Purpose This article examines how interreligious coexistence is practiced and negotiated within the everyday life of a refugee reception centre in Southern Italy. Based on reflexive ethnographic fieldwork, it analyses how people of diverse faiths inhabit a context of displacement marked by waiting, uncertainty and precarity. Rather than assuming religion as either a source of cohesion or conflict, the study investigates how prayer, ritual practice, silence and shared vulnerability shape symbolic boundaries and forms of mutual recognition. Its purpose is to understand how solidarity in adversity sustains fragile yet meaningful conditions for coexistence in liminal institutional settings. Design/methodology/approach The study adopts a reflexive ethnographic approach grounded in two months of voluntary engagement at a refugee reception centre in Bari-Palese, Southern Italy. Empirical material derives from participant observation, informal conversations, daily fieldnotes and sustained interaction with intercultural mediators and pastoral actors. Drawing on Bourdieu's concept of participant objectivation, the researcher's social position is treated as an analytic resource shaping access, perception and interpretation. Rather than relying on predefined coding schemes, the analysis follows an interpretive ethnographic orientation, attending to symbolic meaning, affective experience and relational dynamics. This approach illuminates how interreligious coexistence is enacted and negotiated under conditions of displacement. Findings The study finds that interreligious coexistence in the camp did not emerge from shared beliefs or formal dialogue, but from embodied practices of restraint, attentiveness and mutual care. Prayer, ritual observance, dietary respect and the negotiated use of worship spaces functioned as symbolic infrastructures sustaining dignity under conditions of precarity. Micro-acts of solidarity – supporting ablutions, adapting food distribution during sacred periods, shared play among children and collective memorial rituals – created fragile yet meaningful bridges across difference. Coexistence thus appeared not as harmony, but as a tentative ethical practice rooted in shared vulnerability and the disciplined recognition of the other. Research limitations/implications The study is based on a single case and on the researcher's situated presence within the camp, which limits the scope for broad generalisation. Its reflexive ethnographic approach privileges interpretive depth, symbolic meaning and relational dynamics rather than measurable outcomes. Certain tensions or conflicts may have remained partially obscured due to ethical constraints surrounding vulnerability and trauma. Nonetheless, the study provides insight into the micro-processes through which coexistence is enacted in contexts of displacement, with implications for reception policies, participatory mediation structures and the management of religious diversity in humanitarian settings. Practical implications The findings indicate that reception policies and humanitarian interventions should recognise religion not merely as belief, but as a relational and symbolic resource supporting emotional resilience and coexistence. Establishing protected worship spaces, respecting dietary practices and sustaining participatory mediation structures can reduce tensions and reinforce dignity. Everyday gestures of care and recognition – often overlooked in organisational routines – play a significant role in stabilising fragile coexistence. Training staff to attend to silence, vulnerability and symbolic boundaries may help cultivate institutional environments in which difference can be expressed without escalation, even under conditions of scarcity and uncertainty. Social implications The study demonstrates that coexistence in contexts of forced displacement depends not only on legal protection or material provision but on the social and symbolic conditions that enable mutual recognition and dignity. It shows how shared vulnerability can become a foundation for ethical relations across religious difference, challenging dominant narratives that frame refugee camps as spaces of inevitable conflict. By foregrounding everyday practices of care, restraint and recognition, the findings invite broader societal reflection on how communities receive those who arrive as refugees and on the possibilities of solidarity amid fracture and uncertainty. Originality/value This article contributes to organisational ethnography by examining the symbolic, emotional and relational dimensions of coexistence within a refugee reception centre. Rather than treating religion primarily as a marker of identity or division, it analyses how ritual practice, silence and mutual restraint function as resources for sustaining dignity in displacement. The study provides an empirically grounded account of how coexistence is enacted through everyday interactions rather than formal dialogue or integration frameworks. Its value lies in offering a nuanced understanding of how solidarity in adversity operates within liminal institutional settings shaped by uncertainty and prolonged waiting.
Rui Lobo Correia (Mon,) studied this question.