In diverse societies, questions of who belongs, and who is recognised as belonging, are increasingly important. This is particularly relevant for people who are born and raised in Finland to immigrant parents. Many of them identify strongly with Finland and consider themselves Finnish, yet are officially categorised as second-generation immigrants.

Social scientists have long studied belonging through concepts such as identity and group membership. In my Master’s thesis, I approached this question from a slightly different angle: collective epistemic ownership. To understand this perspective, we need to look at how people relate to what they consider ‘theirs’.

It helps to start by defining psychological ownership. This is a subjective sense that something is ‘mine’ or ‘ours’. Ownership does not always have to be legal or formal. We often experience things as “ours” based on an internal sense of connection. People refer to “my neighbourhood,” “our school,” or “our culture,” even when there is no formal ownership involved. This feeling reflects a psychological relationship: something feels like it belongs to me or us.

Belonging as shared meaning-making

This sense of ownership is not limited to physical objects or places. It can also extend to more abstract domains, such as ideas, knowledge, and shared meanings. This type of ownership is called epistemic. Collective form of such ownership simply means that it is about a sense of something being “ours” as a group, rather than individually “mine”. In the context of a nation, collective epistemic ownership implies questions of who (which groups) gets to speak for Finland in public discussions, whose interpretations are taken seriously, and who is seen as having the authority to define what Finland is and stands for.

This dimension has been so far less visible in public debate than other forms of inclusion or exclusion, but it can be equally important for national belonging and democratic resilience of a society. Some scholars consider epistemic injustice to be one of the main challenges facing democracy today. For example, a person may be present in public discussions, yet not be recognised as someone whose voice carries authority when defining shared meanings. This is what can be described as epistemic exclusion.

When ownership is claimed but not recognised

In my research, I examined how native-born Finns who have one or both foreign parents (referred to as second-generation immigrants) experience collective epistemic ownership over the story and legacy of Finland, and how this relates to their sense of national belonging. More specifically, I looked at two aspects:

their own feeling of epistemic ownership (to what extent they feel they are part of defining Finnish society), and
their perception of whether the Finnish majority accepts them in this role

The findings reveal an important pattern.

A person’s own sense of epistemic ownership, on its own, was not strongly related to their national identification. In other words, feeling that the story of Finland is also a story of people with diverse cultural backgrounds was not associated with a stronger sense of belonging. What mattered significantly, however, was whether they felt that the Finnish majority accepted this claim.

This aligns with a broader insight from social psychology: belonging is not only something we decide internally, it is also something that is socially validated. We may feel that we belong, but this feeling becomes stable and meaningful when it is recognised by others.

A particularly important finding concerns the mismatch between one's own sense of ownership and the perception of it being accepted or rejected. When individuals felt a strong sense of collective epistemic ownership but simultaneously perceived that others did not accept them in this role, this was associated with reduced levels of belonging. This mismatch appears to create a form of tension: “I feel that I am part of this society, but I am not treated as someone who has a say in what it is”, that can undermine the sense of belonging.

Taken together, these findings highlight that belonging and inclusion are not only about identity, but also about experiencing co-ownership over a country's story and legacy. Inclusion in a society is not only about citizenship status, it is also about participation in visible domains such as education, media, and politics, and being represented in these domains. It also involves inclusion in the production of shared meanings and being recognised as a legitimate agent in defining the direction of the country. From this perspective, belonging involves being recognised as a co-author of the society one lives in, not just a participant in it.

There are three key takeaways from this research:

1. Belonging is active. Belonging is not only about being formally included, it is also about having a say in shared meaning-making.

2. Belonging is relational. A person does not fully belong simply because they feel that they do; belonging is strengthened when that feeling is acknowledged and accepted by others.

3. Belonging is fragile. It is not only shaped by how people see themselves, but also by how they feel they are recognised by others, and when these do not align, belonging suffers.

Ultimately, if belonging is something we value in diverse societies, we need to move beyond inclusion as mere presence. We need to consider inclusion as shared authorship, where different groups are not only part of the nation, but are also recognised as legitimate contributors to what that nation is and becomes.

‍

Back