>I recall reading at some point, in a book about the history of toys, that
>the 1950s was an era of "toy conformity" in that the selection of "hot" toys
>offered (i.e. miniature kitchen furniture, erector sets, etc., not to
>mention the TV knockoffs like Howdy Doody dolls) and the way they were
>distributed, advertised, purchased and used were meant to standardize the
>experiences of young children across the nation and channel them towards
>specific social norms, ultimately with the goal of creating a
>consistently-skilled workforce for the future. Now, this may have been
>overstating the issue (it is PLAY, after all) but it's a theory that could
>be applied to a number of the toys that have been discussed during this
>thread and possibly addressed in the exhibition.
>
This might be an interesting point to consider for the exhibition -- getting at how people actually used or bought the toys that were marketed. It could get at the similarities and differences for minorities and for people in higher and lower (and in-between) income brackets. You might also explore if people played with their toys in a manner consistent with how they were "meant" to be played with. Maybe some girls practiced being a doctor on their dolls instead of practicing to be a mommy, for example. I wonder if you could do this through a response section at the end of the exhibit?
Sheryl Woodruff
The Museum of Television & Radio