Information
In student affairs, in belonging work, and in storytelling, there has always been a quiet tension. We design programs, we build spaces, we create initiatives, and we measure outcomes. We often separate these efforts into categories so we can manage them, assess them, and improve them. We talk about engagement, retention, access, and success as if they are distinct goals that can be addressed one at a time.
But students do not experience institutions in parts. They experience them as a whole.
This realization is not new, but it becomes more powerful when we connect it to a deeper understanding of knowledge itself. In Manulani Aluli Meyer’s (2013) work on holographic epistemology, she reminds us that knowledge is not singular, linear, or compartmentalized. It is relational, simultaneous, and interconnected across physical, mental, and spiritual dimensions .
This idea has profound implications for how we understand belonging.
What if belonging is not something we build in steps, but something that emerges when multiple dimensions of experience come together at the same time?
What if belonging is holographic?
Rethinking How We Understand Knowledge
To understand belonging differently, we first have to understand knowledge differently.
Meyer describes knowledge as existing across three interconnected dimensions. These dimensions are often described as body, mind, and spirit. In many Indigenous knowledge systems, these are not separate categories but expressions of a single, unified reality. They are experienced together, not in sequence.
The physical dimension refers to what we can see, touch, and measure. It is the realm of space, structure, and environment. The mental dimension refers to thought, reflection, and meaning making. It is the realm of interpretation, identity, and understanding. The spiritual dimension refers to relationship, interconnection, and the unseen patterns that link people, place, and purpose.
Meyer emphasizes that these three dimensions are not meant to be understood as a linear progression. They are not steps in a process. Instead, they exist simultaneously, like a hologram where each part contains the whole .
This is a critical shift. Much of Western education and institutional design relies on sequencing. We present information, then we ask for reflection, and then we hope for transformation. We build a space, then we program it, and then we hope community forms.
But if knowledge itself is simultaneous, then the experiences we design should be as well.
Belonging as a Holographic Experience
When we apply this understanding of knowledge to belonging, a new model begins to emerge.
Belonging is not simply about access. It is not just about engagement. It is not only about relationships. It is all of these things happening at the same time.
We can think of belonging as existing across three dimensions that mirror Meyer’s framework.
The first dimension is physical or structural belonging. This is the experience of being able to exist in a space comfortably and safely. It includes access to resources, the design of environments, and the policies that shape who can participate and how. This is often where institutions focus their attention because it is visible and measurable.
The second dimension is cognitive or meaning based belonging. This is the experience of understanding one’s place within a system. It involves making sense of one’s identity, purpose, and role within a community. It is shaped by programs, conversations, and opportunities for reflection.
The third dimension is relational or felt belonging. This is the experience of being seen, valued, and connected. It is rooted in relationships, trust, and cultural affirmation. It is often the most powerful dimension, but also the most difficult to measure.
When these three dimensions align, belonging emerges. When one or more are missing, the experience becomes fragmented.
This is what makes belonging holographic. Each moment of belonging contains all three dimensions. A student sitting in a classroom is not just occupying a physical seat. They are also interpreting their place in that environment and feeling whether they are connected to others.
If any of those dimensions are absent, the experience changes.
The Limitations of Linear Thinking
Many institutional approaches to belonging are built on linear thinking. We assume that if we provide access, students will engage. If students engage, they will build relationships. If they build relationships, they will feel like they belong.
This sequence is appealing because it is simple. It allows us to design interventions that follow a clear order. But it does not reflect how students actually experience their environment.
A student may have access to a space but still feel unwelcome. A student may attend programs but not see themselves reflected in the content. A student may meet people but not feel genuinely connected.
Meyer’s work challenges us to move beyond this kind of thinking. She critiques the way Western epistemology separates objectivity, subjectivity, and spirituality, arguing that this fragmentation limits our understanding of reality .
In the same way, separating the dimensions of belonging limits our ability to create it.
Belonging is not built in stages. It is experienced as a whole.
Designing for the Whole Experience
If belonging is holographic, then our work must shift from building isolated interventions to designing integrated experiences.
This means that every initiative should be considered across all three dimensions at once.
Take something as simple as a study space. A traditional approach might focus on functionality. Is there enough seating? Are the hours convenient? Is the space clean and well maintained?
These questions are important, but they only address the physical dimension.
A more holistic approach would also consider the cognitive dimension. Do students understand that this space is for them? Do they see it as a place where they can succeed? Do they know how to use it effectively?
It would also consider the relational dimension. Does the space foster connection or isolation? Are there opportunities for interaction? Do students feel comfortable being themselves in that environment?
When all three dimensions are considered together, the space becomes more than a resource. It becomes a site of belonging.
This approach can be applied to any aspect of student life. Orientation programs, advising systems, residence life, and campus events can all be designed with this framework in mind.
The key is to stop asking whether something exists and start asking how it is experienced across multiple dimensions.
Storytelling and the Holographic Nature of Identity
This way of thinking also has implications beyond campus design. It changes how we understand identity and storytelling.
In collecting stories from queer individuals across Wisconsin, it becomes clear that each story operates across multiple dimensions. There is the physical reality of place, the internal process of identity development, and the relational context in which that identity is lived.
Each story is not just a narrative. It is a whole system of experience.
Meyer’s concept of the hologram helps illuminate this idea. Just as each part of a hologram contains the entire image, each story contains elements of a larger collective experience .
When we listen to a single story, we are not just hearing about one person. We are gaining insight into patterns of belonging, exclusion, resilience, and connection that extend beyond that individual.
This perspective encourages us to approach storytelling with greater care and intention. It reminds us that stories are not isolated data points. They are expressions of interconnected lives.
The Role of Relationships
At the center of Meyer’s work is the idea that relationships are fundamental. She suggests that relationships are not static things but dynamic processes. They are not nouns but verbs. They are constantly being created and recreated through interaction .
This has direct implications for belonging.
Belonging is not a status that someone achieves. It is a relationship that is continuously shaped by experiences, interactions, and environments.
This means that belonging cannot be fully created through policies or programs alone. It requires attention to how people relate to one another and to the spaces they inhabit.
It also means that belonging is context specific. What creates a sense of belonging in one environment may not have the same effect in another. Understanding this requires listening, observation, and a willingness to adapt.
Bridging Indigenous Knowledge and Institutional Practice
One of the most powerful aspects of Meyer’s work is her call to bring Indigenous ways of knowing into conversation with Western scientific approaches. She does not suggest replacing one with the other. Instead, she advocates for integration.
She argues that scientific data alone cannot provide a complete understanding of reality. There is more to human experience than what can be measured. Meaning, values, and relationships are equally important .
This perspective is particularly relevant in higher education. Institutions often rely heavily on quantitative data to guide decision making. While this data is valuable, it does not capture the full complexity of student experience.
Integrating qualitative insights, lived experiences, and relational understanding can lead to more effective and meaningful approaches to belonging.
It also aligns with the broader goal of creating environments where diverse ways of knowing are respected and valued.
Moving From Text to Context
Meyer describes a shift from text to context. This shift involves moving beyond the accumulation of information to a deeper engagement with meaning and experience .
In the context of student affairs, this means moving beyond simply delivering content or programming. It means creating environments where students can connect what they are learning to their own lives and to the world around them.
It also means recognizing that context matters. Students bring their own histories, identities, and perspectives into every space. Understanding these contexts is essential for creating meaningful experiences.
This approach requires a different kind of attention. It requires listening, reflection, and a willingness to engage with complexity.
Implications for Practice
Adopting a holographic approach to belonging has several practical implications.
First, it requires a shift in how we evaluate success. Instead of focusing solely on participation rates or usage statistics, we need to consider how experiences are perceived and felt.
Second, it requires collaboration. Because belonging spans multiple dimensions, it cannot be addressed by a single office or department. It requires coordination across different areas of the institution.
Third, it requires intentional design. Every decision, from the layout of a space to the structure of a program, should be considered in terms of how it impacts physical, cognitive, and relational experiences.
Finally, it requires humility. No single framework can capture the full complexity of belonging. Being open to learning from different perspectives is essential.
A New Way Forward
The idea of holographic belonging is not entirely new. It draws on longstanding Indigenous knowledge systems that have emphasized interconnectedness for generations. What is new is the opportunity to bring this perspective into contemporary institutional practice.
By recognizing that belonging is a whole experience, we can move beyond fragmented approaches and create environments that are more responsive to the needs of students.
This does not mean abandoning existing strategies. It means expanding them.
It means asking deeper questions, designing more intentionally, and valuing multiple ways of knowing.
Final Reflection
Belonging is often described as a goal, something we strive to achieve. But perhaps it is more accurate to think of it as a condition that emerges when certain elements come together.
When students have access to spaces that support them, when they can make meaning of their experiences, and when they feel connected to others, belonging begins to take shape.
This process is not linear. It is dynamic, relational, and deeply interconnected.
In this sense, belonging is not something we build step by step. It is something we experience in moments where physical presence, cognitive understanding, and relational connection align.
Those moments may be brief, but they are powerful.
They are the moments that stay with students long after they leave an institution.
They are the moments that shape how people see themselves and their place in the world.
And they are the moments we have the opportunity to create, if we are willing to think differently about what belonging truly is.
Belonging is not built in steps.
It is felt all at once.
Add comment
Comments