REVISTACIENTIFICAMULTIDISCIPLINARNUCLEODOCONHECIMENTO

Multidisciplinary Scientific Journal

Pesquisar nos:
Filter by Categorias
Accounting
Administration
Aeronautical Sciences
Agricultural Engineering
Agronomy
Architecture
Art
Biology
Chemical engineering
Chemistry
Civil Engineering
Communication
Computer Engineering
Computer science
Cuisine
Dentistry
Education
Electrical engineering
Environment
Environmental Engineering
Ethics
Geography
Health
History
Law
Literature
Lyrics
Marketing
Mathematics
Mechanical Engineering
Naval Administration
Nutrition
Pedagogy
Philosophy
Physical Education
Physics
Production engineering
Production engineering
Psychology
Science of Religion
Social Sciences
Sociology
Technology
Theology
Tourism
Uncategorized
Veterinarian
Weather
Zootechny
Pesquisar por:
Selecionar todos
Autores
Palavras-Chave
Comentários
Anexos / Arquivos

Power relations as government in the school space

RC: 72349
47 Readings
5/5 - (2 votes)
DOI: ESTE ARTIGO AINDA NÃO POSSUI DOI
SOLICITAR AGORA!

Sections

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

ANJOS, Silvana Reis dos [1], FONTE, Sandra Soares Della [2]

ANJOS, Silvana Reis dos. FONTE, Sandra Soares Della. Power relations as government in the school space. Revista Científica Multidisciplinar Núcleo do Conhecimento. Year 05, Ed. 05, Vol. 02, pp. 167-181. May 2020. ISSN: 2448-0959, Access link:

SUMMARY

This article aims to discuss the forms that power relations assume in the school space, through the realization of an inventory of power relations in a elementary school in the municipality of Serra (ES), based on the methodological contribution of the ethnographic case study. To this end, Michel Foucault’s studies were used to deal with the notion of power as government or conduct. By focusing on the relationships due to this bias, we noticed the daily exercise of domination, but also behaviors were evidenced that point to the expansion of the exercise of freedom.

Keywords: Power relations, school, freedom.

1. INTRODUCTION

The understanding of the school space as a locus of domination in which individuals would be subjected to coercive forms of power constituted a trend in today’s educational research. This trend is the result of Foucault’s analyses on the mechanisms of disciplinary power (FOUCAULT, 2007) and biopolitics (FOUCAULT, 1994) in modern societies, which, according to Veiga-Neto (2011), have been the main reference for the field of education research.

The appropriation of the analyses of the mechanisms of disciplinary power in the field of educational research converged to the recognition, in the school space, of relations of domination, with the predominance of coercive forms of power over the actions of individuals. In this sense, a series of works were produced evidencing the mechanisms of power operating in this space.[3]

The school, in this perspective, was understood as an institution that removed the bodies of subjects from the broader social environment and cloistered them to instill convergent behaviors to an individual necessary to the modern society that constituted itself. The school space promoted the disciplinarization of the bodies, in order to make them docile, and thus productive[4]. However, the understanding is partial and relates to only one facet of Foucault’s studies.

We believe that this understanding cannot understand the complexity of the relationships produced in the school space. We admit, with the deepening of Foucault’s work, freedom as a condition of power relations, and for this reason we cannot conceive the school as a locus of total control. Although we recognize the existence of discipline practices, we assume that the school is also locus of resistance, since, from the actions of the subjects, some indications of a resignification can be recognized in the face of the attempts of control operating in this space.

With this indication, we conducted a research whose proposal was to observe the tensions between power relations in school. We were interested in knowing the ways in which the subjects constructed their ways of conducting and being conducted in the face of the complexity of relationships in the school context. We wanted to encourage a discussion about the forms of driving that expanded or reduced the subjects’ experience. Thus, the school environment presented itself as a complex place and that ended conflicts: the same school that disciplined the bodies, opened possibilities to the exercise of freedom.

The tensions between power relations in school were reflected from the perception of government as conduct, since the conceptual grid woven from the notion coined by Foucault in his late studies, offers an understanding that does not intend to fix relations as domination, but, assuming power as “action over actions”, highlights individual action and freedom in power relations.

Our objective, thus, was to verify the ways in which the subjects construct the power relations in the school environment. How do they seek to drive and be conducted in a complex space such as school? We also believe that the quality of these relationships can indicate elements for understanding the training project in force in this space.

2. METHODOLOGY

Our investigation was based on a qualitative approach, more precisely in the application of the ethnographic approach to the study of a case. Through this approach, it is possible to obtain “[…] a deep and at the same time broad and integrated vision of a complex social unit of multiple variables” (ANDRÉ, 2010, p. 59). To characterize the case study, we delimited a school in the city of Serra (ES) that, according to a previous survey conducted with physical education teachers of the municipal education network, stands out in relation to the discipline and control of students. With the ethnographic help, we emphasize the construction of processes, the valorization of the meaning that people attribute to their experiences and the recognition that the researcher does not occupy a place of neutrality in relation to what researches. For this reason, we adopted the technique of participant observation of moments such as: entrance and exit from school, playgrounds, Physical Education classes and also meetings of the pedagogical body to evaluate the place that the attitudes of the students occupy in the planning of the school’s work. Data collection was performed over a period of three and a half months.

We focused on observing the practices of a Physical Education teacher with a first-year elementary school class, and the practices of a class-regent teacher with a third-year class. In the moments of entry, recess, the emphasis was given to the actions of the students before the group of coordinators.

3. THE NOTION OF POWER AS GOVERNMENT IN MICHEL FOUCAULT

The emphasis on the notion of government represents a shift present in Foucault’s later work. To understand what this represents, we remind you that the French philosopher does not conceive of power as a substance, nor as repression, but as an exercise, as a productive relationship. To highlight this relational and productive aspect, the author began to study the mechanisms and techniques of power, with emphasis on the discipline that operated in the individual’s body, and the biopower that was in man as a species.

Foucault observed the exercise of power on the basis of the functioning of institutions such as the factory, hospital, barracks and school. In these institutions, an atom-policy was developed by investing in the body from its scanning in time and space in order to extract as much as possible its useful forces and make them docile, under the coertion of resources such as surveillance, normalization and punishment.[5]

The incisive treatment of the mechanisms aroused the criticism that Foucault would not have given room for freedom in relations. Thus, with the intention of emphasizing the subjective dimension of action, the philosopher makes the first displacement in his work when dealing with the relationship between power and resistance, emphasizing its indissociability of power.

For Foucault, resistance and power are inseparable, since power exists “[…] due to a multiplicity of resistance points” (FOUCAULT, 1994, p. 98). For this reason, there are no power relations without resistance, no possibility of role reversal, fraud, escape or escape. Resistance, in this understanding, “[…] plays in power relations, the role of adversary, target, support, pretext for intervention” (FOUCAULT, 1994, p. 98).

This antagonistic view between power and resistance[6] is gradually abandoned by Foucault, since, according to Ortega (1999), it creates a stalemate by suggesting the departure of a docile subject to an extremely active resistance individual. The scholar then addresses the notion that he would become for him, the proper mode of power relations.

The way of proper relationship to power should not, therefore, be sought on the side of violence, nor of the struggle, nor on the side of the contract and the voluntary alliance (which can be more than instruments), but beside this mode of singular-action neither warrior nor legal- which is the government (FOUCAULT, 1995, p. 244).

According to Sennelart (2008), in this inflection, Foucault would deal with the theme of government in two ways: the practices of political government in a more specific way that referred to the political structures of state management, and, the government on a broad and general level, as it was understood in the sixteenth century, when “[…] designated the way of directing the conduct of individuals or groups : government of children, souls, communities, families, the sick” (FOUCAULT, 1995, p.244). As a result of these consequences, the government is understood as “[…] the set of modes of action more or less reflected and calculated, but all destined to act on the possibilities of action of individuals” (FOUCAULT, 1995, p. 244).

In this sense, it is necessary to remember, together with Foucault’s ideas, that there is no rupture between the mechanisms of power and the arts of governing. Neither discipline nor biopower is abandoned. In fact, they are included as necessary forms of conduct for governmentality[7] when they propose life as an object of power intervention.

In order to highlight what is most specific in the power relationship, whether pedagogical, family or institutionalized structures, Foucault (1995) introduces the notion of conduct as a way to capture this specificity. The government in the form of conduct refers at the same time “[…] to the action of conducting others (according to more or less strict coertion mechanisms) and the way of behaving in a more or less open field of possibilities” (FOUCAULT, 1995, p. 244).

The importance of introducing the concepts of government/conduct for the studies of power relations is the establishment of freedom as a condition of these relationships, and also the recognition of the possibilities of choice of subjects among different actions. In the form of government or conduct, there is always this possibility, otherwise we would be faced with states of domination, which are relationships in which there is minimal chance of freedom. In this way,

When we define the exercise of power as a mode of action on the actions of others, when we characterize them by the ‘government’ of men, for each other – in the most extensive sense of the word, we include an important element: freedom (FOUCAULT, 1995, p. 244).

And finally, with the intention of prioritizing individual conduct, Foucault moves from the axis of power/government to the be-with-you axis.  In these terms, the scholar brings out the problem of individual will as a possibility of refusal to certain forms of conduct, when exploring a notion, in his studies on Classical Greece: care itself, which refers to a process through which the individual experiences techniques about himself,[8] in order to transform himself and achieve a way of being. And this, of course, could not be done under the aegis of coertion, but from rules that the individual himself would choose to conduct himself.

The exercise of self-care, in this way, reflected the whole work of the individual about himself in order to constitute himself as a moral subject endowed with a beautiful êthos, and, thus, to be able to exercise his role in the city, that is, to occupy “[…] the convenient place – either to exercise a judiciary or to maintain relations of friendship” (FOUCAULT, 2004, p. 271). Or rather, “The principle of self-care is that those who cared properly for himself were, for this reason, capable of conducting himself adequately in relation to others and for others” (FOUCAULT, 2004, p. 2).

The constitution of spaces of freedom with the fight against excesses of power in relations appears, since then, as a fundamental concern in Foucault’s analyses that highlights an ethics of individual conduct, with the establishment of a government of itself, as a way to limit abusive government practices. For Foucault (2004), the constitution of a government as a reflected form of freedom can trigger a critical attitude that would limit the government of one another, assuming that it is necessary to govern itself well in order to govern the other.

The critical attitude, for Foucault (1978), refers to the act of questioning, before a given form of government, the effects of power from which individuals would be led. Starting from the reflection of reality itself, the games of truth and power, it is through this critical attitude that individuals can break with the subjecting, at a time when they question the forms of government under which they are submitted and the ways in which they wish to be governed. Thus, “[…] criticism will be the art of voluntary inservitusness, that of indocility reflected. Criticism would essentially function in the unsubjectance in the game of what could be called, in a word, the politics of truth” (FOUCAULT, 1978, p. 6).

In view of the above, we highlight the need to discuss the conduction practices of the subjects in the school space, because, as Foucault (1995) tells us, only in the exercise of the relationship can we affirm whether we are faced with freedom or coertion. It should also be emphasized that the fact of considering conduct as something flexible does not mean that there should be no kind of conduct in society, and that all power is harmful. For Foucault (2004, p. 284), there is no problem “[…] in the practice of someone who, in a given game of truth, knowing more that the other tells him what it is necessary to do, teaches him, transmits a knowledge to him, communicates techniques to him”, the problem, in this sense, is the way in which power relations are carried out, or even the need to limit the excesses of power that […]” will cause a boy to be subjected to the arbitrary and useless authority of a primary teacher; a student, the guardianship of an authoritarian teacher, etc.” (FOUCAULT, 2004, p. 284-285).

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Remembering that conduct is, according to Foucault (1978), a form of power relationship in which an individual tries to direct the conduct of the other, we saw the school open up as a complex space of diverse conducts, a space of ambiguities with diverse actions and reactions with different intensities and impacts.

The data we found in the EMEF Order and Progress[9] signaled two great horizons. One of them consists of conducts that are constructed from contexts of domination, in which there is a cereping of the choices of individuals, and the other, of conducts that signal the exercise of freedom with expansion of the possibilities of action of the subjects.

In relation to the conducts operated by the bias of domination, we find elements that indicate the search for control by reducing the subjects’ choices and, therefore, their spaces of freedom. This reduction was already visualized at the entrance of the school, from the imposition of an official religious practice, with prayers and chants, exiled other experiences. This conduct, naturalized in the school space, calls into question the laicity of the school and, with this, respect for the coexistence of the various cultural manifestations.

In physical education classes, we found a strong pretense in disciplining the bodies. We observed a huge effort of the teacher to fix them in lines, in virtually all activities of the class, so that the students could control.

The organization of the space, in disciplinary schemes, is carried out in such a way as to give visibility to the bodies and establish a classification and comparative picture of individualities […]’ (FOUCAULT, 2007, p. 126-127).

It is not a question of judging the action of establishing a spatial organization, but the fact that it is primarily the unique way of conducting students, exiles other creative forms and also reduces the subjects’ spatial experiences.

Regarding the body practices conducted by the teacher, the Physical Education class approaches the formation of the docile body, with the requirement of the execution of an efficient gesture. Gymnastics, performed at the beginning of classes, required silence and standardized gesture. From this perspective, the non-standardized was unwanted and excluded from the class. Play and pleasure appeared strongly as a bargaining chip also in the teacher’s punitive practices. It is interesting to note that in several situations, due to the students not presenting the desired behavior, the teacher deprived them of taking classes on the court, as punishment.

We observed that, in the meetings of the pedagogical body, the discussion about the punishment to be applied to students was observed in case of transgressions of disciplinary norms. We observed, in the reports of teachers and coordination, the expression of strong interest in applying sanctions such as the suspension and expulsion of students who violate the norms, plus a nonconformism for not being able to apply such sanctions.

In this case, the coordination questioned the possibility of doing a job as punishment with students who “gain occurrence” over and over again during the year. The insistence is made explicit in questions such as: “So, up to twelve years, the child can not sweep a courtyard?”. “What about the suspension”? And yet, a teacher regent observes: “A large number of students bring confusion, brings pushes, pushes, ‘pass’ of hand, we must accept everything?”. The direction of the management, in relation to the appeals, was more moderate, according to the law: “Not as punishment, not as punishment, but as a pedagogical project”. This attitude made even more nonconformist on the part of the coordinators grow.

It’s interesting to see how disciplinary rule violations are put as offenses. According to Foucault (2007), the disciplinary mechanism essentially includes a small criminal mechanism, which constitutes an indispensable part of the effectiveness of the disciplinary system, since it submits the individual to a permanent coertion network in order to normalize it. This system seeks to reach a whole set of behaviors that do not pass through the sieve of the law, but that may disturb the functioning of the disciplinary system:

In the workshop, in school, in the army works as a repressor a whole micropenalty of time (delays, absences, interruptions of tasks), activity (inattention, negligence, lack of zeal), the way of being (rudeness, disobedience), speeches (chatter, insolence), body (incorrect attitudes, non-conforming gestures, dirt), sexuality (immodesty, indecency) […]. It is at the same time to make the most tenuous fractions of the conduct criminal, and to give a punitive function to the seemingly indifferent elements of the disciplinary apparatus: taking to the extreme, that everything can serve to punish the slightest thing; that each individual is trapped in a punishable-punishing universality (FOUCAULT, 2007, p. 149).

In relation to the conducts that signal an exercise of freedom, these appeared, to a largely incipient, in a more incipient way. The conducts of the first year evidenced humor, laughter, non-standard movements, as escape from disciplinarization. From these sneaky and fleeing attitudes from the teacher’s watchful gaze, we saw how power relations can be flexible and reversible, because the students exercised power in the direction of their free doing. The students’ scams revealed the ineffectiveness of the intention to control the conducts. Seen as indiscipline, in fact, these scams affirm these bodies as subjects and, as such, have “[…] before them a field of possibilities where various conducts, various reactions, various modes of behavior can happen” (FOUCAULT, 1995, p. 244). That is, before what is presented to them by the way of power, humor, laughter, stars and somersques are created possibilities.

Professor Clarice’s conduct with her class accentuated a type of relationship in which the students’ conduct was made by pleasure, music, rhythmic movement, and also by the involvement of students in decision-making, as well as the use of the knowledge brought by the class, with the consequent expansion of knowledge. The methodology functioned as an invitation to build freedom with students.

Finally, the critical attitude in the voice of Professor Mercedes, in a meeting with the pedagogical body, revealed the questioning of the school’s conditions. In this diagnosis, it was latent to glimpse other possibilities of action. The teacher denounced the precariousworking conditions with overcrowded rooms, the pressure of institutional evaluation bodies such as Ideb[10], while inciting the pedagogical body to fight. According to Mercedes,

We are working within the law, we have to accept the laws, but the laws come precisely to standardize and make us accept things. If we continue with this conception, we will not change anything. We need to think big. The strike movement, which is a movement that few participated and we still take the name of lazy, who do not want to work, the full rooms and the Ideb comes to charge us quality of teaching. Are conditions provided? We’re working sick. I’m sick. The neighborhood ‘Sol Nascente’ is differentiated, we need a differentiated work.

The critical attitude, for Foucault (1978), refers to the act of questioning, before a given form of government, the effects of power from which individuals would be led. The critical attitude was manifested in the frank talk of the teacher with the questioning in view of the authority of the law, of the evaluation bodies of the quality of education.

Professor Mercedes lives this context, but aims for a different way out, either when she puts a system of laws in question, or when she calls teachers to participate in the strike movement, or when she denounces the specificity of the school situation. The teacher’s critical attitude is related to this lived present-day of which she is part and from which she envisions the construction of possibilities. Can we question the extent to which subjects are disciplined in their own conduct? To what extent, the conduct of the pedagogical body itself was not normalized by the disciplinary system?

It is in this sense that the concern with the conditions of existence in the school, opened in this speech, approaches the discussion of the present in Foucault (2010), for whom the task of philosophy is to trace a “critical ontology of the present”, that is, to trace a diagnosis of the present, in which it would be necessary to face the question about what is current affairs as a moment in which we live , in which we act and situate ourselves. This current diagnosis includes, at the same time, a critical ontology of the present and of ourselves as subjects of action in this present.

5. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

The data showed us the complexity and heterogeneity of the school space in which several conducts coexist. In this sense, there are disputes with different objectives: while there is a pretense of control of the bodies according to disciplinarization, others seek to conduct themselves in such a way as to experience the experiences in various ways and not only in the form of disciplinarization, rigidity. And yet, there is the search for a more free way in the conduction of the subjects, which has proximity to Foucault’s thought when he states that there is no problem in a teacher who knows how to conduct the class more in his own way, since it does not exceed the use of power.

In addition to conflicts between the various behaviors, there are simultaneously foolish actions, pessimism, hope, domination, germs of freedom. This leads us to reflect on what is this school in which some conducts are affirmed while others are neglected. It encourages us, therefore, to reflect on the implications of these forms of conduct for the educational experience in this space. What are the implications of these actions in a space that is placed as a place of expansion and construction of knowledge? In the search for answers to these questions, it is necessary a closer look at the bodies as surfaces marked by history, as materialities that communicate immediately with the other. Being attentive to what students bring to the school space is a possibility to expand the experiences of knowing at school.

It is necessary to rethink the controls of the body and pleasures and its relationship with the educational process that is desired in this space. The asepsis of the conducts is a reduction in the students’ experiences. The data showed, in this sense, an almost sterile and ineffective stiffening regarding their own goals. It is necessary to think to what extent this control is a necessity or is a practice that the school reproduces in its routine without further reflections. And to what extent have the people responsible for organizing the school space not been disciplined and controlled by their own conduct?

As Foucault himself (2006) points out, in industrialized countries, disciplines have entered a crisis in society, which possibly relates to the sociocultural transformations of the second half of the twentieth century.  In this sense, we point out the ineffectiveness of the school as a disciplinary institution, given the inefficiency of its mechanisms as a way to conduct the conducts. In the meantime, it should be emphasized that the project that corroborated the use of disciplines in modern school was to train workers for work in industrial capitalist society. This finding makes us reflect on the school space as a project of human formation, or rather, what kind of power relations does the school want to produce?

We also observed that the rooms full, the scheduled times and, in the case of Physical Education, the few 50 minutes sometimes lead to this type of conduct that passes the rule over living, the full experience. The challenge is to think about not disciplining conduct so far as to place rules of organization as maximum driving principles, since this form of conduct exiles others, creative and renewing. It is also valuing experiences, meandering, sliding and wandering, in the other and in itself. But how to do it, if the routine, the rigidity constitutes us and stiffens us?

Foucault (1979) encourages the body to think of the body as the surface of inscription of events and, for this very part, can be the field of discovery and freedom. It is necessary to potentiate these forces, not only the body of biomechanics, of standardized movements, but the body that dances and moves with intention, desire, will. The school could take a qualitative leap, not as a teaching machine, but as a space of sensitive experiences so necessary to any human being.

Thinking of every school space and space-school as a locus of sensitive experiences is a challenge and it sem like a provocation. In this sense, it was noticeable, in emef, as works with dance, theater and music, which are considered as minor knowledge, enhanced the active participation of students and minimized resistance. Conducts such as those of Professor Clarice are so fruitful in conducting students, when compared with coercive conducts, which make us reflect on how to expand experiences in the school space. Interestingly, even being a teacher “class regent”, entrusted with teaching subjects such as Mathematics, History, Portuguese, Sciences and Geography, we perceive in the conduct of Professor Clarice, a way of dealing with bodies without printing them rigidly. The eyes there were alive, attentive. The body-movement was present. The teacher’s conduct impacted, directing students to exercise freedom. It is necessary, as Foucault suggests, to affirm us as a creative force.

If the school’s own pedagogical body is inserted in a type of rationality that leads it to forms of intervention via disciplinary control, on the side of the students, there is a refusal that becomes, in fact, a hindrance to their total capture by this logic. Faced with “non-ideal” behaviors, the school seems to seek a greater affirmation of punishment and discipline. However, it is necessary to identify them, because, on the other hand, various “non-ideal” behaviors may not, in fact, represent a threat to respectful coexistence among the various subjects. There is a naturalization of this generalizing output without considering the extent to which some behaviors of students can harm or enhance life. The problem is that, to the extent that this output is asserted, over and over again, and arbitrarily, it loses its credibility and shows its face of ineffectiveness within the objectives for which it would exist.

The intensity with which these scams were performed leads us to questions about the production of subjectivities in the school space: what kind of sensitivity has the school evoked from these conducts? The renunciation of you and the other as a subject? Driving through obedience? What aesthetic does that point to? We think that the challenge at school is to lead students to the transmission, construction and expansion of knowledge, with minimal coerção. In response to the affirmation of the domain in relationships at various times in school, the institution of a government of themselves by the subjects placed itself as an obstacle to the total control of their conduct.

Limiting excesses in power relations, to build other types of relationships, becomes fundamental for the expansion of educational experiences in the school space. It is in this space and time that critical attitudes become necessary that lead to the exercise of freedom.

This critical attitude would point to the need to denaturalize some behaviors. Denaturalization as a reflection of who we are to refuse who we are and thus envision possible actions. In the relationship of power as conduct, according to Foucault (1995), the web of freedom is situated, causing, hindering the pretension of total capture of the bodies of individuals. The web of freedom is expressed in the students’ scams, in the choices of the ways of being conducted and in the refusals of total control of their bodies. Moreover, freedom is made in the discussion, in the problematization of the present, and from this problematization is that one can glimpse possibilities with a look into the school space, by those who share it.

Foucault (2010) affirms as a task of philosophy the realization of a diagnosis of the present day. And what do we try here, even partially, but a diagnostic inventory of conducts in the school space? Inventory of conducts that are part of this present time, of the present life, of subjects who compose with their lives this current in the EMEF “Order and Progress”.

This diagnosis, based on Foucault’s conception, would envision possibilities of action. Not as one who observes from the outside, but as a mirror in which we can see ourselves and ask who we are, what we do in the present time and, the main thing, what we can do. It is from this diagnosis that we can aim for different outputs. Different outputs of the disciplinarization of students and teachers, to make up a school that enhances and gives flow to life. Different departures from naturalized desensitization in school and in this society that does not recognize in the other one’s life. Different departure from the conduct that impels individuals to adopt and internalize coertion, together with vigilance and punishment, as their own unique ways of conducting or governing relationships in school spaces.

Therefore, we hope that, from the brief presentation of this inventory of conducts in the school space, we have shown the complexity of power relations produced and reproduced within them. As an unfolding of this analysis, we raised questions about the updating of our school model, a model that contains remnants of a disciplinary power, which is ineffective in the production of desired conducts, but which, in the scams to this system, shows a possible alternative. Thus, the need for the school to discuss its organizational models based on its own current affairs and experiences of students, teachers and other subjects who are components of this space becomes emerging.

REFERENCES

ANDRÉ, Marli Eliza Dalmazo Afonso de. Etnografia da prática escolar. 17. ed. Campinas: Papirus, 2010.

FOUCAULT, Michel. A ética do cuidado de si como prática da liberdade. In: ______. Ditos e escritos: ética, sexualidade, política. Rio de Janeiro: Forense Universitária, 2004.

______  A sociedade disciplinar em crise. In: ______. Ditos e Escritos: estratégia, poder-saber. Rio de janeiro: Forense Universitária, 2006. v. IV

______ . A hermenêutica do sujeito. 2. ed. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2006.

______ . Ditos e escritos: ética, sexualidade e política. Paris: Gallimard, 2004.

______ . História da sexualidade I: a vontade de saber. Lisboa: Relógio d’Água, 1994.

______ . Microfísica do poder. Rio de Janeiro: Graal, 1979.

______ . O governo de si e dos outros: curso no Collège de France (1982-1983). São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2010.

______ . O que é crítica? Tradução de Gabriela Lafetá Borges. In: Conferência proferida em 27 de maio de 1978. Disponível em: <www.unb.br/fe/tef/filoesco/foucault/critique.html>. Acesso em: 12 maio 2012.

______ . O sujeito e o poder. In: DREYFUS, Hubert Leiderer; HABINOW, Paul. Michel Foucault: uma trajetória filosófica. Rio de Janeiro: Forense Universitária, 1995.

______ . Vigiar e punir: nascimento da prisão. 34. ed. Petrópolis: Vozes, 2007.

ORTEGA, Francisco. Amizade e estética da existência em Foucault. Rio de Janeiro: Graal, 1999.

SENNELART, Michel. Situação dos cursos. In: FOUCAULT, Michel. Segurança, território e população. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2008. p. 495-538.

VALONES, Neide Maria Alves. O poder disciplinar no cotidiano escolar. 2003. Dissertação (Mestrado em Educação) – Programa de Pós-Graduação, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, 2003.

VARELA, Julia.; ALVAREZ-URIA, Fernando. A maquinaria escolar.  Teoria & Educação. Porto Alegre, n. 6, p. 225-246, 1992.

VEIGA-NETO, Alfredo; SARAIVA, Karla. Educar como arte de governar. Currículo sem Fronteiras, v.11, n.1, pp.5-13, Jan/Jun 2011.

APPENDIX – FOOTNOTE REFERENCES

3. Confer Valones (2003), Varela; Avarez and Uria (1992).

4. Foucault’s studies (2007) on the punitive system in institutions, such as prison, hospital, barracks and school, brought to the fore the disciplinary power as a mechanism that operated at the level of detail of the movement of bodies, not to exclude or beg them, but to manage their actions and enhance them to the maximum, giving these bodies the conditions of docility and utility.

5. On disciplinary power, see Foucault (2007).

6. This interpretation of power developed by Foucault (1994), inspired by Nietzsche, conceives the relationship between power and resistance in the order of war and confrontation.

7. The art of governing treated as governmentality refers to the political rationality that puts into exercise a government of the population, from the mechanisms of security, and ways of governing individualizing within the institutions.

8. Self-care ” des[…]ignates some actions, actions that are exercised from you to you, actions for which we assume, modify, purify ourselves, transform and configure ourselves. Hence a series of practices that are mostly exercises” […](FOUCAULT, 2006, p.14-15).

9. To preserve their anonymity, the name of the school, the neighborhood in which it is located and the subjects participating in the research are fictitious. The acronym EMEF means “Municipal Elementary School”, nomenclature adopted by all schools in the municipality.

10. Basic education development index.

[1] Master in Physical Education.

[2] PhD in Education.

Sent: April, 2020.

Approved: May, 2020.

5/5 - (2 votes)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

POXA QUE TRISTE!😥

Este Artigo ainda não possui registro DOI, sem ele não podemos calcular as Citações!

SOLICITAR REGISTRO
Search by category…
This ad helps keep Education free
There are no more Articles to display