My position on Italy, Italian studies, and the future of the discipline focuses on the method of two recent 'turns' in Italian studies, the postcolonial turn and the transnational turn, pertinent to the study of Italy and migrant mobility. It is my contention that the discipline, in its institutional discourse and material practices has promoted their relevance unevenly, and I will explain why and to what effects. I contend that these two critical perspectives, while they have been theorized by a great variety of scholars in Italy and across continental Europe, the UK, Canada, Australia, and the United States, have not reached an equal status as legitimate fields within Italian studies. While a transnational approach to Italian literary criticism has gained tremendous currency, especially in the UK and now in the United States, the postcolonial, as a field of studies within italianistica, remains rather invisible, especially, but not only, in Italian academia (Lombardi-Diop and Romeo, 2012; Mellino 2021). There are many points of convergence between these two approaches, yet I want to emphasize the imbalance of power in the dissemination of knowledge and institutional visibility of these two critical methods, an imbalance that is not simply epistemic, but involves a disparity in the allocation of institutional resources and money, in the existence of publishing venues, and in the creation of scholarships and of academic positions.