Identity or a sense of belonging: a brief approach to the debate from the Aruban case

​

One of the main hypotheses of this project is that in the Aruban society there are multiple senses of belonging that interact at the same time. Spaces of conflict and consensus are created that are mutually interrelated to each other and as a result they created in-between spaces (Aruban senses of belonging) where all the cultural influences converge (for further information about the linguistic entanglement click here)

Following this idea, it is important to clarify why we use belonging and hybridity rather than identity when referring to the Aruban case.

In this sense, (Pfaff-Czarnecka, 2011, 2013) makes a good approximation of the debate, explaining two central aspects of it:

First, the concept of identity always works in a dichotomous relationship. For example, the “Self” (Aruban/colonized society) vs. the “Other” (the Netherlands, Spain, England/colonizers) but, what happens when this separation is not that obvious? When there are other forms of identity that do not respond to a unilateral relationship? This is where the belonging concept provides us with more multidimensional answers by showing that an individual (re)creates different social bonds and therefore belongs to different contexts at the same time. For example, an Aruban has as an immediate context,  Aruba (local dimension), but also, an Aruban can create links with other spaces such as the Caribbean, South America, and Europe (global dimension).

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Second, the collective identity emphasizes the elements that unify a community while belonging problematizes this by showing that belonging to a community can be positive, but at the same time it can be conflictive and oppressive, which we can visualize through Aruba's multilingualism, where this creates a positive sense of what is being Aruban and part of the Caribbean,

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

but belonging comes with price, which is reflected in the education system where even though Papiamento plays  a significant role in Aruban society, it enters into a field of linguistic dispute with other languages.

 

A category that allows us to explain or complexify the case of Aruban society is what Pfaff-Czarnecka (2013) calls regimes of belonging, “that is institutionalized patterns [that] insist upon investments of time and resources, loyalty and commitment - that is the price people have to pay for belonging together” (p. 15). In other words, in order to belong to a community the people are supposed to accept certain group practices such as: the same religious belief, speaking a certain language, having certain ways of thinking about a certain topic (economy, politics, culture, etc.). For example, speaking Papiamento, Spanish, Dutch or English is tied to these regimes that act simultaneously and depend on the context in which they function. (For further examples of regimens of belonging, go to the language policy section)

​

In conclusion, the feelings of belonging in Aruba cannot be seen from a dichotomous position (positive and negative) but must be addressed from its multiplicity and complexity where this sense of in-betweeness emerges as a third space where all cultures converge.