued: “And I imagine these little libraries are meant to congregate people like a water cooler, but we don’t want people hanging around near the road by the curb” (Heady). Both Lincoln in 2014 and Los Angeles (LA), California, in 2015, cited LFLs for obstructions. In Lincoln, the city notified the Southminster United Methodist Church that their LFL, located between the public sidewalk and street, violated a municipal ordinance (Sanburn). In LA, the Bureau of Street Services notified actor Peter Cook that his LFL, situated in the right of way, was an “obstruction” that Cook had to remove or the city would levy a fine (Moss). The city agreed at a hearing to consider a “revocable permit” for Cook’s LFL, but later denied its issuance (Condes).Stewards who found themselves in violation of municipal ordinances were able to harness emotion and build outrage over limits to individuals’ ability to erect LFLs. In Kansas, the stewards created a Facebook page, Spencer’s Little Free Library, which received over 31,000 likes and messages of support. One comment left on the page reads: “The public outcry will force those lame city officials to change their minds about it. Leave it to the stupid government to rain on everybody’s parade” (“Good”). Children’s author Daniel Handler sent a letter to the nine-year-old steward, writing as Lemony Snicket, “fighting against librarians is immoral and useless in the face of brave and noble readers such as yourself” (Spencer’s). Indeed, the young steward gave a successful speech to city hall arguing that the body should allow the structures because “‘lots of people in the neighborhood used the library and the books were always changing. I think it’s good for Leawood’” (Bauman). Other local LFL supporters also attended council and spoke in favour of the structures (Harper). In LA, Cook’s neighbours started a petition that gathered over 100 signatures, where people left comments including, “No to bullies!” (Lopez). Additionally, neighbours gathered to discuss the issue (Dana). In Shreveport, neighbours left stacks of books in their front yards, without a structure housing them due to the code banning accessory structures. One noted, “I’m basically telling the [Metropolitan Planning Commission] to go sod off” (Friedersdorf; Moss). LFL proponents reacted with frustration and anger at the perceived over-reach of the government toward harmless LFLs. In addition to the actions of neighbours and supporters, the national and local press commented on the municipal constraints. The LFL movement has benefitted from a significant amount of positive press in its formative years, a press willing to publicise and criticise municipal actions to thwart LFL development. Stewards’ struggles against municipal bureaucracies building barriers to LFLs makes prime fodder for the news media. Herbert J. Gans argues an enduring value in American news is “the preservation of the freedom of the individual against the encroachments of nation and society” (50). The juxtaposition of well-meaning LFL stewards against municipal councils and committees provided a compelling opportunity to illustrate this value.National media outlets, including Time (Sanburn), Christian Science Monitor (LaCasse), and The Atlantic, drew attention to the issue. Writing in The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf critically noted:I wish I was writing this to merely extol this trend [of community building via LFLs]. Alas, a subset of Americans are determined to regulate every last aspect of community life. Due to selection bias, they are overrepresented among local politicians and bureaucrats. And so they have power, despite their small-mindedness, inflexibility, and lack of common sense so extreme that they’ve taken to cracking down on Little Free Libraries, of all things. (Friedersdorf, n.p.)Other columnists mirrored this sentiment. Writing in the LA Times, one commentator sarcastically wrote that city officials were “cracking down on one of the country’s biggest problems: small community libraries where residents share books” (Schaub). Journalists argued this was government overreach on non-issues rather than tackling larger community problems, such as income inequality, homelessness, and aging infrastructure (Solomon; Schaub). The protests and negative press coverage led to, in the case of the municipalities with front yard and detached structure ordinances, détente between stewards and councils as the latter passed amendments permitting and regulating LFLs. Whitefish Bay, Leawood, and Shreveport amended ordinances to allow for LFLs, but also to regulate them (Everson; Topil; Siegel). Ordinances about LFLs restricted their number on city blocks, placement on private property, size and height, as well as required registration with the municipality in some cases. Lincoln officials allowed the church to relocate the LFL from the right of way to church property and waived the $500 fine for the obstruction violation (Sanburn). In addition to the amendments, the protests also led to civic participation and community building including presentations to city council, a petition, and symbolic acts of defiance. Through this protest, neighbours create communities—networks of people working toward a common goal. This aspect of community building around LFLs was unintentional but it brought people together nevertheless.Building a Challenge to Traditional Libraries?LFL marketing and communication staff member Margaret Aldrich suggests in The Little Free Library Book that LFLs are successful because they are “gratifyingly doable” projects that can be accomplished by an individual (16). It is this ease of building, erecting, and maintaining LFLs that builds concern as their proliferation could challenge aspects of library service, such as public funding and patron visits. Some professional librarians are in favour of the LFLs and are stewards themselves (Charter 121; Charter 2608; Charter 9702; Charter 41074; Rumage). Others envision great opportunities for collaboration between traditional libraries and LFLs, including the library publicising LFLs and encouraging their construction as well as using LFLs to serve areas without, or far from, a public library (Svehla; Shumaker). While lauding efforts to build community, some professional librarians question the nomenclature used by the movement. They argue the phrase Little Free Libraries is inaccurate as libraries are much more than random collections of books. Instead, critics contend, the LFL structures are closer to book swaps and exchanges than actual libraries, which offer a range of services such as Internet access, digital materials, community meeting spaces, and workshops and programming on a variety of topics (American Library Association; Annoyed Librarian). One university reference and instruction librarian worries about “the general public’s perception and lumping together of little free libraries and actual ‘real’ public libraries” (Hardenbrook). By way of illustration, he imagines someone asking, “‘why do we need our tax money to go to something that can be done for FREE?’” (Hardenbrook). Librarians holding this perspective fear the movement might add to a trend of neoliberalism, limiting or ending public funding for libraries, as politicians believe that the localised, individual solutions can replace publicly funded library services. This is a trend toward what James Ferguson calls “responsibilized” citizens, those “deployed to produce governmentalized results that do not depend on direct state intervention” (172). In other countries, this shift has already begun. In the United Kingdom (UK), governments are devolving formerly public services onto community groups and volunteers. Lindsay Findlay-King, Geoff Nichols, Deborah Forbes, and Gordon Macfadyen trace the impacts of the 2012 Localism Act in the UK, which caused “sport and library asset transfers” (12) to community and volunteer groups who were then responsible for service provision and, potentially, facility maintenance as well. Rather than being in charge of a “doable” LFL, community groups and volunteers become the operators of much larger facilities. Recent efforts in the US to privatise library services as governments attempt to cut budgets and streamline services (Streitfeld) ground this fear. Image 3: “Take a Book, Share a Book,” a Little Free Library motto. Image credit: Nadine Kozak. LFLs might have real consequences for public libraries. Another potential unintended consequence of the LFLs is decreasing visits to public libraries, which could provide officials seeking to defund them with evidence that they are no longer relevant or necessary. One LFL steward and avid reader remarked that she had not used her local public library since 2014 because “I was using the Little Free Libraries” (Steward). Academics and librarians must conduct more research to determine what impact, if any, LFLs are having on visits to traditional public libraries. ConclusionLittle Free Libraries across the United States, and increasingly in other countries, have generated discussion, promoted collaboration between neighbours, and led to sharing. In other words, they have built communities. This was the intended consequence of the LFL movement. There, however, has also been unplanned community building in response to municipal threats to the structures due to right of way, safety, and planning ordinances. The more threatening concern is not the municipal ordinances used to block LFL development, but rather the trend of privatisation of publicly provided services. While people are celebrating the community built by the LFLs, caution must be exercised lest central institutions of the public and community, traditional public libraries, be lost. Academics and communities ought to consider not just impact on their local community at the street level, but also wider structural concerns so that communities can foster many “great good places”—the Little Free Libraries and traditional public libraries as well.ReferencesAldrich, Margaret. “Big Milestone for Little Free Library: 50,000 Libraries Worldwide.” Little Free Library. Little Free Library Organization. 4 Nov. 2016. 25 Feb. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/big-milestone-for-little-free-library-50000-libraries-worldwide/>.Aldrich, Margaret. The Little Free Library Book: Take a Book, Return a Book. Minneapolis, MN: Coffee House Press, 2015.Annoyed Librarian. “How to Protect Little Free Libraries.” Library Journal Blog 9 Jul. 2015. 26 Mar. 2017 <http://lj.libraryjournal.com/blogs/annoyedlibrarian/2015/07/09/how-to-protect-little-free-libraries/>.American Library Association. “Public Library Use.” State of America’s Libraries: A Report from the American Library Association (2015). 25 Feb. 2017 <http://www.ala.org/tools/libfactsheets/alalibraryfactsheet06>.Bauman, Caroline. “‘Little Free Libraries’ Legal in Leawood Thanks to 9-year-old Spencer Collins.” The Kansas City Star 7 Jul. 2014. 25 Feb. 2017 <http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article687562.html>.Burris, Alexandria. “First Amendment Issues Surface in Little Free Library Case.” Shreveport Times 5 Feb. 2015. 25 Feb. 2017 <http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/news/local/2015/02/05/expert-use-zoning-law-clashes-first-amendment/22922371/>.Carpentier, Nico. Media and Participation: A Site of Ideological-Democratic Struggle. Bristol: Intellect, 2011.Charter 121. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 1235. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 1309. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 2532. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 2608. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 4369. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 4604. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 4684. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 6219. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 6542. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 6954. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 8212. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 9437. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 9673. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 9702. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 9705. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 10326. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 15981. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 16561. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 16734. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 18677. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 24481. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 27155. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 30369. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 31822. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 41074. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Condes, Yvonne. “Save the Little Library!” MomsLA 10 Aug. 2015. 25 Feb. 2017 <http://momsla.com/save-the-micro-library/>.Dana. “The Tenn-Mann Library Controversy, Part 3.” Read with Dana (30 Jan. 2015). 25 Feb. 2017 <https://readwithdana.wordpress.com/2015/01/30/the-tenn-mann-library-controversy-part-three/>.Everson, Jeff. “An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact Chapter 106 of the Shreveport Code of Ordinances Relative to Outdoor Book Exchange Boxes, and Otherwise Providing with Respect Thereto.” City of Shreveport, Louisiana 9 Oct. 2015. 25 Feb. 2017 <http://ftpcontent4.worldnow.com/ksla/pdf/LFLordinance.pdf>.Ferguson, James. “The Uses of Neoliberalism.” Antipode 41.S1 (2009): 166-84.Findlay-King, Lindsay, Geoff Nichols, Deborah Forbes, and Gordon Macfadyen. “Localism and the Big Society: The Asset Transfer of Leisure Centres and Libraries—Fighting Closures or Empowering Communities.” Leisure Studies (2017): 1-13.Friedersdorf, Conor. “The Danger of Being Neighborly without a Permit.” The Atlantic 20 Feb. 2015. 25 Feb. 2017 <https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/02/little-free-library-crackdown/385531/>.Gans, Herbert J. Deciding What’s News: A Study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek, and Time. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2004.“Good Luck Spencer.” Spencer’s Little Free Library Facebook Page 25 Jun. 2014. 26 Mar. 2017 <https://www.facebook.com/Spencerslittlefreelibrary/photos/pcb.527531327376433/527531260709773/?type=3>.Hardenbrook, Joe. “A Little Rant on Little Free Libraries (AKA Probably an Unpopular Post).” Mr. Library Dude (9 Apr. 2014). 25 Feb. 2017 <https://mrlibrarydude.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/a-little-rant-on-little-free-libraries-aka-probably-an-unpopular-post/>.Harper, Deb. “Minutes.” The Leawood City Council 7 Jul. 2014. <http://www.leawood.org/pdf/cc/min/07-07-14.pdf>. Heady, Chris. “City Wants Church to Move Little Library.” Lincoln Journal Star 9 Jul. 2014. 25 Feb. 2017 <http://journalstar.com/news/local/city-wants-church-to-move-little-library/article_7753901a-42cd-5b52-9674-fc54a4d51f47.html>. Herrmann, Gretchen M. “Garage Sales Make Good Neighbors: Building Community through Neighborhood Sales.” Human Organization 62.2 (2006): 181-191.Kellogg, Carolyn. “Officials Threaten to Destroy a Little Free Library in Texas.” Los Angeles Times (1 Oct. 2015). 25 Feb. 2017 <http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-et-jc-little-free-library-texas-20150930-story.html>.LaCasse, Alexander. “Why Are Some Cities Cracking Down on Little Free Libraries.” Christian Science Monitor (5 Feb. 2015). 25 Feb. 2017 <http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2015/0205/Why-are-some-cities-cracking-down-on-little-free-libraries>.Landman, Ruth H. Creating the Community in the City: Cooperatives and Community Gardens in Washington, DC Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey, 1993. Little Free Library. Little Free Library Organization (2017). 25 Feb. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/>.Lopez, Steve. “Actor’s Curbside Libraries Is a Smash—for Most People.” LA Times 3 Feb. 2015. 25 Feb. 2017 <http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0204-lopez-library-20150204-column.html>.Moore, Rowan. Why We Build: Power and Desire in Architecture. New York: Harper Design, 2013.Moss, Laura. “City Zoning Laws Target Little Free Libraries.” Mother Nature Network 25 Aug. 2015. 25 Feb. 2017 <http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/stories/city-zoning-laws-target-little-free-libraries>.National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Average Literacy and Numeracy Scale Scores of 25- to 65-Year Olds, by Sex, Age Group, Highest Level of Educational Attainment, and Country of Other Education System: 2012, table 604.10. 25 Feb. 2017 <https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_604.10.asp?current=yes>.National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Average Prose, Document, and Quantitative Literacy Scores of Adults: 1992 and 2003. National Assessment of Adult Literacy. 25 Feb. 2017 <https://nces.ed.gov/naal/kf_demographics.asp>.Oldenburg, Ray. The Great Good Place: Cafés, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons, and Other Hangouts at the Heart of a Community. New York: Marlowe & Company, 1999.“Our History.” Little Free Library. Little Free Library Organization (2017). 25 Feb. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourhistory/>.Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001.Rumage, Jeff. “Little Free Libraries Now Allowed in Whitefish Bay.” Whitefish Bay Patch (8 May 2013). 25 Feb. 2017 <http://patch.com/wisconsin/whitefishbay/little-free-libraries-now-allowed-in-whitefish-bay>.Sanburn, Josh. “What Do Kansas and Nebraska Have against Small Libraries?” Time 10 Jul. 2014. 25 Feb. 2017 <http://time.com/2970649/tiny-libraries-violating-city-ordinances/>.Schaub, Michael. “Little Free Libraries on the Wrong Side of the Law.” LA Times 4 Feb. 2015. 25 Feb. 2017 <http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-et-jc-little-free-libraries-on-the-wrong-side-of-the-law-20150204-story.html>.Shumaker, David. “Public Libraries, Little Free Libraries, and Embedded Librarians.” The Embedded Librarian (28 April 2014) 26 Mar. 2017 <https://embeddedlibrarian.com/2014/04/28/public-libraries-little-free-libraries-and-embedded-librarians/>.Siegel, Julie. “An Ordinance to Amend Section 16.13 of the Municipal Code with Regard to Exempt Certain Little Free Libraries from Front Yard Setback Requirements.” Village of Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin (5 Aug. 2013).Skogan, Wesley G. Police and Community in Chicago: A Tale of Three Cities. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.Solomon, Dan. “Dallas Is Regulating ‘Little Free Libraries’ for Some Reason.” Texas Monthly (14 Sept. 2016). 25 Feb. 2017 <http://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/dallas-regulating-little-free-libraries-reason/>.“Spencer’s Little Free Library.” Facebook 15 Jul. 2014. 25 Feb. 2017 <https://www.facebook.com/Spencerslittlefreelibrary/photos/pcb.527531327376433/527531260709773/?type=3>.Steward, M. Personal Interview. 7 Feb. 2017.Stingl, Jim. “Village Slaps Endnote on Little Libraries.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 11 Nov. 2012: 1B, 7B.Streitfeld, David. “Anger as a Private Company Takes over Libraries.” The New York Times (26 Sept. 2010). 25 Feb. 2017 <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/business/27libraries.html>.Svehla, Louise. “Little Free Libraries—The Possibilities Are Endless.” Public Libraries Online (8 Mar. 2013). 25 Feb. 2017 <http://publiclibrariesonline.org/2013/03/little-free-libraries-the-possibilities-are-endless/>.Tapper, Jake. “Boy Fights Council to Save His Library.” CNN 4 Jul. 2014. 25 Feb. 2017 <http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/04/boy-fights-to-save-his-library/>.Topil, Greg. “Little Free Libraries in Lincoln.” City of Lincoln, Nebraska (n.d.). 25 Feb. 2017 <http://lincoln.ne.gov/City/pworks/engine/row/little-library.htm>.

In 1981, Mattel introduced America’s first Asian Barbie as “Oriental Barbie”, described as “dainty and elegant … [in a] long, slender yellow dress”, with hair “pulled back to display her lovely face” (“Oriental Barbie”). Oriental Barbie is purportedly from Hong Kong, yet she is simultaneously marketed to represent the entire Orient in a homogenising, stigmatising manner that exemplifies Robert Park’s concept of the “racial uniform”. The back of Oriental Barbie’s box provides vague, generalising descriptions of “the Orient” that imply the purported superiority of the Occident: “in this part of the world, we eat rice with our meals rather than bread or potatoes. We use chopsticks for eating instead of knives and forks . … Chinese is a picture language … . Below are some examples for you to try” (“Dolls of the World Oriental”). Particularly with the invitation to “try” Chinese, Mattel invites consumers to participate in what Kevin Powell calls the “cultural safari”, a term that, broadly construed, suggests a “fascination with a facet of another’s culture” (Kasulis). Michael Kimmel notes that such fascination is safe precisely because “you can ‘take [the cultural experience] off’”. Although Mattel begins to produce ethnically specific Asian Barbies in 1982, Ann duCille remarks, “these quick-and-dirty ethnographies only enhance the extent to which these would-be multicultural dolls treat race and ethnic difference like collectibles, contributing more to commodity culture than to the intercultural awareness they claim to inspire” (“Dyes and dolls” 52-53). Because of this blatant cultural marginalisation of race and ethnicity that has been produced for years as a site of foreignness from within the predominantly cisgender, heterosexual, white United States and Barbie universe, I seek to explore how Mattel has perpetuated Orientalism through the production and marketing of Asian Barbies within their Dolls of the World series. The cultural marginalisation that Mattel creates through the marketing of Asian Barbies is accomplished under the pretense of increasing public knowledge and prompting intercultural awareness, which is stated on the back of Oriental Barbie’s box in a very literal interpretation of Powell’s cultural safari: “come visit the Orient. I know you will find it exotic and interesting”. The back of the box also contains a “miniature cultural history and language lessons” (duCille, “Black Barbie” 341) for the consumer to “try” with each doll from the Dolls of the World series. The particular “language lesson” featured with Oriental Barbie are Chinese characters that Mattel deems a fitting example of Chinese as a “picture language”. Interestingly enough, an exceedingly domestic overtone is at play with the selected characters: 媽 (mother), 爸 (father), 你 (“you”, but the masculine version of the pronoun), 房 (house), 玩 (play), 愛 (love), 喜 (joy), and 吃 (eat). The image of playing house and of a presumably heteronormative nuclear family seems to be strongly insinuated with this choice of characters. Furthermore, Mattel equates the Orient with “joy” by featuring the character 喜 (joy) alongside the word “Orient” on the front of the box. In observing the Oriental Barbie box, which states “Meet Barbie from Hong Kong” on the front and depicts the Hong Kong Dollar as “the Oriental currency” on the side, it is worth considering why Mattel chose Hong Kong as the home of Oriental Barbie. For one, Oriental Barbie is not entirely Asian in the sense that Hong Kong was occupied at the time of the doll’s release in 1981, which further complicates the issue of authenticity of racial and ethnic representation. Recalling the United States’ political relations with various Asian countries from the 1970s to the early 1980s may further contextualise Mattel’s decision to make Hong Kong the home of Oriental Barbie, as well as their choices behind which Asian countries to make an ethnic Barbie for. In the 1970s, Nixon’s ping-pong diplomacy had opened up previously fraught diplomatic relations between the U.S. and China. This change in diplomatic relations also facilitated increased cultural exchange between the two countries. In 1981—the year of Oriental Barbie’s debut and the year Reagan’s presidency began—Hong Kong was a popular U.S. tourist destination in Asia (Crouch 72-73). At the beginning of the 1980s, the Reagan administration’s decision to resist the Soviet Union also impacted on its diplomatic relations with Asian countries such as India, Japan, and China, each of which had varying opinions on how to deal with the U.S.S.R. (Greene 1). Despite differences in political stances, Mattel produced a Barbie for all three countries: India Barbie in 1982, Japanese Barbie in 1985, and Chinese Barbie over a decade later in 1994. Even 1994, the production year of Chinese Barbie, reflects the tensions between the U.S. and China in the early 1980s over the former’s arms sales to Taiwan and the two powers’ burgeoning partnership for “science and technology cooperation” in the 1990s (Minami 88). Contextualising Mattel’s potential reasoning for the particular production of these Asian Barbies allows us to understand why Mattel would want to offer educational content on these particular Asian “countries” (here a simulacrum with Oriental Barbie) to their primarily North-American based audience. Even then, Mattel’s intent to educate consumers through the reductiveness of their ethnographies contradicts itself, because the cultural marginalisation that results from the marketing and selling of Asian Barbies and the impact it has on the marginalised leads to a “self-contradiction inherent to the claims of civic functions (of furthering knowledge and enabling public enlightenment)—that accompany all imperialist establishments, even … apparently innocent ones” (Chow 95). Indeed, the “innocent” imperialist establishment of the child’s Barbie doll is not so innocent, as Jenny Wills reminds us: “sentimental, picturesque, and childhood playthings are not benign or devoid of serious racialized implications” (Wills 190). In fact, the name of “Oriental Barbie” or any other Asian Barbie “implies her difference, her not-quite-Barbieness”, which Wills first points out with the name of “Black Barbie”. Mattel demarcated a clear distinction between ethnic Barbies and white Barbies when it created and marketed the name of Oriental Barbie and other Asian Barbies. The positioning of Asian Barbies as an ethnic alternative thus creates what Wills calls a “scripted violence”, in which the relationship between white Barbie and ethnic Barbies “scripts racial inferiority upon those Other dolls and the subjects they are meant to celebrate and reflect” (Wills 189). The vitality of collecting ethnic Barbies as a business is deeply troubling, then, as it demonstrates both Mattel’s success in marketing Asian Barbies as an exoticised other and the many collectors who readily accept and contribute to this narrative. In fact, duCille reveals that “Mattel’s ethnic dolls — particularly those in its Dolls of the World series — are designed and marketed at least as much with adult collectors in mind as with little girls” (“Black Barbie” 339). Mattel media-relations director Donna Gibbs tells duCille that the ethnic dolls are actually marketed more towards adults, “‘although appropriate for children’” (“Black Barbie” 339). Gibbs lays out how Mattel strategically releases only “two or three different nations or cultures [for the Dolls of the World series] each year”, produces these “premium value” dolls in short supply in order to generate a competitive market for them, then retires them from the market after selling them for a mere one to two years (“Black Barbie” 339). Sure enough, Mattel’s marketing strategy proved successful: Westenhouser notes in The Story of Barbie that “the Oriental mold is a popular face mold to which collectors respond favorably” (Westenhouser 27). Because of Mattel’s strategic issuing of only two to three ethnic Barbies per year, “each year it becomes a collectors’ guessing game as to what countries will be this year’s additions” (Westenhouser 119). As a result, Mattel experienced a massive boost in sales through the marketing of the ethnic Barbie as a collectible. The treatment of race and ethnic difference as a commodified collectible rather than as genuine intercultural awareness is best evidenced by Mattel’s choice to produce Oriental Barbie—and all subsequent Asian Barbies, save for India Barbie—by using the same “Oriental Face Sculpt”. The “Oriental Face Sculpt” was introduced alongside the debut of Oriental Barbie in 1981, and although later productions of Asian Barbies in the Dolls of the World series expanded to specifically represent different Asian countries, such as Japan, China, and Korea, each Asian Barbie still used the same Oriental Face Sculpt. Augustyniak writes, “many new head molds have debuted since 1977, offering more variety and ethnic diversity” (8). When we observe the history of Barbie face sculpts, however, we find that many face sculpts have easily been produced of white Barbie over the years, with face sculpts even being made in honor of specific fashion designers or events, such as the 2013 Karl Lagerfeld, the 1991 Bob Mackie, and the 2008 Kentucky Derby. Meanwhile, the titular Barbie’s first two Asian friends both use the Oriental Sculpt: Miko (1986-1989), who is Pacific Islander (“Miko”) but was discontinued and replaced by Kira (1985-2001), who is allegedly of Japanese or Vietnamese heritage (“Kira”). These characters have only the Oriental Face Sculpt to represent their ethnic background, which itself remains ill-defined. With the plethora of face sculpts that have been produced over the years for white Barbies, one may be led to ponder why Mattel has not been willing to exert the same amount of effort to properly represent Asian Barbies. This is because for Mattel, profit always precedes any other motive, including racial and ethnic representation. As duCille explains, “the cost of mass-producing dolls to represent the heterogeneity of the world would be far greater than either corporation or consumer would be willing to pay” (“Black Barbie” 337). Hence, in order to generate profit, “racial and cultural diversity — global heterogeneity — must be reducible to … common, reproducible denominators” (“Black Barbie” 340). The Oriental Face Sculpt, then, is a result of all the “common, reproducible denominators” that Mattel deemed financially profitable enough to use as their attempt at racial and ethnic representation. The way that Mattel markets ethnic and cultural differences for Asian Barbies in addition to the use of the Oriental Face Sculpt, then, is through variations in skin colour and dress. For instance, Japanese Barbie, Korean Barbie, and Chinese Barbie all use the same Oriental Face Sculpt. The only notable differences between these dolls are the colour of their skin, the clothes that they wear, and their hairstyle. Indeed, duCille writes, while “today Barbie dolls come in a rainbow coalition of colors, races, ethnicities, and nationalities, all of those dolls look remarkably like the stereotypical white Barbie, modified only by a dash of color and a change of clothes” (Skin Trade 38). The uniformness of modularity with face sculpts, coupled with Mattel’s paltry efforts of merely altering the skin colour and clothing of each Asian Barbie, exemplifies Immanuel Wallerstein’s argument that “ethnicization must … be linked to the racism specific to the operations of modern capitalism with its twin objectives of maximizing profits and minimizing production costs” (qtd. in Chow 34). As a corporate giant, Mattel would not be enticed by the idea of adding “more complex, less easily commodified distinctions”, because these distinctions would require additional forms of manufacturing that complicate production and thus do not maximise profits for the corporate body (“Black Barbie” 340). Consequently, “ethnic reproductions [of Asian Barbies] ... simply [melt down and add on] a reconstituted other without transforming the established social order, without changing the mould” (“Black Barbie” 337-8). Mattel’s failure to provide racial and ethnic representation through Asian Barbies is best demonstrated, however, by a case study of India Barbie. India Barbie was released in 1982 as one of the first Asian Barbies, following the 1981 release of Oriental Barbie. Interestingly enough, India Barbie is the only Asian Barbie who was not created with the Oriental Face Sculpt. Instead, she has the Steffie face mold, which has been used with dolls such as: the titular Barbara Millicent Roberts, Midge, and Summer, who are all white; Teresa, who was introduced as Barbara’s first Latina friend in 1988; Christie, who became the first black Barbie in 1980 (“Steffie”); Hawaiian Barbie (1975) (Westenhouser 135); and Mexican Barbie (1989) (Westenhouser 121). Therefore, Mattel created India Barbie with a racially and ethnically ambiguous face sculpt that has also been used to depict white Barbies, which demonstrates the “relational proximity (or similarity) to [India Barbie’s] white doll counterparts” (Wills 189). The sari that India Barbie wears is additionally problematic in that it is worn inaccurately. Further, on the back side of the India Barbie (1982) box we see exoticising and othering language that insinuates the superiority of the Occident, as is the case for Oriental Barbie’s introduction. The way in which India Barbie is dressed with her sari is a far cry from how the sari is properly worn. What is also of interest is that India Barbie is wearing red and gold, which are colours typically only worn at Indian weddings. This sartorial choice may, at a first glance, be interpreted as yet another culturally insensitive blunder of Mattel’s, but when India Barbie’s outfit is considered alongside Japanese Barbie, who wears a red wedding kimono, and Malaysian Barbie, who also wears the semblance of a wedding garment, these choices of outfit begin to call into question why Mattel repeatedly decides to dress Asian Barbies in wedding attire. Mattel’s affinity for dressing Asian Barbies in bridal outfits can likely be explained by the corporation’s sales of wedding-affiliated Barbies, which have been some of the historically best-selling dolls in the Barbie universe. In the image caption for the Wedding Day Set (1959), which features the first Barbie wedding gown, Westenhouser notes, “always the top selling [Barbie] garment … is the wedding gown” (32). In Westenhouser’s view, Barbies wearing wedding gowns remain the best seller each year (32) because “every little girl dreams of the perfect romantic wedding and Barbie makes that fairytale come alive” (32). From a capitalist standpoint, then, Mattel is simply capitalising upon the supposedly widespread demand for Barbies in wedding dresses, and Mattel can only further ensure the financial success of Asian Barbies by choosing to dress Barbies such as India Barbie in semblances of wedding attire, even if these outfits are not culturally accurate or fully representative. Aside from the matter of dressing India Barbie in a red and gold sari, there is also the question of why Mattel chooses to focus on descriptions of Asian Barbies’ hair so heavily, including that of India Barbie. For instance, with the India Barbie and Japanese Barbie, Mattel uses nearly identical phrasing of the doll’s hair being pulled back to reveal the “delicate features” of her face. India Barbie’s description reads: “her long brown hair is pulled back, accenting her delicate features” (“India Barbie”), while Japanese Barbie’s description reads: “her black hair is pulled away from her face and tied with a red and white hairband” (“Japanese Barbie”). This diction first appears in Oriental Barbie’s product description, and it is especially interesting to consider why Mattel might emphasise the entirety of an Asian Barbie’s face being shown, almost as if to suggest that her face is so exotic that it needs to be fully on display for the consumer to get a proper look at the exotic “other’s” face. It seems that with Mattel’s emphasis on the entirety of the Asian Barbie’s face being revealed, ethnicity becomes “the site of a foreignness” that is a privileged society’s way of “projecting into some imaginary outside elements it seems foreign and inferior” (Chow 34-5). Throughout our case study of numerous Asian Barbies, Mattel’s portrayal of racial and ethnic difference has always been in a highly performative manner that has only been superficially signified through changes in skin colour and dress and the near-perpetual use of the exoticising Oriental Face Sculpt. These othering and fetishising attempts at multicultural representation create, as Wills argues, “exoticized difference, of deferred subjectivity; racial progressiveness [that] can be purchased and played with” (Wills 189) then cast off, as Powell’s notion of the cultural safari allows us to understand. Critically, Mattel markets these Orientalist depictions of racial, ethnic, and cultural identity as “marketable difference[s]” (Wills 189) that the white consumer can supposedly try on with ease and just as easily remove. Thus, with the production and marketing of Asian Barbies and other ethnic dolls, Mattel never truly accomplishes a healthy and helpful extension of the individual child as Ruth Handler envisioned all Barbies to be—instead, the corporate body only perpetuates a narrative of racial inferiority and the casting of Asian Barbie dolls (and, by extension, the Asian cultures, geographical locations, and populations that Mattel claims to represent) as the Other. References Augustyniak, J. Michael. Collector’s Encyclopedia of Barbie Doll Exclusives: Identification & Values, 1972-2004. Collector Books, 2005. Bhadania, Namrata Ashvinbhai. “The (Mis)representation of Racialized Minorities: Barbie Dolls as Social Problems in India.” Journal of Literature and Art Studies 11.9 (2021): 637-649. <https://doi.org/10.17265/2159-5836/2021.09.005>. Bobo4890. “Oriental Barbie Doll.” Barbie Wiki, n.d. 29 Jan. 2024 <https://barbie.fandom.com/wiki/Oriental_Barbie_Doll?file=1981-dotw-Oriental.jpg>. Botz-Bornstein, Thorsten. "Barbie and the Power of Negative Thinking: Of Barbies, Eve-Barbies, and I-Barbies." Kritikos 9 (2012). “Chinese Barbie Doll.” Barbie Wiki, n.d. 31 Jan. 2024 <https://barbie.fandom.com/wiki/Chinese_Barbie_Doll>. Crouch, Geoffrey I. "An Analysis of Hong Kong Tourism Promotion." Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 5.2 (2000): 70-75. <https://doi.org/10.1080/10941660008722074>. “Dolls of the World INDIA Barbie 3897 by Mattel Vintage 1982 DOTW Barbie India.” eBay, n.d. 13 mar. 2024 <https://www.ebay.com/itm/235438965854>. “Dolls of the World Oriental Barbie Doll Mattel 1980 No. 3262 NRFB.” eBay, n.d. 31 Jan. 2024 <https://www.ebay.com/itm/175824587562>. DuCille, Ann. “Black Barbie and the Deep Play of Difference.” The Feminism and Visual Culture Reader, ed. Amelia Jones. New York: Routledge, 2003. 337–48. ———. "Dyes and dolls: Multicultural Barbie and the Merchandising of Difference." differences 6.1 (1994): 46-68. ———. Skin Trade. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard UP, 1996. Foulke, Jan. 14th Blue Book: Dolls & Values. Hobby House Press, 1999. Greene, Fred. “The United States and Asia in 1981.” Asian Survey 22.1 (1982). <https://doi.org/10.2307/2643706>. Guerrero, Lisa. "Can the Subaltern Shop? The Commodification of Difference in the Bratz Dolls." Cultural Studies? Critical Methodologies 9.2 (2009): 186-196. <https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708608325939>. “India Barbie Doll (3897).” Barbie Wiki, n.d. 31 jan. 2024 <https://barbie.fandom.com/wiki/India_Barbie_Doll_(3897)>. “Japanese Barbie Doll (9481).” Barbie Wiki, n.d. 31 Jan. 2024 <https://barbie.fandom.com/wiki/Japanese_Barbie_Doll_(9481)>. Kasulis, Kelly. “Tracing the History of ‘Asian’ Barbie.” Kelly Kasulis, 30 Mar. 2016. <https://kkasulis.wordpress.com/2016/02/01/tracing-the-history-of-asian-barbie/>. “Kira.” Barbie Wiki, n.d. 31 jan. 2024 <https://barbie.fandom.com/wiki/Kira>. “Korean Barbie Doll.” Barbie Wiki, n.d. 31 Jan. 2024 <https://barbie.fandom.com/wiki/Korean_Barbie_Doll>. Lemonmeringue1959. “Chinese Barbie Doll.” Barbie Wiki, n.d. 31 Jan. 2024 <https://barbie.fandom.com/wiki/Chinese_Barbie_Doll?file=Chinese_Barbie_Doll.png>. ———. “India Barbie Doll (3897).” Barbie Wiki, n.d. 31 Jan. 2024 <https://barbie.fandom.com/wiki/India_Barbie_Doll_(3897)?file=India_Barbie_Doll_%283897%29.png>. ———. “Japanese Barbie Doll (9481).” Barbie Wiki, n.d. 31 Jan. 2024 <https://barbie.fandom.com/wiki/Japanese_Barbie_Doll_(9481)?file=Japanese_Barbie_Doll_%289481%29.png>. ———. “Korean Barbie Doll.” Barbie Wiki, n.d. 31 Jan. 2024 <https://barbie.fandom.com/wiki/Korean_Barbie_Doll?file=Korean_Barbie_Doll.png>. ———. “Malaysian Barbie Doll.” Barbie Wiki, n.d. 31 Jan. 2024 <https://barbie.fandom.com/wiki/Malaysian_Barbie_Doll?file=Malaysian_Barbie_Doll.png>. “Malaysian Barbie Doll.” Barbie Wiki, n.d. 31 Jan. 2024 <https://barbie.fandom.com/wiki/Malaysian_Barbie_Doll>. “Miko.” Barbie Wiki, n.d. 31 Jan. 2024 <https://barbie.fandom.com/wiki/Miko>. Minami, Kazushi. People's Diplomacy: How Americans and Chinese Transformed US-China Relations during the Cold War. Cornell UP, 2024. Nemani, Priti. “Globalization versus Normative Policy: A Case Study on the Failure of the Barbie Doll in the Indian Market.” Asian Pacific Law and Policy Journal 13.1 (2011). <https://ssrn.com/abstract=1802793>. “Oriental Barbie Doll.” Barbie Wiki, n.d. 31 Jan. 2024 <https://barbie.fandom.com/wiki/Oriental_Barbie_Doll>. Orr, Lisa. "Difference That Is Actually Sameness Mass-Reproduced: Barbie Joins the Princess Convergence." Jeunesse: Young People, Texts, Cultures 1.1 (2009): 9-30. <https://doi.org/10.1353/jeu.2010.0026>. Pearson, Marlys, and Paul R. Mullins. "Domesticating Barbie: An Archaeology of Barbie Material Culture and Domestic Ideology." International Journal of Historical Archaeology 3.4 (1999): 225-259. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/20852937>. PoodleLambAdmin. “1981/1982 India Barbie (#3897).” Toy Sisters, 12 Aug. 2018. 13 Mar. 2024 <https://www.toysisters.com/1982-india-barbie/>. ———. “1987/1988 Dolls of the World Korean Barbie (#4929).” Toy Sisters, 16 Aug. 2018. 24 Mar. 2024 <https://www.toysisters.com/1988-korean-barbie/>. Rogers, Mary F. Barbie Culture. India: Sage, 1999. Schor, Juliet B. Born to Buy: The Commercialized Child and the New Consumer Culture. Scribner, 2014. “Steffie.” Barbie Wiki, n.d. 13 Mar. 2024 <https://barbie.fandom.com/wiki/Steffie>. Tang, Jennifer. “Using Multicultural Barbie Dolls to Teach Colonialism, Racism, and Income Inequality.” Integrating Pop Culture into the Academic Library, eds. Jennifer Putnam Davis, Melissa Edmiston Johnson, and Thomas C. Weeks. Rowman & Littlefield, 2022. 235-56. “10 Dollar (The Chartered Bank) – Hong Kong – Numista.” Numista, n.d. 13 Mar. 2024 <https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note207901.html>. Tulinski, Hannah. Barbie As Cultural Compass: Embodiment, Representation, and Resistance Surrounding the World’s Most Iconized Doll. Honors Thesis. College of the Holy Cross, 2017. <http://crossworks.holycross.edu/soc_student_scholarship/1>. Vig, Shreshth. “How to Wear a Saree: Step by Step Guide.” Kanchan Fashion, 12 Aug. 2022. 22 Mar. 2024 <https://www.kanchanfashion.com/blogs/best-ethnic-dresses-for-women/how-to-wear-a-saree-step-by-step-guide>. Westenhouser, Kitturah B. The Story of Barbie. Collector Books, 1994. Wills, Jenny Heijun. "Scripted Violence, Scripted Deferral: Pre–and Post–Civil Rights Racial Innocence." Jeunesse: Young People, Texts, Cultures 5.1 (2013): 179-91. <https://doi.org/10.1353/jeu.2013.0009>. “03262 Oriental Barbie.” Doll Peddlar, n.d. 13 mar. 2024 <https://www.dollpeddlar.com/product/03262-oriental-barbie/>.