TITULO TERCERO. DE LA POSESIÓN

Belonging has been claimed to be ‘vaguely defined and ill-theorized’ (Antonisch, 2010: 644). This lack of theorisation is partly due to the complex, multidimensional, and omnipresent nature of belonging (Yuval-Davis, 2006; Antonisch, 2010; Woods and Waite, 2011).

Belongings are generated, or not-generated, to multiple spheres and spatial scales of everyday life. Certain belongings may take prominence, but there are always multiple belongings being negotiated, contested and imposed. As Wood and Waite (2011) and Yuval-Davis (2011) point out, intersectionality (Valentine, 2007) is a key feature of belonging, and is an area that needs greater consideration. The intersectional nature of belonging highlights the ‘mutually implicated’ (Antonisch, 2010) processes of identity-formation and belonging. One’s sense of self and identity, and how identities and cultures are often strategically essentialised to certain places, are key factors in how we experience the feeling of belonging. However, Antonisch (2010) argues that belonging should not simply be considered as a synonym for identity. Instead, the notion of belonging should be considered as a process in its own right, and should receive greater theoretical attention. According to Antonisch (2010), the under-theorisation of belonging is partly the result of the uncritical synonymising of belonging with identity. The scholars Nira Yuval–Davis (2006) and Marco Antonisch (2010) have attempted to counter this lack of conceptualisation, and have provided analytical frameworks for the study

of the notion of belonging. They endeavoured to get ‘under the skin’ of belonging, and conceptualise its key features, and how it functions for people and societies. Nira Yuval- Davis dissected the concept and proclaimed that there are two major analytical dimensions: belonging and the politics of belonging. For Yuval-Davis, to carry out a critical analysis of belonging, we must differentiate between these two major analytical levels. In short,

‘belonging’ is a personal, intimate, ‘emotional attachment, about feeling ‘at home’ and as Michael Ignatieff points out (2001) – about feeling ‘safe’ ’ (Yuval-Davis, 2006: 197). While the ‘politics of belonging’ comprises of:

specific political projects aimed at constructing belonging to a particular collectivity or collectives which themselves are being constructed in these projects in very specific ways. Citizenship and identities, as well as ‘cultures and traditions’ – in fact all signifiers of borders and boundaries play central roles in discourses of the politics of belonging. (Yuval-Davis et al., 2006: 3)

The politics of belonging are the power laden discursive resources that socially construct, challenge and justify claims of belongings. This framework by Yuval-Davis expertly demonstrates that belonging is a personal and emotional process, but simultaneously, it is socially conditioned and constructed by powerful discourses and structures.

A key intervention into this debate is from the geographer Marco Antonisch. Antonisch (2010) supports Yuval-Davis’s framework of belonging and the politics of belonging, but he develops this by offering a more theoretical and systematic discussion. He argues that Yuval- Davis’s framework fails to properly discuss the emotional feeling of belonging and being at home in place. For Antonisch, Yuval-Davis’s analytical framework is more concerned with the politics of belonging, and how this functions to condition belonging. Wood and Waite (2011) add to this by stating that there has been little concern for the emotionality of

belonging by most scholars who study the concept. In addition, Antonisch argues that Yuval- Davis’s framework insufficiently considers the role of place, ‘as if feelings, discourses, and practices of belonging exist in a geographical vacuum’ (2010: 647). This is a critical point made by Antonisch, as space and place are often intrinsic to how belonging is experienced. As Mee and Wright assert:

Belonging is an inherently geographical concept. Belonging connects matter to place, through various practices of boundary making and inhabitation, which signal that a

particular collection of objects, animals, plants, germs, people, practices,

performances, or ideas is meant ‘to be’ in a place [the ‘being’ aspect of belonging as Probyn (1996) puts it]. (2009: 772)

Antonisch embraces the geographical nature of belonging, and illustrates that the emotional and personal aspects are constituted by a sensation of being at home in a place, which he calls ‘place–belongingness’. This foregrounding of the role of place and space is vital for

understanding the grounded dimension of belonging, and how the material and imaginary features of everyday space greatly impact on how it is experienced. The geographical scales at which people have a sense of belonging varies greatly, and as a result, the spatiality of belonging is a complex and dynamic area of analysis (Morley, 2001; Antonisch, 2010; Woods and Waite, 2011).

Marco Antonisch (2010) and Geoff Mulgan (2009) have attempted to counter the lack of conceptual engagement with the emotional and personal feelings of belonging, and have provided lists of factors that generate emotional attachments to place. Firstly, scholars have argued that emotional belonging is achieved through feeling at ‘home’ and ‘safe’ in a place (Yuval-Davis, 2006; hooks, 2009), and Antonisch (2010) and Mulgan (2009) have listed factors that can produce these feelings. The factors include autobiographical links to a place, relational ties that are in a place, cultural factors, economic factors, legality of being in a place, the material built environment of a place, law and enforcement, and public services. Although it is impossible to definitively list what generates feelings of belonging, the factors identified by Antonisch and Mulgan are substantive, and form a useful framework for analysing feelings of belonging to place.

Key characteristics of diasporas such as migration, movement, displacement, border crossing, and reconfigurations of dwelling disrupt more normative notions of belonging, and in so doing, position belonging as a core concern in diaspora and social science research (Brah, 1996). There is now an increased concern with individual migrant subjectivities and

experiences, and this has resulted in the concept of belonging being put firmly on the research agenda in geographies of migration and diasporas (Gilmartin, 2008). The personal and emotional aspects of belonging and the politics of belonging are both greatly salient in the diasporic condition. Through the shared histories of movement and potential attachments to multiple places, feelings of belonging for diasporas are nuanced and complex. Furthermore, the discursive practices of nation states construct geographies of inclusion/exclusion and

condition, to some degree, how diasporic subjectivities can experience belonging to their ‘host’ country. The complexities of diaspora belonging have resulted in it being an area of great interest and importance for theorising and empirically analysing notions of belonging. This brief overview demonstrates that belonging is complex, multidimensional and can be divided into two clear analytical dimensions: personal experiences of belonging and the politics of belonging. Drawing on these ideas I foreground the geographical nature of belonging in this chapter, and explore spatial factors that produce feelings of ‘place-

belongingness’. Although the primary focus of this chapter is on the personal and emotional aspects of belonging, the research is not unconnected from the social conditioning of the politics of belonging. Our personal experiences of belonging are always in conversation with the politics of belonging, and consequently, how we articulate belonging is never

ideologically neutral.