Belonging as ‘a Movement’: Unpacking the Complexities and Liminality of Belonging

Dr. Dana Segev

Publication date: 2 July 2025

For a PDF version, click below

Belonging as a Movement.pdf

Download PDF • 2.26MB

People often speak about belonging as if it were a destination—a place one arrives at, a person who ‘gets’ you, or a community that calls you one of their own. But what if belonging is less of a place and more of a movement? A constantly shifting terrain that we never quite settle into—but keep walking toward? A sense of belonging is not static; it is alive, fluid, and fragile. It requires ongoing investment—emotional, relational, and social. To keep a sense of belonging alive, individuals direct intention, energy, and hold a belief that they belong tightly. Individuals belong not simply by being in a place, but by being held in it—seen, needed, welcomed. And when that welcome is uncertain, when inclusion flickers in and out of focus, individuals enter a state of what anthropologist Victor Turner (1969) called liminality: a space between categories, where identities are unclear and futures are unresolved. An individual is not fully an outsider, but not quite an insider either. In that liminal place, individuals are, simply, in between. In this essay, I explore how a sense of belonging is a movement, rather than a fixed state. I focus on the liminal experience of belonging—where access is possible but unstable, where presence does not guarantee participation, and where identity itself becomes a question rather than a certainty. What happens emotionally, socially, and culturally when our belonging is partial, precarious, or conditional? How do people act, relate, and survive when they hover at the edge of acceptance?

What is Belonging?

What does the word ‘belonging’ mean to you? To understand why belonging is a movement and the liminal space, it is important first to understand what belonging encompasses. It is not only about being included. It is about feeling included—seen, understood, liked, appreciated and welcomed, recognised, respected, safe, and connected (Allen, 2020). According to Allen (2020), belonging is a subjective experience rooted in the quality of one’s connections, rather than quantity. Two people might be in the same room, on the same team, or in the same family—but one may feel deeply seen while the other feels invisible. The quality, depth, meaning, and satisfaction an individual derives from a group, a relationship, a place, or an event will, in turn, determine the extent of belonging that individual feels and how they behave (Allen, 2020). At times, individuals belong to things that do not fully belong to them. For example, immigrants may feel a sense of belonging to a country for many years before they have a right to vote or to assume an identity of being, for example, British.

A sense of belonging can be expressed in a very personal individual level— between two people—and on a broader scale between groups, societies and ethnicities. A sense of belonging can also be experienced to a place, an activity, a memory, an object, event, countries, lands and so on  (Allen, 2020). Psychologist Carl Rogers (1951) argued that the need to belong stems from a basic human yearning for positive regard. Later, scholars like Baumeister and Leary (1995) reframed belonging as a core human need, not just a desire. Individuals suffer emotionally—and even physically—when that need is unmet. This is true not only in individuals’ personal lives, but across entire communities. Entire communities can weaken, suffer, experience conflict (and so on) when a sense of belonging is incongruent. Belonging shapes well-being, behaviour, politics, and identities. In academia, a sense of belonging touches most, if not all of, humanitarian disciplines (Allen, Gray & Baumeister, 2022).

Key Attributes of Belonging

Allen et al. (2022) identify two central aspects of meaningful social bonds that promote belongingness: frequent positive or neutral (non-harmful) interaction, and a sense of mutual care. When both of these are lacking or inconsistent, a sense of belonging begins to erode. Over time, individuals stop feeling safe to express themselves fully. They may begin to self-censor, emotionally withdraw, or exit altogether (Hirschman, 1970). Belongingness permeates the dynamics of the social life, across societies, and is pivotal to the experience of individuals in societies. In each culture, the ways individuals can belong vary, as does what is available to belong to. The social rules, behaviours, and ceremonies that surround it varies as well. As Allen, Gray & Baumeister noted:

‘The specific behaviours that increase the probability of acceptance and belonging are often culture-and context-specific, receiving approbation from one group but rejection from another. In a global society, such differences are increasingly important, being a frequent source of misunderstandings, offence, and conflict.’

(2022, p. 1145)

A notable challenge in social life today is how a sense of belonging to one group, idea, or place is linked to a sense of alienation from another group or opposing idea. With the rise of conflict and alienation between groups and a sense of polarised societies across the world, the issue of how belonging creates both a sense of connection and a sense of disconnection is paramount to explore.

Belonging as a Movement

Belongingness is an intelligible and deeply subjective attribute that needs to be constantly sustained. It is alive and it is fluid and the ‘extent’ or ‘degree’ of subjective belonging can fluctuate in different moments. Change can occur either quickly or slowly (Allen, 2020). It can be either a ‘total’ change or a change to particular aspects of the space a person belongs to. To feel belongingness, a person needs to actively believe they belong. At the same time, belonging is something that can also be ascribed onto a person by others (see below on ascribing belongingness). To a greater or lesser extent, and with varying degrees of awareness, an individual receives inputs and provides outputs. That is, an individual engages in assessment and reassessment processes of whether they belong to a given context (Allen, 2020). This process is instinctive, and the drive to do so arises from, as Allen (2020) pointed out, a need to belong. Furthermore, it is this instinctive process of evaluation and assessment that shapes a sense of belonging as a movement, rather than a destination.

Some sense of belonging in a person’s identity can have a more stable quality, or is ‘ascribed’ onto a person in a more fixed form. For example, people with a conviction are often labelled as ‘offenders’ whether they actively offend at that time or have desisted from offending. Another example is ethnicity: a person with a dark skin tone might be labelled as ‘black’, even though he or she are a mixed ethnicity and might have a more complex understanding of their own ethnicity. In both cases, a person is subject to an ascribed element to their identity by others. As it cements the category and group of people they belong to and links it to their individuality (see label essay here). An individual may feel a sense of connection to that label or a sense of disconnection, ambivalence and conflict. It is valuable to point at this junction that the groups we belong to and the labels given to these groups are a social construct that needs to be actively believed. By believing and acting out based on that belief, societies sustain these ideas and groups (Bourdieu, 1977). These social ideas that underline groups and their description are often overarching concepts that are stable over time. This is compared to other aspects individuals may belong to, like hobbies, relationships and phases through the ages, which can be more susceptible to rapid change (or not!). More static places of belonging are often ideas that are more fully rooted in societies and requires less mental energy to sustain (Bourdieu, 1977).

In the process of assessing whether, and in what way, we belong, individuals undergo a process that requires energy. At times we are fully aware of the processes of self-evaluation, of whether we belong or not. On other occasions, this processes is more subconscious, below the surface. We absorb cues from our existential experience; from our environment; from our emotions and perceptions. That is, the factors that fuel a sense of belongingness or disconnection can be both internal and external. At times, one factor is more salient than the other, but often both work together to create the narrative we tell ourselves. The conclusions an individual will form will, in turn, determine the depth of what that individual can experience, achieve, create, gain, and give to a group, place, activity, or relationship. That is, a sense of belonging and the way in which individuals feel they belong also shapes how and how much individuals engage and participate within a given relationship, society, activity and so on. At times, individuals might have a sense of belonging in some respects but not in others. This, in turn, can create friction and diminish a person’s ability to engage freely, without restriction or dissonance. When a sense of belongingness is under uncertainty or is fragmented, the extent to which an individual is motivated to direct energy, resources, and time also falls under question. Yet, simultaneously, the individual may be reluctant to leave or redirect their energy elsewhere since they have already invested energy and may still feel a sense of connection in some ways (albeit not in others).

To summarise, individuals never simply arrive at belonging; rather, they navigate shifting thresholds of recognition, acceptance, and exclusion that demand ongoing participation and belief. This dynamic process reveals how belonging emerges from the interplay of personal aspirations and structural forces, making it both fragile and transformative. For this reasons, belonging is best understood not as a fixed destination but as a movement—an unfolding process of continual negotiation, assessment, and emotional investment.

Incoherent Movement: Action and Lack of Clarity in Belonging

A powerful function of belonging is that it directs behaviour. The degree to which individuals feel they belong informs how much attention they pay to, how they act, and where they invest energy. Belonging tells an individual: This is your space. You are allowed to care here. You are allowed to act here, welcome in. This sense of belonging influences decision-making at nearly every level. People who feel they belong to a community are more likely to contribute to it—socially, emotionally, financially. Belonging motivates a person to take care of what feels like ‘theirs,’ whether that is a group, a place, or a political idea. This also means that when people feel they belong only partially, their behaviour reflects that fragmentation. They may contribute hesitantly, inconsistently, or not at all.

External factors can either encourage or block access to participation and involvement, as if to communicate ‘welcome in’ or ‘indeed — you do not belong.’ An external force can also communicate to an individual that their belongingness is unclear, or that sometimes it is and sometimes it is not; thereby fuelling a sense of confusion, hesitance, and diminishing a person’s ability to direct energy and attention freely. Lack of clarity about belonging involves a sense of incongruity, it breeds hesitance and confusion about how to act and how to feel. Lack of clarity muddles an individual’s sense of connection, identity, and appropriate action. The point I wish to highlight here is that it is not only a sense of belonging or disconnection that shapes individuals’ actions. Also, a liminal space of belonging — experiencing a discord and blur of clarity (even if only momentary) — can shape individual’s choices and actions. This issue has relevance to most (if not all) humanitarian disciplines, including psychology, economics, well-being, sociology, law and criminology.

Negotiating Exclusion and Re-inclusion

A sense of belonging has a powerful impact on well-being, mental health and even physical health (Allen, 2020). People often compensate for a sense of disconnection by focusing intensely on one area of their, lives while neglecting other areas (Allen, 2020). For example, a ‘broken’ sense of belonging to one’s family might lead a person to invest more time and resources into their work and relationships with colleagues, in order to fill that need to belong (Allen, 2020). Arguably, a sense of belonging has a powerful sway on many aspects of an individual’s life, from marriage or divorce; to choices related to education and employment; where to live; and cultivating hobbies.

On the more extreme end, when individuals experience they cannot find a place to belong in a society, that sense of exclusion can be a compelling catalyst in seeking to belong to marginalised groups, gangs, cults, and radicalised groups (Allen, 2020; Becker, 1973; Goffman, 1991). In academia, the study of criminal careers and desistance from crime, shares a close link to the theme of belonging, especially reintegration, desistance, and labelling. In some ways, desistance from crime is the study of negotiating belonging; of exchanging the groups, relationships, places to others. Of exchanging ideas one has about oneself and transforming it to other ideas. For social criminologist, it is the development of social bonds, like marriage and employment, that makes ex-offenders feel a growing sense of belongingness to normative lifestyle (Sampson & Laub, 1993). As a person invest more in these bonds, the bonds and sense of belonging grows as well. This is where social capital supporters emphasise the importance of developing ties that increase social capital for  ex-offenders (Best & Laudet, 2010).

As Farrall, Shapland, and Bottoms have pointed out, change for ex-offenders involves the influence of both external and internal factors (Farrall et al., 2014; Shapland, Farrall & Bottoms, 2016). Here, the subjective perception of where an individual belong is negotiated simultaneously with external factors that reinforce a sense of belonging in processes of desistance (Farrall et al., 2014; Shapland, Farrall & Bottoms, 2016, also see, Giordano et al., 2016). For cognitive transformation criminologist, the sense of belongingness and identifying oneself and as something new that does not involve offending, is part of a cognitive transformation process that ex-offenders who have desisted from crime undergo (Giordano et al., 2016). For Maruna (2001), his participants found a sense of belonging by incorporating the past into the future. Rather than completely replacing one self-narrative with another, his participants narrated a crime free life as interlinked to their complex past (Maruna, 2001).

Cruel optimism: The Costs of Liminal Belonging

Liminal belonging—being on the threshold of inclusion—can produce an acute awareness of social boundaries and generate internal tension between the desire for recognition and the persistent feeling of exclusion. Victor Turner (1969), in The Ritual Process, originally theorised liminality as a temporary, transformative phase in rites of passage; however, when individuals remain stuck in liminality, without reintegration or resolution, it can become a source of prolonged social and psychological strain that begats negative consequences. The emotional experience of liminal belonging is often marked by ambivalence, fatigue, and dissonance. An individual may feel hopeful but wary, invested but doubtful. This state breeds, what Lauren Berlant (2011) terms, cruel optimism—the attachment to something that promises happiness but, instead, may be an obstacle to flourishing. People in liminal spaces often cling to the idea that if they perform better, wait longer, conform more—they will finally be fully included. Like the famous quote from The Great Gatsby, written by F. Scott Fitzgerald (1925):

‘It eluded us then, but that’s no matter—to-morrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther. . . . And one fine morning——

So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.’

As noted, over time, this optimism can have negative consequences. Liminal belonging becomes a kind of psychological limbo: people remain present, but no longer feel anchored. The more individuals give, the more their energy and resources are drained, especially when the desired sense of belonging never fully materialise. This, in turn, can lead to withdrawal, incoherent actions, or the suppression of identity (Berlant, 2011; Butler, 2004). As Judith Butler (2004) argues, when people are denied recognition by the social structures around them, their very ability to exist as ‘livable selves’—that is, have their identity affirmed—is diminished. The experience of liminal belonging—hovering between connection and exclusion—generates emotional fatigue, dissonance, and anxiety (Ahmed, 2012; Berlant, 2011; Butler, 2004). People in this space may feel tokenised, misunderstood, or chronically uncertain questioning their own perception of reality (Ahmed, 2012; Berlant, 2011; Butler, 2004). Individuals may experience emotional disengagement: a slow pulling away from groups, institutions, or communities that no longer feel reciprocal (Ahmed, 2012; Berlant, 2011; Butler, 2004; Hirschman, 1970). Participation in groups and relationships requires belief in the value and authenticity of one’s membership. Individuals invest energy, time, and identity into groups when they believe they are a part of them. But when belonging is liminal—when it is unstable or partial—that investment becomes fraught. Albert Hirschman’s (1970) classic theory of Exit, Voice, and Loyalty suggests that when people feel dissatisfied, they speak up (voice), stay loyal, or leave (exit). But when individuals are unsure they might stay half-in, half-out—trapped in a state of suspended engagement.

Liminal belonging is not only psychologically costly for individuals but also corrosive to the social fabric of communities and institutions. When people consistently occupy a space between inclusion and exclusion—welcomed conditionally, yet never fully integrated—they may begin to disengage from civic and communal life. As Baumeister and Leary (1995) argue, the need to belong is a fundamental human motivation; when this need is unmet, it leads not only to individual distress but to a weakening of pro-social behaviours. Individuals who do not feel fully acknowledged or included are less likely to participate in collective activities, contribute to institutions, or trust social systems (Allen, 2020). This retreat from civic life can be particularly damaging in pluralistic societies, where the strength of democratic institutions depends on the active engagement and trust of diverse populations. Liminal belonging thus creates invisible boundaries around who feels entitled to act, to care, and to shape the future—silencing voices and perspectives that are essential to collective progress.

Societies marked by widespread liminal belonging risk entrenching systemic inequalities and perpetuating cycles of marginalisation. Structural exclusions—whether based on ethnicity, class, gender, citizenship, or criminal history—do not merely operate at the level of access but at the level of recognition (Butler, 2004; Ahmed, 2012). People who are caught in the "in-between" are often subject to conditional inclusion: they are expected to perform gratitude, assimilate culturally, or remain quiet in order to maintain their precarious place (Butler, 2004). This conditionality undermines the notion of equal citizenship and corrodes solidarity, as some groups are implicitly positioned as always needing to prove their right to belong. According to Berlant (2011), when social participation is denied, individuals can experience alienation, social fragmentation, and in some cases, oppositional identities or radical responses. Thus, the emotional toll of liminal belonging is not confined to individual psyches—it reverberates through institutions, social movements, and national imaginaries, shaping how societies imagine who belongs and who does not.

Final Thoughts: Living in the In-Between

This essay is not a map, but an invitation: to reflect, to feel, and to recognise that the most personal struggles often mirror broader social patterns. The liminal space of belonging is not only where many individuals quietly live—it is where many of our societies are stuck. And what societies choose to notice there, or ignore, will shape what societies become. To frame belonging as a movement is to acknowledge its dynamic, fragile, and deeply negotiated nature. It is not simply a matter of arrival or inclusion, but of ongoing evaluation, recognition, and investment. Liminal belonging—where individuals hover between acceptance and exclusion—reveals the emotional, social, and existential labor that belonging demands. It shows how people may persist in hope, navigating systems that both invite and withhold them. These tensions are not personal failings, but structural and cultural conditions that define everyday life.

References

Ahmed, S. (2012). On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Durham: Duke University Press.

Allen, K. A. (2020). The Psychology of Belonging. London: Routledge.

Allen, K. A., Gray, D. L., & Baumeister, R. F. (2022). Belonging: A Review of Conceptual Issues, an Integrative Framework, and Directions for Future Research. International Journal of Wellbeing, 12(1), 1140–1164.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.

Becker, H. S. (1973). Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press.

Berlant, L. (2011). Cruel Optimism. Durham: Duke University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Butler, J. (2004). Undoing Gender. New York: Routledge.

Farrall, S., Bottoms, A., & Shapland, J. (2014). Social Structures and Desistance from Crime. European Journal of Criminology, 11(3), 295–312.

Farrall S, Hunter B, Sharpe G, et al. (2014) Criminal Careers in Transition: The Social Context of Desistance from Crime, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fitzgerald, F. S. (1925). The Great Gatsby. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Giordano, P. C., Schroeder, R. D., & Cernkovich, S. A. (2016). Emotions and Crime over the Life Course: A Neo-Meadian Perspective on Criminal Continuity and Change. American Journal of Sociology, 121(5), 1335–1371.

Goffman, E. (1991). Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. London: Penguin.

Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Maruna, S. (2001). Making Good: How Ex-Convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-Centered Therapy: Its Current Practice, Implications, and Theory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Turner, V. (1969). The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.