Agricoltura sociale in carcere: le istituzioni come agenti morfogenetici di una società ricostruttiva

Journal title WELFARE E ERGONOMIA
Author/s Angela Genova
Publishing Year 2025 Issue 2024/2
Language English Pages 17 P. 191-207 File size 109 KB
DOI 10.3280/WE2024-002013
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Overcrowding and harsh delivery of punishment characterise the Italian prison system. Nonetheless, labour in penal institutions should be a central aspect as a re-educative tool. Social farming is a specific declination of labour activities in prison with a high positive impact on prisoners. In Italy the number of prisoners involved in social farming activities has dropped in the last decade. The Marche region presents a reverse trend with an increase in the number of social farming activities in prisons. This study investigates the Marche region case study to evaluate its output and outcome in the background of reconstructive social theory by Vandenberghe. The qualitative research design adopted (short focused ethnography, interviews, focus groups) shows the number and characteristics of social farming outputs, and the outcomes for the prisoners, institutional stakeholders and citizens. The study highlights the importance of networking between different institutional stakeholders inside and outside the prison, the positive impact on the wellbeing of prisoners and the point of view of citizens and consumers of social farming products. The results highlight the role of social farming in prison as a morphogenetic agent of reconstruction processes for the institutional and administrative personnel, for prisoners and for all citizens as consumers of prison social farming products.

Keywords: labour; evaluation; short ethnography; social garden; consumers.

  1. Acocella I. and Pastore G. (2020). La «cura» delle relazioni in carcere e «nonostante» il carcere: significati e pratiche nel contesto penitenziario toscano. Autonomie locali e servizi sociali. Quadrimestrale di studi e ricerche sul welfare, 3: 539-554. DOI: 10.1447/99925
  2. Allegri P.A. (2020). La formazione professionale all’interno dell’istituzione penitenziaria, uno studio di caso tra luci e ombre. Autonomie locali e servizi sociali, 3: 615-629. DOI: 10.1447/99930
  3. Antigone (2023). Casa di Reclusione di Ancona Barcaglione. -- Available at: https://www.antigone.it/osservatorio_detenzione/marche/53-casa-di-reclusione-ancona-barcaglione.
  4. Allegri P.A. (2020). La formazione professionale all’interno dell’istituzione penitenziaria, uno studio di caso tra luci e ombre. Autonomie locali e servizi sociali. Quadrimestrale di studi e ricerche sul welfare, 3: 615-629.
  5. Alós R., Esteban F., Jódar P. and Miguélez F. (2015). Effects of prison work programmes on the employability of ex-prisoners. European Journal of Criminology, 12(1): 35-50. DOI: 10.1177/1477370814538776
  6. Ashforth B.E. and Lee R.T. (1990). Defensive behavior in organizations: A preliminary model. Human relations, 43(7): 621-648.
  7. Bhaskar R. (1989). The possibility of naturalism. A Philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Press.
  8. Borsotto P., Giarè F. and Ricciardi G. 2022. Inclusione sociale e lavorativa di detenuti: l’esperienza in campo agricolo. In: Borgi M., Genova A., Collacchi B. and Cirulli F., editors, Agricoltura sociale: processi, pratiche e riflessioni per l’innovazione sociosanitaria. Rapporti ISTISAN 22/9.
  9. Boswort M. (2014). Inside Immigration Detention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  10. Boudon R. (2016). The unintended consequences of social action. Springer.
  11. Boudon R. (1977). Perverse effects and social change. In The unintended consequences of social action. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  12. Buffa P. (2015). Umanizzare il carcere. Roma: Laurus Robuffo.
  13. Caillé A. et al. (2013). Manifeste convivialiste. Déclaration d’interdépendance. Lormont: Le Bord de l’eau.
  14. Caputo G. (2020). Carcere senza fabbrica: povertà, lavoro forzato e welfare. Pisa: Pacini Editore.
  15. Duwe G. (2015). An Outcome Evaluation of a Prison Work Release Program: Estimating Its Effects on Recidivism, Employment, and Cost Avoidance. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 26(6): 531-554. DOI: 10.1177/0887403414524590
  16. Esposito M. (2010). The health of Italian prison prisoners today: a critical approach. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 16(3): 230-238.
  17. Ferreccio V. and Vianello F. (2015), La ricerca in carcere in Argentina e in Italia. Strategie del penitenziario e pratiche di resistenza. Etnografia e ricerca qualitativa, 8(2): 321-342.
  18. Gariglio L. (2018). ‘Doing’ Coercion in Male Custodial Settings: An Ethnography of Italian Prison Officers Using Force. Routledge.
  19. Genova A. (2024). Le politiche sociali tra aspetti concettuali e simbolici: la mentalità persecutoria nelle politiche di contrasto alla povertà. In: Pellegrino V. e Rodeschini G., editors, Il Welfare pubblico partecipativo. Pratiche di riflessività collettiva sulle trasformazioni dello Stato sociale. Milano: FrancoAngeli, pp. 62-74.
  20. Gibson-Light M. (2023). Orange-collar labor: Work and inequality in prison. Oxford University Press.
  21. Goffman E. (2003). Asylums. Le istituzioni totali: i meccanismi dell’esclusione e della violenza. Torino: Einaudi.
  22. Guilbaud F. (2008). Prisoners’ work in prison: The meaning and arrangement of time as experienced by imprisoned workers. Revue Française de Sociologie, 49(4): 763-791+877+879.
  23. Habermas J. (1990). The philosophical discourse of modernity: Twelve lectures. MIT press.
  24. Kaplan S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature ? Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3): 169-182. DOI: 10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2
  25. Knoblauch H. (2005, September). Focused ethnography. Forum qualitative sozialforschung/forum: qualitative social research, 6(3).
  26. Kunneman H. (2010). Viable alternatives for commercialized science: The case of humanistics. In: Radder H., editor, The commodification of science: Critical perspectives: 307336. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  27. Lee A.Y., Kim S.Y., Kwon H.J. and Park S.A. (2021). Horticultural therapy program for mental health of prisoners: Case report. Integrative medicine research, 10(2), 100495.
  28. Liebling A., Price D. and Shefer D. (2011). The Prison Officer (2nd edition). Abingdon: Willan.
  29. Lyotard J.F. (1979). La condition postmoderne. Paris: Minuit.
  30. Moran D. and Turner J. (2019). Turning over a new leaf: The health-enabling capacities of nature contact in prison. Social science & medicine, 231: 62-69.
  31. Naeem M., Ozuem W., Howell K. and Ranfagni S. (2023). A step-by-step process of thematic analysis to develop a conceptual model in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, 16094069231205789.
  32. Pacini Volpe P. (2020) Le rôle des surveillants pénitentiaires entre contradictions et carences du système. Une comparaison franco-italienne. Autonomie locali e servizi sociali, 3: 555-568. DOI: 10.1447/99926
  33. Pink S. (2009). Doing Sensory Ethnography. London: Sage
  34. Pink S. and Morgan J. (2013). Short-term ethnography: Intense routes to knowing. Symbolic interaction, 36(3): 351-361.
  35. Prina F. and Vianello F. (2020). Carcere e dintorni: il contributo della ricerca su condizioni detentive, diritti e spazi di innovazione. Autonomie locali e servizi sociali, (3): 463-480. DOI: 10.1447/99920
  36. Ronco D. (2020). Il principio di equivalenza delle cure in carcere: appunti per una rivisitazione oltre l’emergenza. Autonomie locali e servizi sociali, 3: 495-507. DOI: 10.1447/99922
  37. Santorso S. (2023). The Politics of Prison Crowding: A Critical Analysis of the Italian Prison System. Routledge.
  38. Sbraccia A. and Vianello F. (2016). Introduzione. Carcere, ricerca sociologica, etnografia. Etnografia e Ricerca Qualitativa, 2: 183-210. DOI: 10.3240/84117
  39. Timler K., Brown H. and Varcoe C. (2019). Growing connection beyond prison walls: How a prison garden fosters rehabilitation and healing for incarcerated men. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 58(5): 444-463. DOI: 10.1080/10509674.2019.1615598
  40. Vandenberghe F. (2018). Principles of reconstructive social theory. Critical Realism, History, and Philosophy in the Social Sciences. Political Power and Social Theory, 34, 73-88. DOI: 10.1108/S0198-871920180000034004
  41. Verdolini V. (2022). L’istituzione reietta. Spazi e dinamiche del carcere in Italia. Roma: Carocci.

Angela Genova, Social farming in prison: Institutions as morphogenetic agents of reconstructive society in "WELFARE E ERGONOMIA" 2/2024, pp 191-207, DOI: 10.3280/WE2024-002013