Belonging

In this introduction, we propose the notion of 'embodied belonging' as a fruitful analytical heuristic for scholars in medical and psychological anthropology. We envision this notion to help us gain a more nuanced understanding of the entanglements of the political, social, and affective dimensions of belonging and their effects on health, illness, and healing. A focus on embodied belonging, we argue, reveals how displacement, exclusion, and marginalization cause existential and health-related ruptures in people's lives and bodies, and how affected people, in the struggle for re/emplacement and re/integration, may regain health and sustain their well-being. Covering a variety of regional contexts (Germany/Vietnam, Nor-way, the UK, Japan), the contributions to this special issue examine how embodied non/belonging is experienced, re/imagined, negotiated, practiced, disrupted, contested , and achieved (or not) by their protagonists, who are excluded and marginalized in diverse ways. Each article highlights the intricate trajectories of how dynamics of non/belonging inscribe themselves in human bodies. They also

In this field study, social, cultural, political identity and sense of belonging to Turks in Sweden, to which degree they are integrated into the country they live in, their perception about their homeland, and whether there is a difference between the generations about this subject were assessed in line with the data obtained in the research. The data obtained in the field study carried out in Stockholm, Göteborg and Malmö cities, the most densely inhabited cities by Turks, and the analysis of the data was made using SPSS 18 programme. When the data obtained are analysed, it is revealed that Turks in Sweden care for the identity formation representing their homeland and its continuation in socio-cultural terms, and they generally tend to be conservative in this sense. Nevertheless, it is also understood that the contact of Turks in Sweden with Turkish culture and Turkey is gradually decreasing (when it compared to the past). This also reveals the differences between the generations. When that 3rd generation young Turks born in Sweden came to Turkey, they generally do not feel like in their homeland, but in a foreign country or a country they visit as guests, and this also related to this kind of change. While negativities occur at the point of active participation of the Turks in Sweden in the political system in this country, that they are generally in a positive level at the point of corporate integration is another result arising out of the data obtained in the field study.

Background: Women and students of color are widely underrepresented in most STEM fields. In order to investigate this underrepresentation, we interviewed 201 college seniors, primarily women and people of color, who either majored in STEM or started but dropped a STEM major. Here we discuss one section of the longer interview that focused on students' sense of belonging, which has been found to be related to retention. In our analysis, we examine the intersections of race and gender with students' sense of belonging, a topic largely absent from the current literature. Results: We found that white men were most likely to report a sense of belonging whereas women of color were the least likely. Further, we found that representation within one's STEM sub-discipline, namely biology versus the physical sciences, impacts sense of belonging for women. Four key factors were found to contribute to sense of belonging for all students interviewed: interpersonal relationships, perceived competence, personal interest, and science identity. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that students who remain in STEM majors report a greater sense of belonging than those who leave STEM. Additionally, we found that students from underrepresented groups are less likely to feel they belong. These findings highlight structural and cultural features of universities, as well as STEM curricula and pedagogy, that continue to privilege white males.

The chapter deals with belonging in migration, which encompasses the self, home, memory, journey, and intersectionalities with identities. The discourse on migration is dominated by a binary between living and leaving, where living at home is privileged over leaving; the latter often denigrated as abnormal and a rupture in the rhythm of social life. The chapter argues that while migration has been an ongoing historical process, the figure of the migrant is a modern conception. On the one hand, this figure is received as a “moral panic” among the hosts; on the other, any effort to normalise mobility runs the risk of undermining its exploitative and traumatic aspects. The chapter argues that apart from the traditional disciplines, women’s studies and scholarship on the partition, forced migration, marginalisation, experience, and pain and suffering have contributed immensely to enhancing our understanding of migration in its interdisciplinarity. The dominance of over-deterministic methodological frames of causal analysis has led to the neglect of migrants’ subjectivity towards belongingness and home in migration literature. Home is often conceptualised in binary to work, which the recent experiences of COVID-19 have ruptured by bringing into focus in academic discourse the issue of work from home and migrants’ lack of choice to live rather than longing to leave for home.

The fundamental question of "who belongs?" is an increasingly acute one in every part of the globe. Matters of identity divide societies on every inhabited continent. Religion, ethnicity, skin color, age, sexual orientation, and race, among other identity groups, are shaping politics everywhere. Societies are polarizing around these fundamental axes, as demagogic political leaders promise to keep outsiders away. Xenophobia is on the rise, and anti-immigrant sentiment swells in a period of mass migration.

To what extent do societies, fracturing along these dimensions of difference, strive or even successfully bridge these social cleavages with fair and inclusive policies? In this, our fifth annual Inclusiveness Index report, we strive to answer this question, not simply by reference to particular policies or initiatives, but by examining the data to track how marginalized populations actually fare relative to dominant groups.

The Othering & Belonging Institute's Inclusiveness Index is one of the first indices that measures equity without regard for national wealth or economic conditions. One of the challenges in measuring inclusivity is that it is difficult to disentangle policies aimed at inclusivity from the investments and resources available to marginalized communities. They are often the same and can be conflated. We surmount this challenge by focusing on policies, laws, and outcomes rather than government expenditures or investments. The Inclusiveness Index is uniquely focused on the degree of inclusion and marginality rather than a more general assessment of group-based well-being.
In addition to assessing how inclusive various societies are, the Inclusiveness Index serves as a diagnostic tool. It helps us identify places and societies that are improving, in terms of developing a more inclusive polity and set of institutions, and those places where societies are fracturing and becoming more divided along these lines. The data tells the main story, but we also seek to surface stories and trends that lie beneath the data.

In our conception, inclusiveness entails access to power and public and private resources, and it improves the way society views marginalized group members. Inclusivity is realized when historically or currently marginalized groups feel valued, when differences are respected, and when basic and fundamental needs and rights- relative to those societies' dominant groups-are met and recognized. Our index focuses on social groups rather than individuals, as marginality often occurs as a result of a group membership.

We operationalize this definition of "inclusivity" by focusing primarily on the performance of groups that span salient social cleavages, such as gender, race, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation. We realize that such an approach cannot fully account for the unquantifiable or more qualitative aspects of belonging and inclusivity. For that reason, each version of the Inclusiveness Index report highlights stories and themes that go beyond the data.

Thus, each issue looks for patterns or stories that lay behind the data and touch on issues of inclusivity both across the globe and within the United States. Our 2016 report examined the global migrant crisis. Our 2017 report focused on the rise of ethnonationalism. Our 2018 report surveyed the reckoning brought about by the global #MeToo movement and the growing global water crises. For 2019 we took a closer look at the role of social media in spreading hate and falsehoods, and how global leaders are responding. And in this 2020 report, we focus on the responses nationally, and globally, to the COVID-19 crisis.

As always, a word of caution: our rankings are not the final word on inclusivity nor a definitive assessment of any national or state performance. Rather, they are intended to spark a conversation and generate further inquiry into how and why some places, communities, and nations are more inclusive than others.

Please be sure to send us your suggestions, feedback, and ideas. Additional information about this project, including past reports and downloadable data files, is available at belonging.berkeley.edu/inclusivenessindex.