Belonging
Related terms: care, entanglement, inclusion, exclusion, non-hegemonial
While researching this essay, it eventually occurred to me that defining the term ‘belonging’ in a singular manner would be quite challenging. I began to understand that belonging is omnipresent, manifesting in various forms, for example, as belonging to social groups, family, political parties, specific places, or nature (as a general category juxtaposed by ‘culture’). The concept of belonging can be defined as a profound sense of connection and acceptance within a community or environment characterised by forms of mutual care and a sense of being a valued and respected part of a larger whole.
However, individuals also belong to various social categories, including ‘class,’ ‘race,’ and ‘gender’ (with all the potential inequalities and exclusion mechanisms that come with such constructs). There are identity-shaping belongings that one assigns to oneself, and external attributions that are assigned by others or by society (in the sense of norms, roles, etc.). Belonging is fundamental to the formation of one’s own identity and, at the same time (out of dialectic necessity, one might say), leads to exclusions from groups, places, or knowledges to which one does not belong.’
In this essay, I argue that belonging, within an environmental humanities context, is fundamentally about recognising the interconnectedness and entanglement of all living beings within the natural world. While social dimensions of belonging are important, a primary understanding of belonging must emphasise our relationship with the environment, acknowledging that humans are part of a larger ecological system. This understanding is crucial for addressing the underlying ideologies, cultural tropes, and economic systems that lead to the exploitation of nature or extractivism, while potentially fostering a sense of responsibility and care for a common living environment, not at all limited to human agency. Indeed, considering the ruptures of the Anthropocene, our very survival as a human entity may depend on acknowledging such entanglements as modes of belonging. Therefore, it is essential to understand that the capitalist social order is a predominant root cause of social divisions, marginalisation, and the exploitation of both people and non-human lifeforms, including their habitats. I aim to analyse how capitalist social order both is bolstered by and fosters a lack of understanding of human belonging to a common world shared with non-human lifeforms, and in doing so, to explore the multifaceted, flexible, and contextual dimensions of belonging.
Belonging is often characterised as a fundamental human need because of its emotional dimension of feeling ‘at home,’ ‘secure,’ or ‘socially accepted’ (Yuval-Davis 2006, 197). It has the potential to be a source of solidarity, care and community in a world that is constantly changing, experiencing social, ecological and economic crises as a new norm, on both local and planetary scales. At the same time, belonging can foster a responsible connection of humanity to nature, as I will explore further in this essay. Nevertheless, it is also important to recognise the power that belonging holds and how it is instrumentalised to reinforce the current societal order.
This essay will demonstrate how the concept of belonging is integral to the functioning of society, yet simultaneously serves to perpetuate division between individuals and other living beings. I will show how capitalist social orders build upon the separation of humans in order to exploit their workforce. I will then link this exploitation of human beings in the capitalist system to the alienation from and exploitation of living beings other than humans. I emphasise the importance of having a sense of belonging to the planet and of believing in the interconnectedness and entanglement of all living beings. Expanding the concept of belonging in such a way means a recognition of this connection as well as fostering an attitude of care towards the world one inhabits. I argue that it is necessary to abolish the capitalist social order to overcome its inherent separation of human beings from nature, and to begin to respect and value every lifeform for their inherent state of being rather than for their benefits to economic growth.
To underscore the significance of the sense of belonging to a community or a given environment, I want to discuss its influence on the mental and physical health of human beings. While the psychologists Roy F. Baumeister and Mark R. Leary solely focus on the interpersonal relationships between humans, I will later show how their studies on the positive impact of group belonging can also be applied to relationships with non-human beings. Baumeister and Leary hypothesise the following:
“[H]uman beings are fundamentally and pervasively motivated by a need to belong, that is, by a strong desire to form and maintain enduring interpersonal attachments. People seek frequent, affectively positive interactions within the context of long-term, caring relationships.” (Baumeister and Leary 1995, 522)
This “belongingness hypothesis” suggests that a sense of belonging plays an important role in human behaviour. Individuals form social bonds primarily for reproductive and survival reasons: they care for each other, share resources, and protect their offspring and each other from potential threats. Reproductive factors do not exclusively drive the motivation to form social ties. As the authors argue, feelings of belonging to another person or group are crucial for mental and physical well-being. Individuals with strong social bonds are “happier, healthier, and better able to cope with the stresses of everyday life” (Baumeister and Leary 1995, 510). Conversely, feelings of exclusion can lead to an increased risk of mental health issues, including depression, social anxiety and behavioural problems. Even threats to social bonds or social acceptance can result in feelings of anxiety or mental stress. The authors also highlight the formation of in-group favouritism once a sense of group belonging is established, with group members tending to help or support each other and suppress solely self-serving tendencies. Therefore, belonging presents itself as a key concept in all disciplines that seek to understand human behaviour in social interactions (Baumeister and Leary 1995, 522; Allen et al. 2022, 1133).
Having discussed the psychological importance of belonging, I will now turn to the influence of the prevailing social order on an individual’s sense of belonging. To examine this influence on belonging, it is first necessary to define the concept of social order and to acknowledge the power dynamics that are constructed through it.
The sociologist Franz Lehner defines social order in modern societies as a complex system of rules which encompasses both laws and other written directives, as well as various customs, traditions and values, including those that are not formally established. Examples of the latter include general but also culturally distinct concepts such as morality and fairness. Social norms, which form part of this system of rules, can substitute complex communications and negotiations in individual cases (Lehner 2011, 91). They facilitate a less complex daily life, as basic norms or social agreements do not have to be negotiated anew in each communication and situation, yet with a compulsive nature, because non-compliance can lead to social sanctions (Lehner 2011, 92). Social norms are endowed with meaning; they “define what is ‘normal’, who belongs – and therefore, who is excluded” (Hall 1997, 10). Considering this, social norms have a profound effect on marginalised groups, as the instrument of ‘marginalising’ is primarily used to stigmatise people as being outside the norm. The distinction between ‘normal’ and ‘stigmatised’ is highly contextual because their meanings can change over time or within specific social environments and groups.
Another foundation of a complex social order is values, which Lehner (2011, 94) defines as shared ideas of desirable or meaningful states. Values can also function as agreements about the meaning of norms and rules, providing justifications for their compliance. The preservation of this complex social order can only be assured by communicating this system of rules across generations, fostering a shared belief in its principles (Lehner 2011, 90). In this context, belonging signifies the alignment with the established social order, conforming to the social norms, and sharing common values. This also means reinforcing the social norms and, through it, contributing to the marginalisation of specific groups.
This marginalisation is the result of the process of ‘othering’, defined as the fostering of one’s sense of belonging through the portrayal of others who are not part of one’s group or community as foreign (Allen et al. 2022, 1134). Therefore, the process of othering can be viewed as the opposite of allowing people to feel like they belong. Fascist ideologies in particular create this otherness by constructing seemingly irreconcilable differences between races, genders, religions, nationalities, (dis)abilities, sexualities, cultures, and so on, presenting them as a threat to their seemingly homogeneous national unity (Stanley 2015, 165). In order to gain political power, fascist actors create this dangerous ‘other’ as a root cause for the economic, social, and cultural challenges posed by globalisation, digitalisation, individualism, and migration, among other large-scale social developments (Wodak 2023).
Following this discussion of social order and marginalisation, I will now discuss how this process of othering is a direct result of the production principles of the capitalist system. Through this, I will also highlight one of the causes of a global increase in far-right ideologies and their consequences, dividing society.
One of the fundamental causes of marginalisation and the ‘othering’ of individuals is, to follow Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno (2022, 177), the exploitative structure and alienating nature of capitalist production. However, the general public does not recognise the underlying cause of social, political, economic, and ecological crises to be capitalism, as it is obscured by an “ideological curtain” (Horkheimer and Adorno 2022, 5). The capitalist order is being reproduced by societal institutions as well as by the overproduction of cultural assets. This is particularly evident in social media, where cultural assets are mass-produced and filtered in terms of content. If everything that is being produced – economically as well as culturally – reproduces the system, it makes examining its ‘ideological curtain’ exceedingly challenging. Consequently, the masses have become increasingly susceptible to ideologies such as fascism, as those seem to offer a simplified solution to the recurring economic and social crises. However, these ideologies only create ‘the other’ as a projection surface and neither unveil nor do they challenge the underlying alienating production relations.
While everyone in the working class is being exploited by capitalism, I will now examine how marginalised individuals may be particularly vulnerable to further exploitation under capitalist production relations.
According to Raha, capitalism is based on “the racial and gendered division of labor” (2021, 105f.), which results in “feminised, radicalised, queer, trans, disabled, and/or migrant workers” being susceptible to poverty due to factors such as underemployment or underpayment (2021, 106). They also repeatedly encounter a shortage of social services, which reinforces their dependence on wage labour (Raha 2021, 92). This labour is often characterised by precarious working conditions. Historically speaking, the stigmatisation of specific groups has led to the formation of communities, which often serve as a means of survival for individuals experiencing homelessness, poverty, or mental incapacity to care for themselves. Community care work can be regarded as a form of activism, as evidenced by the gay liberation movement in New York during the 1970s (Raha 2021, 102). A central group within this movement was the Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries (STAR), participating in demonstrations and leading protests against the incarceration of queer people (Raha 2021, 103). The group founded the STAR-house, a refuge and safe space for LGBTQ+ individuals, caring particularly for those who were poor or homeless. At that time queer people, especially queer people of color, faced persecution from the state and stigmatization by society. In these challenging times, the STAR-house provided a crucial support network, fostering a sense of belonging and solidarity among its members while supporting the whole neighbourhood community (Raha 2021, 104). The exploitative nature of the capitalist system is demonstrated by the emergence of social movements that fight against the economic disadvantage, societal exclusion, and exploitation they face. In the context of the ongoing struggle against the capitalist system, community care work emerges as a notable form of activism. This work is essential for their survival and ongoing existence, as well as meeting their fundamental human need to belong to a community.
To further expand on this point, the exploitation and oppression of specific groups in modern society are inherently connected with the exploitation of nature and living beings other than humans (Eisenstein 2019, 62). This is because both are extensively affected by the social and extractivist order of capitalism. Horkheimer and Adorno write, "the myth turns into enlightenment, and nature into mere objectivity” (2021, 15). While human actors increase their conceived power over nature, they pay with their alienation from it. They see themselves as separate from nature and objectify it, treating it as a resource to be used for their benefit. In the domain of environmental humanities, the term ‘extractivism’ has been used to describe the exploitation of natural resources (Matthes and Crncic 2012).
The exploitation of specific groups and the exploitation of nature are interconnected, rooted in the capitalist social order, enabling extractivism. This aligns with the observation made by Martin Guinard, Bruno Latour and Ping Lin (2020) that we are facing a division where many seem to have “abandoned” a shared planet, indicating a severe detachment that facilitates exploitation. The separation of humans from non-human actors is mirrored in their description of a lack of consensus “on what it means to live ‘on’ earth” (Guinard et al. 2020), as if different groups or societies occupy fundamentally different worlds. We can see this illustrated in the policies of US President Trump, which Guinard, Latour and Lin describe as prioritizing privatization, deregulation, and isolating the US from international projects, effectively signaling an excluding attitude of “‘[y]ou and I don’t live on the same planet’” (2020). In a similar manner to Horkheimer and Adorno's theory that “myth turns into enlightenment” (2021, 15), signifying the domination of nature through its objectification, Guinard, Latour and Lin (2020) signify a dangerous indifference towards the planet, further driving the wedge between humans and the world they inhabit and on which they depend. This reinforces the claim that humans must believe in their separation from nature to engage in its exploitation, a belief or perceived condition that the authors portray as a root cause of the contemporary crisis.
In the ethical/ontological investigations of Donna Haraway and other post-humanist scholars, the relation between humans and nature is, in this sense, rather to be conceived of as an ‘entanglement’ of all living beings and the biogeochemical cycles they subsist on (Thiele 2017, 43). This approach underscores the interconnectedness of all aspects of society, politics, economics, and the environment. Viewing entanglement as a relational ontological state means understanding that it is a fundamental condition of how things exist. This view shifts the focus from seeing things as separate to seeing the interdependent connections as primary in defining what those things are. Acknowledging entanglement as an existential condition may mark a fundamental shift in how human beings understand our responsibility and our relationship with the world (Thiele 2017, 47). This inherent connection – hence, the belonging to nature – should determine our behaviour towards non-human beings as well as other humans.
Environmental humanists have long emphasised the importance of integrating relational values into political and economic decision-making (Chan et al. 2016, 1464). Relational values include people’s preferences, principles and virtues that emerge from their relationships with nature. These values encompass concepts of responsibility, identity and cultural well-being that emerge from interconnectedness with the natural world and contribute to the pursuit of a fulfilling life (Chan et al. 2016, 1462). Human-nature relationships are essential to developing a sense of belonging to nature and, therefore, start caring for nature. The sense of belonging to nature can be strengthened by social practices, such as community-based conservation and rituals that celebrate nature. By advocating for a confrontation with entrenched interests and institutional norms that prioritise market-based values and current property rights, environmental humanists emphasise the fostering of new societal norms to change existing institutions. In general, those practices demand recognition of the influence of various, non-hegemonial (that is, all too often non-Western) worldviews, knowledge systems, and power relations on decision-making concerning ecological conservation (Chan et al. 2016; Pascual et al. 2023).
I have tried to show that a fundamental system change is needed to secure sustainable human and ecological well-being. For that, the production relations, social norms, and values need to undergo drastic reevaluation and change. We need more global solidarity – towards humans and non-humans –, the strengthening of communities and the abolition of unjust hierarchies of exploitation. We need to start caring more for each other and nature. Because, as, e.g., the concept of in-group favouritism shows, if we feel a sense of belonging to a group, or in this case to a natural environment, we tend to care more for their or its well-being (Baumeister and Leary 1995, 501). It is crucial to underscore that the natural world itself is not inherently fragile; rather, the environment that enables the existence of humans and numerous other species on Earth is fragile. We thus need to develop more and more deeply involved practices of care for a world we share with other lifeforms, and to which all of us belong.
Conclusion
Belonging is the sense of connection and acceptance that fosters mutual care and a sense of being valued and respected. While interpersonal belonging is a human need, human belonging to nature and non-human actors is a fundamental condition of how everything can exist.
However, the alienating nature of production relations has resulted in social, political, ecological, and economic crises, coinciding with the rise of fascist ideologies. These ideologies have contributed to the destruction of ecosystems, pollution, and the extinction of species, including our own.
In conclusion, this essay has shown that the concept of belonging is a complex force, both essential for individual well-being and a potential tool for social division and ecological extractivism. The capitalist social order exacerbates this duality, fostering alienation and ‘othering’ that harm both human relationships and our relationship with the environment. Ultimately, achieving a just and sustainable future requires a fundamental shift away from this system, towards one prioritising interconnectedness, solidarity, and a deep sense of belonging to both human and non-human beings. It calls for a society grounded less in economic exploitation and more in love, solidarity, and respect, recognising the planet as our shared home.
References
Allen, Kelly-Ann, DeLeon L. Gray, Roy F. Baumeister, and Mark R. Leary. 2022. “The Need to Belong: A Deep Dive into the Origins, Implications, and Future of a Foundational Construct.” Educational Psychology Review 34 (2): 1133–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09633-6.
Baumeister, Roy F., and Mark R. Leary. 1995. “The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation.” Psychological Bulletin 117 (3): 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497.
Chan, Kai M. A., Patricia Balvanera, Karina Benessaiah, Mollie Chapman, Sandra Díaz, Erik Gómez-Baggethun, Rachelle Gould, et al. 2016. “Opinion: Why Protect Nature? Rethinking Values and the Environment.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113 (6): 1462–65. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113.
Eisenstein, Charles. 2019. Klima: Eine neue Perspektive. 2nd ed. Berlin: Europa Verlag.
Gleeson, Jules J., and Elle O’Rourke, eds. 2021. Transgender Marxism. London: Pluto Press.
Guinard, Martin, Bruno Latour, Ping Lin, and e-flux journal editors. 2025. “Editorial: You and I Don’t Live on the Same Planet: Issue #114.” e-flux Journal, March 24, 2025. https://www.e-flux.com/journal/114/367057/editorial-you-and-i-don-t-live-on-the-same-planet/.
Hall, Stuart. 1997. Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. London: SAGE Publications.
Horkheimer, Max, and Theodor W. Adorno. 2022. Dialektik der Aufklärung: Philosophische Fragmente. 26th ed., unabridged. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag.
Lehner, Franz. 2011. Sozialwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-92710-7.
Matthes, Sebastian, and Zeljko Crncic. 2024. “Extractivism.” InterAmerican Wiki: Terms – Concepts – Critical Perspectives, December 4, 2024. https://www.uni-bielefeld.de/einrichtungen/cias/publikationen/wiki/e/extractivism.xml.
Pascual, Unai, Patricia Balvanera, Christopher B. Anderson, Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer, Michael Christie, David González-Jiménez, Adrian Martin, et al. 2023. “Diverse Values of Nature for Sustainability.” Nature 620 (7975): 813–23. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06406-9.
Raha, Nat. 2021. “A Queer Marxist [Trans]Feminism: Queer and Trans Social Reproduction.” In Transgender Marxism, edited by Jules J. Gleeson and Elle O’Rourke, xx–xx. London: Pluto Press.
Stanley, Jason. 2015. How Propaganda Works. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvc773mm.
Thiele, Kathrin. 2017. “Entanglement.” In Symptoms of the Planetary Condition: A Critical Vocabulary, 43–48. https://doi.org/10.25969/mediarep/1922.
Wodak, Ruth. 2023. “Rechtspopulistische Diskursverschiebungen.” Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, October 20, 2023. https://www.bpb.de/shop/zeitschriften/apuz/diskurskultur-2023/541849/rechtspopulistische-diskursverschiebungen/.
Yuval-Davis, Nira. 2006. “Belonging and the Politics of Belonging.” Patterns of Prejudice 40 (3): 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313220600769331