The gender-professionalism nexus is the source of persistent inequalities in our society. Its continuing relevance emerges even more in the pandemic crisis as a revealing context of social dynamics, showing a “differential in visibility” among welfare professionals, associated with gender, status and power. The attribution of “masculine” and “feminine” connotations (re)produces structures of inequality: there are male/dominant and female/subordinate professions. The exploration of this nexus reveals the existence of two polar meanings of care and body work, as well as two conceptions of professionalism and citizenship. Caring as “therapy” is related to “work on the body” and reflects a classical conception of professionalism aimed at client-citizens; whereas caring as “to care for” is related to “work with and between bodies” and meets better new professionalism aimed at active citizens. Considering gender as professional practice ideology highlights how “gender commonality” is not a solution to inequalities. Furthermore, it can contribute to the deconstruction of the dominance structures. In a such research agenda, narratives of professionals are the key to open the black box. Taking up the challenge to open the gender-professionalism black box is not just a matter of research, but of political action, starting from academia itself.

No abstract

In Italy, for some years, a series of new terms, such as ‘Civil Welfare’, ‘Community Welfare’, ‘Welfare Society’, ‘Generative Welfare’, and ‘Second Welfare", have appeared in public discourse. These labels have different origins and traditions. However, all of them are reform narratives promoting ‘new’ welfare-mix solutions to ensure the sustainability of the social protection system in the face of the permanent austerity (Pierson 1998, 2001) and the crisis of the public welfare. Moreover, all of them are presented as recalibration strategies betting on coordination, integration, networking, and synergy’s capabilities of formal and informal components of the welfare system, reinforcing the role, not of the state, but of the other points of the so-called ‘welfare diamond’ (Ferrera, 2006): individuals and families, third sector, but also companies and market. The contribution aims to critically present the different narratives, highlighting their similarities and differences, and—above all—to discuss their implications. For this purpose, the promises to provide sustainable, flexible, and plural welfare solutions (Osborne, 2006), as well as the presumed advantages and the risks of what appears to be a strategy of delegation to the private sector, will be subject of careful evaluation.

No abstract

No abstract