Media, Migrants and Human Rights. In the Evolution of the European Scenario of Refugees’ and Asylum Seekers’ Instances

by Gevisa La Rocca (Volume editor) Roberto Di Maria (Volume editor) Gino Frezza (Volume editor)
©2020 Edited Collection 472 Pages


The volume is a collection of essays – the result of studies, research, projects – on the theme of migration, of the condition of refugees and asylum seekers, of respect for or violation of human rights, of the narration of these events in the media. It offers a lucid glance, through the voice of several scholars, of the European scenario and its evolution in recent years. The narrative space expands itself, including the US scenario.
The volume is divided into four main sections: Media, Migrants and Human Rights, voted to introduce the main themes; Vulnerability and Human Rights, that explores the themes of the weakest people; Migrations in the Media System, which traces the importance of the narrative of migration in the media system; the Additional Points section closes the volume, to not leave anything unexplored.
The volume proposes a journey – with many paths – to discover the academic sense of migration.

Table Of Contents

  • Cover
  • Title
  • Copyright
  • About the editors
  • About the book
  • This eBook can be cited
  • Contents
  • Preface
  • Part One Media, Migrants, and Human Rights
  • Chapter One Academics’ Sense of Migration (Gevisa La Rocca)
  • Chapter Two Secularism, Community Boundaries Loss, and Prejudice (Graziella Di Marco, Zira Hichy, and Valentina Giuffrida)
  • Chapter Three Facing Xenophobic Populism through Democratic Innovation (Roberto-Luciano Barbeito)
  • Chapter Four Migration and Philosophy of Law (Lucia Corso)
  • Chapter Five Refugees and Asylum Seekers: An Assessment Survey (Fabio Aiello)
  • Part Two Vulnerability and Human Rights
  • Chapter Six Brief Reflections on “Vulnerability” (Liborialinda Ardizzone and Roberto Di Maria)
  • Chapter Seven Migration, Climate Change and Environmental Degradation (Giuseppina Talamo)
  • Chapter Eight Manifold Instances of Proximity Violence (Ignazia Bartholini)
  • Chapter Nine Women trafficking: a case of sexual exploitation (Thea Giacobbe)
  • Chapter Ten Asylum at the Southern US Border (Yosi McIntire)
  • Chapter Eleven The Case of Maltese “Detention Centers”: An Analysis (Nicola Malizia and Guglielmo Dinicolò)
  • Chapter Twelve Forms of Housing and Social Policies for Asylum Seekers in Greece (Nikos Kourachanis)
  • Chapter Thirteen Decentralised Cooperation and Global Education in Turin (Maria Bottiglieri)
  • Part Three Migrations in the Media System
  • Chapter Fourteen New Migrations in the Media Communication System (Antonia Cava, Gino Frezza and Gevisa La Rocca)
  • Chapter Fifteen Immigration and Discrimination: A Focus on Italy (Lucia Chiurco)
  • Chapter Sixteen Fake News Interference on Media and Social Media (Francesco Pira)
  • Chapter Seventeen Migration Images: in Newspapers of Different Orientations (Maria Fobert Veutro)
  • Chapter Eighteen Migration & Social Media: the Closure of Italian Harbours (Stefania Fragapane and Ariela Mortara)
  • Chapter Nineteen Limits and Possibilities of Social Theatre (Chiara Pasanisi)
  • Chapter Twenty Performing Arts, Diversity and the Right to the City (Melissa Moralli, Roberta Paltrinieri and Paola Parmiggiani)
  • Chapter Twenty-One Cohousing to Get to Know Each Other (Benedetta Turco)
  • Chapter Twenty-Two Managing Non-verbal Communication to Facilitate the Reception of Migrants (Gabriella Polizzi)
  • Chapter Twenty-Three Consumption of Culture by Young Migrants (Domenico Carzo, Antonia Cava and Gaetana Cava)
  • Chapter Twenty-Four The Relationship Between School and Immigrant Families (Marco Centorrino and Lilia Pellegrino)
  • Chapter Twenty-Five “The Other” in the perspective of Moravia and Pasolini (Alessandro Cutrona)
  • Chapter Twenty-Six Immigration Emergencies: a Possible Praise to the Media (Rolando Marini)
  • Part Four Additional Points
  • Chapter Twenty-Seven Imagery Techniques in Restructuring Social Prejudice (Michele Nicotra)
  • Chapter Twenty-Eight Employees Working with Refugees and Asylum Seekers (Gevisa La Rocca and Tiziana Ramaci)
  • About the Authors


In 2019 the Kore University of Enna hosted the multiplier event of the Paris project, Teaching Partnership Addressed to Refugee’s Instances Strengthening, financed by the European Union under the European Program ERASMUS + – KEY ACTION 2 Strategic Partnership for Higher Education (Development of Innovation) Round 1 – Agreement number: 2016–1–T02–KA203–024406.

An international conference was organized within the multiplier event. This international conference from the beginning has enjoyed the support of many Italian and foreign institutions.

On that occasion, numerous scholars gathered to discuss new migrations and the condition of refugees and asylum seekers.

A community of interests was born spontaneously: a community of good feelings.

To the Organizing and Scientific Committee, it seemed appropriate to continue the intellectual friendship born in those days, trying to expand the group to include also other scholars interested in working on the topic of migration.

Before long, numerous other scholars accepted the invitation.

Thus this volume was born, which collects the reflections of those who work on new migrations.

The goal is to give voice to reasonable thoughts about the processes of globalization of migration, refugees, asylum seekers, and the “bloody” Mediterranean.

Reflections on human rights and their state of application, reflections on migrants and the media-system. Reflections guided by the will to understand and not to generate fear. Studies far from slogans, research based on data collected through scientific methods, in short, human glances.

The chapters of this volume discuss research projects, observations, and studies on phenomena that are not, then, so far from us.

The picture obtained from reading this volume is of a Europe that is committed, a Europe that welcomes, and a Europe that has no intention of closing harbors.

The Editors

Gevisa La Rocca

Roberto Di Maria

Gino Frezza

Gevisa La Rocca

Chapter One Academics’ Sense of Migration

Abstract: How are scholars dealing with migration? And how should they do it? What are the objectives of their analyses? The title of this chapter is provocative, so as to underline what is the role of “those who know,” or rather “of those who have studied the past.” In these few pages, the reader finds indications of the content of the volume.

1 Introduction

The academic sense of migration is, of course, a provocative title, which – simply – wants to make us reflect on the role of today’s “intellectuals” in the fight against cultural hegemony. It aims to provide us with the sense and direction on how to deal with reading the pages of this volume.

The year 2019 saw a wave of obscurantism coming; of course, those who had eyes and interest in looking at it saw it. We can summarize what happened in Italy with the very popular slogan: “first the Italians.”

We already live in a multiethnic society; Italians are people of emigration, and they should understand by themselves the reasons why people leave their land. We should work for integration, not for separation. How can migration be stopped? How can you tell those who run away that he must go home?

The current situation of reception migrants and the difficulties in accepting the “others” and, therefore: resistances, fears, silences, delays, clashes, suppression suffered, that arise from them, for its banality, can be remembered for what Hannah Arendt wrote in the Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (1963).

The banality of evil is basically the diary of Hannah, who, as a correspondent for the New Yorker, attended the process of Adolf Eichmann – the Nazi hierarch who was tried for genocide in 1961 in Jerusalem and sentenced to death by hanging. The sentence was carried out on May 31, 1962. In the courtroom debate, in fact, Arendt found the idea of banality of evil.

She said that the evil done by Eichmann – like many people who became co-responsible for the Holocaust – is not due to malignant nature, rather it is due to the unawareness of the meaning of those actions and their consequences.

Probably today, someone does not understand what the effects of closure harbor, or what is happening in Africa.

←13 | 14→

In Italy, the turning point can be represented by the case of the Palermitan teacher Rosa Maria Dell’Aria. The pupils of the Palermitan teacher compare the Italian security decree with the fascist racial laws, during a task assigned to them; because of this parallelism (La Rocca, 2019) and because of tweets posted on social media that denounce what happened during the lesson and that ask for intervention by the competent authorities, the teacher was suspended from her role. Thus, the reminiscence of a recent past finally finds its place in the public debate. It is undeniable that memory is always and only of the individual (Halbwachs, 1952), but it is nevertheless influenced by the community, that is, by how events are communicated and by the processes of interaction that are generated starting from them within the social group. Unaware makers, these students, of having introduced a parallelism on the media – on which perhaps some had already reflected – but which until then had remained dormant, engulfed in a spiral of silence, preventing people who had found no trace of it in the media from expressing their opinion diverging from that of the majority. As Noelle Neumann (1980) argues, opinions diverging from the majority and of which there is no response in the media end up being swallowed up by the spiral of silence, given that the media create culture, the symbolic universe within which the individual lives and uses social interactions to attribute a socially shared meaning to his or her actions. The media therefore maintain social control but, at the same time and with the same force, when they convey new demands, they can favor social change.

There is a close link between the faculty of thinking and acting, the ability to distinguish and understand what is right and what is not, the autonomy of judgment, the choices and their moral implications, and not least the strength, the courage to demonstrate for something you believe in realizing that there is a right that is being violated and that needs to be reaffirmed. There is a close link between all this and the sense of academia, with the figure of the magister, the greatest, that is, the most expert, the most competent with regard to a subject, an art, a skill, such as to be the point of reference for those who want to learn such knowledge, or the one who is deputy – in a designated place – to sow the seed so that virtue and knowledge are followed. So around a question, that of new migrations, which for more than twenty years has been characterized by the trait of crisis and emergency, a new perspective is grafted that allows the acquisition of a different point of view, enlarging that of the inhumanity, of the unstoppable search of the #remainhuman and crafting – in consonance with Appadurai’s thesis (1996) – a new group landscape.

It is a lever, a point where the banality of evil in a tweet allows, who knows, to trace a new human action.

←14 | 15→

Morin (1976) argues that the crisis implies a decision, a process of discernment whose consequence is represented by the evolution that opens the way to a different type of human action. So, if on the one hand the action, which is based on predictability and determinism, is almost suffocated, on the other hand, the crisis creates new conditions for action, following a pattern of multiplication of alternatives, creating favorable conditions for the deployment of bold and inventive strategies that invalidate the possibility of the persistence of a banality of evil.

2 The Migration-Scape in This Volume

This volume’s content can be considered as a group landscape. It is for this reason that this chapter is titled “Academics’ Sense of Migration.”

In these first pages, we try to reconstruct the main themes addressed in the volume. The goal is therefore to reconstruct the interpretative dimensions developed by the several authors in this volume. To extract this information from the text, we use a lexicon extraction, a procedure developed by Reinert (1986, 1990, 1995). It is a technique that allows us to group together and then analyze the context of units typical of one kind of word or another found in texts. “Choosing a place from where to talk, who speaks chooses with this fact itself a new way of seeing. This is therefore also the place of a new identity” (Reinert, 1995, 222). Following this vision, Reinert explores lexical worlds and identifies a technique to extract them. It is with this premise that we choose to apply this procedure to the corpus. The aim is to identify the general system of reference, the semantics of the narration expressed by the authors of these contributions.

It is possible to discern information1 about the migration that is explored by its four-dimensional interpretation: 1) the role of culture, 2) refugees and asylum seekers, 3) economy and sustainability of migration, and 4) media representation.

Not wanting to take anything away from the pleasure of reading the book, here we simply identify the prevailing thematic lines, which are represented in Fig. 1.1. Although the title of the volume does not contain any word related to “culture”, it is culture that is most often written about in this volume.

Cultivation of culture seems to be the way against banality. It seems to be the way to reiterate the importance of historia vero testis temporum, lux veritatis, vita memoriae, magistra vitae, nuntia vetustatis, a statement, a concept, something in which Cicero believed and which we all must remember.

←15 | 16→

The importance of culture is underlined in its multiple aspects: “confrontation between people of different cultures”; the imposition of culture in the history of colonization: “the phenomenon of colonization when the culture of a people is imposed by force on another people”; and as a tool to analyze our communication guidelines: “in our culture the terms prejudice and stereotype are characterized by a strong negative value.” It is about understanding, on the one hand, the possibility that each social group has its own culture and, on the other, the need to integrate the foreigner, acquiring: “the study of asylum seekers legislation and integration as well as that of human right”; developing specific knowledge for: “humanitarian aid to refugees and asylum seekers”; without underestimating that: “the right to asylum since 2015 has dominated the public debate.”

←16 |

Within the volume, the debate around refugees and asylum seekers is also addressed through the economic dimension, in fact: “the first link between the foreigner and society is the competition that affects the economic balance and the division of labor”; the reasons for migration can be: “economic or political motives”, and considering this opens up a new perspective in the way of looking at who lands along our shores.

It is about: “extraordinary situation amplified by the media”;since: “in fact traditional media play a central role in the process of the symbolic and social construction of reality” and “both traditional and new media have referred to the three prevailing frames” on how to read this migration. For these reasons, we need to get back in touch with the sense of what is the study of migration processes, linking them to the representation that the media – old, new, and social – give of it.

The academic sense, rather than being a specific characteristic, is a warning. It is a warning with which this volume opens and at the same time, all those who write these pages undertake to apply it.

Fig. 1.1: Our migration-scape


Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Arendt, H. (1963). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. New York: Viking Press.

Halbwachs, M. (1952). Les cadres sociaux de la mémoire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Fran.

La Rocca, G. (2019). La banalità del mate in un tweet. Rosa Maria Dell’Aria e un’Italia che sta cambiando. Comunicazionepuntodoc, 21, 93–104.

Morin, E. (1976). Pour une crisiologie. Communications, 25, 149–163.

Noelle Neumann, E. (1980). Die Schweigespirale. München: Piper.

Reinert, M. (1986). Un logiciel d’analyse lexicale: Alceste. Cahiers de l’Analyse des Données, 4, 471–484.

Reinert, M. (1990). Alceste: une méthodologie d’analyse des donne textuelles et une application: Aurélia de G. de Nerval. Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 26, 24–54.

Reinert, M. (1995). I mondi lessicali di un corpus di 304 racconti di incubi attraverso il metodo “Alceste”. In R. Cipriani & S. Bolasco (a cura di). Ricerca qualitativa e computer. Teorie, metodi e applicazioni (pp. 203–223). Milano: Franco Angeli.

←17 |
 18→←18 | 19→

1 The text analyzed has got several token words (occurrences) equal to 107.457; of type words equal to 8.162. Hapax, that occur only once, are 3.713.

Graziella Di Marco, Zira Hichy and Valentina Giuffrida

Chapter Two Secularism, Community Boundaries Loss, and Prejudice

Abstract: This research study aims to verify the interaction between secularism and the perception of community boundaries loss and how it affects prejudice towards immigrants. A questionnaire containing the Blatant and Subtle Prejudice Scale, Perception of Community Boundaries Loss Scale, and Secularism of State Scale was completed by 102 Italian participants. The analysis of the data indicated that secularism moderates the relationship between the perception of community boundaries loss and prejudice. When people strive for a secular state, the higher the community boundaries loss, the higher is prejudice, both latent and manifest. The implications of these results are discussed herein.

1 Introduction

The theme of migration and its related implications is among the most investigated in the social sciences. Human mobility is not only due to the desire to seek new opportunities, experiences, and lifestyles but also to numerous additional push and pull factors, such as poverty in the origin countries, wars, lack of democracy, and ethnic or religious discrimination (Castelli, 2018; EASO, 2016). The constant migration flow in Europe strongly affects the social and economic environment of the host communities. The migration phenomenon has transformed states of old emigration, such as Italy, into states of immigration. Indeed, the political and social instability in many regions of Africa and the Middle East has imposed a large migration crisis on Italy.

Since 2012, the Italian government has closed regular channels for economic migrants, granting only short-term visas for seasonal workers to citizens of non-EU countries. As a result, immigrants in search of work arrive illegally in Italy in the same way as refugees; and once in Italy, they apply for asylum, even though they are not eligible for international protection (IOM, 2018). However, forced repatriations affect only a minority of the illegal immigrants, as the police are able to detect less than 10 % of migrants fleeing the reception centers (Eurostat, 2017). Adequately controlling the sea borders is impossible, and a large number of immigrants live illegally in the country. These factors, as well as the lack of support from other European countries in managing the migration phenomenon, have largely contributed to the public opinion that Italy is paying ←19 | 20→too high a social and economic cost and that it has been left alone (Hermanin, 2017) to manage what is perceived as an invasion.

Non-EU citizens living in Italy comprise 6.15 % of the population, to which must be added about 600,000 (1 %) irregular immigrants (Istat, 2019). Due to the controversial agreement (Osservatorio Diritti, 2019) signed in February 2017 between the Italian and Libyan governments, the number of immigrant landings decreased by 86 % during the summer of 2018 compared to the previous year. However, the perception of immigration in Italy is distorted; this leads to a publicly estimated immigrant population of around 25 % of the total population. This estimate is even higher in Italians with a low level of education (28 %) and is highest in people with a right-wing political orientation (32.4 %; Istituto Cattaneo, 2018). Although incorrect perceptions of the presence of immigrants are widespread all over the world, Italian respondents have shown the greatest gap between real and perceived percentages, and their negative evaluation of the consequences of immigration is based on this distortion. In this way, Italians (74 %), more than other Europeans (57 %), believe that immigrants are responsible for the increase of criminal actions (Istituto Cattaneo, 2018).

Various studies have shown that, compared to other western European countries, Italy has the highest levels of ethnic prejudice (Zick, Pettigrew, & Wagner, 2008) and hostility toward immigration and religious minorities (Diamant & Starr, 2018). However, other research studies have described a less negative scenario. Although public opinion is mostly opposed to immigration (because of the large number of irregular arrivals with false asylum requests, the market crisis of work, and the distrust toward the ability of institutions to manage immigration), these studies showed that the majority of Italians are in favor of welcoming those seeking protection from war and discrimination (Dixon, Hawkins, Heijbroek, Juan-Torres, & Demoures, 2018). Therefore, this study analyzed Italian prejudice against immigrants and tested the effect of the interaction between secularism and the perception of community boundaries loss on prejudice.

1.1 Prejudice

Prejudice is an attitude or tendency to respond promptly, whether positively or negatively, to a particular social object (Brown, 1995). As a psychosocial construct, however, prejudice indicates the negative evaluation (Voci & Pagotto, 2010) of a social group or an individual as a member of that group (Allport, 1954). Originally, the phenomenon was interpreted and analyzed in terms of individual differences – that is, as a distinctive attitude of psychopathological personalities (see Gault, 1923; Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, LeVinson & ←20 | 21→Stanford,1950; Rokeach, 1960). Subsequently, studies have shown that, on a cognitive level, prejudice is the result of normal categorization processes (Fiske, 2000); generalization is the natural basis for ordering reality (Allport, 1954). However, on the social level, prejudice emerged as a multidimensional phenomenon (Taguieff, 2011) stimulated whenever socioeconomic, historical, and cultural circumstances (Kinder & Sears, 1981; Lepore & Brown, 1997; Crandall & Schaller, 2004) caused the groups to be compared (Runciman, 1966) or to compete with each other (Sherif, 1966). Finally, prejudice has been investigated as the outcome of the link between individual processes (motivational, emotional, and cognitive) and relationships between groups, and the social identity theory was developed based on the possible articulations of this link (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). According to the social identity theory, categorization in groups is sufficient to stimulate outgroup devaluation (Tajfel, Billing, Bundy, & Flament, 1971) and to reinforce prejudice (Brewer, 1999).

Over time, the diffusion of “politically correct” behaviors has made manifesting negative attitudes toward minorities socially undesirable. Therefore, the expression of prejudice has evolved into less explicit forms that are more difficult to detect. To address this issue, Pettigrew and Meertens (1995) proposed a two-dimensional model that distinguishes blatant and subtle prejudice. Blatant prejudice, which corresponds to “classic” (old-fashioned) prejudice, has two components: the perceived threat from the outgroup and the rejection of intimacy with its members. This form is emotionally heated because aversion to and discrimination of the outgroup are openly declared. On the other hand, subtle prejudice is emotionally cold and distant and is typical of individuals who consider themselves liberal, democratic, and favorable to equality and equal opportunities. The subtle form has three components: the defense of the values and traditions of the ingroup, the exasperation of differences to justify the separation between the groups, and the lack of positive emotions toward members of the outgroup. Using cultural motivations, these components allow insidious and socially acceptable expressions of the outgroup’s inferiority. The present study measured the two dimensions of prejudice using the Italian version (see Arcuri & Boca, 1996; Manganelli Rattazzi, & Volpato, 2001; Villano, 1999) of the Blatant and Subtle Prejudice Scale proposed by Pettigrew and Meertens (1995).

1.2 Secularism of State

Secularism affirms the principle of separation between the state and church (Feldman, 2005); this means that political institutions must not interfere in the religious sphere and that religious institutions must not influence governmental ←21 | 22→issues. Secular countries can promote hard secularism (e.g., the People’s Republic of China, which is officially atheist) or soft secularism (e.g., the United Kingdom, where the relationship between the church and state is purely formal). Other countries fall somewhere in the middle of this continuum; examples of these countries include the United States, France, and Italy, whose constitutions affirm the independence of the church and state and allow religious freedom (Kosmin, 2007).

Some studies have shown that attitudes toward state secularism are associated with attitudes toward private (e.g., religion and political orientation) and social (e.g., same-sex marriage and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis) values (see Hichy & Di Marco, 2014; Hichy, Falvo, Santisi, & Dazzi, 2014; Hichy, Gerges, Platania, & Santisi, 2015a; Hichy, Coen, & Di Marco, 2015b). Regarding the relationship between secularism and attitudes toward immigrants, studies have shown that people who claim to be secular have more favorable attitudes toward immigrants than people who claim to be Christian (Smith, 2006; Storm, 2011). Therefore, this study hypothesized that positive attitudes toward secularism may be correlated with a lower degree of prejudice toward immigrants. Moreover, it hypothesized that the secularism of the state should moderate the relationship between the perception of community boundaries loss and both kinds of prejudice.

1.3 Perception of Community Boundaries Loss

The perception of community boundaries loss is a dynamic and situational variable associated with specific social and environmental conditions (Talò, 2010), such as the co-presence of immigrants and natives in a certain territorial context. Indeed, as a result of phenomena such as globalization and immigration, feelings of fear may emerge due to the loss of distinctiveness of a certain community (ingroup) in respect to the others (outgroups), as well as the perception that the traditions and culture of belonging are in danger (Talò, 2010).

Although migratory flows to Italy are now a historical and structural phenomenon, the presence of immigrants creates a collective perception of social and cultural instability, which is also due to the high number of illegal arrivals (IOM, 2018). Recent studies have shown that, in municipalities where many immigrants live, the cost for the local police increases even if the crimes do not increase (Bove, Elia & Ferraresi, 2019). Studies have also shown that the attitude of Italians toward immigrants arriving in the country is increasingly wary and hostile (Mannheimer, 2016). In a study conducted by Dixon et al. (2018), 59 % of Italians stated that national identity was disappearing due to migrants, and 50 % ←22 | 23→said they sometimes felt foreign in their own country. Overall, the majority of Italians believe that immigration hurts society, are concerned about security, and fear that the country no longer has control over its borders (Dixon et al., 2018). Therefore, the negative feelings toward immigrants are caused by the fear that the immigrants’ presence is endangering not only territorial but also symbolic boundaries (i.e., identity, traditions, and culture). Following this evidence, this study hypothesized a negative association between the perception of community boundaries loss and prejudice toward immigrants.

2 Methods

2.1 Participants and Procedure

The study’s participants included 102 university students (67 % female, 32 % male, and 1 % missing). All participants were born and lived in Italy, and they were aged from 19 to 33 years (mean = 22.76, SD = 2.54). The participants were selected from an opportunity sample of university students who were approached and then volunteered to take part in the study. All participants were informed that their responses would remain confidential. Ethical approval for the study was granted by the principal investigator’s institution.

2.2 Measurements

The Blatant and Subtle Prejudice Scale. To measure prejudice, the Italian version of the Blatant and Subtle Prejudice Scale was used (Arcuri & Boca, 1996; Manganelli Rattazzi, & Volpato, 2001). Before answering the scale’s questions, the participants were asked an open question: “When you think about immigrants from outside the EU, what is the first ethnic or racial group that comes to mind?” The participants then had to refer to this group during the compilation of the scale. Of the participants, 72.6 % indicated African groups (“African,” 50 %; “Moroccan,” 10.8 %, etc.). The scale is articulated in 20 items: 10 for blatant prejudice (alpha = .73) and 10 for subtle prejudice (alpha = .66). Examples of items (and relative kind of prejudice) are as follows: “(Target group) have a job that Italians should have” (blatant prejudice) and “(Target group) living here teach their children values and skills different from those required to be successful in Italy” (subtle prejudice). The participants answered on a 6-point scale, ranging from 1 (“absolutely disagree”) to 6 (“absolutely agree”).

The Secularism of State Scale. Attitudes toward secularism were measured using the Secularism of State Scale (Hichy et al., 2012), which consists of eight items, including the following: “The Church should remain in its place ←23 | 24→and avoid getting involved in political affairs,” and “I think it is appropriate that the Church gives its opinion on State laws” (reverse coded). For each item, participants expressed their opinion on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 7 (“strongly agree”), with 4 meaning neither agree nor disagree (alpha= .91).


ISBN (Hardcover)
Publication date
2020 (June)
media migrants human rights prejudice philosophy of law
Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Warszawa, Wien, 2020. 472 pp., 22 fig. b/w, 24 tables

Biographical notes

Gevisa La Rocca (Volume editor) Roberto Di Maria (Volume editor) Gino Frezza (Volume editor)

Gevisa La Rocca, Associate Professor on Sociology of Cultural and Communication Processes at Kore University of Enna. Roberto Di Maria, Full Professor on Costitutional Law at Kore University of Enna. Gino Frezza, Full Professor on Sociology of Cultural and Communication Processes at University of Salerno.


Title: Media, Migrants and Human Rights. In the Evolution of the European Scenario of Refugees’ and Asylum Seekers’ Instances