Identity and Self-Positioning of the Community of Sant’Egidio: A Faith-Based Organization on the International Stage

Abstract

Religion in international relations should not be viewed solely as a source of conflict or cultural differences; it also has a constructive dimension, as demonstrated by the international activities of faith-based organizations (FBOs). FBOs have benefited from the post-Cold War expansion of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in global affairs. Their growth is often linked to raising awareness among various social groups about security challenges or issues traditionally addressed by state and inter-governmental actors, as well as increasing international interconnectedness. While FBOs differ from classical NGOs in their strong religious motivation, they too often organize around specific missions or messages. The Community of Sant’Egidio (CSE) is a distinctive example of a faith-based organization that operates both as a religious community within the Roman Catholic Church and as an internationally active NGO. Unlike many NGOs, which are founded in response to a singular issue, CSE has broadened its scope over time, addressing a wide range of concerns, from poverty alleviation and peacebuilding to humanitarian aid and, more recently, environmental issues. This paper explores the process by which the CSE has discursively constructed its identity and examines how this process has contributed to its growing influence on the international stage.

1. Introduction

Identity is a set of characteristics, attributes, and behaviors of a given entity that, forming a whole, make it precisely what it is and define its place in the world. It is what distinguishes an entity from other entities and what defines its essence (Bokszański 2007). The catalog of factors influencing identity is broad. However, it always includes values, the entity’s perception of reality, the entity’s judgments about itself, and the judgments of others about the entity. It is important to note the last of these dependencies, as it is necessary for identity to be effective in social relations.

In this paper, the question of identity will be considered within the international activity of non-governmental organizations. The rapid spread of such entities poses a challenge to both the practice and theory of international relations. In the 21st century, the phenomenon of pluralism of non-state actors is accelerating. Specialized NGOs are competing with the state’s capability to exercise power. This issue has increasingly emerged in areas traditionally reserved for the activities of state bodies. The growing number of internationally active NGOs seems to cast doubt on the central position of the state in international studies. Part of this challenge is the question of how NGOs build their position and capacity to act in the international space. Although the non-governmental world is extremely abundant and capable of providing a variety of answers to this question, this paper turns its attention to the mechanism of self-identification and self-creation of international position through NGOs’ own identities.

There is a whole range of faith-based NGOs. So-called faith-based organizations (FBOs) operate all over the world, dealing with a wide range of activities beyond religion (Nordstokke 2013). Gerard Clarke lists humanitarian aid, education, various social problems, as well as issues of conflict and peace as being on the agenda of such entities (Clarke 2007). Their religious motivation and often inherently communal nature become important factors in their credibility and impact. The functioning of FBOs is also a challenge not even in terms of a recomposition of the international order but a recomposition of thinking about international relations. The present text is a case study of a particular FBO—the Community of Sant’Egidio—and is based, in addition to secondary sources, on the author’s observations and interviews with members of the Community and its “friends” conducted between 2017 and 2020.

Identity is an ever-growing issue in international relations studies. Due to the state-centric nature of this field of research, considerations around the issue of identity are primarily concerned with how it affects the actions of states and how it is manifested by them (Skolimowska 2019). An issue that has been essentially ignored so far is the role of identity in the international activities of non-governmental actors.

Deliberations around identity in international relations studies are primarily associated with the rise in popularity of the constructivist approach, raising the role of ideational factors and bringing a component of the social construction of reality to international relations. Regarding identity, constructivism, by making it a central concept, has created a challenge to the interests derived from the material structure of the world. Thus, a conclusion can be drawn from constructivism: that the identity of an actor in international relations (most often a state) determines its positions and ways of action (Skolimowska 2019). The problem of the nature of identity—its production, peculiarities, and operationalization—becomes a central issue in this approach.

To remain within constructivist thinking and to refer to its classic figure, Alexander Wendt, it should be noted that identity can perform several key functions:

• differentiating from others;
• defining special characteristics;
• defining roles;
• defining in-group cohesion (Wendt 1994).

Each of these functions is associated with an umbrella set of distinctive traits that determine that an actor is just what it is and not something else. Importantly, this set of characteristics is subjectively defined and includes the interplay of meanings assumed by the actor of international relations and assigned to it by the system (Bieleń 2015). In other words, identity, central to the performance of any actor, is the result of the interplay of self-perception and the perceptions of others. Its production and reproduction are associated not only with material conditions (large–small state, democratic–authoritarian; state–non-state), but primarily with a series of discursive practices.

A simple, though tricky, take on discourse is the one characterizing it as a “text in context” (Nonhoff 2017). It should be emphasized that, as a text, it is necessary to understand, in this case, not only the practice of word-based expressions but also actions and other symbolic acts. Understood in this way, discursive practices constitute the continuous production and reproduction of an actor’s identity. Identity is therefore a certain process that is subject to modifications and limitations (Brubaker and Cooper 2000).

The classic work that depicts discourse as a tool for the exercise of power, and at the same time provides tools for its analysis, is The Order of Discourse, by Michel Foucault. Therein, the French thinker identifies practices aimed at preserving the coherence of discourse, while at the same time excluding threads that could constitute a breach of it (Foucault 1971). In this sense, discourse becomes an instrument of power and reproduction of ideology, which by its nature provides justification for selected practices and excludes others that contradict its assumptions (van Dijk 1995). The framing of identity as a discursively produced category makes it related to ideology. This is because identity, like ideology, would be based on statements of a common character, attributing to itself the qualities of naturalness and inseparability from the thing in question (van Dijk 1995). Within it, therefore, there would be myths that explain particular characteristics and give them a character that is fundamental to the operations of a given actor.

Understanding myth as an element of the semiological system, in which it would be a form that gives meaning to the signified objects, one can relate this category to identity (Barthes 1972). For it is only through myths that identity acquires meaning. Without myths, it is merely a collection of features. However, these features must constitute the community as a community and its members as its members. For this purpose, stories that take the form of myths will be used (Napiórkowski 2018). Moreover, these myths define the role of a given actor within the system. Hence, in order to understand the role of the identity of an international relations actor, it is necessary to isolate, name, and analyze the myths that constitute it.

2. Results

2.1. Contexts of the Community of Sant’Egidio’s Identity

The Community of Sant’Egidio is an example of an international relations actor whose discursively produced identity determines the patterns and capacities of its actions. As a non-state actor, it has no “default” subjectivity in international relations, so it is possible to observe the role of identity translating into the actor’s position in the international arena.

Two aspects of the identity of the Community of Sant’Egidio should be emphasized. The first exists in the objective dimension and involves the characteristics of this actor as a non-governmental organization, a religious community, and, in a sense, a social movement rooted in the Roman Catholic tradition. These are determinants of identity that impose limitations, or rather frames, of performance on the Community of Sant’Egidio. Belonging to Roman Catholicism also provides a frame for a subjective dimension of identity, produced by the community itself. It is this second aspect of identity that distinguishes Sant’Egidio and forms the basis of its international activity. Understanding how it is produced and operationalized, however, requires first making a few remarks about the objective dimension of the Community of Sant’Egidio’s identity.

The Community of Sant’Egidio is an organized group of lay people of the Roman Catholic Church, active since 1968 and uniting tens of thousands of people from more than 70 countries (Hume 1994). Thus, its lay character is significant, associated with the changes in the Roman Catholic Church with regard to the decisions of the Second Vatican Council, as well as the spirit of collectivism associated with the social movements of the 1960s. This is the objective ideological base from which the Community of Sant’Egidio grew (Naro 2018). What is equally important, and what leads to an analysis of the subjective dimension of its identity, is that initially the Community was only a casual group of young people, who neither used its current name nor even had a specific agenda. The undertakings for which the Community is best known today, such as helping the poor (the homeless, migrants, and the sick) or issues of inter-religious dialogue and peace, emerged only over time. The name, in turn, comes from the monastery of Sant’Egidio in Rome’s Trastevere, which has been placed under the Community’s care (Kulska 2013). Its main undertakings include dinners on the streets, the DREAM program (a program to fight AIDS), humanitarian corridors, inter-religious meetings in the spirit of Assisi and mediation in armed conflicts (the best known is the case of Mozambique and, in recent years, the Central African Republic or South Sudan). Today, therefore, it is an internationally recognized organization active in many fields. Its international activity, demonstrated in the examples cited above, is particularly interesting. Importantly, this activity receives recognition; one can recall here the visits of high-level representatives of states to the headquarters of Sant’Egidio (E. Macron, A. Merkel, and many others), the permanent representation to the UN, and official representations to the governments of several countries in Europe and Africa (in parallel with the presence of local Sant’Egidio Communities). Undoubtedly, this is the result of many years of work and the reputation gained over this time. The question remains as to whether there is something else behind this success. Just consider, by contrast, the original Community of Sant’Egidio, that is, a handful of Bible-reading students and schoolchildren. Today, it is an increasingly well-recognized and respected actor of international relations. This raises the question of how the Community of Sant’Egidio reached this point.

The Community’s early actions, and its spontaneous style, indicate that its development did not follow a preplanned strategy. On the basis of direct and indirect observation and interviews with members of the Community of Sant’Egidio, it is possible to make a preliminary assumption that its development and international position are the result of replicable discursive practices regarding its identity. Two points should be noted. First, it is interesting to note the very means of creating the Community’s identity in its subjective dimension. Second, it is important to note the way in which the Community’s identity is operationalized in order to build a position in international relations. These two aspects intertwine and are the result of the discursive practices undertaken by the Community.

2.2. The Discursive Dimension of the Community of Sant’Egidio’s Ethos

In order to understand the aforementioned mechanisms, it is best to recall and comment on several myths that are key to the process of the Community of Sant’Egidio’s identity construction. As already explained, these are the stories that give meaning to the various elements of the Community’s identity, but that does not mean that they are made-up stories. On the contrary, the strength of these myths is their factuality, although the process of their replication is already based on senses and meanings, rather than on facts recalled with chronicle accuracy (Napiórkowski 2018).

The so-called “myth of Modesta” is worth citing first. This is a story central to the formation of the ethos of Sant’Egidio as a community providing assistance to the weak. The story of Modesta Valenti, as the author has heard many times, is quite simple, though tragic. Modesta was a homeless person, nomadizing within Rome’s Termini Station. The community heard about her in the context of a tragic incident that resulted in Modesta’s death. One frosty day, medical help was called to her. The ambulance arrived, but did not provide assistance. The reason was that Modesta was dirty and smelled. As a consequence of refusing to help her, the woman died. This story is shocking. It is a shocking tale of contempt for another human being. Importantly, in the context of Sant’Egidio, it is also a story that lives on to this day through the Community. Modesta Valenti has become the patron saint of charity for the poor. All over the world, prayers are said for Modesta and other late homeless people in local Sant’Egidio Communities. It is worth noting this detail. These are always prayers for Modesta and others. In this way, the story is perpetuated and sacralized in the form of a religious rite. This mechanism of replication of the story works effectively and makes it well known even among those members of the Community who have never had the opportunity to be in Rome. When it comes to the functionality of the Modesta myth, it primarily justifies the need to help others. It provides a message for Sant’Egidio to go out onto the streets of the cities and care for those in need. It is an effective justification for its actions insofar as it refers not to principles written in a holy book or religious doctrine, but to a person physically present in a space close to the community. This proximity strengthens the message. It makes it more shocking and closer to the emotional level of reception. At the same time, it also shapes the ethos of the Community members, for whom it must be obvious that the homeless should be given all the help available.

Another myth that shapes the ethos of a Community member is the so-called “myth of Floribert Bwana Chui”. This is one of the martyr stories cultivated in Sant’Egidio. Floribert was a Congolese and a member of Sant’Egidio. He worked as a tax collector and was murdered as a consequence of his opposition to corruption and smuggling operations. His steadfastness and defense of a just cause have become examples of right conduct for Sant’Egidio, which, as in the case of Modesta, is replicated this time in the form of a hymn sung during certain religious ceremonies, especially during the so-called liturgy of the martyrs. It is a solemn ritual of remembrance that shows members of the Community the importance of doing the right thing and sensitizes them to the consequences of morally correct choices. It is worth noting that Sant’Egidio looks after St. Bartholomew’s Church on Tiber Island in Rome. In this church, shrines of martyrs from various parts of the world (including victims of totalitarian regimes) are arranged. St. Bartholomew’s Church is therefore a kind of memento for members of the Community, reminding them of the consequences of indifference to the fate of others, but also of the consequences of involvement (Naro 2018). The cult of martyrs, especially their own, plays the role of moral guidance in this context.

The two myths synthesized above concern the ethos of a member of the Community. In this context, their role is crucial, as they form the common denominators to which membership in Sant’Egidio can be reduced. The values of helping others, commitment, and self-sacrifice are elements of the Community’s self-created identity, which its members also present in their relations with external actors. In turn, the replication of these values takes place not only in the sacred form mentioned above. An important role in the life of the Community is played by occasional “conferences” of leaders, which are attended by people from all over the world via means of telecommunications. In these conferences—usually with the participation of the Community’s founder, Andrea Riccardi, or its current president, Marco Impagliazzo—stories such as those of Modesta or Floribert are cited as illustrations for current social problems and processes. The conferences, in turn, provide a reference point for discussion in local Communities, which thus consolidate the discourse and anchor further elements in the identity of Sant’Egidio, seen in this case as a global movement.

2.3. The Discursive Legitimization of the Community of Sant’Egidio’s International Activity

In addition to the myths that shape the ethos of a Community member, the second set of meaningful stories are those that legitimize its activities, especially those in the international arena. Participation in international relations is not something to be taken for granted for a non-governmental organization, much less for a religious community that originally did not have an agenda directed towards it. Therefore, a legitimacy that justifies its activity is necessary. The so-called “myth of being sent by John Paul II” may be positioned as a foundation in this context.

Pope John Paul II’s relationship with the Community can be dated as far back as 1979 (Riccardi 2018b). To this day, the Pope is still an important figure for Sant’Egidio, to whom reference is made in conferences and whom older members recall from their own memories. It was during the pontificate of John Paul II that the Community’s activities took on an international dimension, and it experienced particularly intense growth. This is all the more noteworthy given that this Pope supported Sant’Egidio, being impressed by its activities and establishing a regular pattern of meetings with the Community’s leaders, which his successors later continued (Riccardi 2018b). On a practical level, this support of John Paul II found its most direct expression in the transfer of the Santa Maria in Trastevere Basilica to Sant’Egidio’s custody. It is a representative church that many tourists visit during their stay in Rome (in contrast to the small and tucked-away church of Sant’Egidio). The Community’s endowment of the basilica therefore not only provided it with a larger, more capacious place of worship and meeting but also allowed many outsiders to come into contact with it.

As for the sentinel myth’s construction, on the other hand, it is related to an inter-religious meeting held in Assisi. It was held at the initiative of the Pope in 1986. It was a high-profile event attended by religious leaders from around the world, representing a variety of religions and denominations. The meeting was a direct expression of inter-religious dialogue, which is associated with the spirit of the post-conciliar Church. Nevertheless, it was poorly received by conservative Roman Catholic circles. In the eyes of traditionalists, the Pope ridiculed himself by appearing in public alongside leaders of other religions. Harsher voices even spoke of heretical acts on his part (Riccardi 2018b). Faced with this controversy, the Pope withdrew from organizing similar meetings, although he remained generally supportive of such initiatives. This is where Sant’Egido’s role comes in. A story circulates in the Community according to which John Paul II asked its leaders to continue inter-religious meetings in the spirit of Assisi. Meetings under the name “People and Religions” have been held annually since 1987 in various cities in Europe. They are attended by religious leaders, thinkers, and politicians—a wide spectrum of guests invited by Sant’Egidio. The meeting culminates with prayers for peace in various rites and a joint procession, which are both a demonstration for peace and reconciliation between religions. From a pragmatic point of view, therefore, this is a great opportunity to establish or maintain contacts already in place. History has shown the importance of this endeavor, for example, during one of the meetings Sant’Egidio coordinated with Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe in a joint effort to reach a peace agreement in Mozambique (Hume 1994). However, the mythical dimension of the event is particularly important. The magnitude of the annual meetings now stems from “momentum”, i.e., contacts established over more than 30 years. Still central, however, is the legitimizing story: the sending by the Pope. In this context, the words of John Paul II are also often quoted, who was said to have urged the Community to become an “artisan of peace”, that is, a structure working persistently, patiently, and unafraid of arduous effort, which will only begin to pay off over time. Citing the figure of the Pope and the mission given by him, the Community legitimizes its activities externally but also internally, nesting in its identity the component of inter-religious dialogue with which it is now associated. Thus, inter-religious activity becomes a given; the Community works in this field because the Pope chose it to do so. This is another important theme of the story: the Pope chose, not ordered, the Community to act in this way. Sant’Egidio therefore accepted the Pope’s encouragement out of goodwill but did not succumb to the order. In view of this, on the one hand, the authority of the leader of the Roman Catholic Church legitimized the activities of the Community, but on the other, it constantly emphasized its autonomy from the Vatican.

The issue of autonomy from the Vatican and Vatican diplomacy is, moreover, related to the second key myth for the internationalization of Sant’Egidio’s activities. This is the “myth of the first mediation” or, to put it a bit more directly, the “myth of Mozambique”. The case of Sant’Egidio’s involvement in the Mozambican peace process is itself a long story, the origin of which lies in the personal accounts of a Mozambican clergyman, Jaime Goncalves, and a member of the Community (also a clergyman, since the Community also has priests who, however, do not generally hold key positions in it), Ambrogio Spreafico (Gianturco 2018). In reporting on Sant’Egidio’s involvement in Mozambique, its members cite a number of fortunate coincidences that allowed them to build relationships that were useful in the process and to become ultimately involved as mediators. It is impossible to deny Sant’Egidio’s merits in the mediated, lasting peace agreement that ended the nearly 20-year war between Frelimo and Renamo (although the mediators’ panel also included a representative of the Italian government, M. Raffaelli). What is interesting in this case, however, is not the success itself but how it was used in Sant’Egidio’s subsequent practice (Hume 1994).

The fact is that, on 4 October 1992, after over two years of negotiations, the leaders of Frelimo and Renamo signed an agreement in Rome that settled the political situation in Mozambique for the next 20 years (and, in a renewed version, continues to this day). Following this success, there were other cases of the Community’s involvement in peace processes: mostly less spectacular but permanently integrated into its activity (Riccardi 2018a). The discursive operationalization of the peace process in Mozambique, however, goes beyond simply citing it as evidence of Sant’Egidio’s effectiveness. Rather, it is a kind of “cult of peace in Mozambique”. The room where most of the talks were held (the agreement was signed at the headquarters of the Italian Foreign Ministry, as both Italy and the US had an important supporting role) is shown to visitors, who hear the story of Mozambique in passing. It has been dubbed the “room of peace”. Apart from meetings with guests, press conferences are held there regarding Sant’Egidio’s involvement in subsequent peace processes, as well as numerous negotiations. The aura of memories and stories surrounding the place is not all, however. On the wall hangs an allegory of peace in Mozambique with Aphonso Dhlakama and Joaquim Chissano (leaders of the parties) in the foreground. It is a visual tale of Mozambique, a reminder of the successful peace process. Alongside this, a painting of St. Francis hugging a wolf and a copper engraving depicting the shoah hang there. All of these add up to a message that conveys the Community’s identity as a peacemaker and promoter of reconciliation between the warring parties.

On the other hand, tales about Mozambique barely mention the involvement of the Italian government (although, in written testimonies, the figure of Raffaelli is mentioned) or the support of the US government, which financed the process (Riccardi 2004). Other actors involved in the case are rarely cited. The involvement of other third parties is something ordinary in contemporary peace processes and does not diminish Sant’Egidio’s merits. However, the discourse is centered around the role of the Community, thus giving it the trait of an independent, autonomous actor fully capable of taking individual initiatives for peace. Thus, success in Mozambique established a premise for Sant’Egidio to move forward and added to its identity an element of involvement in peace processes. Such activity is something obvious today. The discourse around Mozambique builds the impression that mediating peace processes is a traditional activity Sant’Egidio has been performing “since always” (and with success). Through this way of operationalizing, it not only legitimizes the Community’s undertakings but is also part of such a projection of its identity that makes it an actor in international relations to be reckoned with.

Although the involvement in Mozambique was a success (it is indeed difficult to find actions so unequivocally positive in terms of results) and became a kind of founding myth for Sant’Egidio’s international activities (including the establishment of the so-called Peace Office within its structures), it should be noted that similar discursive practices were later applied in other fields as well. The discourse around the DREAM (Disease Relief through Excellent and Advanced Means) program is worth citing in this context. This is a program aimed at fighting AIDS in Africa. As part of its implementation, clinics are being set up for the prevention of the disease and the fight against its effects (Germano et al. 2018). For the Community, this is one of the biggest undertakings; hence, the story of healing AIDS, a unique, one-of-a-kind program that is effective, has grown around it. The motif of effectiveness is often emphasized, as in the case of Mozambique. The same, moreover, is true of the so-called humanitarian corridors. Faced with the migration crisis in Europe, Sant’Egidio began organizing safe transportation channels for refugees from conflict-affected areas. In doing so, it was emphasized that this very program was an effective—indeed the only effective—response to migrations to Europe. However, its scale was small compared to the scale of the influx of people into European countries.

Two themes in particular are operationalized at the level of discourse on similar occasions. First, there are the aforementioned effectiveness and uniqueness, which are supposed to legitimize the individual activities themselves. Secondly, the obviousness of the activities undertaken in relation to Sant’Egidio’s identity is emphasized. In other words, the undertakings are presented as natural, stemming from the essence of what the Community is. This is an element of legitimizing activities for internal purposes, which nevertheless also finds its way into external perception.

The practices outlined that shape Sant’Egidio’s identity are reflected specifically in the international position of the Community. Both functional and discursive evidence of this dependency can be found. It is a dual process. First, Sant’Egidio’s discursively shaped identity is a motivating factor for the Community to develop its engagement in the international space, seek and develop contacts, and expand its activities into further fields. Second, this way of building identity also interacts externally, with visible results. Sant’Egidio’s headquarters in Rome is the third-highest-ranking place for high-level diplomats and state leaders in the Eternal City to visit (after the headquarters of the Italian government and the Vatican). For instance, during 2021 alone, the Community was visited by Emmanuel Macron (President of France), Angela Merkel (Chancellor of Germany), and Antonio Gutteres (Secretary General of the United Nations); the foreign ministers of Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea-Bissau, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Niger, and Finland; an extensive delegation from the Central African Republic with President Faustin-Archange Touadera at the head; the captains regents of San Marino; and, perhaps less impressively, Sergio Mattarella (President of Italy) and Mario Draghi (Prime Minister of Italy). There were probably more discreet meetings that have not been publicly reported. The Community has also been invited to attend meetings of the UN Security Council. It also has formalized relations with the Department of Political Affairs of the UN Secretariat (which is its unique form of cooperation with an NGO). These meetings are tangible evidence of Sant’Egidio’s effective self-positioning as an actor in international relations. At the same time, it should be noted that there is no material rationale for its position and interest of other actors in international relations in maintaining contacts. There is no power or money behind the Community. All it has is its identity, which legitimizes and gives credibility to its subsequent activities. Its outward-directed discursive effectiveness can be best demonstrated by referring to the words of Pope Francis, who a few years ago referred to the Community as the 3Ps: prayer, the poor, peace (Italian: preghiera, poveri, pace). Such a synthesis is accurate in light of the identity discursively expressed by Sant’Egidio itself, for its successive practices grow into the identity and expand its base gene of helping others and winning “friends”. At the same time, their operationalization builds Sant’Egidio’s international position.

3. Discussion

Several points should be discussed further. Firstly, observations indicate that Sant’Egidio builds its identity in the course of discursive practices. These practices make use of classic Foucaultian elements, such as exclusions, control of the randomness of motives, and the selection of speaking subjects (Foucault 1971). Although it may seem that the discourse constructed by the Community arises spontaneously and that the myths that sustain it are replicated through a natural process, there is control over this process. Only selected individuals (experienced members and leaders) speak at Sant’Egidio meetings, not only at conferences but also at prayer meetings. This does not mean that a voice from someone less integrated within the Community cannot appear during conferences. However, such a voice is confronted with a leader or other members and eventually aligns with the existing discourse. In this way, the discourse is replicated, the myths are solidified, and, simultaneously, the identity of the individual as a community member is constructed from a collective perspective, a process that occurs imperceptibly and is perceived as natural.

These elements were identified above with specific examples. The construction of identity and position around myths and stories is somewhat reminiscent of the creation of a national identity and, in another way, the identity of a religious association, though not necessarily the practice of NGOs, which build their identity rather around goals or ideas (Bartoli 2013). This can be seen as an indication that Sant’Egidio is a sui generis entity, but it can also be considered in terms of effective identity building and international positioning. It is, therefore, an example of an effective method, although the religious motivation, which ensures durability and the possibility of organizing itself over a longer time horizon, seems to provide an advantage over non-religious NGOs.

Secondly, Sant’Egidio’s way of creating an identity fosters cohesion and perpetuates its ideas, which testifies to its aspirations. This is especially important in a dynamically developing world of complexity. There are more and more factors that expose humanity to inequalities and exclusion or that simply cause an inability to cope and create a need for help. Sant’Egidio is oriented towards assistance, and its identity evolves by embracing ever-new threads, as illustrated above. This embrace of new threads does not blur the Community, dilute its original message, or cause disintegration. It also does not undermine its competence. This is all due to the way it builds its identity and creates discourse about itself, for which addressing issues like climate change now feels “natural” and obvious.

Thirdly, Sant’Egidio’s identity constructs an established fact in the international space in the form of an actor manifesting far-reaching operational capacity. Clearly, conducting international activities required establishing numerous contacts both in the world of religious and political leaders. The first cases of mediation in armed conflicts and the meetings in the spirit of Assisi were especially instrumental in this regard. However, these relationships required consolidation. This consolidation and expansion of relationships were carried out using the myths presented above, and these are now a discursive practice. Naturally, meeting a new leader or decision maker with the Community requires introducing the Sant’Egidio, and this discursive circumstance is used by its leaders to define the Community and its status. Thanks to personal skills and simple cordiality, this discourse is easier to accept, remember, and replicate. In this way, a situation arises where it is “known” that the headquarters of the Sant’Egidio in Rome is worth visiting to discuss significant international matters with its leaders.

Sant’Egidio’s international position does not derive from its resources. It is safe to assume that it is, to a small extent, the result of practice itself (for the Community is not the only actor active in the areas it undertakes). It is primarily the result of its expressed and exposed identity as a leading actor in its areas of action. Sant’Egidio’s traditions and identity thus give the impression of reaching deeper and farther back in time and experience than it actually does. This is what its success is based on.

4. Materials and Methods

The study presented in this article was conducted as a case study (Yin 1981). Such an approach carries the risk of blurring the situational context and producing a biased description (Strumińska-Kutra and Koładkiewicz 2012). For this reason, it was crucial to employ ethnographic methods during the research procedure. A key role was played by the use of the participant observation method (Angrosino 2007). To conduct it, the author made several trips to Italy (between 2017 and 2020), which allowed for observations and the collection of source material. The author had the opportunity to observe the daily functioning of the Community in its home base, especially during moments important to it, such as the Feast of Saint Giles or Easter celebrations. The author experienced Sant’Egidio’s discursive practices by participating in its conferences and being guided around the Community’s headquarters. Particularly valuable observations were gathered during a trip in the summer of 2018, when the author had the opportunity to observe the daily work of the so-called Peace Office and conduct longer conversations with its members. The author also participated in conferences in Bologna and Madrid organized on the occasion of the annual peace prayers in the spirit of Assisi. This experience allowed for situating the Community of Sant’Egidio within the context of its international contacts. The author also conducted observations within the Polish branch of the Community, which facilitated establishing contacts and conducting research, the primary goal of which was to delve into the Community’s peace activities. Reflections on the discursive construction of Sant’Egidio’s identity and its impact on its international standing emerged secondarily, but they are part of a broader reflection on its capabilities and scope of action, thus aligning with a pre-established project. It is important to emphasize that the Community demonstrates openness to research on itself and does not attempt to hide any aspects, making similar observation replicable.

It is worth noting that the content of conversations with Community members was analyzed, which were not always recorded due to their spontaneous nature. In addition, texts by Andrea Riccardi, one of the Community’s founders, were also analyzed. These texts provide a solid source of information about the Community and serve as evidence of the replication of discursive practices analyzed in this article.

5. Conclusions

The analysis provides conclusions that deepen the understanding of the role of the Community of Sant’Egidio in the international arena and provide a basis for further research and the exploration of similarly acting entities. First of all, Sant’Egidio’s discursive construction of identity, and through it the formation of its position in the international space, illustrates a qualitatively important phenomenon. The process demonstrates how claiming the right to participate in international relations, supported by a coherent narrative, can become an effective form of legitimacy. This phenomenon extends the boundaries of subjectivity in international relations beyond the traditionally defined framework of inter-state relations.

Discursive identity formation also strengthens the internal coherence of the Community as a religious entity. It creates an impression of historical depth and experience that attracts new members, provides them with a sense of security, and makes it easier to take action. At the same time, the process is carefully controlled; narratives and myths, while seemingly spontaneous, are constructed in an orderly fashion. Such control stems both from practical needs and from the very nature of discursive practices, which require internal consistency to perform their function effectively.

Responding to the research question posed in the introduction, it can be concluded that identity is a key resource that enables the Community of Sant’Egidio to function on the international stage. It is identity that gives origin to actions taken, their recognition by other actors, and the anticipation of further initiatives. Crucial to the acquisition of subjectivity and the capability to act, however, were the processes of identity construction and consolidation.

Lacking significant material resources, Sant’Egidio relies entirely on discursive practices that are deeply rooted in its activities. These practices, particularly those related to the creation of founding myths for the various types of activities undertaken by Sant’Egidio, not only justify the Community’s commitment to specific issues but also inspire action in the face of new challenges. As a result, both the well-established identity and the process of its construction itself—still dynamic and open—constitute Sant’Egidio’s capabilities and enable it to occupy a firm position in deliberations on international issues that matter to her.