Pagina dettaglio corso numero uno

by Laura Squillace, Research Associate at CRIMePO

The events in Milan continue to occupy a prominent place in public debate. In recent days, major national newspapers—and others beyond Italy—have reported extensively on the demonstrations, frequently resorting to sensationalist headlines and delegitimizing labels such as “thugs” or “maranza” to describe the young people who took part in the protests. In my view, this has produced an undifferentiated representation of the demonstrators, reducing them to a single, homogeneous category and depicting them as a potentially threatening out-group against which society must defend itself.

I would like to return to this issue, which Roberto Cornelli has already addressed perceptively, in order to offer a brief reflection on the media representation of these events and on the ways in which attempts have thus far been made to interpret and respond to them.

The first aspect that struck me—and one that is by no means exceptional in the reporting of events of this kind—concerns the dichotomous framework through which these events have been narrated, implicitly inviting readers to position themselves either “for” or “against” the demonstrators. Questions such as “Whose side are you on?” and, consequently, “Do you justify their actions?” seem to me to have contributed to the polarization of public discussion, both in the media and, above all, on major social media platforms. It is as though, confronted with this vast virtual stage, we were all expected to take an immediate stance and pronounce an unequivocal judgement on what has occurred.

Youth deviance has long occupied—and continues to occupy—a central place in my research interests. Nevertheless, in light of recent events, I keep asking why attempting to understand what has happened—an admittedly ambitious undertaking, as I am well aware—must necessarily entail taking a position on whether or not to condemn the behavior of some young people (the emphasis is intentional). This requires some clarifications.

Why must public debate invariably be framed as a confrontation between two opposing sides, such as young people versus the police? Why should we not seek to understand the reasons that led so many young people to take to the streets while simultaneously condemning the violence committed by some of them? Likewise, why should we not seek to understand the institutional role that police officers are called upon to perform during demonstrations while also condemning instances of police violence? In other words, recognizing the institutional role of the police cannot—and should not—prevent citizens from critically examining police practices and the use of force. Yet condemning instances in which the police have resorted to the repression of dissent appears to be automatically interpreted as siding with young demonstrators and, by extension, as justifying acts of violence committed by some of them, as though such violence were an inevitable consequence of the events.

I believe, however, that both perspectives must be accommodated within the same interpretative framework. This is not about evading the need to take a position, but rather about preventing a dichotomous reading from obscuring the complexity of the phenomenon. After all, even within the social sciences, neutrality represents an aspiration towards which to strive rather than a condition that can genuinely be attained. As Michel Foucault reminds us, the production of knowledge is itself permeated by power relations and cannot be regarded as entirely independent of the historical, social and political conditions within which it takes shape.

Another aspect on which I would like to reflect concerns the dominant narrative surrounding younger generations, who are frequently portrayed as passive, lacking initiative and perpetually engaged in scrolling through social media content. Yet, if we genuinely attempted to listen to young people, we would probably discover that they have much to say about the futures they envision for themselves and, above all, about the injustices they experience in their everyday lives. In a recent study conducted by Roberto Cornelli and myself, which examined relations between the police and young people with migrant backgrounds in Milan’s San Siro neighbourhood, we sought to listen to both sides. The findings revealed markedly different perspectives, reflecting also the different opportunities we had to access the field and the methods through which we were able to collect participants’ accounts. On one point, however, both sides converged: the need for mutual listening and respect as a means of overcoming mistrust and misunderstanding.

But what opportunities have these young people actually been given to make their voices heard?

It seems to me that part of the public debate has already concluded that these young people lack sufficiently developed opinions and have little of significance to contribute regarding the demands expressed through the demonstrations, with the behavior of some being treated, in a sense, as evidence of this presumed incapacity.

Once again, by focusing exclusively on violence, public debate ultimately obscures the underlying reasons for the protests, leaving their interpretation and representation primarily to those who possess the power to speak and who operate within a system of knowledge production and of representation of the Other that remains deeply shaped by a white perspective—a system within which I also recognize my own position. Thus, the “subaltern” discussed by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (1988) continues, even today, to struggle to find a space in which their voice can be recognized and heard. And when attempts are made to speak through forms of expression that depart from conventional norms, that very voice risks being delegitimized.

One might object: what if, ultimately, there were no underlying motivations? What if taking to the streets had simply been an attempt to attract media attention?

In my view, even this possibility should be understood as a potential warning sign, expressing a demand to be heard that does not necessarily take the form of clearly defined and articulated claims, but may instead reflect a deeper sense of discontent, fueled by social conditions and uncertainty about the future—or perhaps, paradoxically, by the certainty of a precarious future. From this perspective, the reflections developed by Houria Bouteldja (2024), collected in the book published in English under the title Rednecks and Barbarians
Uniting the White and Racialized Working Class, acquire particular relevance and contemporary significance. Nevertheless, it remains essential to explore these issues further together with young people themselves.

Indeed, on closer examination, we should also ask ourselves why we are so quick to express outrage at violence committed by young people, yet far less inclined to show the same indignation towards the violence to which they are subjected, or the conditions of marginalization and precarity that many of them face. In this regard, I would like to draw attention to a particularly thought-provoking article by Valeria Verdolini, in which she emphasizes that the issue is not one of denying individual responsibility, but rather of situating it within a broader framework of collective responsibility, in order to critically examine the conditions that contribute to producing certain forms of behavior. This is a dimension that appears to be increasingly marginalized within public debate.

My invitation, then, and with this I conclude, is precisely to broaden our perspective by recognizing the collective responsibilities we bear towards younger generations. For it is only by moving beyond the binary logic of “Us” and “Them” that we can begin to develop responses grounded in genuine dialogue and mutual learning.

What seems clear to me is that the response cannot simply consist of yet another security decree or a further tightening of punitive measures targeting young people. Such approaches risk reinforcing a predominantly repressive understanding of how social conflict should be managed, while also perpetuating a representation of the police as the “armed wing of power”, to borrow the expression used in the title of Michele Di Giorgio’s book (2024). But that is another discussion, one to whose development I look forward with interest, namely the reflections that Roberto Cornelli has indicated he intends to develop in his latest commentary.