First Laboratory | The Battle Against the “Naturalization” of Inequality

The first session in a series of workshops for the 2026 European project WE Frame took place at the University of Ferrara in Italy on 9th March, one day after International Women’s Day.

The first session “Equality and Difference” provided an opportunity to re-examine one of humanity’s most deeply rooted discriminatory thoughts: the idea that inequality is something “natural” and inevitable. Maria Giulia Bernardini, who moderated the session, noted the link between complex feminist theories and lived realities. She stated that the project focuses on “intersectionality” or the intertwining of identities. Within this framework, gender, age, race, and physical ability merge to create simultaneous forms of discrimination, that are often overlooked in traditional legislation.

Subsequently, Professor Anna Cavaliere from the University of Salerno performed a historical dissection of the concept of equality. She argued that legal equality is “counter-intuitive” because it developed throughout history in opposition to traditional unequal structures. She examined the initial limitations of these concepts through a critical reading of the 1789 Declaration. These early concepts primarily included property-owning men. Professor Cavaliere also mentioned the historical role of figures such as Olympe de Gouges. In 1791, De Gouges wrote the “Declaration of the Rights of Woman and of the Female Citizen“, insisting on women’s equal access to political platforms and power. Ultimately, she was executed.

Another part of the session was dedicated to criticising neoliberal approaches. These approaches portray systemic inequalities as “private matters” or the consequence of a lack of “individual commitment.” The use of specific legal language to naturalise structural injustices works as a tool to evade institutional accountability. Speakers presented executive solutions to transition from awareness to political action in this regard. These included mandatory standards such as gender quotas in senior management, equal pay, and the redistribution of care responsibilities through mandatory paternity leave. Session members also stated that paying attention to “practical intersectionality” and forming alliances between various civil movements is essential to countering intersecting barriers.

The crisis of “communication failure” within the European Union was also discussed. According to the speakers, policymaking will be incapable of addressing hidden discriminations without access to data disaggregated by gender, age, nationality, and disability. During the session, it was noted that equality is a project that must be reconstructed daily through the connection between legal knowledge and collective experiences.

Sara Biocelli, a PhD researcher in “Human Rights: Evolution, Protection, Limits” at the University of Palermo, and a panelist, told us: “I think we have come a long way in the last few decades, but we can do more in terms of addressing violence, and general equality. Intersectionality is important because it gives us the possibility to design laws that truly address all women and not just some types of women. I believe that law alone is not enough. It is also a cultural issue. We will see real changes when people actually embrace gender equality. Law helps, of course, but I do not think it is enough.” She added regarding the workshop: “It is important to conduct such activities because they raise awareness beyond the academic context. I think that is the most tangible result.”

The Afternoon Session: Connecting Methodology to “Fieldwork”

The second part of the workshop involved all attendees. Silvia Pellino is an anthropologist active in this project with the CDS research group and she said: “Today, we took the first step in designing an analytical and operational model as part of the WE Frame project. The ultimate goal is to present the results of this work to the European Commission in the form of documented patterns of activities and executive methods for addressing gender inequalities.”

“The work method is based on two fundamental concepts covered in the afternoon session. The first is the concept of the ‘field.‘ This refers to a detailed examination of achievements, absences, potential changes, perspectives, and barriers. This approach is effectively an expansion of the SWOT analysis model, enabling us to scrutinise a phenomenon. The word ‘field’ is used metaphorically here. It is both a place for dialogue and a foundation for planting the seeds of ideas.”

“Our methodology is based on ‘Field Analysis’ and the ‘World Café’ model. Participants sit around different tables, with each table examining an aspect of the main topic through various lenses. In the recent session, gender differences were examined from perspectives such as ‘Intersectionality,’ ‘Rights,’ ‘Intergenerational Outlook,’ and ‘Media and Communications'”

“We will repeat this same process in future workshops. For example, we will analyse the topic of ‘Differences and the Body’ from the perspectives of rights and power. During this process, groups move between different tables and they discuss the various dimensions of the phenomenon and complete a map of achievements and opportunities.”

“Eventually, we will perform a semantic analysis on everything said. Observers were present throughout the workshop in addition to facilitators, collecting notes for anthropological research and a form of collective ethnography. Our goal is to analyse this data in order to understand how the stakeholders of this project linguistically and mentally organise their thoughts based on achievements, opportunities, and barriers within that field.”

Participants in this workshop described it as a rare opportunity to hear the voices of different generations and engage with them. One attendee said they particularly appreciated the atmosphere, noting that it revived a sense of shared space, something which many people feel is missing today. In their view, the workshop created room for genuine conversations and meaningful connections between people with very different life experiences. They also said that the discussions were not only theoretical, but also offered practical ideas for building a more welcoming and inclusive society.

A philosophy student described the programme as an important step towards creating a “safe space” where people from different backgrounds could speak to and listen to one another without barriers. Another participant said that the meeting was extremely rich in terms of outcomes and helped participants to reach a shared understanding of the importance of social participation. They added that, through dialogue and collaboration, it becomes possible to identify common goals that are essential for social progress.

Another attendee noted how inspiring it was to see so many shared perspectives across generations, despite the significant age differences present. They explained that a strong desire to address issues that are often overlooked in today’s society was clearly present among all participants, ranging from law students to experienced activists. They said that this closeness in perspectives went even beyond what the organisers had initially anticipated.