I’ve embarked on an archeological dig of old issues of this newsletter, mining writings for new insights. One of the first artifacts I’ve surfaced are the research questions below. to view old insights in the harsh light of our present. Comment below with insights and implications that come up for you when you see these questions.
What are new and/or missing definitions and frameworks that define belonging when looking to the future?
How does art and culture both shape belonging and belonging shape artistic and cultural expressions?
How is technology shaping how we construct belonging? Who is wielding the power to shape these constructions?
What are the negative aspects of belonging, if any? What occurs in a world with overabundance of belonging?
Conversely, what occurs in a world where belonging is absent? What coping methods are created and adopted?
Given the multidimensionality of belonging, is any single level or combinations thereof more powerful or influential in shaping belonging? For example, does the emotional experience of belonging outweigh power structures.
How can belonging be actively designed or manipulated?
As our physical surroundings become less reliable and stable with climate change, how will materiality and spatiality shift moving into the future?
How can belonging to ourselves mediate shifts in belonging to places and other groups?
I've been thinking a lot about #9 and shaping stories around the question of whether some of us can ever truly feel like we belong to any place or group. Whether this is necessary to live a fulfilling life. How to belong only to ourselves. Whether this can include caring or only lead to isolationism and whether belonging to any group implies insider status and the negation of a critical perspective of that group.
These are all interesting points. The first component of the @newpublic framework for flourishing digital public spaces is Welcome. I think it's this openness and porosity between insiders and outsiders that avoids the negation that you speak of because dialogue and relationships can be more dynamic and "alive" in that they are held in the heads and hearts of a variety of people. Belonging to ourselves may be less of a destination but more of a journey or pursuit. And that continuous pursuit is a curb against isolationism and antipathy toward others because our relationships will not be built on solving deficits.
Something that's sticking with me today is from On Being's latest (old) interview with Pádraig Ó Tuama is his use of a quote that sectarianism is belonging gone wrong which I think plays into questions 4 and 5 and 7. At the same time, I'm exploring a few online "communities" and I'm not sure how much belonging can be designed but it does seem that there are a lot of very intentional efforts to establish community (and therefore belonging).
I do wonder about the proliferations of community. Many conflate bringing people together with the bonds, trust and validation that many of us associate with community. Although those relationships can emerge organically, I do think that there is still some design and shaping of the information, physical, and emotional environment around those relationships that can make belonging more or less likely.
Thought you might appreciate this: https://www.culturehack.io/issues/issue-one-culture-and-the-anthropocene/between-love-and-terror-having-a-sense-of-belonging-is-no-joke/
I've been thinking a lot about #9 and shaping stories around the question of whether some of us can ever truly feel like we belong to any place or group. Whether this is necessary to live a fulfilling life. How to belong only to ourselves. Whether this can include caring or only lead to isolationism and whether belonging to any group implies insider status and the negation of a critical perspective of that group.
These are all interesting points. The first component of the @newpublic framework for flourishing digital public spaces is Welcome. I think it's this openness and porosity between insiders and outsiders that avoids the negation that you speak of because dialogue and relationships can be more dynamic and "alive" in that they are held in the heads and hearts of a variety of people. Belonging to ourselves may be less of a destination but more of a journey or pursuit. And that continuous pursuit is a curb against isolationism and antipathy toward others because our relationships will not be built on solving deficits.
Something that's sticking with me today is from On Being's latest (old) interview with Pádraig Ó Tuama is his use of a quote that sectarianism is belonging gone wrong which I think plays into questions 4 and 5 and 7. At the same time, I'm exploring a few online "communities" and I'm not sure how much belonging can be designed but it does seem that there are a lot of very intentional efforts to establish community (and therefore belonging).
I do wonder about the proliferations of community. Many conflate bringing people together with the bonds, trust and validation that many of us associate with community. Although those relationships can emerge organically, I do think that there is still some design and shaping of the information, physical, and emotional environment around those relationships that can make belonging more or less likely.