“Barbie” promotes feminism through its portrayal of women in traditionally male roles, realistic depictions of motherhood, and exploration of the modern female experience’s cognitive dissonance. Aisha Harris points out that Barbie is a symbolic doll resembling a cultural icon, which is often faced with revival among the whole cultural circle. Analyzing the argument structure of Harris’s review lays bare its strengths and weaknesses. On the one hand, she can put the film in its culturally significant context and explore matters such as authenticity, representation, and commercialism. Harris depends on the film’s artful use of concrete situations to support her claims, which attests to her keenly observing its details. On the other hand, the flaw is that it relies entirely on anecdotal evidence and personal opinions as its evidence, which undermines the entire thesis. Besides, like Harris’s criticism, her critique sometimes needs to be more profound, as she ignores the harmful effects of Barbie’s representation and the movie’s message.
The main reasons provided by Harris can be grouped into her self-consciousness about the film’s link to a corporate powerhouse and the subverted stereotypes of the original Barbie doll. She praises the movie for its excellent intersection of gender roles and incorporation of various characters and perspectives into the plot. Furthermore, she reveals specific details that, in her opinion, the filmmakers had not managed to portray accurately. Among other things, she thinks the exhibition was only meant to appear as if it were bringing about change, and the movie itself needed to match the messaging perceived as not so genuine. Throughout the review, Harris uses examples from the film and good elaboration to back up her statements, such as the scenes showing the interaction between Barbie and other characters or the film’s visuals. Her analysis becomes more elaborate by including quotes and paraphrases from the movie, making it easier for the readers to comprehend her criticism and the film’s depiction of Barbie.
Harris’s review of “Barbie” discloses some of the biggest logical fallacies critical to the film’s claim. Making conclusions with little analysis, like in the case of Harris, is another fallacy represented by generalizing about society’s perceptions without having enough evidence or feeds. For example, when she says, “Barbie was never ‘just a doll,'” she doesn’t give convincing evidence but instead generalizes about the cultural role Barbie has had in our society (Harris). Additionally, the composition fallacy is also used by Harris when she proposes that the power of mimicking Barbie’s flexibility indirectly associates women with power, hinting that if it works with Barbie, it should also work for women collectively. Yet, there is a generalization concerning gender roles and mixed experiences.
Through the critical thinking discussion in Chapter 2, the authors highlight the importance of understanding two kinds of reasoning: deductive and inductive approaches. They warn that even the correct inference cannot be made if the reasoning is faulty (Brooke, Moore, and Parker 39). Within this section, a framework has been provided for understanding the content of arguments, which helps pick out the mistakes made by Aisha Harris while reviewing “Barbie.” By interpreting the logic applied in her assessment, one can identify if there is any logical fallacy, like the hastiness in the generalizations or weak analogies. One example is when Harris exhibits this fallacy by making unsubstantiated claims, which she often does. Likewise, her use of inconsequential analogies is another weakness in her argument that extinguishes its persuasiveness because she bases her arguments on superfluous arguments between the film and broader societal problems (Brooke, Moore, and Parker 100).
In Chapter 6, the next step is the explanation of the essential fallacies, such as red herring or line-drawing fallacy. The textbook tries to convey this fallacy using Antonin Scalia’s line-drawing fallacy, which depicts how fallacious arguments can disregard the main objective by focusing on insignificant problems, as Brooke, Moore, and Parker (39) show. Such an understanding enables readers to detect the instances when Harris goes outside of her agenda and brings in unrelated information that potentially challenges the main line of the argument. Besides, Section 7 started with the induction of fallacies like hasty generalizations and weak analogies. These flaws are significant in evaluating Harris’s argument, pinpointing possible shortcomings in her thought process. They help understand how a human thinks logically. By showing the reader where Harris uses wrong induction, the audience can contrast the validity of the conclusions made and the overall strength of her argument.
As a reviewer for the “Barbie” movie, Harris’s message successfully illustrates the relationships between the movie and the legendary doll and the general social critique elements. In her analysis, Harris adequately navigates the intricacies of Barbie’s cultural significance. She criticizes the film’s endeavours to harmonize its industrial roots with the ideas of the modern age for “girl power” and inclusion (Harris). Using the film’s setting in a more significant cultural framework and scrutinizing gender problems, recognition, and consumerism, Harris presents readers with a dual approach to the movie’s thematic range. On top of that, she utilizes specific details of the finished work and quotes and paraphrases to make her observation clear and coherent so the readers-to-be can grasp the subtleties of her judgment.
Nevertheless, even though her final message has been delivered well, the integrity and reliability of her work are partially affected by logical fallacies and subjective points of view. The use of hasty generalizations and oversimplified reasoning hurts the review’s credibility and weakens the review’s ability to provide a balanced and thorough assessment of the movie. Then, too, the use of anecdotal evidence and introspective reasoning for making deductions restricts the breadth and depth of the review by not taking in these complexities of the film. Also, considering its shortcomings, the review achieves its primary goal: to stimulate critical dialogue and encourage people to reflect on the cultural role and the broader implications of corporate stories in popular media.
Ultimately, Aisha Harris’s “Barbie” review displays the multilayered significance of the film concerning the cultural structure, feminist issues, and sociological concerns. Through her critique, Harris incisively traces the incoherence of Barbie’s symbol value, accusing the film of simultaneously buying into corporate mythology and selling the new age ideals of empowerment and diversity. On the assumption that she has precise and astute remarks, the review has its pitfalls, as seen in problematic fallacies and subjective viewpoints. Harris’s appeal to personal experience and simplifying reasoning leads to the degradation of the objective of her critique and her inability to draw a complete verdict relating to the movie. Therefore, the review helps raise the general public consciousness to critically question corporate narratives and ponder their social implications for popular culture. By deliberating on Harris’ weaknesses and strengths and incorporating the knowledge acquired in critical thinking, the audience can better comprehend the complexities of mediated representations and the importance of exercising a crucial mindset in evaluating such arguments.
Work Cited
BROOKE, NOEL MOORE, and Richard Parker. Critical thinking. MCGRAW-HILL US HIGHER ED, 2020.
write