Religious Freedom, Governance of Religious Diversity, and Interreligious Dialogue: The Case of Turin

Abstract

Religious freedom, the management of religious diversity, and interreligious dialogue are emerging and closely interconnected phenomena. In the context of increasing religious pluralism, policymakers, religious institutions, and other civil society actors and organizations face challenges, particularly as they strive to legitimize their religious, social, and legal positions in contemporary societies. Drawing on 47 interviews with policymakers (N° 10), privileged informants (N° 15), and religious (N° 18) and interreligious leaders (N° 4), conducted as part of the Project Urban Governance of Religious Diversity (2023–2025), this article examines interreligious dialogue, as a social practice shaped by national legal frameworks on religious freedom and local governance mechanisms regulating religious diversity. More specifically, we analyze the three most relevant themes that emerged from the interview material: first, the limitations and opportunities within the current legislative framework, particularly in relation to local administrations’ efforts to complement national regulations and support religious communities in innovative ways; second, critiques of top-down initiatives on interreligious dialogue, wherein institutional priorities sometimes overshadow the voices and needs of religious groups; and finally, the impact of global events, such as the ongoing genocide in Palestine, on interreligious dialogue and established relationships among different faith communities. The article concludes by summarizing the main findings and outlining potential avenues for future research.

1. Introduction

Religious freedom, the management of religious diversity, and interreligious dialogue are emerging and closely interconnected phenomena (Körs et al. 2020; Griera 2020; Breskaya et al. 2024). In recent decades, the academic study of religious freedom, governance processes, and interreligious dialogue has contributed to the emergence of a veritable field of study, which is broad, interdisciplinary, and constantly evolving in the literature. The literature, influenced by disciplines as disparate as jurisprudence, theology, and increasingly also sociology, is thus a harbinger of a plurality of different methodological and theoretical sensibilities (Breskaya et al. 2024). More importantly, while the social scientific study of religion is ripe with studies that focus on these phenomena separately, the literature on the overlapping and reciprocal implications among religious freedom, the management of religious diversity, and interreligious dialogue is less developed in Italy, as well as internationally.1

In this article, relying on 47 interviews with policymakers, religious and interreligious leaders, and key informants, conducted in Turin as part of the Project Urban Governance of Religious Diversity (2023–2025), we aim to contribute to the literature, arguing for a sociology of interreligious dialogue that is understood as a social practice regulated by the broader normative framework of religious freedom and the governance of religious diversity. Accordingly, we also emphasize the importance, vis-à-vis institutional mechanisms of regulation and control, of the involvement of a plurality of actors2 and different forms of corporate governance, such as public–private partnerships, in accounting for the multiple shapes, complexity, and internal articulation of the Italian spiritual and religious field.

The Italian landscape, although still markedly Catholic, is in fact becoming more and more diversified due to its morphing character, impacted by secularization, pluralism, an increase in migration faiths, and new spiritualities, which poses significant challenges for the management of religion(s) and religious diversity at the national and local levels and within many public institutions, such as schools, hospitals, and prisons (Di Placido and Palmisano 2023; Fabretti 2015; Rhazzali 2019). Consequently, policymakers, religious institutions, and other civil society3 actors and organizations face challenges, particularly as they strive to legitimize their religious, social, and legal positions in contemporary Italy. Moreover, the absence of a national law on religious freedom vis-à-vis the coexistence of a plurality of legislative orders (e.g., the Constitution, national laws, and local administrative ordinances) and forms of legal recognition (e.g., Concordato and Intesa), structurally contribute to the heterogeneity of the initiatives for interreligious dialogue in Italy and, thus, also to the need for sociological analyses capable of interpreting this evolving scenario, with specific attention given to the social actors involved (Bossi 2024).

This article is structured as follows: Section 2 discusses the relevant literature and introduces the theoretical coordinates of the research; Section 3 presents the methodology underpinning the research; Section 4 analyses the empirical material in the light of the conceptual arsenal previously introduced, emphasizing the importance of the legislative framework, particularly in relation to the local administration’s efforts to complement existing policies and provide innovative support to religious groups; the tension between top-down and bottom-up initiatives, as institutional priorities sometimes overshadow the voices and needs of religious communities; and the global–local dialectic between international politics and local repercussions vis-à-vis Turin’s specific character. Section 5, in turn, summarizes the main results of the article and suggests a few lines of enquiry for future research.

2. Theoretical Notes: For a Sociology of Interreligious Dialogue

Religious freedom, the management of religious diversity, and interreligious dialogue, although highly connected research areas, have hardly ever been studied jointly by sociologists. The specialized literature so far has privileged distinct disciplinary and theoretical approaches to each one of these research areas, while, starting from the observation that religious freedom, the governance of religious diversity, and interreligious dialogue share similar historical trajectories and often concern the same social actors, in this section, we suggest that there is much to gain, sociologically, in accounting for these different stands of the literature jointly.4 The disciplinary and analytical dissection of the social world conducted by scholars, which treats each one of these processes independently from the other, is, in fact, solely an attempt to make sense of the complexity of the spiritual and religious field rather than its veritable portrait. In practice, distinct social processes, such as religious freedom, the governance of religious diversity, and interreligious dialogue intersect to become, de facto, indistinguishable. In this sense, although we believe in the importance of the autonomous study of religious freedom, the governance of religious diversity, and interreligious dialogue, we also advocate for more open conversations among these separate streams of research, as they share some common and foundational concerns. What follows, however, is not a fully fledged theoretical proposal, but a preliminary interpretative framework, developed to tackle some of the most defining features of today’s spiritual and religious field at the intersection of and in the interstices among religious freedom, the governance of religious diversity, and interreligious dialogue.

Religious freedom, as Breskaya et al. (2024, p. 8) argue, is “a basic requirement for a peaceful and cohesive society”, although issues arise when one attempts to define it.5 As these authors have repeatedly underlined, there is no consensus over the definition of religious freedom, and the topic is approached from a plurality of perspectives, ranging from legal and judicial approaches to political secularism and social constructionism (Breskaya et al. 2021; see also Breskaya et al. 2024). In this article, we account for religious freedom by following the “social perception of religious freedom” (SPRF) approach.6 This approach addresses religious freedom, simultaneously, as individual and religious groups’ autonomy; a societal value; a principle of religion–state governance; an international human rights standard; and an impact of the judicialization of religious freedom (Breskaya and Giordan 2019, p. 1), thus integrating differing levels of analysis (micro, meso, and macro) into a single approach. More specifically, this approach invites scholars to investigate the meanings of freedom from/of religion (locally, nationally, and internationally), the importance of the contexts, institutions, and groups that influence the social construction of norms and values in support of religious freedom, and the questioning of the state as the sole actor in charge of defining and regulating current religious freedom policy vis-à-vis courts, local governments, religious communities, public institutions, and other actors. Accordingly, understanding religious freedom requires contextualizing its meaning within specific societies, examining both the legal and social conditions, such as pluralization, migration, and identity dynamics, and expanding the focus beyond the state to include a range of actors like NGOs, religious institutions, and other social actors. As we will argue in the following sections, “by combining the analysis of structural conditions and individual contexts” (Breskaya et al. 2024, p. 12), a sociological approach enables us to grasp how religious freedom is shaped, enacted, and for whom it is meaningful in a given context, as well as how its social and discursive construction partly intersects with interreligious dialogue initiatives and the governance of religious diversity.

The sociological study of the governance of religious diversity, in turn, includes studies on the urban governance of religious diversity (Bhuiyan and Black 2025; Bossi and Ricucci 2023; Giorgi and Itçaina 2016; Martínez-Ariño 2019, 2020, 2021), religious governance in public institutions (Becci 2011; Becci and Roy 2015; Burchardt and Giorda 2022; Cadge et al. 2017; Giorda and Mastromarino 2020; Giorgi et al. 2022; Martínez-Ariño and Griera 2018), and majority and minority religion relationships in secular countries (Bossi 2020, 2024; Burchardt 2020; Burchardt et al. 2014; Giorda and Hejazi 2014), among other areas of inquiry related to the multi-level or pluricentric governance of religion (Martikainen 2013). This body of research, much like the literature on religious freedom, has gradually shifted beyond a purely institutional perspective on religious governance. It now encompasses the study of multi-level governance and the active role of various actors, including religious communities, civil society organizations, interreligious networks, and public–private partnerships, in managing religious diversity at the local level. It is this broader understanding of the governance of religious diversity that guides the analyses presented in the following sections and that we believe could be fruitfully coupled with the sociological study of the interconnected processes and practices of religious freedom and interreligious dialogue.

Lately, as Mar Griera (2020, p. 318) argues, “The idea of interreligious dialogue has gained worldwide traction” and, similar to religious freedom and the governance of religious diversity, it “has been promoted as a key component for religious peace”. As Griera clarifies, “However, there is not a clear and shared understanding of what it means and implies” and the notion of interreligious dialogue “has been used to refer to a broad range of practices and initiatives that exist across different geographical, social, cultural, religious and political contexts” (Griera 2020, p. 318). Some of the most prominent theoretical lenses used so far by sociologist to make sense of this emerging phenomenon include the study of interreligious dialogue though the concepts of “interfaith movement” (Halafoff 2013), “interfaith networks” (Martikainen 2016), the “micro-politics of interreligious interaction” (Griera and Nagel 2018), and the governance of religious diversity and its opportunities (Prideaux and Dawson 2018; Dick and Nagel 2016; Giordan and Lynch 2019, p. 1). As a result, this concept has evolved into a broad framework for analyzing increased communication between religious groups and their interactions with social and political actors (Giordan and Lynch 2019, p. 1). Moreover, recent scholarship also emphasizes that interreligious dialogue is not limited to verbal and linguistic exchanges. Rather, it encompasses the influential role of physical spaces, material culture, and practical activities in shaping diverse forms of interreligious encounters, often in unexpected and complex ways (Burchardt and Giorda 2022; Martínez-Ariño et al. 2023; Winkler et al. 2023).

Read jointly, the literature on religious freedom, the governance of religious diversity, and interreligious dialogue shows the tendency to move beyond the study of the institutional dispositifs of regulation to include in the analysis the point of view and experiences of a plurality of social actors. These actors, religious groups, interreligious networks, and other civil society organizations are often the same ones that, whether as objects (of specific discourses) or subjects (of duties and rights), interact with the legislative framework on religious freedom, contribute to the multi-level governance of religious diversity in public institutions, and take part in interreligious dialogue initiatives at the local level. Accordingly, although with the caveat that we are not advancing a new theoretical framework, we suggest that such a focus on the social actors involved, including their respective positioning, alliances, and/or conflicts, can be a useful sociological strategy to investigate some of the overlaps among the processes of religious freedom, the governance of religious diversity, and interreligious dialogue, as they intersect at and impact the local level of the municipality of Turin. The following analysis aims to further refine and expand this understanding.

As this brief discussion of the literature shows, the interreligious field is a privileged arena for the sociological study of the relationships among the state, civil society, and religious actors, as well as the interests, alliances, and conflicts occurring among those involved in what counts as the legitimate understanding of religious freedom, the governance of religious diversity, and interreligious dialogue. In this article, we aim to contribute to the development of a sociology of interreligious dialogue, defining it as a social practice regulated by the broader normative framework of religious freedom and the governance of religious diversity, also emphasizing the importance of the involvement of a plurality of actors.

Our proposal, in line with some of the studies previously mentioned, is particularly important as currently little is known “about the actual ways religion and spirituality are present in public institutions or about the conceptual and methodological assumptions that underlie how scholars approach the study of religion within public institutions” (Cadge et al. 2017, p. 226). Drawing on the sociological study of top-down, middle-middle, and bottom-up approaches adopted in regard to various interreligious dialogue initiatives (Bossi and Giorda 2019, 2021; Burchardt and Giorda 2022; Giorda and Cozma 2020), we highlight how different strategic levels reveal the importance of considering the actors involved and their social positioning in relation to other actors. This is essential for understanding how religious diversity is governed within specific institutions or “sites”, such as hospitals, prisons, and schools. These settings also bring into focus the “material culture” that emerges, ranging from religious artwork and policy documents to shared social experiences, as well as the “practices” through which it takes shape, including spiritual care, dialogue, and communal activities like cooking, concerts, or art exhibitions. Moreover, the discursive frameworks that surround these interactions, such as those related to health, religious freedom, and care, play a key role in shaping their meaning and implementation (Martínez-Ariño et al. 2023).

We argue, on the grounds of the literature discussed, for more empirically grounded analyses that consider the full range of social actors involved (both individuals and institutions), their positioning within their communities, as well as within the broader interreligious landscape, and the dynamic influence of specific sites, material conditions, and practices in shaping interreligious encounters.

3. Methodology

The Project Urban Governance of Religious Diversity (2023–2025) examines the governance of religious diversity, interreligious dialogue, and religious freedom in Italy, using a multi-method approach. It employs qualitative, quali-quantitative, and quantitative methodologies to analyze policy frameworks, interreligious initiatives, and public discourse across the local contexts of Turin, Padua, Brescia, and Florence. The qualitative methods include the analysis of policy documents, municipal records, and media archives to identify patterns in religious governance. Additionally, mapping interreligious dialogue initiatives and conducting participant observations at selected events provided deeper insight into the actors, practices, and discursive logic of the urban governance of religious diversity, while conducting 200 in-depth interviews and 16 focus groups with various stakeholders, including policymakers, religious representatives, and civil society actors across the four contexts of the research, fostered the intersectional analysis of interreligious negotiations.

The quali-quantitative methods involve content analysis of urban policies, using “flexible coding” (Deterding and Waters 2021) and text mining of local and national newspapers, using computational tools (Ratinaud and Marchand 2015) to map representations of religious diversity in media discourses. The quantitative method, in turn, consists of a factorial survey experiment with 2400 respondents across the four cities to analyze social representations of religious diversity, while mitigating desirability bias in regard to self-reported attitudes.

Amid this broader data collection plan, this article presents a selected sample of the qualitative data collected in Turin. Specifically, 47 in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted, involving a mixture of “opportunistic”, “snow-ball”, and “theoretical” sampling, based on the research team’s previous contact with local stakeholders, informants’ referrals to other key actors in the local interreligious field, and attention given to key theoretical developments in the study, respectively. The interviews, fully recorded and transcribed by the first author (with one exception, wherein the interview was conducted by another team member), are also fully anonymized and are categorized as follows: policymakers and municipal administrators (10); representatives of local religious organizations, including members of religious minorities (18);7 members of civil society associations, journalists, and academics (15); and members of interreligious groups, secularist and humanist organizations (4). Additionally, four participant observations were conducted by two research team members (3 by the first author and 1 by a research assistant) at local interreligious dialogue events, thus enabling preliminary contact to be established with local stakeholders, who were contacted later and interviewed. This material was further complemented by an analysis of print media and the archives from key local government bodies (Municipal Council, City Executive, and Regional Council) and the preliminary mapping of formal interreligious dialogue initiatives that were currently active in Turin.8

Overall, the Project Urban Governance of Religious Diversity (2023–2025) seeks to address a critical gap in the study of religious freedom, the governance of religious diversity, and interreligious dialogue in Italy, wherein the existing research predominantly focuses on legal and political perspectives. From a sociological standpoint, this study contributes to three key area: first, it advances the knowledge on how local governments and religious communities approach urban religious diversity in Europe; second, it enables comparative analyses between Italy and other European contexts; and third, it integrates sociological perspectives into global discussions on religious diversity governance. Within this broader framework, this article enriches the traditional literature, which is typically focused on institutional arrangements regulating religious freedom, religious diversity, and interreligious dialogue, by analyzing the positioning, roles, and interactions of the actors involved in the context of Turin. Moreover, the analyses that follow also clarify how religious freedom, the governance of religious diversity, and interreligious dialogue can be fruitfully accounted for jointly by sociologists, as their implementation in specific contexts often overlap and concern the very same constellation of actors.

More specifically, we do so with a focus on three of the most relevant themes, which emerged from the interview material, that show the overlap of these different yet partly intersecting processes: first, the limitations and opportunities within the current legislative framework, particularly in relation to local administrations’ efforts to complement national regulations and support religious communities in innovative ways; second, critiques of top-down initiatives on interreligious dialogue, where institutional priorities sometimes overshadow the voices and needs of religious groups; and finally, the impact of global events, such as the ongoing genocide in Palestine, on interreligious dialogue and established relationships among different faith communities. As we will show, the practical and discursive logic of religious freedom foster the implementation of specific governance models, which, in turn, favor or disfavor specific actors (individuals and/or institutions) and the broader interreligious landscape of the City of Turin. Although the following sections are neither exclusive nor exhaustive in terms of the complexity of the field under investigation, they offer a preliminary overview of how, in the case of Turin, legal, institutional, practical, and glocal processes intertwine, thus contributing to the constitution of the local interreligious field at the intersection between religious freedom, multi-level governance models that are focused on a plurality of social actors, and the local impact of international politics.

4. Voices from the Field: Turin as a “Virtuous Exception” or a “Battlefield”?

Over the past twenty years, Turin has been at the forefront of religious diversity governance, with the 2006 Olympic Games serving as a key turning point. The event led to the creation of an Interfaith Committee, chaired by the city’s former mayor, a prominent figure in Turin’s cultural and political landscape. Organized in collaboration with the Intercultural Centre of the City, the Committee consists of representatives from the eight largest religious communities in Turin. Meanwhile, in 2008, a multifaith chaplaincy was introduced in a local hospital, establishing a new model of governance that has since inspired other Italian cities. Accordingly, and based on our interview data, Turin emerges as a “virtuous exception” in the national landscape concerning religious freedom, the governance of religious diversity, and interreligious dialogue.

Most of the 47 informants described Turin as a “context of national vanguard” (Politician/Administrator, 001), where interreligious dialogue is practiced as a “face-to-face engagement for mutual understanding” (Politician/Administrator, 001) among different religious groups. However, religious leaders express differing views on the meaning and expectations associated with this “face-to-face practice of mutual understanding”. While some believe interreligious dialogue should focus on shared elements between faith traditions, others argue that it should emphasize each religion’s unique differences as a foundation for engagement. These perspectives are reflected in the following interview extracts:

As far as interreligious dialogue is concerned, Turin is certainly a city that, although like other large Italian metropolises, has a very strong characteristic of pluralism, both in terms of the coexistence and the presence of different faiths. I am thinking of a dialogue that is not only theoretical, but also daily, with meetings between religious communities that exchange experiences of faith in the urban context. Turin is a heterogeneous city from many points of view, and this plurality is also reflected in the variety of places of worship in the area […]. If I had to summarise, I would say that it is a dialogue that puts people at the centre, because the encounter is the focus.

(Religious Leader, 043)

Of course, dialogue means collaborative, peaceful dialogue, and it is natural that everyone has different theories and scriptures, so it would be foolish to have verbal conflicts or something like that, since dialogue is meant to find solutions or common ground through various perspectives. Of course, there are differences and divergences, but it is wise to find common solutions. This should be the aim of interreligious dialogue.

(Religious Leader, 022)

Similar to Griera’s (2020, p. 328) analysis of the Spanish context, in Turin “most of the interreligious groups do not place the main emphasis on the theological dialogue but on the idea of dialogue as space of encounter, as a site for creating opportunities for bridging and bonding among members of different religions”. More specifically, many informants traced Turin’s exceptionalism back to the Statuto Albertino of 1848, which, while proclaiming Roman Catholicism as the state’s sole religion, granted legal tolerance to Waldensian and Jewish communities. This historical precedent contributed to Turin’s enduring reputation for openness and inclusion:

I am reminded of the whole history of modern and contemporary Turin. Since the time of Carlo Alberto, there has been talk of interreligious dialogue in Turin and Piedmont, and from there the concept has spread throughout Italy. Certain symbols of Turin dating back to the mid-19th century, for example Gianduiotti, created by the Caffarel chocolate company in 1865, are more modern than interreligious dialogue in the city.

(Religious Leader, 032)

Turin’s legacy of dialogue and inclusion was further solidified with the founding of the Interfedi Committee in 2006, established during the Winter Olympics under the leadership of Valentino Castellani, the city’s former mayor. Inspired by the Salt Lake City Olympics, the Committee aimed to provide religious support to athletes and staff (Politician/Administrator, 001). In 2020, the Interfedi Committee became an official advisory body to the City of Turin, which, to the best of our knowledge, is a unique institutional development in the Italian landscape. The Interfedi Committee now has the authority to “formulate non-binding opinions on proposed Municipal Council resolutions affecting the religious sphere”.9 However, while pioneering, its mere consultative status limits its influence:

The Interfedi Committee is a reality that is unique in Italy […] and I am aware of the many initiatives that have been carried out […]. In addition to this, there have also been more independent initiatives that have involved the academy, academics, the university, and hospitals, even if they have all flowed into the Committee, which is inevitably the centre, the fulcrum from which the various interreligious dialogue initiatives start and converge.

(Religious Leader, 011)

The Turin administration, therefore, is distinguished by institutions and initiatives that are unique at the national level. In addition to the Interfedi Committee, one of the most notable examples is the Sharing Pact with Islamic communities, originally signed in 2016 and renewed in 2023. This agreement has helped solidify and make visible the Islamic presence in Turin, while promoting coexistence and mutual respect in line with the values proclaimed in the Italian Constitution. More specifically, the Sharing Pact between the City of Turin and local Islamic centers serves as an instrument for interreligious dialogue and cultural integration and, due to its success, the Turin administration has sought to replicate this model beyond religious communities.

For instance, a similar initiative was formalized with the Chinese community prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, using the same framework, that is, bringing together various groups, associations, and stakeholders to establish shared objectives. Attempts have also been made to implement the Sharing Pact model within the Peruvian community, although progress has been slow due to internal divisions. Nevertheless, the establishment of a coordinating structure for Peruvian associations has been seen as a partial success:

The model was always the same, that is, gathering around a table, a text and objectives all the various groups, associations and categories linked to the Chinese community, in that case leaving aside the religious aspect, but concentrating on the community aspect. The same has been tried, but has not yet succeeded, with the Peruvian community, which struggles to come together, being internally quarrelsome and conflictual. However, if nothing else, we have managed to set up the coordination of all the groups, the Peruvian associations, and this is already half a success.

(Politician/Administrator, 003)

Initiatives originating in Turin have had regional and national impacts. The most significant example of this, “institutional isomorphism” (Beckert 2010; DiMaggio and Powell 1983), a process that describes the converging and homogenizing of institutional logic, concerns the Care of the Spirit project. First launched at Turin’s City of Health and Science Hospitals in 2006, it has since been implemented in various hospitals across Italy, particularly at the regional level. Previous research has identified disparities between Catholic and non-Catholic religious groups involved in the initiative, as well as the partial implementation of several project protocols (Di Placido and Palmisano 2023). This echoes, once again, what Griera (2020) observes in the Spanish context, where “the persistence of traces of the former Catholic establishment in contemporary society—in the form of practices inherited from the old system (especially visible in public institutions such as hospitals, prisons and the police corps), the persistence of Catholic symbols in many public buildings and the participation of Catholic authorities in public events (mourning rituals, local celebrations)” is evident and, as a consequence, “These are cultural forms that are usually taken for granted or considered banal but that serve to reproduce the cultural hegemony of the Catholic Church” (Griera 2020, p. 321).

While these initiatives are widely regarded as models of excellence, the informants, particularly religious leaders, also raised critical concerns. Three key challenges, among others, emerged from our interviews as being particularly compelling, as they target the same networks of social actors and because they simultaneously pertain to the interrelated and partially overlapping processes of religious freedom, the governance of religious diversity, and interreligious dialogue, and worthy of detailed analysis:

• Issues of representation: Religious communities without centralized leadership, particularly within Islam, Christian Orthodoxy, Hinduism, and Buddhism, struggle to engage effectively with institutional bodies, such as the Interfedi Committee. Some religious leaders perceive the Committee as “ceremonial” rather than “substantial” (see Section 4.1);
• Top-down governance models: Protocols like those involving the Care of the Spirit project are appreciated for addressing the rights and religious needs of non-Catholic patients, yet they are criticized for their rigid, top-down approach, which sidelines religious groups’ own concerns and perspectives (see Section 4.2);
• Global and international politics: Local interreligious initiatives and dialogue opportunities have been drastically affected by international events, particularly the ongoing genocide in Palestine, which has disrupted regular religious and interreligious activities in Turin (see Section 4.3).

These challenges will be explored further in the following sections. Meanwhile, one particular aspect of Turin’s interreligious dialogue deserves further attention.

Despite unequal legal protections for religious groups, local civic society actors and organizations complement the institutional approach by fostering private initiatives and small-scale partnerships. These decentralized efforts, although difficult to systematically track, contribute meaningfully to interreligious dialogue. One interviewee highlights the impact of grassroots initiatives, implicitly contrasting them with the limited effectiveness of top-down approaches led by public administrations:

I think it works from the bottom. Turin is a city of great associationism, so the tradition of working from the bottom-up with the private social sector is a consolidated tradition. This makes it possible not to drop initiatives from above and also to intercept questions, critical issues, and fears authentically with respect to people, not with pre-constituted big plans. I believe this is the great value. This requires a lot of patience, because it is a very slow process, always very slow, but in my opinion, it is the only way to make a realistic impact, to make a real impact.

(Politician/Administrator 029)

In the next section, we will examine the normative framework governing religious rights and defining the legitimate boundaries of religious communities in Italy today. Many informants expressed frustration with delays in legal adaptation, arguing that Italy’s response to 21st century religious pluralism remains inadequate. One religious leader encapsulates this concern as follows: “Italian society still lacks adequate literacy on the subject of interreligious dialogue” (Religious Leader, 043). As we will clarify, despite Turin’s progressive history, institutional efforts continue to face obstacles, highlighting the need for a more inclusive and adaptive governance model and changes to legislation.

4.1. The Normative Framework and Issues of Representation

The default response to the question “What are the most relevant regulations on religious freedom in the national and local context?”, posed to each of our 47 informants, was a laconic, “The Constitution”. However, when pressed further, informants expressed a more nuanced perspective on the normative landscape, as reflected in the following interview excerpt:

I think that it is not that there is a lack of norms, the fact is to implement these norms. We speak of religious freedom and our Constitution says so! It is not that there is a lack of norms, it is the application, or at least there are also missing steps, because as I think you now know, look at the norms for the funeral police, the long-distance care of the farewell. I want to tell you that these are norms that are applied at perhaps regional level and then from region to region fails. It would take one, absolutely one, how should I put it, regulation that would apply nationally and then maybe declined in the individual regions with precise agreements.

(Religious Leader, 009)

Alongside the Constitution, two key legal instruments, the Concordato and the Intesa, provide formal recognition of signatory religious denominations within the Italian system. Additionally, Law No. 158/1929 on Admitted Cults, which remains in force due to the absence of updated legislation, still governs religious communities without an Intesa, including Islam, and its national and local associations. Despite the constitutional guarantee established in Article 19, stating that “Everyone has the right to freely profess his or her religious faith in any form, individually or in association, to propagate it and to worship in private or in public, as long as it is not contrary to morality”,10 many informants expressed skepticism about its practical implementation, as illustrated in the following testimony:

There is no real legislation. In fact, it is a race to plug gaps. Which from a legal point of view is something our state does about inconvenient things […]. Freedom of religion is a big issue […]. You go and read the articles, and you read that yes, the citizen must be guaranteed freedom of religion, then what that means we do not know. Also, because then we need the system of the Intese and we end up with a majority religion like Islam, which does not have the Intesa, which does not have the right to have its prayer rooms protected, because it is still a gym from a legal point of view. And so, in my opinion it is a very dangerous formulation because it leaves in the balance everything that is not recognised.

(Privileged Informant, woman, 050)

Among the most pressing concerns is the total legislative vacuum regarding Islam, which lacks an Intesa. This absence means that the daily and collective religious practices of approximately five million Muslim residents remain unprotected, as one informant points out:

Insofar as Islam is concerned, there is a total vacuum. In the absence of an Intesa, everything that should regulate the daily and collective practice of some 5 million Muslim residents is not protected. This is one of the most important aspects. As for other religious communities, there are Intese; I am thinking, for example, of the Buddhist and Hindu communities, which fall within the legislative framework.

(Politician/Administrator, 013)

Many religious leaders, particularly those outside of Catholicism, perceive a systemic imbalance in legislative protections: “At the normative level, there are some unwritten rules that apply to the majority religion and a total absence of rules with regard to religious minorities” (Religious Leader, 015).

Beyond legal inconsistencies, interviewees highlighted external political forces that actively hinder the governance of religious diversity. From the perspective of local policymakers and civil servants, the governance of religious freedom faces opposition from groups that do not seek to regulate religious diversity, but rather eliminate it altogether: “The governance of religious freedom is currently confronted by other forces that do not want to govern the phenomenon but want to eradicate it” (Politician/Administrator, 003). In multiple interviews, these opposing forces were identified as far-right political actors, who not only impede the institutionalization of non-Catholic religious groups, but also actively question their legitimacy. This contributes to processes of exclusion, particularly targeting non-Caucasian residents, further marginalizing religious minorities.

Despite the efforts of certain political actors, described by some informants as “entrepreneurs of fear”, who strategically “pull the rabbit of Islamophobia out of the hat” (Politician/Administrator, 002), the constitutional foundation of religious freedom and the local political landscape in Turin are considered solid. However, translating these rights into concrete initiatives remains a challenge. The “double-track” system of the Concordato and the Intesa, while granting legal, social, and economic freedoms to signatory religious groups, disadvantages those lacking official recognition.

Opinions among the informants diverge: some argue that non-Catholic religious groups should better utilize and strategically navigate the legal and socio-cultural landscape, while others view Italy’s regulatory framework as inherently unequal toward specific minority religions. Islam, often cited as a key example, is the second-largest religion in Italy (CESNUR 2023), yet remains excluded from the Intesa system. According to the informants, this exclusion stems from the fragmented structure of the “Islamic archipelago” (Campanini and Mezran 2007), composed of numerous ethnic-based organizations, each following different religious leaders and interpretations. As a result, selecting a single institutional interlocutor for Italian Islam is not only challenging, but has also become a struggle for representation:

First of all, because not all Arabs are Muslims and not all Muslims are Arabs; secondly, because even in the Islam of the diaspora, there are many differences: there are national differences, so being Moroccan, Algerian, Tunisian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi implies diversity, and that we come together by nationality.

(Politician/Administrator, 002)

Despite these structural challenges, the Turin administration has worked to engage and support the local Islamic archipelago through years of direct outreach, ensuring that religious communities are not instrumentalized. Informants also highlighted close cooperation with law enforcement agencies, particularly Digos,11 to prevent interactions with groups linked to fundamentalism:

Years spent going from one Islamic centre to another to build the conditions for the administration not to be instrumentalised […], a close relationship with the forces of law and order dealing with Islamic affairs, in particular with the Turin Digos, in order to avoid, as city administrator, talking and interacting with realities on which expulsion decrees for fundamentalism were hanging.

(Politician/Administrator, 002)

One notable intervention was the legal recognition of an Islamic center during its transition into a mosque:

When the mosque in Corso Giulio Cesare n. 6 began the process of buying a building in Via Urbino to make it a mosque, we built the conditions to be able to recognise them, suggesting that they change their statutes to include worship among their activities, because the law does not say that they cannot do this. So, they are basically APS—associations for social promotion—with worship among their aims. This has made it possible to systematise this model and has set a precedent in Italy for allowing Islamic centres to come out of garages, hence the purchase of an asset and the redevelopment of a place. Using the Via Urbino affair, we constructed an administrative procedure that accompanied the Islamic communities to change their statutes in such a way that there were no procedural flaws that could hinder their success.

(Politician/Administrator, 002)

In addition to institutional support, Turin hosts several cultural initiatives aimed at promoting public recognition of Islam, challenging stereotypes, and encouraging interreligious dialogue. One widely cited example is the Open Mosques initiative, in which “several Islamic places of worship, on the occasion of #Ramadan, opened their doors to the citizens, for a day of mutual acquaintance, under the banner of the common belonging to Turin’s varied community. Various members of the city administration and of the City Council and Constituencies […] visited the mosques in the various districts, such as Aurora, Borgo San Donato, San Salvario and others”,12 thus reinforcing a sense of shared community within Turin’s diverse population:

Thinking about, let’s say, the aspect that has characterized the potential tensions in recent years, and therefore let’s talk about the Muslim religion and therefore the aspect of tensions relative first to post-terrorism. Then to all that concerns the approach of Islamic culture with respect to the territory, all the work that has been done with the Open Mosques is now a very in-depth work that has led to the establishment of a network and a community to help mosques to open up, to present themselves and give the citizens of the various territories the image of an open place.

(Politician/Administrator, 029)

The Turin administration’s pragmatic approach toward Islamic prayer rooms was further praised:

I believe that Turin is a city where religious freedom is promoted and respected. Councillor Curti, for example, had found a loophole so that Islamic prayer rooms could exist. It would certainly be desirable to have places of worship that are also architecturally recognised and recognisable, for example mosques.

(Politician/Administrator, 013)

Summarizing the perspectives of the informants, the Italian Constitution is widely praised, yet the absence of a national religious freedom law creates significant gaps. On one hand, this vacuum perpetuates the “double standard approach embedded in the Concordato and the Intesa system”; on the other, it forces local administrations to intervene creatively in managing religious diversity and compensating for the inconsistencies at the national level.

While many religious communities appreciate the efforts made by the City of Turin, others feel that institutional initiatives sometimes fail to reflect the daily realities of religious communities. It is precisely within these interstices, between regulatory challenges and local administrative opportunities, that grassroots religious and civic activism can complement top-down governance efforts:

But I do not think that a law imposed from above can change things. I think that with regard to this issue, we really have to start from the bottom and from there build new values, morals and customs that can then, in some way, be the spokesman for the promotion of new rules. But if we do not start from people’s consciences, there will never be any law, imposed from above, capable of truly changing the thinking of many.

(Privileged Informant, 007)

Ultimately, while the regulatory framework of religious freedom serves as the foundation for governance policies and interreligious dialogue, fully grasping the complexity and internal dynamics of Turin’s religious and interreligious landscape requires a deeper analysis of its practical implementation.

4.2. Interreligious Dialogue, Institutional Logics, and Experiences from the Ground up

As our informants repeatedly argued, interreligious dialogue initiatives currently promoted by the local administration, whether through support, funding, or co-participation, do not always address the actual needs expressed by the religious groups themselves. In many cases, they reflect a top-down rhetoric of inclusion, dialogue, and institutionalization, rather than a genuine response to the priorities of faith communities. The previously discussed example of the Care of the Spirit project (Di Placido and Palmisano 2023) is a case in point.

However, this misalignment does not necessarily indicate malicious intent on the part of local authorities. Rather, it reflects the complex regulatory and institutional landscape in which pre-existing networks, legal frameworks, and local experimental initiatives intersect, in often novel and unpredictable ways. The tension between top-down and bottom-up approaches to interreligious dialogue emerged as one of the most recurring themes in our interviews:

My impression is that interreligious dialogue works most of all when it is limited to getting to know each other. This kind of confrontation does not require communities to change or question their own principles and traditions. When, on the other hand, one tries to achieve something concrete together, the effort required is greater, and difficulties can arise.

(Religious Leader, 042)

Dialogue, which is not just academic, implies that you have to be a person who knows how to communicate also through their own faith and not prevent others from communicating with theirs. This is a very delicate thing in the area because it is full of ambiguities and half-truths.

(Religious Leader, 005)

Some informants argued that religious communities should be supported to facilitate bottom-up initiatives that better align with the needs of their members. At the same time, they should proactively engage with the local administration and navigate the legal, social, and cultural matrix of Italian society.

As several religious leaders pointed out, not all groups are equipped or willing to participate in initiatives led by local authorities or other religious organizations. Political, cultural, and linguistic barriers, alongside a lack of economic, social, and symbolic capital, frequently hinder their involvement. In some cases, participation may only amount to burdensome representation without meaningful impact:

Unhelpful and very burdensome representation for minorities.

(Religious Leader, 032)

Everyone says, ‘Yes, we are interested!’ But then in the end, when you have to move, then the unity ends. Religious confessions are many, they have perplexities, problems, who does what, etc. etc., so what? This, perhaps, is the critical issue—moving from thought to concrete action.

(Religious Leader, 009)

Our informants emphasize that interreligious dialogue primarily concerns religious communities themselves, particularly minority religions, while local institutions should act as facilitators, supporters, and mediators between different faith traditions. This widespread sentiment translates into the perception that, although local governments and national regulations could certainly improve through ad hoc policies and norms, it is religious communities that must take the lead in regard to their own activation.

This perspective aligns with the “political opportunity structure” approach, widely recognized in social movement research and political science (Lægaard 2024; Meyer and Staggenborg 1996; McAdam et al. 1996; Meeuwisse and Scaramuzzino 2019; Scaramuzzino and Lee 2024). In essence, this approach suggests that collective actors, in this case, religious and interreligious groups, as well as other civil society organizations, are shaped by the political constraints and opportunities inherent in their institutional and regulatory environment. As a result, different religious groups experience similar, overlapping and/or distinct influences, which they navigate with varying degrees of competence and resources, depending on the types and levels of capital they possess.

This focus on the challenges and opportunities provided by the local religious and interreligious landscape, in relation to the ability of different groups to leverage or bypass these conditions, helps to explain the varied developmental trajectories of individual religious groups and organizations within the broader field of power. As Santilli and Scaramuzzino (2025, p. 2) argue regarding Italian civil society:

Civil society, like other societal fields, has always been filled with power relations and competition between actors. Competition over resources, which are often limited, is a natural part of the field, whether in relation to public funding, members, volunteers, donors, public attention, or access to policymaking. Competition over these resources perpetuates a dynamic of winners and losers among the involved actors, leading to an unequal distribution of power within the field. At times, however, this aspect of internal competition has been overshadowed by a dominant view of civil society as a social space for nurturing social trust and expressing solidarity, with an emphasis on collaboration rather than competition. It is nevertheless clear that civil society organizations (hereafter abbreviated as CSOs), interest groups, and social movements not only tend to compete with each other, but at times might also become engaged in challenging each other and counteracting each other’s actions over ideological cleavage.

Building on this framework, Bossi and Ricucci (2023, p. 2015) apply Bourdieusian analysis to the religious field of Turin, highlighting how minority religious communities, already lacking symbolic and material capital, face structural obstacles in regard to their efforts to gain recognition and legitimacy:

Already endowed with little symbolic and material capital, subaltern minorities are unable to realise the conditions necessary to emancipate themselves and improve their positioning in the religious field. They cannot access public aid, and thus cannot structure themselves sufficiently (physically, or politically) to obtain legal recognition; and without legal recognition, they struggle to improve their capital endowment.

(Bossi and Ricucci 2023, p. 2015)

Moreover, religious groups with weaker ties to other faith communities or local institutions tend to remain confined within their own congregations, engaging only minimally in interreligious initiatives:

Of course, everyone has contacts, and so in Turin it is not difficult, for example among Christians, to get to know each other at the level of their respective communities: this does not mean, however, that they attend each other assiduously or have common projects.

(Religious Leader, 032)

As our analysis shows, interreligious dialogue in Turin takes multiple forms, namely institutional and ceremonial processes, religious groups’ strategic positioning, and bottom-up initiatives. However, current interreligious dialogue efforts at the local level are often co-organized by one or two religious groups, with support from local government and civil society organizations. In this landscape, Catholicism plays a central role, sometimes functioning as a resource for dialogue, but, at other times, acting as a barrier to inclusion.

Additionally, civil society organizations are increasingly shifting from advocacy and representation toward service provision, sometimes on behalf of public authorities (Lee and Scaramuzzino 2025; see also Lundberg 2020). These institutional dynamics are reflected in the experiences of our informants:

In Verduno, for example, I pointed out that it is all beautiful, beautiful, super modern hospital and so on and so forth. Because with the hospital really, with all the will they have to work seriously even in the interreligious field. But inside, for example, the Catholic Church manages this whole aspect of the relationship between the hospital and other religious denominations. Do you understand what I am saying? I mean let’s talk about it, of course, let’s talk about it.

(Religious Leader, 009)

It tends to be the Christians who seek dialogue; the others keep to themselves or enjoy the privilege of having neutral territory on which to range. Even at the local level, it is the Christian who moves. Other religious traditions do not feel this need.

(Religious Leader, 005)

In summary, while religious organizations, local government, and civil society all contribute to Turin’s complex and multilayered network of interreligious events and initiatives, each actor faces unique challenges. Catholicism, for instance:

Finds itself having to face this challenging confrontation with other religious traditions at a time when it has to deal with problems of great weight internally, which are the restructuring of its own community life.

(Religious Leader, 005)

Meanwhile, minority religions, although appreciative of local government support, seek greater recognition within the social, cultural, and institutional landscape of the city. At the same time, local authorities must regulate religious freedom, diversity, and interreligious dialogue across multiple departments (e.g., migration, culture, education), despite budgetary constraints. While many of the challenges faced by religious organizations are tied to Turin’s unique historical and local context, the city’s religious and interreligious field is not immune to global political tensions. Cultural, ethnic, and religious conflicts elsewhere have significant repercussions for local religious dynamics. This aspect, which emerged prominently in our research, will be explored in the following section.

4.3. The Local and the Global: How International Politics Impacts Interreligious Dialogue

International conflicts, whether marked by active warfare or soft power diplomacy, often intersect with political, economic, and ethno-religious dynamics, influencing both the symbolic and practical organization of communities far beyond the immediate conflict zone (Burchardt and Hering 2023; Emmerich 2023; Kitts 2023). A paradigmatic example of this process, known as “glocalization”, the local adaptation of global phenomena, can be seen in how the ongoing genocide in Palestine is reflected within the local interreligious field of the City of Turin.

Following the 7 October 2023 attack, military escalation by the Israeli government has had a tangible impact on interreligious dialogue in Turin. During interviews, the informants voiced a range of perspectives, condemning both the terrorist actions of Hamas and the disproportionate state-based violence of Israel. More specifically, local religious organizations and interreligious dialogue networks were challenged in regard to engaging the Jewish community, as confirmed by the informants. One religious leader described these shifting dynamics in interfaith relations, as follows:

For example, this year we had some difficulties with the Jewish community precisely on the theme of peace […]. The main critical issues often relate to the difficulty of finding the time to organize well-structured initiatives. In addition, different ways of approaching issues can create tensions […] the issue of peace led to a certain divergence of views with the Jewish community. However, we managed to find common ground.

(Religious Leader, 041)

Several informants emphasized that, following October 7, the Jewish community significantly adjusted its engagement in local interreligious initiatives, instead prioritizing identity-based programs, aligned with Israeli government perspectives:

Even the Jewish Community, since October 7th, [has taken] a pro-Israeli governmental attitude that is creating problems for us in the development of relations that have always been flourishing because they deliberately chose and even said so publicly in a meeting […] their reasons for the attack on Gaza. This is a small example. Among these extreme positions that are dictated by political reasons—not religious ones—are political choices.

(Religious Leader, 010)

Additionally, interfaith dialogue initiatives that had previously been active and well-established experienced a noticeable decline, as noted by another informant:

Honestly, until October 7th there were no critical issues. Then after that date, unfortunately, a whole series of initiatives came to a halt, as did the dialogue […]. In particular, there is not one initiative that has stopped, but the ability to continue a path that made this neighbourhood unique and rare has stopped.

(Privileged Informant, 015)

In the context of the reconfiguration of the interreligious field, some informants expressed dissatisfaction with the local administration’s handling of the Israel–Palestine conflict, arguing that informal networks provided more adaptable spaces for dialogue, particularly in times of crisis, than the formal regulations on religious diversity:

I perceive an asymmetry between a great richness of diversity in the territorial scenario and somewhat a fragility, a slowness, in the spaces of institutional dialogue. On this, I give a recent example, the latest explosion of the Israel–Palestine conflict. I perceived it as a moment of increased informal dialogue, in that it also brought a reversal to the fore in even secular spaces of people who also claimed, for example, to be Muslim. But at the institutional level, formal dialogue was fragile, so much so that some groups, I am thinking for example of Christian–Islamic friendship, Christian–Islamic dialogue, have experienced crises and splits.

(Privileged Informant, 022)

One particularly high-profile event related to the conflict took place during the occupation of the University of Turin last fall, when Imam Brahim Baya was accused by mainstream media of espousing anti-Zionist and pro-terrorist rhetoric. The controversy attracted significant local and national coverage, with public condemnations from the then-Rector of the University of Turin, Stefano Geuna, the Minister for Universities and Research, Anna Maria Bernini, and the Governor of the Piedmont Region, Alberto Cirio, who reiterated the university’s secular stance. Reflecting on this incident, one informant voiced concerns over problematic alignments in activism related to the conflict:

For example, on the Israeli–Palestinian issue, we see questionable stances. There are LGBTQ+ activists who support Hamas, without realizing that Hamas does not guarantee any rights to women or minorities. It is a paradox.

(Privileged Informant, 034)

The Palestinian genocide and the diverse positions it has provoked represents just one example, although a dramatic one, of how global conflicts penetrate local dynamics. Other related concerns, raised in the interviews, include intolerance toward religious and ethnic minorities and criticism of so-called “woke ideology”. As Sean Phelan (2023, p. 63) notes in his analysis of cancel culture, this phenomenon shapes political discourse, normalizing culture-war conflicts that polarize identities.

Addressing the issue of intolerance, an informant from one of Turin’s most multi-ethnic and religiously diverse neighborhoods shared their firsthand experiences of discriminatory attitudes and exclusionary narratives:

In some schools, some teachers are unwelcoming, and in some areas—especially among certain sections of the population—there are attitudes of rejection. But these attitudes are partly due to ignorance, of course, and also to a policy that fuels fear of foreigners. There is a narrative that wants to make foreigners look like people who do wrong: they steal, rape, behave badly, kill […] and one hears this every day while taking the tram. I live near Porta Palazzo and I take tram number 4, which runs through the whole city, from north to south. If you go up to the central area, near the Porta Palazzo market, which is really multi-ethnic, you hear these types of things daily. And it’s a problem because you can see that it’s an insecurity, a rejection that is fed by certain politics […]. Politics today leads people to think that the foreigner is always and only the immigrant. The American tourist, on the other hand, is never seen as a ‘foreigner’.

(Privileged Informant, 044)

Conversely, critiques of “woke ideology” have emerged in discussions about progressive cultural shifts. One informant expressed concern that increasingly politicized notions of inclusivity might alienate conservative religious communities, arguing that these minorities tend to uphold traditional values:

The administration should try to remember that immigrant religious communities usually have a tendency to be more conservative than local well-wishers believe […]. If the liberals of yesterday become the Wokists of today and try to impose even on their co-religionists certain examples of political correctness, this divide will become even more acute […]. Our pluralism comes largely from immigration from those other four-fifths of the world who view the Wokism of 20% of the planet with the same sympathy with which Wokism views racism. Not all members of minority communities will be like this, of course.

(Religious Leader, 032)

The tensions between progressive actors and religious minorities suggest two interconnected hypotheses. First, differences in political attitudes between local administration leaders, civil society organizations, and religious minorities may be attributable to socio-demographic differences. Progressive policymakers and activists tend to advocate for gender equality, migration rights, and religious freedom, while some religious communities, particularly immigrant groups, may uphold traditionalist perspectives on gender and sexuality. Whether this is due to pre-existing demographic distinctions or whether “the occupancy of leadership positions itself has an impact on attitude formation” (Lee and Scaramuzzino 2025, p. 272) remains an open research question.

Second, the anti-woke culture war, widely embraced by conservative political parties, media outlets, and interest groups, has played a key role in framing social justice movements, including anti-racism, anti-sexism, and LGBTQ+ advocacy, as extreme or deviant positions (Cammaerts 2022, p. 730). This discursive strategy further exacerbates divides between progressive and conservative forces within the interreligious landscape.

However, issues of intolerance and critiques of woke ideology represent only two extremes within Turin’s diverse interreligious field. Other informants reported a relatively neutral or stable interreligious climate, with localized security concerns:

I don’t see any [criticism] in the neighborhood, although seeing a synagogue manned by the army or the carabinieri gives one some anxiety and apprehension.

(Privileged Informant, 015)

Despite these aspects, the informants also highlighted the coexistence of different faith communities within Turin’s pluralistic urban spaces:

In our neighborhood, in front of the synagogue, there is a place run by Syrian refugees. A little further on, there is the Waldensian community, the Waldensian temple, and the Claudiana Editrice bookshop, which is the Waldensian publishing house that sells Hebrew books. So I do not see any problems, but I connect everything to the situation between Israel and Palestine, or rather, between the Israeli government and Hamas.

(Privileged Informant, 015)

While Turin is historically recognized for its commitment to religious pluralism, and is rightly considered a national leader in interreligious dialogue, the spiritual and religious fabric of the city remains deeply contested. This section has explored how the Palestinian genocide affects local interreligious dialogue, shaping community participation and alliances; how far-right political narratives contribute to the social and discursive construction of the ‘foreigner’; and how merging ideological struggles over language and identity politics, framed in debates around woke ideology, further complicate the interreligious field.

When examined closely, the local interreligious space reveals layers of tension, negotiation, and shifting alliances, illustrating how global conflicts reverberate in nuanced ways within Turin’s religious and civic landscape. Finally, the limited engagement with the Jewish community and other religious groups following the events of October 7th highlights a critical shortcoming in current models of religious diversity governance. While interreligious dialogue is often promoted as a tool for inclusion and cohesion, its selective or symbolic application in times of crisis undermines its legitimacy and effectiveness. The absence of structured, trust-based dialogue in the aftermath of such events not only marginalizes affected communities, but also exposes the fragility of institutional commitments to pluralism and religious freedom. This gap underscores the need for more resilient, inclusive, and context-sensitive approaches to managing religious diversity, ones that are capable of responding to conflict, trauma, and asymmetries of power within and between communities.

5. Conclusions

This article examined the interreligious field as a key arena for analyzing the complex interactions between the state, civil society, and religious actors, particularly regarding religious freedom, the governance of religious diversity, and interreligious dialogue. Building on the existing literature, it preliminarily defined interreligious dialogue as a social practice shaped by broader regulatory frameworks and the involvement of multiple actors. The article highlighted the significance of different strategic levels in shaping interreligious initiatives within institutions, such as hospitals, prisons, and schools, discussing some key examples from the City of Turin. By advocating for more empirically grounded analyses, the article aimed to deepen the understanding of how religious freedom, the governance of religious diversity, and interreligious dialogue often intersect in practice, influencing and in turn being influenced by institutional positioning, site-specific factors, and discursive frameworks, as well as the involvement of a plurality of social actors.

More specifically, we examined interreligious dialogue, understood as a social practice regulated by the broader normative framework of religious freedom and the governance of religious diversity, showing how these processes, far from being mutually exclusive, significantly intersect one with the other and concern the very same constellation of social actors. Through the use of empirical analysis based on the data collected from the Project Urban Governance of Religious Diversity (2023–2025), we emphasized that, while interreligious dialogue is formally regulated at the national level, it is also an evolving field of local experimentation, wherein multi-level governance processes play a key role. A plurality of actors, including local institutions, religious communities, interreligious networks, and civil society organizations, both shape and are shaped by institutional and informal practices as they move within, around, and/or beyond the legal constraints of religious freedom regulations.

One of the most significant findings of our research concerns the current legislative framework governing religious freedom in Italy and its impact on the governance of religious diversity, especially in public institutions. Although rooted in the Constitution and the double-track system of the Concordato and the Intesa, this system provides institutional and public recognition to signatory religious groups. However, non-signatory communities, most notably Muslims, lack such formal protections and often find themselves navigating a legal and political limbo, caught between local administrative discretion and individual initiative. Furthermore, informants repeatedly expressed frustration that national regulations fail to translate into concrete policy measures at the local level.

Another key result is that, although Turin is exceptional compared to other national contexts, some of its defining interreligious initiatives, while widely praised, are more expressions of institutional logic and top-down processes than direct responses to the needs of religious communities. The case of the Care of the Spirit project serves as a paradigmatic example of this tension.

Additionally, our findings demonstrate that Turin’s interreligious field, despite its unique history, local articulation, and constellation of actors, remains deeply affected by international political developments. The Palestinian genocide, for instance, has presented significant challenges for many religious groups, but has also opened up new opportunities for grassroots dialogue. In certain cases, this situation has fostered innovative bottom-up interreligious initiatives, while the main result is the inability of the mechanisms of religious governance to regulate the impact of the genocide on the local interreligious field. Future research could build upon these findings by further exploring the role of interreligious dialogue in conflict mediation and peacebuilding (Driessen 2025; Kronish 2022). More specifically, interreligious dialogue, whether mediated by local administrations, facilitated by civil society organizations, or emerging organically within religious communities, could serve as a crucial tool for addressing local tensions and dismantling prejudicial narratives. Dialogue between Jewish and Muslim groups, whether institutionally supported or informally structured, represents one such promising avenue for reconciliation and mutual understanding.

In conclusion, and in alignment with the broader aims of the Project Urban Governance of Religious Diversity (2023–2025), this article has contributed, through the case study of Turin, to a joint sociological interpretation of the processes of religious freedom, the governance of religious diversity, and interreligious dialogue, showing how local governments, religious communities, and other social actors approach the multi-level governance of religious diversity, as regulated by the legislative framework of religious freedom and as taking shape through interreligious dialogue initiatives at the local level. Further analyses of the relevant empirical and theoretical developments, however, are needed to solidify the sociological value of this interpretative framework.