Italy
Migratory tradition in Italy. After 50 years of migration inflows, Italy can no longer be defined as a country of “recent” immigration: in fact, Italy is nowadays a land of emigration, immigration, and transit.
According to the latest national data (Istat, National Institute of Statistics), the total number of resident foreign population in Italy on December 31st, 2020, amounts to 5.013.215, out of which 2.412.403 men, and 2.600.812 women (c. 52%). These numbers mean diverse contexts of origin, various migration experiences, and different languages. The most represented communities in the Italian migration panorama are native to Romania, Albania, Morocco, China, Ukraine, the Philippines, India, Bangladesh, Egypt, and Pakistan (first 10). In greater detail, the largest communities hail from Romania (1.137.728), Albania (410.087), and Morocco (408.179).
In Italy, diversity management patterns traditionally used to oscillate between conformism and assimilation: the diversity of the others (e.g. regional minorities) was forced to merge – with varying degrees and outcomes – with dominant cultural model(s), and the process was further perceived as a requirement for getting closer to the majority society and for accessing citizen participation in its social, cultural, linguistic, economic, or else dimensions. In a neo-assimilationist paradigm strewn with multiculturalist elements, a similar solution is predictable for the diversities that are presently viewed as "immigrated", but which are bound to end up in a progressive converging into the dominant cultural model (Ambrosini 2008). In several respects, the assimilationist approach keeps being the main strategy underlying the current immigration policy (Ciancio 2014, pp. 43-48; Guolo 2009, pp. 5-7; Guolo 2011): in fact, the Italian situation is defined by a “hybrid” model of integration, even defined as a “non-model” (Guolo 2009, p. 5), and not because it would combine different approaches, but because it is devoid of linearity and full of contradictions (id., p. 6).
Some more specific indications and directives on diversity management in an intercultural perspective are made for educational institutions and settings: as such, these measures are aimed at immigrant children and youths, basically those attending primary and middle schools (Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione, 2007).
Among the first 10, a significant i.e. larger number of women is registered in the communities coming from Romania, the Philippines, and esp. Ukraine (176.085 women vs 51.502 men). Besides, trends of feminisation are observed in some demographically smaller and less represented immigrant communities, mostly native to Eastern Europe and South America, namely: Russian Federation (81%), Georgia (80%), Belarus (80%), Poland (75%), Czech Republic (83%), Moldova, Peru, Dominican Republic, Colombia, El Salvador, Slovakia, Ethiopia, etc. (Istat, National Institute of Statistics, December 31st, 2020).
The cultural luggage of migrant women does not constitute a prominent feature in their migration experience in Italy: being exposed to various forms of gender-based exploitation, esp. in the labour market, migrant women do not differ for their cultural diversity, but for their being women and migrants, hence more vulnerable than immigrant men, and autochthonous residents. Apart from an overall policy and activism against gender-based violence and abuse, no specific measures can be identified for migrant women at a national level: accordingly, the issue is often left to the tertiary sector, committed to promoting initiatives, projects, and campaigns aimed at supporting migrant women and their diversities in their social, cultural and economic integration, as well as citizen participation, yet at a rather local level of action.
References
§ Ambrosini M., 2008, Un’altra globalizzazione. La sfida delle migrazioni transnazionali, il Mulino, Bologna.
§ Ciancio B., 2014, Sviluppare la competenza interculturale. Il valore della diversità nell’Italia multietnica. Un modello operativo, FrancoAngeli, Milano.
§ Guolo R., 2009, Modelli di integrazione culturale in Europa, Paper presentato al Convegno di Asolo: Le nuove politiche per l’immigrazione. Sfide e opportunità, 16-17 ottobre 2009, organizzato dalle Fondazioni Italianieuropei e Farefuturo.
§ Guolo R., 2011, Assimilazionismo senza assimilazione: il caso italiano e i suoi paradossi, in G. Debetto, E. Gazerro (a cura di), Fare inte(g)razione tra enti locali, scuola e comunità. XIII convegno dei Centri interculturali, FrancoAngeli, Milano, pp. 157-166.
§ Istat (https://www.istat.it/), esp. Notizie sulla presenza straniera in Italia (http://www4.istat.it/it/immigrati), demo.istat.it (http://demo.istat.it/str2020/index.html).
§ Lapov Z., 2018, Quale diversità per gli alunni sud-asiatici in Italia? Lingue, sistemi educativi ed esperienze transcontinentali in prospettiva interculturale, FrancoAngeli, Milano, esp. pp. 51-52.
§ Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione, 2007, La via italiana per la scuola interculturale e l’integrazione degli alunni stranieri, Ottobre 2007, Osservatorio nazionale per l’integrazione degli alunni stranieri e per l’educazione interculturale, Roma.
SUCCESS STORY
“Adapting to Difficulties as a Mantra for a Personal Success” https://viw.pixel-online.org/case_view.php?id=NDQ=: this story reports the experience of a woman who provides some reflections related to her being a migrant faced with expectations and stereotypes: on the one hand, she is proud of her being “different”, on the other, she does not want to be identified as a “migrant” nor “foreigner” being these categories exposed to a number of stereotypes in Italy.