RISULTATI RICERCA

Objective. This paper offers a critical analysis of the mechanisms through which neurodivergence is produced as alterity, positioning itself not within the psychiatric debate on the organic basis of mental disorders, but on a distinct level: that of normative power and its social, political, and relational effects. Theoretical framework. The starting point is the concept of neuronormativity. Neurodivergence is not an intrinsic property of the individual, but emerges from the relationship between a given functional profile – relational, cognitive, sensory, communicative – and a system of norms that presents itself as a neutral and objective description of reality, while being historically situated and arbitrarily determined. Acknowledging that functional differences generating real and intrinsic difficulties exist does not contradict this position. The neurological norm is not hidden: it is declared by medicine as a descriptive parameter. What is not declared is its nature as a historically situated convention. It is a naturalized norm, not simply a natural one. Argument. Starting from this distinction, the paper analyses the process through which functional difference is transformed into deviance and alterity, drawing on Becker’s and Lemert’s labelling theory: the diagnostic label does not describe, it produces. The issue is not the organic basis of neurodivergent functioning, but who holds the power to define the norm, according to which criteria, and with what effects. By inscribing neurodivergence within the individual biological dimension, clinical discourse conceals the structural and social determinants that construct its effects, turning a question of normative power into a personal problem. Conclusions. Shifting the terms of the discourse from aetiology to normative power is the necessary condition for grasping the political dimension of pathologisation and for restoring to neurodivergent people a subjectivity that processes of alterisation systematically deprive them of. Access to professional support cannot be conditional upon a systemic blackmail: if you want help, you must accept losing power.

Background: Identity in mental health is a multidimensional construct shaped by philosophical, psychological, and sociocultural frameworks, in which processes of othering, social identity, and structural inequality play a central role. Method: This conceptual review integrates phenomenological, sociological, and psychiatric perspectives to examine how identity is constituted through consciousness, embodiment, intersubjectivity, and social categorization, and how these processes interact with stigma, oppression, and resilience. Results: Identity emerges as a dynamic synthesis of sameness and continuity, embodied experience, and relational constitution through alterity. Social identity theory highlights the role of group membership in shaping selfconcept, belonging, and mental health, while also generating ingroup/outgroup distinctions that sustain processes of othering. Such mechanisms underpin discrimination, minority stress, and structural oppression, which are strongly associated with increased vulnerability to depression, anxiety, and psychosis. Within this framework, mental illness itself may act as a source of secondary othering, reinforcing stigma and identity disruption. Healthcare systems may further amplify these dynamics through alteritydriven barriers to care, cultural misunderstandings, and structural inequities. Conversely, social resilience plays as a protective and complementary process that reinforces individual identity by fostering belonging, cohesion, and shared identity reconstruction. Conclusions: Identity is a socially embedded, relational, and dynamic construct continuously shaped by otherness, structural inequality, and resilience processes. Strengthening social resilience and inclusive systems is essential to contrast stigma, inequities, and promote both personal and collective identity integration.

Le migrazioni internazionali sono processi sistemici dominati dall’azione trasformativa dei contesti culturali sulle condizioni di vita e sull’identità del migrante, soprattutto se bambino o adolescente, proiettato fuori dal proprio mondo di appartenenza. Lo sradicamento genera un problema esistenziale immediato, imposto dalla perdita o dal dissolvimento dei contenitori psichici e culturali (figure parentali, lingue, concezioni del mondo) che supportano e proteggono lo sviluppo del soggetto in movimento. Sbalzato in un mondo estraneo, il suo assetto personologico diventa vulnerabile a cambiamenti subentranti e incontrollabili anche perché non possiede meccanismi di adattamento efficaci con cui fronteggiare l’assenza dei contenitori originari. La forza traumatogena della migrazione perturba l’omeostasi soggettiva, esterna e interna (somatica, psichica e sociale), provocando un’alterazione identitaria dall’esito imprevedibile.

Il rapporto tra identità e alterità viene interrogato a partire dalla figura dello straniero, intesa nella sua costitutiva ambivalenza. Attraverso un percorso che intreccia riflessione filosofica, tradizione classica e pensiero contemporaneo, il saggio mostra come lo straniero non possa essere ridotto a una semplice figura esterna o opposta all’identità, ma costituisca piuttosto un elemento essenziale per la sua definizione. A partire dall’analisi delle categorie di xenos, hostis e hospes, viene messa in luce la duplice natura dello straniero, insieme ospite e nemico, dono e minaccia. In questa prospettiva, l’identità non appare come un dato originario e stabile, ma come il risultato di un processo che si costituisce nel rapporto con l’altro, entro una tensione mai risolvibile tra apertura e difesa, accoglienza e rifiuto. L’articolo si inserisce così nel dibattito contemporaneo interrogando la possibilità stessa di parlare oggi di identità, mostrando come essa si dia soltanto nella relazione con ciò che la espone, la mette in questione e, al tempo stesso, la rende possibile.

The Soviet pursuit of hegemonic balance in Europe, illustrated by the suppression of the Prague Spring and the NixonBrezhnev détente, faced growing resistance among Communist parties within and beyond the Warsaw Pact. In this context, the Pcr and the Pci converged in opposing hegemony and bipolarity in favor of multipolarity, viewing European détente as central to Europe’s political reconfiguration and to resisting Soviet control over the Communist movement. Despite different motivations, they shared notable similarities in political thinking, alongside tensions in their internationalist identity and limits to cooperation. While the Pcr emphasized the international dimension, the Pci combined international and ideological perspectives. Their inability to develop a common vision of Europe highlights both these differences and the longterm impact of their cooperation.