Abstract
The relationship between SPRAR workers and refugees within the Italian Reception System is characterized by the interplay between different meanings ascribed to two concepts, protection and project. Portraying refugees as victims reduce them to silent subjects, where protection simply means passively receiving help, and project is implicitly imposed by “experts”. However another approach to protection and project grounds on refugees as vulnerable persons. In this scenario, the dialogic relation between different representations become the contested terrain where a pedagogical discourse on refugees is at work. The risk is also that actions on behalf of refugees will not produce a real enfranchisement, perpetuating instead conditions of marginality, and economic dependency.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The SPRAR (literally “Sistema di Protezione per Richiedenti Asilo e Rifugiati” in Italian language) is the Italian Reception System for asylum seekers and refugees.
- 2.
In reality the border between these two categories of migrants is much thinner. Looking at the mass of people landing daily on the Italian shores, the desire of escape from dictatorships or civil wars is tightly intertwined with the dream of better life conditions in Europe. Thus it is not always easy to draw a clear line between who is a forced migrant and who is not. A more effective term is semi-forced migrants. The same typology of residence permit issued by the Italian State catches these shadows, considering three possible outcomes to the asylum application, according to the “degree” of forced migration of any case. Italian law considers three forms of protection for asylum seekers entitled to: the International protection, which corresponds entirely to the asylum, and which grounds on the assumption that the applicant was individually persecuted; the subsidiary protection, concerning the applicants not persecuted individually but because of their belonging to a specific group (for instance the Syrian Kurds or the Christian Copts in Egypt); the humanitarian protection, granted to those who are not entitled for the previous forms, but that for situations of specific fragilities of temporary vulnerabilities, are hosted in Italy anyway for a limited period of time (such as a pregnant woman).
- 3.
The Geneva Convention sanctions the prohibition of expulsion and repulsion at art. 33, where it declares that “no subscribing State can expel or repel back (refouler) – in any way – a refugee to the frontiers of places where his life or his freedom would be under threat because of his race, religion, nationality, social class, or political belonging” (Geneva Convention 1951: art. 33, 1).
- 4.
- 5.
The original Schengen Agreement entered in force in 1985 and it was eventually enforced by the Treaties of 1990, to which Italy completed the procedure of subscription only in 1997.
- 6.
The “Fortress” paradigm is reinforced not only through control of the external borders, many of them difficult to supervise, as in the case of Southern Italy, but also through internal mechanisms, such as specific strategies to identify illegal immigrants, negative publicity aiming to present Europe as a less attractive destination, and deterrents such as criminal proceedings against anyone who brings people to Europe illegally, and forced repatriation for these illegal immigrants (Albrecht 2002).
- 7.
These agreements, signed by the then Government in 2008, affirm that Libya is in charge of patrolling their coasts with the goal of opposing the departure of illegal migrants. Subscribing to the Agreement with Libya, Italy has in some way prevented the right of asylum for forced migrants living in Libya, meaning the State that does not acknowledge such a right, and where Amnesty International has often exposes the violation of human rights to the detriment of non Libyan migrants. Italy was accused by several International Agencies, such as the UNHCR, to violate the principle of non-refoulement. Cfr. Pinelli 2011.
- 8.
Source: UNHCR 2013,
- 9.
Source: SPRAR Report 2012.
- 10.
This is for example the case of the Kurd community in Germany.
- 11.
A country is also responsible for the asylum procedure if:
-
There is a close kinship relationship between the asylum seeker and a person already entitled of the status in that country;
-
The country previously issued a VISA to the asylum seeker.
-
References
Adrijasevic, R. (2002). Lampedusa in focus. Migrants caught between the Libyan desert and the deep sea. Feminist Review, 82, 120–125.
Albrecht, H. J. (2002). Fortress Europe? Controling illegal immigration. European Journal of Crime Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 1, 1–22.
Baumann, G. (2006). Contesting culture. Discourses of identity in multi-ethnic London. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Benhabib, S. (2002). The claim of cultures: Equality and diversity in the global era. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Betts, A. (2013). Survival migration. Failed governance and the crisis of displacement. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Bozzi, P. (2007). Vilém flusser, Dal soggetto al progetto: Libertà e cultura dei media. Novara: UTET.
Brah, A. (1996). Cartographies of diaspora. Contesting identities. London: Routledge.
Cancellieri, A. (2003). Le relazioni sociali degli immigrati: Analisi di un caso’. In A. Colombo & G. Sciortino (Eds.), Un’Immigrazione normale. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Castles, S., & Davidson, A. (2000). Citizenship and migration. Globalization and the politics of belonging. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Catarci, M. (2011). L’integrazione dei rifugiati. Formazione e inclusione nelle rappresentazioni degli operatori sociali. Milano: Franco Angeli.
de Dorsh Voe, M. (1981). Framing refugees as clients. International Migration Review, 15(1/2), 88–94.
Donnan, H., & Wilson, T. M. (1998). Border identities. Nation and state at international Frontiers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gabel, S. (2002). Conceptual problems with critical pedagogy. Curriculum Inquiry, 32(2), 177–201.
Giroux, H. A. (2004). Cultural studies, public pedagogy, and the responsibility of intellectuals. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 1(1), 59–79.
Goodwin-Gill, G. S. (2001). Refugees: Challenges to protection. International Migration Review, 35(1), 130–142.
Harrell-Bond, B. E. (2002). Can humanitarian work with refugees be human? Human Rights Quarterly, 4(1), 51–85.
Harrell-Bond, B. E., & Voutira, E. (1992). Anthropology and the study of refugees. Anthropology Today, 8(4), 6–10.
Leontidou, L. (2004). The boundaries of Europe: Deconstructing three regional narratives. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 11(4), 593–617.
Malkki, L. (1997). Speechless emissaries: Refugees, humanitarianism, and dehistoricization. In K. Hastrup & K. Fog Olwig (Eds.), Siting culture. The shifting anthropological object. London: Routledge.
ONU. (1951). Convention relating to the status of refugees. Online resource available at http://www.unhcr.org.
Pinelli, B. (2008). Etnografia della vulnerabilità. Storie didDonne richiedenti asilo a Milano. In M. Van Aken (Ed.), Rifugio Milano. Vie di fuga e vita quotidiana dei richiedenti asilo. Roma: Carta.
Pinelli, B. (2011). Attraversando il Mediterraneo. Il sistema campo in Italia: violenza e soggettività nelle esperienze delle donne. In B. Sorgoni (acura di), LARES. Chiedere asilo in Europa. Confini, margini e soggettività (Vol. 1, pp. 159–180).
Preston, R. (1991). The provision of education to refugees in places of temporary asylum: Some implications for development. Comparative Education, 27(1), 61–81.
SPRAR Handbook. Sistema di Protezione per Richiedenti Asilo e Rifugiati. Servizio Centrale. http://www.pratomigranti.it/index.php?pos=1&id_sezione=177&id_lingua=2
SPRAR Report. (2012). Sistema di Protezione per Richiedenti Asilo e Rifugiati. Servizio Centrale.
Stella, G. A. (2002). L’Orda. quando gli Albanesi eravamo noi. Milano: Rizzoli.
Stolcke, V. (1995). Talking culture. New boundaries, new rhetorics of exclusion in Europe. Current Anthropology, 36(1), 1–24.
UNHCR. 2013. Global Trends 2012. Displacement. The new 21th century challenge. Online resource available on http://unhcr.org/statistics
Van Haken, M. (2005). Rifugiati.antropologia (Vol. 5). Roma: Meltemi.
Van Haken, M. (Ed.). (2008). Rifugio Milano. Vie di fuga e vita quotidiana dei richiedenti asilo. Roma: Carta.
Waters, T., & LeBlanc, K. (2005). Refugees and education: Mass public schooling without a nation-state. Comparative Education Review, 49(2), 129–147.
Wikan, U. (2002). Generous betrayal. Politics of culture in the new Europe. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dallavalle, C. (2016). Protection Versus Project: Italian Humanitarian Interventions Towards Refugees as a Challenge to Equity. In: Noblit, G., Pink, W. (eds) Education, Equity, Economy: Crafting a New Intersection. Education, Equity, Economy, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21644-7_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21644-7_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-21643-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-21644-7
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)