Gossip, diversity and community cohesion: the case of multi-ethnic Riace

ABSTRACT

Gossip is often considered to have negative and exclusionary social consequences within migrant communities and multi-ethnic settings. In contrast, the current research examines whether gossip can contribute to including and integrating people with different ethnic and migration backgrounds into a local community. The empirical study is based on 11 Months of fieldwork research in Riace, a small town in Southern Italy that has hosted refugees and migrants for over 20 years. We focused on the local functions of gossip as it occurs in everyday life and is embedded in the local social context. Findings demonstrate that much of the local gossip is inter-ethnic and facilitates strong community relationships by sustaining local norms and promoting trust relationships and shared narratives. It is concluded that local gossip does not only have to be divisive but also can have inclusive and integrative implications for multi-ethnic local settings.

KEYWORDS:

• Gossip
• local community
• inclusion
• integration
• refugees
• ethnography

Introduction

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

This quote, often attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt, quite well represents the common-sense interpretation of gossiping as a reprehensible, potentially even harmful phenomenon. Ironically, despite its negative connotations, studies show that about two-thirds of our conversations consist of gossip (Dunbar, Marriott, and Duncan 1997). Gossip is not only for “small minds” and can play in many situations an essential role for people’s reputations and for sustaining group norms and drawing group boundaries.

Research on the functions and outcomes of gossip in migrant communities and multi-ethnic settings shows that gossip plays a role in policing and maintaining group norms within specific (diasporic) ethnic, cultural and religious minority groups (e.g. Almenara-Niebla and Ascanio-Sánchez 2020; de Vries 1987; Dreby 2009). Further, research focusing on group boundary-making shows that people can use gossip to exclude ethnic outsiders and newcomers (e.g. Elias and Scotson 1994; Gluckman 1963; Verkuyten 2001). In contrast to these studies, the current research, based on 11 Months of fieldwork research in the multi-ethnic town of Riace, aims to demonstrates that gossip also can have an integrative function for (small-sized) highly diverse communities in strengthening the bonds between people from different ethno-cultural backgrounds.

Riace is a small town in Southern Italy of about 2000 inhabitants that, during the time of the research, hosted around 400 migrants and refugees.¹ The reception of refugees started in 1998, when 300 Kurdish refugees landed on the local coast and received help from inhabitants. Between 1998 and 2018, Riace has hosted migrants and refugees from all over the world in abandoned houses, left behind by locals who emigrated to work elsewhere (Rinaldis 2016). Refugees, in turn, brought life into this once-dying rural “ghost town”. Riace's refugees, from now on referred to as new locals, and Italian natives, from now on referred to as old locals,² worked together in community development projects. For example, they ran programmes aimed at revitalizing ancient crafts, for sustainable agriculture, restoration of the old town, and solidarity tourism. The fact that Riace has been a multicultural microcosm for 20 years makes it an interesting case study that can serve as a mirror for understanding the workings of gossip in other small-sized, diverse communities.

Our main question is whether and how gossip can contribute to the inclusion and integration of people with different ethnic, cultural or migration backgrounds into a local community. The local community is considered the people who live in the old town of Riace Superiore, who historically define themselves as a community and town of “accoglienza”, of hospitality towards newcomers and migrants (Driel and Verkuyten 2020). We used an ethnographic approach in which we examined gossip as it occurs in everyday life and is embedded in the specific context and local social dynamics (Giardini and Wittek 2019).

Our focus is on the social functions that gossip can have at the community level. A functionalist approach for understanding gossip is useful for understanding social relations (Gluckman 1963; Ingram 2018), but has also been criticized for making insufficiently clear how the processes of gossiping actually occur and develop in practice. Research has examined, for example, how gossip takes place in social interactions and conversations, and the ways in which it produces various interactive outcomes, for instance, at the work floor, in organizations, and in local communities (Dores Cruz et al. 2021; Ingram 2018). This research on the details of everyday interactions is valuable but does not imply that an understanding of the community functions of gossip is not relevant. An analytical focus on the detailed workings of gossip in social interactions differs from a focus on the broader social functions that gossip can have for community life. This is similar to the distinction between a conversational analytical approach that focuses on the discursive details of everyday conversations and a critical discourse analysis in which the ideological workings of language in representing the world are examined (Benwell and Stokoe 2010). Here we take a more functionalist approach in trying to identify and describe the integrative functions that gossip can have for the multi-ethnic community of Riace.

The community functions of gossip

There are various definitions of gossip but most recognize three defining aspects (Dunbar, Marriott, and Duncan 1997; Foster 2004; Mettetal 1982). Firstly, the act of gossiping requires the absence of the third party that is been talked about (Foster 2004). Gossiping often implies a degree of secrecy, as the third party typically does not know that he or she is the topic of conversation (Yerkovich 1977). Secondly, it involves the exchange of personal or social information about this absent third party (Dunbar, Marriott, and Duncan 1997; Mettetal 1982). Lastly, in addition to content, context matters with gossip often taking place in intimate settings and situations of congeniality. Combining these three aspects, gossip can be defined as evaluative talk by at least two people about absent third parties in confidential or cordial settings. Such evaluative talk can have negative consequences for social relations and personal reputations. For example, gossiping can exclude the person or group that is being gossiped about from the community and harm their social standing (Foster 2004; Giardini and Wittek 2019). However, gossiping does not necessarily have to be negative and the most optimistic estimates show that less than 5 per cent of our conversations about others is malicious (Dunbar, Marriott, and Duncan 1997). For example, there can be “supportive gossip” whereby the evaluative talk is not negative in tone but rather aimed at generating support from community members (Elias and Scotson 1994). Further, some studies show that people engage in gossip as a shared activity that is entertaining and exciting, especially in small communities (Gilmore 1978). Some have even described the need to gossip as the basis for the development of human language and the main characteristic that sets humans apart from animals (Dunbar 1996). Gossip would be a crucial mechanism for social cohesion, similar to the grooming with which animals maintain their relationships.

Social science research recognizes that gossiping can have positive and integrative implications for communities, such as strengthening bonds between gossipers and sustaining social norms and community cohesion (e.g. Foster 2004). However, gossip can only have integrative functions when people have others to gossip about, making inclusion and exclusion two sides of the same “gossiping” coin (Foster 2004). Specifically, research discusses at least three social functions of gossip.

Firstly, gossip can have a normative function in sustaining community norms and values that help to define and maintain community life (Foster 2004; Gluckman 1963). With gossip people define what sort of behaviour is considered appropriate and especially what is considered to be “not done” (Elias and Scotson 1994; Foster 2004; Giardini and Wittek 2019; Gluckman 1963). People gossip to monitor the behaviour of others and sanction those who deviate from what is considered appropriate and right, making it an important mechanism for social control. Gilmore (1978) found that gossipers in small Spanish towns sometimes intended that the victims would find out about the gossip and adapt their behaviour. People indeed tend to auto-correct their behaviour in line with group norms to avoid becoming the target of gossiping, especially in contexts characterized by much gossip, such as small communities. Foster (2004) labelled this the “social influence function” of gossip and added that the process of learning social norms through gossip already starts in young children who observe the gossiping of their parents. Social norms, as expressed and promoted by gossip, help community members to define “who we are” and offer those who identify with the community a normative direction for how to feel, think, and act (Guendouzi 2020; Reicher, Spears, and Haslam 2010; Stirling 1956). So, people can use gossip to define a shared identity with fellow gossipers and to create and maintain a sense of distinctiveness from other groups (Bingley, Greenaway, and Haslam 2021). In a context like Riace, characterized by a strong inclusive local identity (Driel and Verkuyten 2020; Guendouzi 2020), gossip might play an important role for newcomers to become part of the normative community. By participating in gossip, new locals learn about the local social norms and community life, and might avoid social exclusion (Bingley, Greenaway, and Haslam 2021).

Secondly, gossiping can have an informative function whereby the sharing of information contributes to trust relationships (Derlega and Chaikin 1977). Gossiping is a means to inform each other about the social world and thereby creates and maintains interpersonal bonds and trust relationships. Stories about others provide the necessary information that helps people to understand who others are, who they can trust, and who, for example, is suitable for taking up certain roles (Giardini and Wittek 2019; Gluckman 1963). This informative function of gossip (Foster 2004) implies trust relationships because gossiping requires people to trust each other in order to disclose evaluative information about others, which can help to create and reaffirm a sphere of intimacy and confidentiality (Derlega and Chaikin 1977). Research finds that gossiping is more likely to take place between friends than between casual contacts or acquaintances, also because shared social meanings are crucial for understanding what “the gossip” is about (Blumberg 1972; Foster 2004; Gluckman 1963). So, sharing (sensitive) information about others can create feelings of closeness between gossipers and thereby serve as a social glue (Derlega and Chaikin 1977). However, in line with relational signalling theory, gossip can also harm relationships because of its’ potentially negative impact on gossipers’ reputation, which undermines future (cooperative) relationships (Loughry and Tosi 2008; Wittek et al. 2000).

Thirdly, gossip can be used more instrumentally to justify privileges, inequalities and to exclude outsiders (Dingfelder 2006; Elias and Scotson 1994). Research shows that people can use gossip strategically for protecting their individual interests or improve their social standing by damaging the reputation of others (Paine 1967). People in positions of relative power also use gossip to exclude outsiders and thereby sustain and justify social or political hierarchies and inequalities (Foster 2004; Gluckman 1963; Noon and Delbridge 1993). For example, gossip can be used to exclude newcomers or people from allegedly degraded neighbourhoods and thereby prevent them from entering positions of influence (Dingfelder 2006; Elias and Scotson 1994; van der Laan Bouma-Doff 2007).

Gossip in migrant communities and multi-ethnic settings

A limited body of research has focused on the social functions of gossip in migrant communities and multi-ethnic settings. These studies predominantly highlight (1) how gossip is used to promote shared social norms and exert social control within ethnic (e.g. transnational) minority groups, and (2) how gossip functions to exclude newcomers and ethnic minorities from the (local) community.

Studies on gossip within migrant communities tend to focus on the social control function of gossip (e.g. Almenara-Niebla and Ascanio-Sánchez 2020; Ayuandini and Alyanak 2015; Dreby 2009). Gossiping is useful for cultural maintenance and for socially controlling minority group members. In Mexican transnational families, for instance, gossip is found to be important for socializing women in traditional gender roles and teaching people about culturally appropriate forms of parenthood (Dreby 2009). Within these families, gossiping functions to reinforce ethnic family values and commitments across borders in the face of eroding family relations, caused by the process of migration. Likewise, Sahrawi women across the globe are subject to digital transnational gossiping networks that shape their lives, as new technologies increasingly enhance gossip-related practices that function as a means of social control (Almenara-Niebla and Ascanio-Sánchez 2020). Fresnoza-Flot (2010), similarly, showed in her anthropological research that Filipinas in France avoid religious community gatherings out of fear for the strong gossiping culture. Research in Turkish communities in Germany and France further shows that gossip reinforces traditional gender values and norms which encourage Turkish women to search for creative alternatives to explore their sexuality in a hidden manner (Ayuandini and Alyanak 2015). And in a study among Turkish communities in the Netherlands, it was found that gossip has a strong socializing impact on young women whose families face social exclusion if their daughter’s behaviour is perceived as being too provocative (de Vries 1987). All these studies indicate that gossiping can play important normative and cultural maintenance roles within specific migrant and minority communities.

Additionally, research in multi-ethnic and socially-mixed settings suggests that locals use gossip for ethnic boundary-drawing and exclusion of newcomers and outsiders (Dingfelder 2006; Elias and Scotson 1994; van der Laan Bouma-Doff 2007; Verkuyten 2001). Because gossip requires shared background knowledge and common understandings, it is a useful tool for drawing boundaries between insiders and outsiders (Gluckman 1963; Noon and Delbridge 1993). Furthermore, gossiping about ethnic others can define them as different and even abnormal. In a study among ethnically Dutch inhabitants of a diverse city quarter in Rotterdam, it was shown how these inhabitants construct notions of abnormality when talking among each other about their neighbours of different ethnic backgrounds, for instance, by contrasting their neighbours’ dissenting behaviour with “obviously normal practices” and appropriate behaviour (Verkuyten 2001). Further, research amongst Polish migrants in the UK shows that older Polish immigrants use gossip to distinguish themselves from more recent Polish immigrants and for reaffirming their attachment to their own (Polish) sub-group (Galasinska 2010).

These two types of studies indicate that in multi-ethnic communities, different ethnic groups can use gossip to maintain their own norms and values and for excluding others and newcomers. However, in contrast to these studies we will try to demonstrate that in Riace gossip can also contribute to including and integrating people with different ethnic backgrounds into the local community.

Method

Data collection

This study used an ethnographic approach for observing gossip as it occurred in Riace’s everyday life (Hammersley and Atkinson 2007). With participant observation we aimed to gain a contextual and detailed understanding of the most important functions and implications of gossip for the local community (DeWalt and DeWalt 2011; Giardini and Wittek 2019). Specifically, we founded our analysis on data collection in Riace performed by the first author over a total period of 11 months during six periods of fieldwork from October 2015 until February 2016, from August 2016 until September 2016, and in August 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 (4 Months in total). In addition to participant observations, the ethnographic fieldwork included daily informal conversations with various residents.

Observations of everyday life, combined with participation in various local contexts and initiatives, made it possible to collect real-world data and to develop an in-depth understanding and tacit knowledge of the Riace community (Desjarlais 1992). Specifically, the research involved participation in various settings like workplaces, bars, homes, festivals, and town squares. Moreover, the researcher volunteered as an English teacher and cooperated with local tourism initiatives to further develop trust relationships (DeWalt and DeWalt 2011). Because informal talks took place in various settings, it was also possible to interact with a varied sample of the population in terms of ethnic background, age, gender, and occupation. Many of these settings could be labelled as “confidential”, and therefore present popular spaces for gossip, such as people’s homes and local bars.

Riace’s small size and traditional hospitality (Driel and Verkuyten 2020) made it possible to get acquainted and confidential with a large number of residents in a relatively easy manner (approximately 150).³ The fact that the researcher returned to Riace for six successive years and therefore had the chance to build intimate rapport with residents, further contributed to establishing trust and confidentiality that are important for studying gossip (Giardini and Wittek 2019). One has to be “trained” to become part of the local gossip network, at least to a certain degree, in order to have exposure to gossip and develop an understanding. At the early stage of the research (after three months), one of the bartenders, unintentionally, explained this as follows [context: researcher having a coffee at the bar in 2015]:

You (indicating the researcher) need way more time to really understand the relations between people in Riace. To really comprehend people’s stories. I’ve seen many researchers in town and doing interviews doesn’t work. People don’t really open up. You need to be more patient and wait longer. Because there are these small conspiracies, conflicts if you like, and friendships change constantly.

Thus, for conducting a fruitful study on gossip as it occurs in real-life settings, extensive and long-term fieldwork research is critical compared to, for instance, conducting only in-depth interviews or using surveys (DeWalt and DeWalt 2011; Giardini and Wittek 2019).

Fieldwork research and participant observation require (ethical) reflection by researchers, for example, on their own position in the field (Desjarlais 1992; DeWalt and DeWalt 2011). This is perhaps even more crucial when studying a phenomenon like gossip that is usually limited to spheres of intimacy and confidentiality. Throughout the fieldwork research, the first author always tried to be predominantly an observer of gossip rather than a gossiping participant. However, sometimes she was asked to share her opinion on topics, people, or scandals that were at the centre of the latest gossip. In such cases, she aimed to respond as neutral as possible and refrained from (negative) judgments. Moreover, she sometimes felt pressure to agree with gossipers, for instance, because of the gossipers’ facial expressions or language. In those cases, she used body language and gestures like nodding and active listening techniques to subtly show her acknowledgment of the points raised by the speaker, without explicitly accepting or dismissing them. Often, this was sufficient, as locals predominantly aimed to share their views, stories, and frustrations or tried to convince the researcher of a certain viewpoint, and mainly wanted a listening ear. Still, instances of negative gossiping about others sometimes made the researcher feel uncomfortable, as she preferred to maintain friendly relations with as many locals as possible and avoid conflicts in her role as a researcher (and on a personal level). Furthermore, as the village is relatively small, being seen with certain gossipers may have made the researcher look bad in the eyes of others. Therefore, she always tried to carefully manage her interactions with gossipers and, for example, divided her time in public spaces as much as possible between different (gossiping) groups.

Analysis

The data analysis is based upon several rounds of in-depth examination and thematic categorization of field notes, observations, and transcripts of (informal) conversations in the field. Attention was given to both settings, phrases and intonations, as the latter can reveal relevant information in the case of gossiping (see, e.g. the quote on page 14). The field notes were divided into observational notes and methodological notes with critical reflections on the research process, the position in the field, and possible biases (DeWalt and DeWalt 2011). For example, to maintain good relationships with both the targets of gossip and the gossipers, the researcher had to critically reflect upon her relationships with both and not get (too) involved in the gossiping process.

The material was analysed following an inductive approach whereby recurrent patterns and regularities were identified in locals’ behaviour and their understandings and explanations of events (DeWalt and DeWalt 2011). These first rounds of data analysis and data reduction resulted in the thematic categorization and structuring of the data and provided direction for further data collection (Miles and Huberman 1994). Subsequently, the organized material was examined in light of previous research on the functions of gossip and both authors provided feedback on each other’s theoretical interpretations. Specifically, the second author critically examined the first author’s thematic categorization and empirical analyses to discuss possible alternative interpretations, control for accuracy, and identify possible biases (DeWalt and DeWalt 2011).

Results

We will try to demonstrate with three analytical steps how gossip contributes to including and integrating people with different ethnic, cultural, or migration backgrounds into the Riace community. The first section shows that in Riace, gossiping is often inter-ethnic: it occurs between people of different backgrounds which implies that there is a certain degree of mutual trust and confidentiality, and it concerns both new and old locals. The second section demonstrates that there are shared “community topics” that old and new locals discuss when gossiping with each other and these involve normative expectations. The third section shows that with gossiping, locals form friendships, trust relationships, and inform each other about who is normatively dissenting and should be avoided. Moreover, locals use gossip to perpetuate and sustain specific historical narratives or so-called “urban legends” that symbolize the shared past and reaffirm the close relationships within the community.

Inter-ethnic gossiping

Historically, gossiping played a central role in shaping local social relations in this small Calabrian town. The traditional tendency to gossip about your neighbours existed long before the arrival of the first refugees in 1998, and likely provided a familiar basis for the gradual development of gossiping network that also included new locals (Bourdieu 1990). The arrival of newcomers extended the circle of gossipers with old locals not only gossiping about these newcomers, but increasingly also together with them about both old and new locals and local social norms and community life. Inter-ethnic gossiping was also made relatively easy because old and new locals live and work throughout this small-sized community, and there are many opportunities for encounters. For example, there are only a few bars and town squares and there is only one school, so it is easy to get to know your fellow locals and monitor their behaviour.⁴ Furthermore, the set-up of Riace's squares and terraces, with separate tables, benches, stairs, and other places where people usually sit, creates relatively “confidential” settings (Derlega and Chaikin 1977) where people can gossip without being overheard. And the way in which Riace’s settlement programme for refugees is set up, namely as a community development programme in which old and new locals collaborate in various workplaces and community maintenance projects, provides further opportunities for inter-ethnic encounters, and thereby for gossiping (Driel and Verkuyten 2021).

In Riace, gossiping regularly occurs between people of different ethnic backgrounds, and the gossip is about locals of diverse backgrounds, including old locals. This, in itself, demonstrates that there is a sense of local community amongst Riace’s inhabitants. In order to be able to gossip, there must be some confidentiality between the gossipers and one needs some “insider knowledge” about who and what the gossiping is about (Derlega and Chaikin 1977). Consider, for example, the following extract in which the local primary school teacher Ada⁵ (old local) gossips with employee Tahira (new local, Somalian background) and neighbour Federica (old local) after schooltime about how Sarah (new local, Libyan background) is such a bad mother:

Ada:

you know that the other day when Sarah’s son was feeling very sick, she still went shopping in Caulonia! [nearby town, bus runs only once a day] Therefore, she couldn’t pick up her son, who was so tired that he even fell asleep at school in the classroom. Then she called me that she actually missed the bus [… sighs] and so I had to drop her son at Mohammed (other new local).

Tahira:

And Mohammed told me that when he asked Sarah how this all could have happened, she blamed it on you. She said it was actually your fault because you, as a teacher, should have stayed with the kids.

Ada:

But that is ridiculous!

 

Tahira & Federica (female, old local, just walked into the shop and overheard the conversation): [nodding] Yes you are so right!

Ada:

I am no *@!% babysitter!

Federica:

Maybe in Sarah’s country it is normal to leave your kids with the teacher all day, but here [in Riace] it isn’t … 

 

[Ada & Tahira nodding approvingly]

This extract illustrates how old and new locals together discuss the behaviour of Sarah and that they disapprove of how she handles her son. This type of gossip strengthens bonds and feelings of trust between gossipers, but also requires shared understandings of the behaviour (Foster 2004). In the last comment, Federica draws the more general conclusion about local community norms and practices or what is expected in Riace, in contrast to what might be common in Sarah’s country of origin, which is supported by the others. So, this quote illustrates that locals from different ethnic backgrounds agree on the alleged misbehaviour of Sarah and thereby reaffirm the shared community norms on motherhood (Gluckman 1963). Additionally, it shows that an ethnically mixed group of locals can gossip about ethnic others (Foster 2004). Importantly, not only new locals but also old locals were the targets of gossip when their behaviour deviated from what is normatively expected in Riace. For instance, in the small Riace community, locals are expected to greet each other when meeting each other on the streets, or to stop and have a short informal conversation (Driel and Verkuyten 2021). In the next example, Ilham (new local) gossips to the researcher about Lorenzo (old local) who failed to adhere to these “standard polite greetings”:

Did you see Lorenzo? Just driving by in his car (slowly, with his windows wide open), without even greeting Maria (when he passed her)!

Inter-ethnic gossip also took up much of the conversations during casual get-togethers like parties, dinners, and coffee meetings. For example, at the party of new locals Ayaan and Ali, the topic of conversation centred around the local mixed-race couple Domenico and Alida. Domenico was said to be very aggressive, especially when he drinks. Ayaan believed that Alida even had to go to the police at some point. Such gossiping about confidential topics between (or concerning) locals of different backgrounds was very common at informal gatherings. Even young children already seemed to be part of the “local gossip scene” as they overhear the latest news about fellow locals (of different backgrounds) from their parents and pick up which behaviours are appropriate or not. Giuseppe (born in Riace, son of old & new local), for example tells his teacher and the researcher:

Zara (new local) came by at my mom’s house and I heard them saying that her son cannot come to our school anymore but that he will go to the school in Riace Marina (the “competitor”) instead..! [disapproving tone]

Another, more extreme, example of inter-ethnic gossip relates to a shooting in 2015 when a young man (old local) sadly died. Within hours after the shooting, everyone in town was speculating about who had done it and why. In every bar, house, or other venues the researcher entered that morning, old and new locals alike, often together, were analysing and evaluating the reputation of the family of the victim, speculating about the possible culprit, and discussing whether or not such violence was in line with the reputation of the victim, the potential culprit, and their (criminal) families. In order to be able to discuss and assess the various reputations of these people, inhabitants, including new locals, need to know each other relatively well. Initially, one of the local “gossip-stories” was that the shooting must have been related to a conflict between the father of the victims’ wife who had the reputation to be connected to the ‘Ndrangheta (Calabrian mafia) and the direct family of the victim that is part of another ‘Ndrangheta clan. However, a few months later a police investigation showed that the incident was a “crime of passion” involving the man, his wife, and another younger, local boy, and this caused a whole new wave of gossip in town. The fact that everyone gossiped about the (family) reputations of the people involved indicates shared knowledge and relative intimacy between old and new locals (Derlega and Chaikin 1977).

Shared topics and community norms

Through gossiping about old and new locals’ (mis)behaviour, which was the most common topic, locals get familiarized with the norms, values, and informal rules of the Riace community. The fact that such gossip often occurred between locals of different ethnic backgrounds makes it a mechanism for monitoring if fellow locals adhere to shared community standards, rather than a mechanism for controlling or excluding the “ethnic other”. Thus, gossip provided guidelines as to who “we,” the people from Riace’, are, what we stand for and how we (should) behave, which contributed to creating a sense of local community (Driel and Verkuyten 2020; Galasinska 2010).

Riace’s gossip has a strong normative function in teaching people what (not) to do. For example, sleeping over at someone with whom you do not (yet) have an official relationship was perceived as a “no go” by both Riace’s old and new locals, as became clear through their evaluation of a local refugee and Italian man who were (allegedly) involved in a love affair:

 

Aida (local refugee, woman) about Vincenzo (local Italian, man, separated from his ex-wife): Well yes, he is a good man but Anna (female refugee) is influencing his behavior too much, in a very bad way!

Researcher:

What do you mean?

Aida:

Didn’t you know Vincenzo & Anna are together?? Like, they are boyfriend and girlfriend.. Everyone in town knows! Since about 5 years. Everyone knows it, though Anna told me I absolutely cannot tell anyone about it.. [sarcastic, disapproving intonation] Vincenzo has got his own house, but still he’s going to sleep at Anna’s all the time!”

Similarly, when visiting locals at home, people would often inquire about the cleanliness or state of the houses visited. For example, in the next extract Samira (new local) discusses the lazy behaviour of Maryam (new local of different ethnic background) and inquiries about the state of her house. Although the topic of conversation initially was the widely shared suspicion that Maryam’s husband hits her (which in itself can be considered “gossip”), Maryam’s ways of (not) doing housework seemed almost more interesting to Samira:

Samira:

First Maryam and her husband got along well. He always played with the children at the playground, did everything (household chores), like the groceries etc. And she was just lying in bed at home, sleeping! [disapproving tone] When she got pregnant he started hitting her.

Researcher:

You know why?

Samira:

No, I don’t know her. But, how was her house?? Was it clean?? Was it dirty?? [with suggestive tone]

This excerpt indicates a judgmental attitude concerning perceived laziness when it comes to household chores and is illustrative of how the local gossip teaches people how “we in the community” should behave.

Another popular topic of gossip was the problems of other families in town, especially those who were considered to behave inappropriately. People often had fun together by talking about the “stupid actions” of others. The following extract is from a conversation between Liya, Amene (new locals, female), Mario and Antonio (old locals, male) who are joking and gossiping about Angela (a new local who just gave birth) while they enjoy a drink on the terrace at the town square on a hot summer night. Liya (new local):

Angela denied that she was pregnant until her belly was so big that the baby was practically falling out, because “she took the (contraceptive) pill” [laughter; sarcastic intonation]. It would be better if they (referring to other new locals – even though Liya is a new local herself as well) would not take the contraceptive pill and be more careful, as they always take the pill irregularly. This always goes wrong.

This example indicates how an ethnically mixed group of locals entertain themselves by gossiping about the foolishness of a fellow local who fell pregnant. Gossiper Liya and victim Angela are both new locals with a similar cultural background and both have been living in Riace for years. Thus, this exchange between old and new locals can be interpreted as inter-ethnic gossip about another local who does not behave the way that “one should” in Riace (Gilmore 1978; Gluckman 1963).

Gender-related issues constituted a favourite topic of gossiping and the ways in which local women (versus men) should behave on specific occasions was commonly debated by both men and women. For example, when a female new local travelled on her own, the whole town talked about it because it was considered inappropriate and way too dangerous for a woman:

Annamaria (local bartender, female) to the researcher, like everyone that day: Did you hear that Esra (new local, female visiting Germany on her own) departed for Germany?! She wants to work for this guy there that she knows through Facebook, you know how dangerous that is!”[judgmental tone]

Another female local explained the social control on women also clearly to the researcher:

People here want to know everything about your life [referring to girls/women]; they have nothing better to do. So, if you have an appointment with a boy they do not know, they finally have something to talk about. So, therefore, I even don’t go to the bar anymore. […] Everyone seems very kind about your life, but actually, they just do it to have something to gossip about.

Adhering to the rather traditional gender norms was perceived to be very important by both old locals, especially amongst the older generations, and by many new locals, especially the people with (strong) religious and traditional cultural beliefs. During the fieldwork, I (the first author) also felt sometimes pressured to conform to certain local gender norms, and when walking down the alleys, I received questions like: “dove vai?” [where are you going] “Ma che fai oggi?” [What are you doing today?] “Con chi vai?” [with who are you going?]. When not answering such questions, locals would find out what I did through “the word on the street” anyway. For example, when waiting for male colleagues (who worked in a nearby refugee centre) to pick me up, I took a coffee at the bar right in front of the pick-up point. While having my coffee, people inquired where I was heading. Through the tone of voice, it became clear that a “wrong” answer, meaning one that would indicate a non-professional reason for a young, single woman to get into a man’s car, would not be appreciated and considered appropriate. Apart from the people in the bar, I did not tell anyone about this visit. However, when I got back that evening, people across town, e.g. in the shops, inquired specifically about my encounters at the refugee centre that day. Over time, such palpable forms of social control made me alter my behaviour in line with what was expected (see also, e.g. Dreby 2009).

Deviation from Riace’s local norms carries the risk of becoming the target of the newest gossip. In this way, gossip exercises local social control and reaffirms community norms. Locals know that when they engage in non-normative behaviour people will talk about them negatively which leads to (preventively) self-monitoring and self-control (Foster 2004; Gilmore 1978). Sarah, for example, withdrew from community life and self-isolated for a while when people kept on gossiping about her being irresponsible as a mother (see the conversation above). This example also shows the potentially harmful effects of gossip for individual reputations and personal relationships (Loughry and Tosi 2008; Wittek et al. 2000). However, because everyone in town can at some point become a “target”, namely when one violates local norms, such negative effects are often temporary. Negative talk about a specific person often only lasted until a more exciting story about someone else arises. Yet, the shared norms spread through gossip were remembered and continuously (re)affirmed in the evaluative talk about others.

Local coalitions and trust relationships

In addition to affirming local norms, the previous examples demonstrate that gossip in Riace can also serve to know who currently are perceived as “the good and the bad people” within the community, and these can either be old or new locals. Gossip has an informative function about people and social networks and most of the local gossip involved the behaviour of fellow inhabitants and not their ethnic background. Gossiping is crucial for obtaining information about “the other”, which is needed to assess with whom you do (not) want to be associated. Locals were curious to know where, when, and with whom people have been, as, for example, shown by Chaima (new local):

Chaima to the researcher:

How was it yesterday at Amina’s (new local, different ethnic background than Chaima) place?

Researcher:

It was nice, we had a good time although we were interrupted by two ladies who came to pick up Amina [..]

Chaima:

Who were these ladies?

Researcher:

I don’t know, they seemed Italian.

Chaima [again – a bit irritated]:

but who were they?

Researcher:

I really don’t know.

 

Chaima [clearly dissatisfied that the researcher is unable to tell her more]: I think it must be two women from Camini (nearby town), because I know Amina has two Italian friends there..

The wish to know the whereabouts of fellow locals goes beyond mere curiosity. It also served to distinguish who can be trusted and if there are, for instance, any conflicts amongst locals that impact their likability. For example, in 2020, Fabiana, a volunteer and activity organizer for Riace’s refugee programme (old local), fell into disgrace within the local community after allegedly collaborating with the new, far-right mayor. The mayor had put severe restrictions on cultural activities and work programmes related to the refugee projects. For days, everyone who supported the old mayor⁶ gossiped about Fabiana and closely monitored who was still talking to her. In the bars, on the town squares, and at the handicraft workplaces, old and new locals strongly emphasized to the researcher and everyone else who was around, that it might be better not to talk to her after “what she did”, “otherwise, people may look strange to you as well”. So, to be part of the Riace community, or part of “us”, one should not only behave in the normatively correct way but also hang out with the right people. And to know who at a specific moment the “right people” are, one should constantly monitor the behaviour of others.

Similarly, in 2016 many locals gossiped about the old mayor’s new girlfriend, a new local who obtained a job in the refugee project desired by many. Lola (female, new local) told the researcher and some other local women that she strongly suspected that the mayor’s girlfriend was responsible for her not getting a job in the project. Even worse, she was considered of “ruining the refugee project for everyone”:

She (the mayors girlfriend) used to be so poor, without food, in a war situation. Though now that she has everything, she is ruining it for others. She is ruining the project for everybody!! She convinced the mayor for example to put four or five different families together in one house, with children. This way for them it’s terrible to live. It’s also terrible for the mayor’s ex-wife [old local, well known by many in town as the founder of the handicraft workplaces]. She is such a nice lady! After all the drama she moved away. The mayor’s girlfriend ruined her life, as well the life of her children. They are very unhappy now.

Shortly after this conversation, old and new locals fabricated the common interpretation that life was better when the mayor was still with his old wife. Back then, everything was perceived to be more fair, whereas now people believed his new girlfriend used her position as “first lady” to obtain privileges for herself. In these stories the mayor’s new girlfriend was often also explicitly referred to as “cattiva”, a bad person who abused the mayor's good-heartedness. For a while, talking about her was a favourite activity in town, from ladies gathering in the “laborati” (workshops) to the local youth and the older man in the bar. Everyone was convinced that the town had changed since she came in and allegedly tried to use the mayor’s hospitality for her own good. This type of gossip strengthened the bonds between old and new locals because it gave them a shared activity and topic to talk about. Additionally, it required people to trust each other to disclose what they thought, which reaffirmed the sphere of intimacy and confidentiality. However, it is important to consider that such local bonds and trust networks tend to be variable and change over time (Elias and Scotson 1994). For example, Alessandra was in 2015 still the beloved local poet of “left-wing Riace”. In 2018, however, she decided to take a job with the new far-right mayor, turning her in the eyes of many gossiping locals from a beloved citizen to a “persona non grata”.

However, some of the local narratives that were spread through gossip did not seem to leave Riace’s “collective memory” but rather turned into local tales similar to “urban legends”. Such stories symbolize a shared past and re-telling them reaffirms the close relationships between new and old locals within the community. Whereas the urban legends shared by the elderly were mainly centred around remarkable characters who populated Riace back in the old days, such as local heroes, “village idiots”, or criminals, many of the newer urban legends included new locals. These urban legends predominantly spread through gossip. For example, there was the new local Aicha whose husband ended up in prison after being charged with domestic violence. This story was widely shared in Riace and teacher Maria (old local) used the moment after all children had left the school to tell the story to the researcher:

A few weeks ago, Aicha called Rosana (head of administration of the refugee program) in the middle of the night, after she got beaten up by her husband and needed an ambulance. […] Rosana warned Aicha that if the ambulance would come, her husband would probably get arrested. When the ambulance and police officers arrived, they also warned Aicha that her children might be taken away from her if this unsafe situation continued. Aicha agreed to share her story, and the ‘project translators’ (new locals) were called to help translate. […] Shortly after the arrest, Aicha changed her mind and wanted her husband out of prison, but then, it was too late: charges were pressed, and there was nothing the refugee program could do.

People shared many versions of this same story in confidential settings with the researcher and with fellow locals on different occasions between 2015 and 2020. The fact that such “urban legends” also included new locals, contributed to establishing them as an integrated part of the local community's historical memory.

Although most of the gossip did not divide the community along ethnic lines, it sometimes did create a political divide with old and new locals on both sides of the dividing line. For example, Italians supporting Lucano (the old pro-migration mayor), also calling themselves “Lucaniani”, often talked negatively about fellow locals who (allegedly) voted for Trifoli (the new far-right mayor), and vice-versa. Even though new locals cannot vote according to Italian law (ASGI 2021) they became, sometimes almost unwantedly, drawn into the local political gossip circles with its opposing political camps and coalitions. Lana (new local), for instance, explained:

 … And now it’s really like a war. A small town in the middle of a war. People do not talk with each other anymore: there are those who sustain Trifoli, those who sustain Mimì (Domenico Lucano), those who picked the side of Giulia.. You understand? It’s not good like this; they need to collaborate. The situation is bad now, people always speak badly of each other. It’s horrible..

Although new locals were more often listeners when it comes to political gossip, they became part of local politics and the political divisions that such gossip created and maintained, and which jeopardized the town’s cohesive social climate (Driel and Verkuyten 2021).

Discussion

Research on gossip in ethnic communities and multi-ethnic settings shows that gossiping contributes to maintaining cultural norms, monitor and control ethnic group members, and exclude ethnic “outsiders” (Almenara-Niebla and Ascanio-Sánchez 2020; de Vries 1987; Dreby 2009; Gluckman 1963; Verkuyten 2001). In contrast to such research, our findings indicate that gossip can also play a role in including and integrating people with different ethnic, cultural, and migration backgrounds into a local community.

Gossip in Riace is often inter-ethnic and by gossiping, people monitor if others adhere to local community norms that are jointly (re)defined and maintained by inhabitants of different ethnic backgrounds who are all considered to be part of the Riace community (Driel and Verkuyten 2020; Giardini and Wittek 2019; Gilmore 1978). Old and new locals participated together in the gossiping circuits and could also become the subject of gossip (Guendouzi 2020; Stirling 1956). The targets of Riace’s gossip, regardless of their background, were considered as not behaving according to “Riace norms”. These norms were actively expressed and upheld in gossip conversations also by new locals, which demonstrates that Riace’s gossiping went beyond new locals complying with existing social norms. The norms communicated and promoted by gossip among and about old and new locals provided all inhabitants with a sense of belonging and a shared direction for feeling, thinking, and behaving (Bingley, Greenaway, and Haslam 2021). Furthermore, gossip had an informative function by enabling Riace’s residents to decide who can be trusted and with whom they do and do not want to be affiliated. People who became the victim of gossip were considered “unpopular company”, but this was not ethnic-specific and tended to be temporary until someone else was considered to deviate from the local social norms. The local gossip and shared community norms in Riace stand in contrast to other places in the region where migrants are typically perceived as outsiders and “invisible hands” suitable for doing cheap (and illegal) agricultural work (Driel 2020).

Gossip in Riace also had an inclusive social function because it promoted the establishment of trust relationships between Riace’s inhabitants. Gossiping requires and reinforces a degree of intimacy between the parties involved (Foster 2004) and makes that people are closely involved in each other’s lives and the community as a whole (Derlega and Chaikin 1977). The intimacy between “local gossipers” comprised various spheres of life with locals trying to figure out who their allies were when it comes to social relationships, economic rapports, and political coalitions. The fact that Riace is such a small community also implies that the practice of gossiping can be gossiped about and that like-minded people can tactfully gossip in public to communicate that they (temporary) are part of the same local, e.g. political, “gossiping group” (Gilmore 1978). Furthermore, the stories shared through Riace’s local gossip networks offer ample material for creating historical community narratives that almost all residents knew and continued to share widely and even across generations. These stories centred around locals with different ethnic backgrounds who became well-known “community legends” and thereby highlighted the shared past between all community members, regardless of their origin.

The fact that we only focused on one specific small and diverse community might be considered a limitation. Studying everyday gossip is a very time-consuming endeavour and requires a relatively long time perspective. Moreover, conducting interviews or using questionnaires often does not create a sufficient relationship of trust to have people share their views about delicate issues that include absent others, especially in front of a “strange researcher” (DeWalt and DeWalt 2011; Foster 2004; Giardini and Wittek 2019). However, it is, of course, possible to conduct similar ethnographic research on gossip in other small-scale communities that host many newcomers, such as the so-called “Welcoming Spaces” initiative (Welcoming Spaces 2020; Whole-COMM 2021). This would allow to determine whether the processes that we have described for Riace apply to other small and diverse communities. Furthermore, it would be interesting to extend the research on gossip to diverse neighbourhoods in cities and organizations and institutions where there can be “old and new” inhabitant or employees with different ethnic backgrounds. Gossip might function in a more inclusive or rather excluding way which makes it important to develop an understanding of the circumstances and conditions that make the one or the other outcome more likely.

Another limitation of our research relates to the fact that it sometimes was difficult to get access to gossip within some groups of ethnic or religious newcomers, as people sometimes tended to switch to their mother tongue when talking about more sensitive issues. However, it was clear that people also used gossip to monitor and control the behaviour of co-ethnics or of those having the same religion. For example, some of Riace’s Muslims occasionally inquired with the researcher about other Muslim locals and hinted at their disapproval of specific families. Thus, in addition to the prevalent local community gossip, there also was gossip within ethnic and religious groups, which might also impact community life (Foster 2004).

Conclusion

In Riace, gossip contributed to integrating people with different ethnic, cultural, or migration backgrounds into the local community. Old and new locals gossiped together about community life and about old and new locals, and used gossip to share information, reaffirm social relations and community norms, and fabricate shared community narratives. The involvement of old and new locals in the continuing gossiping indicates that gossip can have an integrative function in construing and maintaining the local moral community of Riace to which most residents feel a strong sense of belonging (Driel and Verkuyten 2020).

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the members of the Collegio dei Fiamminghi in Bologna for the PhD Scholarship which sponsored the first phase of the collection of data.

Ethnographic fieldwork data such as fieldnotes are stored at Utrecht University’s safe storage and can be viewed upon reasonable request. The first 6 Months of data collection were sponsored by a PhD Research Scholarship of Collegio dei Fiamminghi. For details on eligibility for author listing, please see the journal’s authorship policy, the Editorial Policies and Ethical Considerations section.

Statement Human Research Participants: This ethnographic study includes human research participants. Requirement for ethical approval was waived by the Chair of the Faculty Ethics Review Board (FERB) of the Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Utrecht University: the data collection for the current study started in 2015 and ethical approval of research by the FERB became a requirement on July 1, 2019. However, the study was conducted in line with the ethical guidelines of Utrecht University’s Cultural Anthropology (CA), including transparency about the researcher’s role and aim, the secure storage of data and fieldnotes, the anonymity of participants, and obtaining (verbal) informed consent beforehand or retroactively, e.g. in cases of participant observation in groups.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Collegio dei Fiamminghi .

Notes

1 In 2021 the amount of refugees in Riace amounts to 1,000. However, most of the fieldwork for this article was carried out between 2015 and 2018, when the average amount of refugees residing in Riace was about 400. In June 2018, the far-right Salvini became minister of the interior, which marked a change towards more restrictive integration policies. Moreover, this government abolished the scholarship for migrants under Decree Law 113/2018, replaced the national SPRAR-system that offered financial support to all asylum seekers with a system that merely offers financial support to recognized refugees, and blocked funding for Riace (RETESAI 2021). Additionally, a legal process – that is considered by many a political process – was started against the pro-migration mayor Domenico Lucano who governed Riace between 2004 and 2018 (see Giuffrida 2018; Procacci 2021). On September 30, 2021, Lucano was sentenced to 13 years in prison for abetting illegal migration and irregularities in managing asylum seekers’ funds (Refvival 2021; Tondo 2021). The sentence was received with much upheaval as it was twice as long as requested by the prosecutors and because the supreme court of cassation, the highest court of appeal in Italy, previously dismissed the charges (see Malaspina 2021; Tondo 2021).

2 During the fieldwork, native Italians, asylum seekers, and refugees were all part of the local Riace community and our analytical focus was on trying to understand the role of gossip in the inclusion and integration of newcomers in this community. Therefore we decided to use the term “old locals” for native Italians and “new locals” for refugees and asylum seekers. However, there are of course other categorical distinctions that can be used (e.g. related to gender, age, ethnic background, occupation), and there are many differences within the groups of old and new locals. Yet, for our present purposes the distinction between old and new locals seems most appropriate, but we also refer sometimes to specific ethnic and religious backgrounds.

3 This rough estimate is based on the amount of Riace Facebook friends of the first author. However, the actual number of acquaintances could be higher: though the first author befriended some of Riace’s oldest generation through Facebook, some do not have a Facebook page. Moreover, some of the elderly participants died during the five years of fieldwork research, and a relatively large number of refugees (forcedly) left the town, especially after 2018.

4 Some new locals who only resided in Riace for a short period did not have sufficient opportunities to encounter fellow locals and therefore did not became part of the local gossip scene: e.g., some groups of unaccompanied minors (people under 18 years of age) who often only resided in Riace for a maximum of a few months; refugees who were transferred to other reception centres or towns shortly after arriving in Riace.

5 We used appropriate pseudonyms when quoting to protect participants’ privacy; however, alterations have not distorted the scholarly meaning.

6 The town of Riace geographically consists of two villages, “Riace Superiore”, where the research was carried out, and Riace Marina, seven kilometres downhill at the seaside. The new, far-right mayor won the elections based mainly on votes from Riace Marina, whilst many of the people in Riace Superiore, where the fieldwork took place, kept on supporting the old, left-wing and pro-migrant mayor Domenico Lucano.