N. 2 (2025)
Dossier - Diversity and the Italian Judiciary: Challenges and Gaps (edited by C. Cavallari and A. Lacchei)

Between Norms and Practice: Cultural Diversity in Italian Family Courts

pdf
Claudia Cavallari
University of Milano-Bicocca
DOI: https://doi.org/10.54103/1972-5760/30764

Published 2026-02-02

Keywords

  • Judicial Practices,
  • Legal Discourse and Stereotypes,
  • Qualitative Approaches to Judicial,
  • Family Law

How to Cite

Cavallari, C. (2026). Between Norms and Practice: Cultural Diversity in Italian Family Courts. Sociologia Del Diritto, 52(2). https://doi.org/10.54103/1972-5760/30764

Copyright (c) 2025 Claudia Cavallari

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Abstract

This article examines how judges in Italy deal with sociocultural diversity in family law cases. The aim is to investigate how understandings about culture are shaped and constructed in legal reasoning and what institutional dynamics influence this process. Based on qualitative research –  semi-structured interviews with judges and critical discourse analysis of judicial decisions – the study explores the tension between individually held understandings of culture and the institutional conditions under which legal decisions are produced. Some judges show awareness of the dynamic nature of culture, but such perspectives rarely translate into the rulings. On the contrary, culture is often treated as a fixed attribute, made legible through essentialist classifications shaped by procedural, bureaucratic constraints and reliance on external assessments. Combining Practice-Based Theory and Critical Discourse Analysis, the article shows how judicial reasoning is constructed in routines that reinforce dominant cultural assumptions, suggesting the need for structural change to support more context-sensitive, pluralistic forms of legal interpretation.
pdf

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Barra, F., (2015), Diritto, Decisione, Caso, Roma, Università degli Studi di Roma Tre.
  2. Bobbio, N., (1989), Il positivismo giuridico, Torino, Italia, Giappichelli.
  3. Brown, J. S., Duguid, P., (1991), Organizational Learning and Communities of Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation, Organization Science, 2, pp. 40–57.
  4. Cardano, M., (2011), La ricerca qualitativa, Bologna, Il Mulino.
  5. Cecchella, A., (2023). La riforma del processo in materia di persone, minorenni e famiglie dopo il D.lgs. n. 149/2022, Questione Giustizia, 1/2023, pp. 169–199.
  6. Conley, J., O’Barr, W., (1998). Just words. Law, Language, and Power, The University of Chicago Press.
  7. Corradi, G., Gherardi, S., and Verzelloni, L., (2010), Through the practice lens: Where is the bandwagon of practice-based studies heading?, Management Learning, 41(3), pp. 265–283.
  8. Cotterrell, R., (2018), Sociological jurisprudence: Juristic thought and social inquiry, London, Routledge.
  9. Decarli, G., (2018), Reflections on the use of classifications in the juridical method: The case of Roma groups in Italy, Nomadic Peoples, 22(1), pp. 47–64.
  10. Della Porta D., Keating M., eds., (2008), Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences. A Pluralist Perspective, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  11. Fairclough, N., (2003), Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research, London and New York, Routledge.
  12. Febbrajo A., a cura di, (1995), Procedimenti giuridici e legittimazione sociale, Milano, Giuffrè.
  13. Ferraris, M., (2009), Documentalità. Perché è necessario lasciar tracce, Roma-Bari, Laterza.
  14. Ferraris, M., (2007), Documentality – Or Why Nothing Social Exists Beyond the Text, In Kanzian, C., Runggaldier, E., Eds., Cultures: Conflict–Analysis–Dialogue, Berlin, De Gruyter, pp. 385–402.
  15. Gherardi, S., (2006), Organizational knowledge: The texture of workplace learning, Oxford, UK, Blackwell.
  16. Gherardi, S., (2019), How to conduct a practice-based study: Problems and methods (2nd ed.), Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.
  17. Grillo, R., Ballard, R., Ferrari, A., Hoekema, A. J., Maussen, M., and Shah, P., eds., (2009), Legal practice and cultural diversity, Ashgate Publishing.
  18. Grimm, P., (2010), Social Desirability Bias, in Sheth, J., Malhotra N., eds., Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing. Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons.
  19. Guarnieri, C., Pederzoli, P., (2003), The Power of Judges: A Comparative Study of Courts and Democracy, Oxford Socio-Legal Studies.
  20. Gunnarsson, A., Svensson, E.-M., and Davies, M., (2007), Reflecting the Epistemology of Law: Exploiting Boundaries, In Gunnarsson, Å., Eva-Maria, E.-M., Davies, M., eds., Exploiting the Limits of Law: Swedish Feminism and the Challenge to Pessimism, Ashgate Publishing, pp. 1–15.
  21. Marinelli, V., (2008), Studi sul diritto vivente, Napoli, Italia, Jovene Editore.
  22. Menski, W., (2014), Plurality-conscious rebalancing of family law regulation in Europe, In Shah, P., Foblets, M.-C., eds., Family, religion and law: Cultural encounters in Europe, Farnham, UK, Ashgate, pp. 29–48.
  23. Mondino, S., (2017), Diversità culturale e “best interest of the child”. I giudici italiani e i genitori marocchini tra enunciati di diritto e rappresentazioni normative, Ledizioni. Memorie del Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza dell’Università di Torino.
  24. Nicolini, D., Gherardi, S., and Yanow, D., eds., (2003), Knowing in organizations: A practice-based approach, Armonk, NY, Sharpe.
  25. Orlikowski, W. J., (2002), Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science, 13(3), pp. 249–273.
  26. Pascuzzi, G., (2008), Giuristi si diventa. Bologna, Il Mulino.
  27. Peroni, L., (2014), Religion and culture in the discourse of the European Court of Human Rights: The risks of stereotyping and naturalizing, International Journal of Law in Context, 10(2), pp. 195–221.
  28. Phillips, A., (2010), What’s wrong with essentialism, Distinktion. Scandinavian journal of social theory, 11(1), pp. 47–60.
  29. Renteln, A. D., Foblets, M.-C., eds., (2009), Multicultural jurisprudence: Comparative perspectives on the cultural defense, Oxford, Hart Publishing.
  30. Renteln, A. D., (2004), The cultural defense, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  31. Rohe, M., (2014), Family and the law in Europe: Bringing together secular legal orders and religious norms and needs, In Shah, P., Foblets, M.-C. eds., Family, religion and law: Cultural encounters in Europe, Farnham, UK, Ashgate, pp- 49–78.
  32. Ronfani, P., (2020), I nuovi scenari della filiazione e della genitorialità, Sociologia del Diritto, 2020/1, pp. 76-92.
  33. Ruggiu, I., (2017), Il giudice antropologo e il test culturale. Questione Giustizia, 1.
  34. Ruggiu, I., (2019), Culture and the Judiciary: The Anthropologist Judge, London, Routledge.
  35. Silva Nino de Zepeda, R., (2022), Inter-American Children and their Rights: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Judicial Decisions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 30, pp. 552–576.
  36. Silverman, D., Marvasti, A., (2008), Doing qualitative research: A comprehensive guide, Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.
  37. Silvi, A., (2020), La performatività delle decisioni giudiziarie: un'analisi socio-giuridica, Rivista di Filosofia del Diritto, 9(1), pp. 45–62.
  38. Shah, P., (2014), Distorting minority laws? Religious diversity and European legal systems, In Shah, P., Foblets, M.-C., eds., Family, religion and law: Cultural encounters in Europe. Farnham, UK, Ashgate, pp. 1–28.
  39. Spada, L., Cartasegna, C., and Costella, P., (2022), Una riforma incompleta. Una giustizia dimezzata? Minorigiustizia, 3/2021, pp. 106–115.
  40. van Leeuwen, T., (2008), Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis, New York, NY, Oxford University Press.
  41. Verzelloni, L., (2020), Paradossi dell'innovazione. I sistemi giustizia del sud Europa, Roma, Carocci.
  42. Verzelloni, L., (2019), I percorsi di innovazione dei sistemi giudiziari del sud Europa, Studi Organizzativi, 1, pp. 97–122.
  43. Verzelloni, L., (2012), Behind the judges’ desk: An ethnographic study on the Italian courts of justice, International Journal for Court Administration, 4(2), pp. 75–82.
  44. Verzelloni, L., (2009), Dietro alla cattedra del giudice. Pratiche, prassi e occasioni di apprendimento, Bologna, Pendragon.
  45. Jänterä-Jareborg, M., (2014), On the cooperation between religious and state institutions in family matters: Nordic experiences, In Shah, P., Foblets, M.C., eds., Family, religion and law: Cultural encounters in Europe, Farnham, UK, Ashgate, pp. 143–164.