Quinto laboratorio | Sono state individuate le principali disuguaglianze, ma la strada verso la riforma è ancora lunga

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.

Il programma di workshop è stato organizzato dai partner del progetto WE Frame — CDS, la Facoltà di Giurisprudenza dell’Università di Ferrara, Traces&Dreams e Officine Europa — nell’ambito del progetto.

Silvia Pellino del CDS ha spiegato che sono stati raccolti 1.467 post-it da 150 partecipanti nel corso dei quattro laboratori principali. Durante la fase di progettazione del progetto europeo, ci è stato chiesto di proporre strumenti innovativi e replicabili. Per questo motivo, il gruppo di lavoro del CDS ha ideato C.A.M.P.O., un quadro di mappatura cognitiva ispirato alla matrice SWOT.

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).

Lo strumento C.A.M.P.O. ci ha permesso di analizzare la situazione insieme alle parti interessate attraverso le seguenti cinque prospettive:

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 – Possibili cambiamenti: individuare le leve per un cambiamento concreto e positivo.
P – Prospettiva: definire una visione per il futuro.
O – Ostacoli: individuare le resistenze.

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.

Inoltre, la precarietà è stata individuata come uno dei fattori all'origine di questo divario. È stato sostenuto che i giovani non considerano i propri diritti come un dato di fatto, poiché l'instabilità lavorativa e la migrazione interna spesso impediscono loro di esercitarli. Il diritto di voto, ad esempio, è diventato di fatto inaccessibile a molti giovani poiché vivono lontano dal loro luogo di residenza ufficiale.

Quali argomenti sono stati trattati nei workshop?

La differenza
Questa sezione ha affrontato il paradosso di come l'universalità dei diritti possa conciliarsi con il riconoscimento delle differenze senza che queste ultime diventino fonte di discriminazione.
Potere
Le discussioni tenutesi in questa sede riflettevano una prospettiva analitica più radicale. Emerse una forte consapevolezza del legame esistente tra potere politico e potere economico-finanziario, e di come tale legame contribuisca a perpetuare le disuguaglianze. Anche questioni attuali quali la pace e l’opposizione alla militarizzazione furono identificate come ostacoli principali all’uguaglianza.
Il corpo
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’.
Vulnerabilità
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.

Secondo giorno: Approfondimento tematico su uguaglianza, potere, corpo e vulnerabilità

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.

Per quanto riguarda il concetto di corpo, Gabriele Gamberi (Fondazione ASPHI ETS) ha messo in discussione la prospettiva medica tradizionale, secondo la quale la disabilità era considerata esclusivamente una menomazione fisica. Egli ha invece sostenuto che la disabilità deriva dall’interazione tra un determinato corpo e un ambiente non adeguato.

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.

Tra gli altri relatori che hanno partecipato alle tavole rotonde figuravano Simone Angelucci (Università di Ferrara), Daniela Oliva (Istituto di Ricerca Sociale), Sara Boicelli (Università di Palermo), Luca Aguiari (Università di Ferrara), Camilla Caselli (Università degli Studi di Milano), Orsetta Giolo (Università di Ferrara) e Maria Giulia Bernardini (Università di Ferrara).