Of Dolls and David

By Marguerite L. De Loney

ItalicIt just happens to be patently the case that persons form what are evidently social relations with ‘things.’ Consider a little girl with her doll. She loves her doll. Her doll is her best friend (she says). Would she toss her doll overboard from a lifeboat in order to save her bossy elder brother from drowning? No way. This may seem a trivial example, and the kinds of relations small girls form with their dolls are far from being ‘typical’ of human social behavior…We only think it is not because it is an affront to our dignity to make comparisons between small girls showering affection on their dolls and us, mature souls, admiring Michelangelo’s David…This is not really a matter of devaluing David so much as revaluing little girls’ dolls, which are truly remarkable objects, all things considered. They are certainly social beings—‘members of the family’, for a time at any rate'' (Gell 1998: 18).

I repeat this long excerpt from Gell that we reviewed in class because I find it very effective in beginning to think of figurines, and objects in general, in new ways outside of our ordinary conceptions of the functionality of figurines and our relationships to them. It has been a common mistake (of which I myself am guilty) to think of figurines as special objects outside of the ordinary and mundane utilitarian things of everyday life. The common misconception is that figurines are much prettier than pots and are fewer in number, so they, therefore, must have some greater significance. When we see figurines, we are drawn to their visual and physical representations of the human form. Ironically enough, it is perhaps this ‘humanity’ in figurines that has caused us to become so enamored with them and feel the need to place them into the otherworldly realm or ritual and spirituality.

Think of Gell’s comparison of little girls’ dolls to Michelangelo’s David. A doll is pretty average. It is a relatively ordinary, run-of-the-mill child’s toy that has bears some degree of humanistic qualities, but nothing extraordinary. But the David, now that is extraordinary. It is an object revered, and even idolized, for its beauty in depicting the human body in the utmost realistic fashion. It is a singular object, not common to be seen or used in the everyday as a doll would. For many, the study of figurines has fallen into the David-mode of thought (as is exemplified by Mellaart’s disposal of all figurines not deemed worthy enough in style to be kept).

The problem with this way of viewing figurines, is that it glazes over all other possible aspects of people’s social relations with things, in favor for the spiritual as the sole actor providing agency to the object and the only manner in which people identify/interact with the object. Gell does not agree with this common oversimplification of human-object social relations: “But I do not wish to confine the notion of ‘social relations between persons and things’ to instances of this order, in which the thing is a representation of a human being, as a doll is…The ways in which social agency can be invested in things, or can emanate from things, are exceedingly diverse” (1998: 18). Meskell’s (2006) recent preliminary study of the figurines of Catalhoyuk demonstrates this diversity of social agency by breaking free of the customary views toward figurines and developing a new one centered on the idea of process.

Mekell’s aim in analyzing the Catalhoyuk figurines is to reconfigure views on figurines as process rather than inert objects of worship or contemplation. She stresses that the figurine must be seen as a process and not simply a finished and contained end product. Because figurines are mobile, shifting things they cannot be viewed as static, but rather a process of understanding memory and identity. In order to understand this idea of process, several things must be taken into consideration. One of them is that figurines are not extraordinary (although some may be), but are rather ordinary. Meskell describes how common figurines are, both in anthropomorphic and zoomorphic shapes. They are normally crudely crafted, worn, and found everywhere—more in the style of Gell’s dolls than Davids.

Because of the commonality of many of these crude figurines, they tend to be overlooked. But Meskell stresses that even the common holds as much weight as the extraordinary: “objects that are made of stone may not necessarily have more symbolic weight in toto than the myriad clay forms that were constantly and repetitively made. What it says is that we perhaps need to turn this material hierarchy on its head and focus more on the density and ubiquity of these clay renderings: expedient, consistent, mundane and deeply ingrained in everyday practice” (2006: 6). Once again, in this manner, Gell’s doll example is relevant. By realizing that figurines were part of people’s daily lives we are capable of understanding how figurines can become social beings integrated into the “family.” As common objects, they are constantly present, being viewed and interacted with, allowing for people to form bonds with them, much like a little girl might do with her doll.

There is still this notion of process to grapple with. Process can have a variety of meanings. One notion of figurine as a process can refer to the stages of life in the figurine, such as the process of procurement, use, and disposal. What is important to keep in mind is how Meskell refers to the procurement as a “social process.” Since its very inception, beginning with the gathering of materials for its production, figurines are done in a social sphere of people, thus, by association, becoming imbued with social meanings in the process. A second process is the handling of the figurine. Meskell describes how the figurines at Catalhoyuk may have had external materials added to them, such as cloth, skin, fabric, etc. that may have come off depending on various moments and contexts. Acts of dressing and decorating require moving and handling, making them processes in and of themselves.

This second process is rather significant because it speaks to the social relations people have with objects and with each other. When a little girl plays with her doll, dresses it and the like, she is learning about her identity, both individually and in the larger context of society. Her interactions with the doll instill in her a memory of that identity. Similarly, the same could be said for the handling of figurines. They are mobile objects that are interacted with in a variety of ways. The fact that they are mobile is significant because it further reinforces the idea that figurines function as process, a means for people to connect to memory and identity, something which is not static either, but open to change, interpretation, and representation.

Meskell’s theory of process is just one idea among the diverse ideas about social agency that Gell refers to. It is still a developing idea, but I think it is a good way to start thinking of figurines in new ways beyond the spiritual. Meskell writes that “advocating evidence for ‘spirituality’ in a tightly focused religious sense may prove difficult, whereas an exploration of one’s place in the world, a network or related sensuous experience between other people, species and places may be more readily deduced from the material” (2006: 2). We need to be exploratory in our analysis of all objects, paying attention to both what little girl dolls and Michelangelo’s David have to say to us.

References Cited:

Gell, Alfred; 1998. Art and agency: an anthropological theory. Oxford and New York: Clarendon Press.

Meskell, Lynn; 2006. “Figurine worlds at Çatalhöyük: materiality, mobility and process,” Unpublished paper delivered at Ethnohistory workshop, University of Pennsylvania (April 6, 2006) (Handout with author’s permission).