Introduction

Art plays an integral role in communicating national sentiments. It has been used to express tribute and patriotism (Hoffman & Howard, 2007), as propaganda by the state to unite disparate ethnic or social groups (e.g., Kolstø, 2006), and to resist colonial influences or historical marginalisation (e.g., Vance & Potash, 2022). Accordingly, art is a versatile tool to communicate and influence (opposing) sociopolitical messages and sentiments related to the nation. This versatility is important, especially as attitudes and emotions surrounding the nation are often complex. Groups of individuals within the same nation can feel oppressed and disenfranchised while others can feel superior to and even hostile toward the former (Mylonas & Tudor, 2021; Simonsen & Bonikowski, 2020). For instance, when the political elite dog-whistle a form of nationalism in favour of a particular ethnic group, the outgroup can be deemed second class and potentially face discrimination (Bonikowski & Zhang, 2023). In such a scenario, art can serve as a symbolic tool to signal dissent and express provocative ideas or to create dialogue between minority and dominant groups.

A contradiction prevails as individuals and the state could remain fragmented in their conceptions of and sentiments toward the ‘nation’. Nations are imagined, socially constructed communities (Anderson, 2020), and nationalism encompasses the “many varieties of national attachment” that individuals within these communities possess (Mylonas & Tudor, 2021, p.111). Even as individuals identify with their ‘nation’, they might not believe that others share the same identity or might not share a common idea about who belongs to this nation. Promoting belongingness within the nation is crucial though, because the resulting cohesion among heterogeneous communities facilitates pro-sociality and collective well-being (Baldassarri & Abascal, 2020). This leads us to ask: How can art therapy support a shared sense of belonging among diverse identities within a unified nation?

This paper examines the question using a practice-based case analysis of a community art therapy event in Singapore by two Singaporean Chinese female art therapists. Herewith, we acknowledge that our backgrounds could influence our interpretations and analyses. For example, our perspectives may lead us to prioritise certain aspects of belonging over others. Additionally, our positions as part of a dominant ethnic group within the state-led Chinese-Malay-Indian-Other (CMIO) framework could constrain our understanding of the challenges faced by minority groups in navigating belongingness in Singapore; or our contextualisation of community art therapy within the Singapore nation might have been influenced by being raised in an environment where national identity is emphasised. As practice-led researchers engaging with the complex topic of belonging in Singapore, we have striven to approach this work with sensitivity and openness, and have remained committed to ongoing reflexivity throughout this paper. A third-person perspective is adopted to facilitate this reflexivity.

Nationalism: The case of Singapore

Singapore is a multicultural society comprised of diverse ethnicities, languages, and religions. In fact, Singapore was “intended from the outset of its colonial history to be an ethnically plural society” (Solomon, 2019, p.94), where numerous migrant communities settle. Given such longstanding diversity, and to support a stable and cohesive sociopolitical life, nation-building has often assumed a central position in Singapore (Hill & Lian, 2013).

Concerns about state legitimacy and challenges faced throughout Singapore’s history, from racial and economic crises in the 1960s to 1980s to globalisation today, continue to compel the state to instil a collective sense of national identity and belonging (Kong & Yeoh, 1997; Yeoh, 2018). Such endeavour toward one ‘Singaporean’ identity is conceivably further supported by research demonstrating the benefits of a superordinate national identity for disparate social identifications, including favourable attitudes regarding racial policies (Transue, 2007), pro-sociality toward rival religious minorities (Charnysh et al., 2015), and support for redistributive social policies and assimilation of immigrants (Brubaker, 2004). Nonetheless, these benefits are bounded by what the ‘nation’ constitutes (i.e., who belongs to the ingroup and outgroup).

Exclusionary nationalism, such as ethno-nationalism, has been shown to be divisive and perpetuates rivalry and hostility among groups within and outside the nation (Bieber, 2022; Reeskens & Wright, 2013). Individuals who glorify their nation often bear strong respect toward national symbols and leadership but also view their ingroup as superior to others, thereby leading to exclusion and discrimination (Roccas et al., 2006). Broadly then, yielding the benefits of a common nationhood requires sensitivity toward how the ‘nation’ is defined and whether the same notion is shared among the members.

The Chinese-Malay-Indian-Other (CMIO) framework remains a pivotal feature of Singapore’s official nation-building project, including, but not limited to, housing policies, census data, and public holidays (Solomon, 2019). Briefly, the CMIO framework is a system of ethnic classification comprising Chinese, Malay, Indian, and others that serves as an administrative tool for the government to manage policies around race (Ong, 2022). ‘Others’ is intended as a catch-all category for those who do not fit into the preceding three racial groups.

The framework with its four racial categories originated from British colonial practices prior to Singapore’s independence, when there were significant groups of migrants from China, the Malay Archipelago, and India. Today, the Chinese constitute a majority of 74.3% in Singapore, and the Malays, Indians, and others make up 13.5%, 9.0%, and 3.2%, respectively (Department of Statistics Singapore, 2020). Critically, Kathiravelu (2017) notes how the CMIO framework continues to perpetuate bias or privilege today, such as when low educational and economic achievement are attributed to the Malay identity and when being Chinese brings forth better socioeconomic opportunities and access.

Appropriately, the CMIO framework has been argued to be a colonial vestige, and the state-driven conceptions of ‘nation’ and ‘national identity’ have been contested (Ortmann, 2009; Yeoh, 2018). Ostwald and Chew (2021) examine ethnic diversity in Singapore and its neighbouring country Malaysia, with whom it shares a precolonial and British colonial history, and consider how their “essentialised, colonial-era system of ‘racial classification’” (p.3) is problematic and “does not accord with lived experiences” (p.12). Further, the CMIO framework is archaic in an increasingly intersectional cosmopolitan Singapore, where individual identities are multifaceted and one’s various identities interact to engender bias, privilege, or oppression (Connor et al., 2023). Coupled with the notion that a complete disregard of social categorisations could erode unique or minority cultural heritages (Park & Judd, 2005), a more suitable approach to engendering a sense of belonging within a unified nation is intersectional, recognising and integrating diverse social identities and enabling their coexistence.

The preceding agenda remains a challenge due to an apparent tension between subjective experiences and a collective national identity driven by the political elite, whether or not characterised by the CMIO framework (Ortmann, 2009), as well as the complexity implicated in the sheer diversity of individual multiple intersecting identities (e.g., Christensen, 2009; Rocha, 2018). Besides, pursuing a shared national identity requires individuals to acknowledge their own belongingness and share a collective awareness that everyone has a basic desire to belong and maintain this membership (David & Bar-Tal, 2009). Following the current line of argument, we posit that it would be more useful for efforts to shift from an elite-arbitrated nation to an environment where a participatory-based sense of intersectional belonging within the broader context of the nation were fostered. This aligns with recent calls in Singapore to deemphasise such labels as CMIO in encouraging cohesion (Ong, 2022).

Belongingness is a fundamental human need (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 2000); and a sense of belonging is the “subjective feeling of value and respect derived from a reciprocal relationship to an external referent that is built on a foundation of shared experiences, beliefs or personal characteristics” (Mahar et al., 2013, p.1031). The current work focuses on Christensen’s (2009) concept of intersectional belonging, which conceives belongingness as multilayered across macro, meso, and micro levels. At the macro level is belonging to imagined communities (e.g., nation, religion); the meso level describes belonging to collective organisations (e.g., political parties, social movements); and the micro level refers to everyday lived, local communities. Specifically, this work situates community art therapy at the micro level and considers how it fits within the broader contexts of political activity and imagined ‘nations’.

Research shows that belongingness mediates the relationship between social identity threats and motivations to initiate and maintain positive social ties with others (e.g., Froehlich et al., 2023). Arguably then, interventions that target belongingness could help mitigate the adverse impact of identity threats on reducing individual motivations to engage with dissimilar others.

Mindful art-making in community art therapy

A sense of belonging can be cultivated when individuals are simultaneously motivated, equipped with social skills, participating in communal activities, and developing favourable feelings and thoughts of value and mutual respect during participation (Allen et al., 2021). Community art therapy is a communal activity through which motivated participants can experience their citizenship and cultivate a sense of belonging. Although practical differences exist in what constitutes community art therapy (e.g., mode of delivery, length of intervention), a general principle is that the art-making process brings community dwellers together in a setting or through a piece of work to facilitate psychological growth and social change. Nolan and Mumpton (2023) consolidate research and practice in this domain, defining community art therapy as follows:

Community art therapy is both an approach and a setting that is practiced in context and shaped by the culture of the people in the community, it centers creative practices for both individual and collective therapeutic benefits, and it continues to grow and evolve. (p.3)

They highlight how community art therapy practice is inclusive, provides people with a sense of belonging, addresses social inequities, encourages interdependence, and is practised ethically.

Following this view, we argue that community art therapy could be extended to nurture intersectional belongingness. We add that mindful art-making can catalyse the effects of community art therapy more effectively by elevating each individual’s own sense of intersectional belonging as well as a collective awareness of the shared desire to belong. Mindful art-making focuses on the present moment and implicates a non-judgmental, curious, and open acceptance of one’s experiences. Put together, mindful art-making in community art therapy affords a dynamic and organic art-making context through which diverse individuals, bearing intrapersonal attitudes of curiosity and openness, gather as a collective to engender greater interdependence and sense of belonging. The creative modality offers a platform on which one’s multiple intersecting social identities can be expressed or (re-)negotiated, where desired or deemed relevant. The presence of art therapist(s) also means that intercultural communication can be facilitated and gaps bridged amongst diverse individuals, such that social contact is directed toward producing cohesion rather than conflict.

Community art therapy has been used to help individuals cope with chronic pain (O’Neill & Moss, 2015), address psychological needs through nonverbal communication (King, 2020), connect individuals within and across neighbourhoods (Glinzak & Dunkelberger, 2023), and achieve social-action objectives (Timm-Bottos, 2011). The community-building potential of this modality could likewise be applied to nurturing a sense of belonging. This paper reflects on a one-off community art therapy project as an attempt to foster a positive and shared sense of intersectional belonging through participation. In this paper, we argue that mindful art-making in community art therapy could be a feasible participatory-based platform to support a heightened sense of belonging, an awareness of the desires of diverse others to belong similarly, as well as intercultural contact and understanding.

The project

The community art therapy project was implemented as part of a local partisan-initiated event to commemorate the country’s independence. It was an open public community arts and health project, where art therapy approaches and principles were used to inform the project. The activity was conducted in an open space situated in a local urban neighbourhood. Tables were arranged such that participants could sit around and face one another (Figure 1). A range of wet and dry materials (i.e., acrylic paint, watercolour paint, and colour markers) was placed at each table for sharing. Both wet and dry materials were included to cater to the potentially diverse needs and preferences of the participants. Each participant was given a plain paper coaster as a canvas, distributed personally by the therapists. This facilitated the initial contact between therapists and participants and enabled the therapists to inform participants of the procedure.