Fifth Laboratory | Key inequalities have been identified, but the path to reform is still long

18th May 2026

The WE Frame laboratories’ closing sessions took place on 6 and 7 May 2026 in Ferrara, presenting the outcomes of months of research and workshop activities. The project began its design phase in June 2024 and is based on a bottom-up methodology. This approach regards participants and stakeholders as the ‘primary experts’ rather than subjects on which experiments are conducted. As Cinzia Bracci mentioned, this model was designed to address the region’s genuine needs and be applicable in other European countries.

The programme of workshops was organised by the WE Frame partners CDS, the Department of Law at the University of Ferrara, Traces&Dreams and Officine Europa as part of the project.

Silvia Pellino from CDS explained that 1,467 Post-it notes were collected from 150 participants throughout the four main laboratories. During the European project design phase, we were asked to propose innovative and replicable tools. For this reason, the CDS working group designed C.A.M.P.O., a cognitive mapping framework inspired by the SWOT matrix.

The Italian word ‘campo’ simultaneously refers to a field of struggle, a field for sowing, a social field (in the Bourdieusian sense of a structured space of positions and power relations) and a visual field (what can be seen depends on one’s position).

The C.A.M.P.O. tool enabled us to analyse the situation with the relevant stakeholders through the following five lenses:

C – Conquests/achievements: To recognise the legal milestones achieved (many of which are the result of European directives).
A – Absences/Gaps: To identify regulatory gaps.
M – Possible changes: to identify levers for concrete and positive change.
P – Perspective: to define a vision for the future.
O – Obstacles: to map out the resistances.

These ideas were discussed across four specialised working groups: ‘Rights’, ‘Communication’, ‘Intergenerational Relations’ and ‘Intersections’.

For instance, the Rights group’s presentation of their findings revealed that, contrary to popular belief, the younger generation (under 35) does not take its rights for granted.

One young participant’s perspective was particularly memorable: ‘This issue does not stem from indifference, but rather signals that memory must be preserved and transmitted.’ While older generations view rights as historical achievements that once did not exist, younger people perceive them as fragile and constantly under threat.

Furthermore, precariousness was identified as a factor behind this divide. It was argued that young people do not consider their rights to be self-evident because job instability and internal migration often prevent them from exercising these rights. The right to vote, for instance, has effectively become inaccessible to many young people because they live far from their official place of residence.

What topics were covered in the workshops?

The difference
This section addressed the paradox of how the universality of rights can be reconciled with the recognition of differences without those differences becoming a source of discrimination.
Power
The discussions here reflected a more radical analytical perspective. There was a strong awareness of the connection between political and economic-financial power, and how this perpetuates inequalities. Contemporary issues such as peace and opposition to militarisation were also identified as major obstacles to equality.
The Body
This workshop focused on the lived and material experience of the body. The discussions focused on the body in public spaces, the body within the market and the body as a form of care. The key word here was ‘freedom’. Older generations placed greater emphasis on reproductive rights, such as abortion, whereas younger generations defined freedom through ‘self-expression’ and ‘being one’s authentic self’.
Vulnerability
In this workshop, vulnerability was not defined as an individual or cultural characteristic, but rather as the result of political and economic structures that undermine our ability to care for others. Key issues within this section were themes such as ‘listening’ and the ‘absence of intermediary institutions’.

At the end of the session, veteran Italian feminist Paola Castagnotto, drawing on her decades of teaching experience, also criticised the decline in schools’ educational value. She said that schools have shifted from being places for cultivating intellectual growth to becoming ‘social support systems’ whose primary objective is merely to maintain pass-rate statistics in order to secure funding. She also argued that adults should not impose outdated models of activism on younger generations, but instead create spaces for ‘relational listening’, as today’s 20-year-olds inhabit an entirely different and unpredictable world.

Monica Cesari also emphasised the importance of returning to physical public spaces such as city squares, arguing that virtual communication often fails to lead to effective action. She confirmed that all the project’s deliverables are intended for public publication, not merely as administrative reports, but as living tools for future grassroots projects and for strengthening intergenerational social ties.

Day Two: Thematic review of equality, power, the body, and vulnerability

On the second day (7 May), participants revisited the concept of equality through the themes of power, the body, difference, and vulnerability. Annalisa Ferrari, from the Centre for Socio-Economic Studies, said, “In this workshop, we had the opportunity to reconsider one of the most deeply rooted discriminatory ideas in humanity: the notion that inequality is inevitable and natural. Another issue that emerged throughout the workshop was that of ‘intersectionality’, meaning the intertwining of identities, ethnicity, gender, age and physical abilities. These factors combine to produce forms of discrimination that are not always recognised by traditional legal frameworks.”

Regarding ‘differences’, Giuliana Giusti, a professor at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, emphasised the importance of making women ‘visible’ in the Italian language. She argued that the use of masculine titles for women in high-status positions stems from cultural bias and historical stereotypes.

Giusti criticised the ‘white male’ model as the main standard in culture, as well as in scientific and archaeological interpretations. She said that language should reflect honesty and ethical content. She said that, while using feminine forms for job titles (such as ‘la presidente’) helped to strengthen women’s social status, insisting on masculine titles for leadership roles solely to lend them more legitimacy was a form of exclusion in communication and a denial of female identity within systems of power.

Regarding the concept of the body, Gabriele Gamberi (ASPHI ETS Foundation) challenged the traditional medical perspective which viewed disability as purely a physical impairment. Instead, he proposed that disability arises from the interaction between a particular body and an unprepared environment.

Elsewhere in the discussions, Archbishop Gian Carlo Perego highlighted the contradictions in Italy’s progress towards civil rights. He noted that a society which once dismantled psychiatric institutions is now building walls at its borders, leaving migrants in a state of isolation and vulnerability.

Other speakers who contributed to the panel discussions included Simone Angelucci (University of Ferrara), Daniela Oliva (Institute for Social Research), Sara Boicelli (University of Palermo), Luca Aguiari (University of Ferrara), Camilla Caselli (University of Milan), Orsetta Giolo (University of Ferrara) and Maria Giulia Bernardini (University of Ferrara).