Research Essay and Movie
How does a visual rhetorical analysis of the Brookdale dorm rooms reflect a Burkean view of identity, and do the rooms reflect gender differences in arguments of identification?
Introduction
In the midst of posters and stacks of ramen noodles, perhaps there is more depth to the typical college student’s dorm than meets the eye. At the Brookdale dorms of Hunter College, each student is given an individual room, which the occupant can personalize to his or her choosing. The rooms are physical extensions of the students occupying them. Each student makes arrangement choices that become arguments about personal identity in ways that can be obvious or extremely subtle. In his book A Rhetoric of Motives, literary theorist Kenneth Burke introduces his own perspective on the complex identification that is “rooted in the notion of substance, and identification is synonymous with consubstantiality” (Christiansen). In this study, I apply a Burkean rhetorical analysis to consider the different ways that students physically manifest their essence in a confined space, and the extent to which males or females are more likely to shape their room in a way that encourages consubstantiality.
Background
Kenneth Burke was a prominent figure in 20th century realms of philosophy and language. His post-World War II book Rhetoric of Motives lays the groundwork for the relationship between “identification” and “persuasion”. To Burke, rhetoric is a social instrument whose essence is persuasion (Holland 37). He explains that a “speaker persuades an audience by the use of stylistic identifications; his act of persuasion may be for the purpose of causing the audience to identify with the speaker’s interests; and the speaker draws on identification of interests to establish rapport between himself and his audience” (Burke 46). Through this lens, we can argue that the way a student shapes his or her room is an argument that aims to make others either identify, or at least believe they can identify, with that student. The student attempts to create a connection between him or herself and the audience, which typically consists of other college students. Burke calls this connection “consubstantiality.” He explains: “A is not identical with his colleague, B. But insofar as their interests are joined, A is identified with B. Or he may identify himself with B even when their interest are not joined, if he assumes that they are, or is persuaded to believe so” (Burke 20).
Burkean identification is a process that is “fundamental to being human and to communicating” (Quigley). People strive to be identified with others and simultaneously retain a sense of individuality. When A and B are identified, the two can each be a “distinct substance and consubstantial with another” (Craig 132). Identification is not always on a conscious level. There are many instances “where we may not be aware of the identifications we are making and may hold within our subconscious. As human beings are instances we may identify with individuals, groups, practices, or situations in which we may not fully understand the reason for such a mutual understanding” (Christiansen 7).
The next issue pertains to how we are identified. Burke claims “it is through the notion of property in which a thing is identified. We identify objects, groups, and ourselves through their substance, or in other words the properties of which they are composed” (Christiansen 3). A person establishes his or her relationship to individuals or groups when they either have the same interests or assume they share interests. One can identify with others through a shared common principle, a common conduct, or participation in the activities that make one seem like a participant in a social or economic class (Holland 30). The properties of both have, or share, the same “whatness”, or more accurately, the same “substance” when they are consubstantial. Burke defined property as more metaphysical in nature (Christiansen 3); these properties are found in “goods, in services, in position, or status, in citizenship, in reputation, in acquaintanceship, and in love” (Holland 30).
Burke also gives reasons as to why people feel the need to identify themselves in the first place. His theory is that this need stems from division. Human beings wish to overcome their biological separateness, so we identify with others, which builds on his idea that we strive to be both separate and together at once. People continuously try to associate and disassociate themselves with individuals and groups, in order to “attain some position in the hierarchy of social relations” (Quigley) and relieve themselves of natural division. As a way to challenge division, we “look for ways in which our interests, attitudes, values, experiences, perceptions, and material properties are shared with others, or could appear to be shared” (Quigley). When we persuade others through consubstantiality and the product is identification, rhetoric is at work. Although Burke felt that language was the primary form of identification, man also achieves this through non-verbal acts. This touches on his theories of humans as symbol-using animals, which are also a powerful form of communication. Through a person’s choices with their material possessions, his or her actions “will not be merely ‘louder than words’, they will in a sense be his words’” (Holland 35). Thus, every student is taking part in some form of non-verbal communication when structuring his or her room. This communication is the rhetoric through which they foster consubstantiality.
Research Setting
Brookdale houses students of Hunter College, almost all within the Macaulay Honors or scholar cohort programs. The school and dorm are located in the heart of New York City. While a large portion of students living within the residence hall are from different parts of New York, there are also many students throughout different parts of the country. Each student is provided with an individual private room (but a communal kitchen and bathroom) which offers them more space and freedom to personalize it as they see fit. For approximately ten months, this room becomes their home. The primary lens through which the rooms will be examined is a materialistic one—the objects that physically appear in the rooms. “Material identification results from goods, possessions, and things like owning the same kind of car” (Littlejohn 115). These objects will touch on the different types of “idealistic” forms of identification, which have to do with ideas, attitudes, feelings, and values. (Littlejohn 115) I obtained permission from six males and six females to use their rooms for the study. The age of the occupants ranges from 18 to 20. They will be referred to as Male A, B, C, D, E, F, and likewise with females.
Study Methodology
I assessed all the major characteristics that I would be looking for in someone’s room and created a twenty-three part test. There are twenty-three characteristics found in the tables of the Results section. These range from cleanliness, to the level of decoration, to the sentimentality of the room. I also created an “other” column for the things that couldn’t easily be placed into a category, or seemed particularly intriguing about that person’s room that wasn’t yet mentioned. That way, there were specific things I looked for, while simultaneously keeping myself open to anything else that might come along through examinations of the rooms. The goal was to find certain themes throughout the rooms, while seeing how each individual room answers two main questions: What in here really expresses who this person is? What kind of identity are they building for themselves? Each category explores what methods people use to identify with each other, if there are certain patterns that are shared amongst the way people decorate their rooms, and how their self expression relates to the way others may perceive their rooms. However, the biggest limitation of the study is the subjective nature of the results. For example, what is considered “neat” to me might not be to another viewer. Some of the results will be in a range, such as “moderately neat” to “extremely neat.” I estimated a range I believed a reasonable person would give, but there are photos of most rooms in the Results for the reader to determine themselves.
After getting permission from a select group of people who made it clear they were absolutely comfortable with someone snooping through their room, I went in with the chart open and checked for those characteristics. The occupants were in their room with me as I examined it. I asked each participant to elaborate about certain personal items, objects hanging on the walls, and if there was a particular reason they arranged their room the way they did. These were not extensive formal interviews, but clarifications on objects that seemed personal but would not be obvious without an elaboration. I asked questions that enhanced my understanding of in what way certain objects were personal. For example, it could be due to connections with family, friends, or an interest. The only fixed question for each occupant was at the end of the process, when I ask, “Is there anything else in this room I might have missed that is important to you or your identify?”
Participants who knew I would be coming were asked not to change anything about their rooms even if it was in a state of disarray. After each examination, if the occupant permitted, the panoramas were taken of the rooms. While each occupant responded to questions about their room, not each student consented to a panorama. Females C and E prefered not to have photos taken.
Results/Analysis
*** Click for Female and Male results in chart form. ***
There are general patterns amongst the occupants that can be viewed through Burke’s theories of identification. There is a clear trend amongst the female occupants to have much more objects of sentimental value. This was best exemplified in the rooms of Females B and D, who had a significant portion of space on the walls devoted solely to photos of friends, family, pets, or places.
Introduction
In the midst of posters and stacks of ramen noodles, perhaps there is more depth to the typical college student’s dorm than meets the eye. At the Brookdale dorms of Hunter College, each student is given an individual room, which the occupant can personalize to his or her choosing. The rooms are physical extensions of the students occupying them. Each student makes arrangement choices that become arguments about personal identity in ways that can be obvious or extremely subtle. In his book A Rhetoric of Motives, literary theorist Kenneth Burke introduces his own perspective on the complex identification that is “rooted in the notion of substance, and identification is synonymous with consubstantiality” (Christiansen). In this study, I apply a Burkean rhetorical analysis to consider the different ways that students physically manifest their essence in a confined space, and the extent to which males or females are more likely to shape their room in a way that encourages consubstantiality.
Background
Kenneth Burke was a prominent figure in 20th century realms of philosophy and language. His post-World War II book Rhetoric of Motives lays the groundwork for the relationship between “identification” and “persuasion”. To Burke, rhetoric is a social instrument whose essence is persuasion (Holland 37). He explains that a “speaker persuades an audience by the use of stylistic identifications; his act of persuasion may be for the purpose of causing the audience to identify with the speaker’s interests; and the speaker draws on identification of interests to establish rapport between himself and his audience” (Burke 46). Through this lens, we can argue that the way a student shapes his or her room is an argument that aims to make others either identify, or at least believe they can identify, with that student. The student attempts to create a connection between him or herself and the audience, which typically consists of other college students. Burke calls this connection “consubstantiality.” He explains: “A is not identical with his colleague, B. But insofar as their interests are joined, A is identified with B. Or he may identify himself with B even when their interest are not joined, if he assumes that they are, or is persuaded to believe so” (Burke 20).
Burkean identification is a process that is “fundamental to being human and to communicating” (Quigley). People strive to be identified with others and simultaneously retain a sense of individuality. When A and B are identified, the two can each be a “distinct substance and consubstantial with another” (Craig 132). Identification is not always on a conscious level. There are many instances “where we may not be aware of the identifications we are making and may hold within our subconscious. As human beings are instances we may identify with individuals, groups, practices, or situations in which we may not fully understand the reason for such a mutual understanding” (Christiansen 7).
The next issue pertains to how we are identified. Burke claims “it is through the notion of property in which a thing is identified. We identify objects, groups, and ourselves through their substance, or in other words the properties of which they are composed” (Christiansen 3). A person establishes his or her relationship to individuals or groups when they either have the same interests or assume they share interests. One can identify with others through a shared common principle, a common conduct, or participation in the activities that make one seem like a participant in a social or economic class (Holland 30). The properties of both have, or share, the same “whatness”, or more accurately, the same “substance” when they are consubstantial. Burke defined property as more metaphysical in nature (Christiansen 3); these properties are found in “goods, in services, in position, or status, in citizenship, in reputation, in acquaintanceship, and in love” (Holland 30).
Burke also gives reasons as to why people feel the need to identify themselves in the first place. His theory is that this need stems from division. Human beings wish to overcome their biological separateness, so we identify with others, which builds on his idea that we strive to be both separate and together at once. People continuously try to associate and disassociate themselves with individuals and groups, in order to “attain some position in the hierarchy of social relations” (Quigley) and relieve themselves of natural division. As a way to challenge division, we “look for ways in which our interests, attitudes, values, experiences, perceptions, and material properties are shared with others, or could appear to be shared” (Quigley). When we persuade others through consubstantiality and the product is identification, rhetoric is at work. Although Burke felt that language was the primary form of identification, man also achieves this through non-verbal acts. This touches on his theories of humans as symbol-using animals, which are also a powerful form of communication. Through a person’s choices with their material possessions, his or her actions “will not be merely ‘louder than words’, they will in a sense be his words’” (Holland 35). Thus, every student is taking part in some form of non-verbal communication when structuring his or her room. This communication is the rhetoric through which they foster consubstantiality.
Research Setting
Brookdale houses students of Hunter College, almost all within the Macaulay Honors or scholar cohort programs. The school and dorm are located in the heart of New York City. While a large portion of students living within the residence hall are from different parts of New York, there are also many students throughout different parts of the country. Each student is provided with an individual private room (but a communal kitchen and bathroom) which offers them more space and freedom to personalize it as they see fit. For approximately ten months, this room becomes their home. The primary lens through which the rooms will be examined is a materialistic one—the objects that physically appear in the rooms. “Material identification results from goods, possessions, and things like owning the same kind of car” (Littlejohn 115). These objects will touch on the different types of “idealistic” forms of identification, which have to do with ideas, attitudes, feelings, and values. (Littlejohn 115) I obtained permission from six males and six females to use their rooms for the study. The age of the occupants ranges from 18 to 20. They will be referred to as Male A, B, C, D, E, F, and likewise with females.
Study Methodology
I assessed all the major characteristics that I would be looking for in someone’s room and created a twenty-three part test. There are twenty-three characteristics found in the tables of the Results section. These range from cleanliness, to the level of decoration, to the sentimentality of the room. I also created an “other” column for the things that couldn’t easily be placed into a category, or seemed particularly intriguing about that person’s room that wasn’t yet mentioned. That way, there were specific things I looked for, while simultaneously keeping myself open to anything else that might come along through examinations of the rooms. The goal was to find certain themes throughout the rooms, while seeing how each individual room answers two main questions: What in here really expresses who this person is? What kind of identity are they building for themselves? Each category explores what methods people use to identify with each other, if there are certain patterns that are shared amongst the way people decorate their rooms, and how their self expression relates to the way others may perceive their rooms. However, the biggest limitation of the study is the subjective nature of the results. For example, what is considered “neat” to me might not be to another viewer. Some of the results will be in a range, such as “moderately neat” to “extremely neat.” I estimated a range I believed a reasonable person would give, but there are photos of most rooms in the Results for the reader to determine themselves.
After getting permission from a select group of people who made it clear they were absolutely comfortable with someone snooping through their room, I went in with the chart open and checked for those characteristics. The occupants were in their room with me as I examined it. I asked each participant to elaborate about certain personal items, objects hanging on the walls, and if there was a particular reason they arranged their room the way they did. These were not extensive formal interviews, but clarifications on objects that seemed personal but would not be obvious without an elaboration. I asked questions that enhanced my understanding of in what way certain objects were personal. For example, it could be due to connections with family, friends, or an interest. The only fixed question for each occupant was at the end of the process, when I ask, “Is there anything else in this room I might have missed that is important to you or your identify?”
Participants who knew I would be coming were asked not to change anything about their rooms even if it was in a state of disarray. After each examination, if the occupant permitted, the panoramas were taken of the rooms. While each occupant responded to questions about their room, not each student consented to a panorama. Females C and E prefered not to have photos taken.
Results/Analysis
*** Click for Female and Male results in chart form. ***
There are general patterns amongst the occupants that can be viewed through Burke’s theories of identification. There is a clear trend amongst the female occupants to have much more objects of sentimental value. This was best exemplified in the rooms of Females B and D, who had a significant portion of space on the walls devoted solely to photos of friends, family, pets, or places.
Female B. Photos referenced are above the desk, newspaper clippings above the bed.
Female D. Sentimental photos above the desk and along the right wall.
Female B had newspaper clippings relating to her sister on the wall, and even taped on a T-shirt that belonged to a dear friend. On top of one of her drawers sits a ceramic turtle that her father gave to her, which holds a personal meaning for her. Similarly, Female F had ceramic cats that were given as a gift from a dear friend. Female E (no photo) had a dress hanging in the center of one wall that her grandmother wore on her wedding day. Her grandmother also gave some of the paintings that she had on the walls. Females A and D had both either taped or framed handwritten letters.
Female A. Letters above the desk and by the bedside table.
When people see a large amount of personal objects seeing attachments to other people and places, the objects often elicit an emotional response from the observers who also place high values on friendship, family, or cultural background. There is a clear conscious level at play in which people recognize their feeling toward their friends or family and manifest it through photos to show appreciation and attachment. From a Burkean perspective, some of the females are identifying with others on a subconscious level through their open display of endearment toward the people, letters, or other personal memorabilia the student has decorating the room. The objects are not there just for occupant’s own personal enjoyment, but as an argument about their personality that allows others to identify with them. There is consubstantiality between people who share similar sentimental values of close relationships with family and friends.
Whereas the males were less likely to identify with others through personal items, they often expressed their own interests through posters and objects that show their hobbies such as music or athletics. For example, Male C hung a large Radiohead poster.
Male C. Radiohead poster to the right.
Whereas the males were less likely to identify with others through personal items, they often expressed their own interests through posters and objects that show their hobbies such as music or athletics. For example, Male C hung a large Radiohead poster.
Male C. Radiohead poster to the right.
There is a form of identification if one enters the room and thinks, “Male C likes Radiohead, and so do I, thus I identify with Male C.” This would be a form of interior identification, because that viewer is identifying directly with Male C. Exterior identification would sound like, “Male C likes Radiohead like that group of people, thus he is identified with that Radiohead group.” There is some form of connection made because the poster is rhetorical means of persuasion toward Male C’s identity. Males D and F also had at least one music-related poster. When creating an extension of the self in a room, music seems to be a common way to create identification.
Males were not exclusive in showing their hobbies. Approximately half of both males and females had some kind of instrument in their room – a guitar, keyboard, or melodica. Shared hobbies seem to be a strong source of consubstantiality. Female A had an unfinished painting sitting in her room, and Male A had music notes strewn about.
Male A. Music notes on the desk, on a stand (bottom right corner), and some on the floor.
Males were not exclusive in showing their hobbies. Approximately half of both males and females had some kind of instrument in their room – a guitar, keyboard, or melodica. Shared hobbies seem to be a strong source of consubstantiality. Female A had an unfinished painting sitting in her room, and Male A had music notes strewn about.
Male A. Music notes on the desk, on a stand (bottom right corner), and some on the floor.
Other hobbies include a love of film and theater as shown through Female E’s many tickets displayed throughout the room. Amongst three males and one female, the room’s visual rhetoric showed an interest in sports, another way to create a commonality between those who enter the room and also share that interest. Whether intentionally done or not, the placement of these objects create statements that portray the occupant in a certain way.
Stylistic choices such as lighting have a drastic effect on how inviting a room appears. There is a common consensus that the regular lights are harsh on the eyes. Thus, some students in the study (Males D, F and Females A, C, E, F) brought their own source of softer light.
Male F.
The lighting affects the ambiance of a room. We could read these softer stylistic lighting choices as a subconscious form of identification as someone who is welcoming, with a calm, relaxed demeanor. More of the females had a carpet on their floor. Two in each sex had extra chairs in their room. The chairs add to the feeling of a welcoming environment by acting as invitations for visitors. The neatness of a room could be a complex factor in whether people feel welcome in entering the room -- a room that is too neat might make people afraid to enter in fear of disrupting the organization, and one that is too messy could be just as discouraging. All of these elements could be seen as a way of persuading others that he or she is a social person, who wants to be able to associate with other social people. As dictated by Burke’s theory, we wish to rid of the natural separateness between people.
Some rooms, on the other hand, were very uninviting, such as Male E’s room. Undecorated and extremely neat, this room can be looked at through a Burkean lens in two different ways.
Stylistic choices such as lighting have a drastic effect on how inviting a room appears. There is a common consensus that the regular lights are harsh on the eyes. Thus, some students in the study (Males D, F and Females A, C, E, F) brought their own source of softer light.
Male F.
The lighting affects the ambiance of a room. We could read these softer stylistic lighting choices as a subconscious form of identification as someone who is welcoming, with a calm, relaxed demeanor. More of the females had a carpet on their floor. Two in each sex had extra chairs in their room. The chairs add to the feeling of a welcoming environment by acting as invitations for visitors. The neatness of a room could be a complex factor in whether people feel welcome in entering the room -- a room that is too neat might make people afraid to enter in fear of disrupting the organization, and one that is too messy could be just as discouraging. All of these elements could be seen as a way of persuading others that he or she is a social person, who wants to be able to associate with other social people. As dictated by Burke’s theory, we wish to rid of the natural separateness between people.
Some rooms, on the other hand, were very uninviting, such as Male E’s room. Undecorated and extremely neat, this room can be looked at through a Burkean lens in two different ways.
Male E.
One way to apply the theory is to say that Male E does not care for persuading an audience through identification even on a subconscious level; thus, he leaves the room barren. On the other hand, he can be seen as someone identifying with those who are very conscientious people. These people tend to be “associated with order, efficiency, and self-discipline” and their rooms tend to be “organized, efficiently arranged, clean, and uncluttered” (Gosling and Ko 386). Male E expresses himself through his room in more subtle ways, such as his extensive DVD collection that can only be seen from opening one of the drawers. The DVD’s are arranged in two rows. On the right are his favorites, with the remainder on the left. Even the conscious choice of storing his DVDs in a closed drawer and keeping the room almost empty is a statement in itself. Male B’s room is similarly less decorated.
Male B.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, there were those with very cluttered, decorated rooms (Female F) who might wish to show that she shares the same values as those who are open and expressive. One specific indication of this is the use of a blackboard hanging on the right side of the room. Male D also has one on the left side of his room. Both use these blackboards to allow others to leave messages or drawing when they come in. The interactive element is another way to get rid of division and separateness.
Female F.
Male D.
Conclusion
These students strive to feel connected and identified with others, to be both part of a group and to retain a sense of uniqueness. This particularly applies to the modern college student, who is struggling to find their place in the world and build new, meaningful relationships with others. Through the study, I found that “environments that people craft around themselves are rich with information about their personalities, values and lifestyles” (Gosling and Ko 379). Some expressed themselves in their rooms through their hobbies, others through representations of interests and passions, or lighting and color choices. When another student enters their rooms and feels a connection with something in the occupant’s room, there is consubstantiality.
While the study only had twelve students, I was still able to find differences in self expression amongst both sexes. Female dorm students tend to show more emotional connections through networks of family and friends in their rooms which typically radiate from the display of personal objects or photos. Males, on the other hand, tended to have much less personal sentiment in their rooms. Instead, like many of the females as well, they persuade others that their interests are shared through interests such as shows, sports, and music. Based off Kenneth Burke’s work on human communications, I saw the way students build rapport with a potential audience in their rooms. In the personal space we occupy, we reveal these common ideas and attitudes, and whether consciously or not, strive for identification that overlaps with the identification of others.
Works Cited:
Burke, Kenneth. A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1969. Print.
Christiansen, Jordan. "Identification: The Missing Link Within the Rhetoric of Social Movements." Kansas State University, 2014. Web. 2 Nov. 2014.
Gosling, Samuel D., and Sei Jin Ko. A Room With a Cue: Personality Judgments Based on Offices and Bedrooms (n.d.): n. pag. University of Texas, 10 Sept. 2001. Web. <http://gosling.psy.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/JPSP02-Roomwithacue.pdf>.
Holland, Laura Virginia. Counterpoint: Kenneth Burke and Aristotle's Theories of Rhetoric. New York: Philosophical Library, 1959. Print.
Littlejohn, Stephen W. and Karen A. Foss “Theories of Human Communication.” Boston: Cengage Learning, 2008. Web.
Quigley, Brooke L. ""Identification" as a Key Term in Kenneth Burke's Rhetorical Theory." University of Memphis, n.d. Web. 02 Nov. 2014. <http://ac-journal.org/journal/vol1/iss3/burke/quigley.html>.