British Journal of Sociology of Education

ISSN: 0142-5692 (Print) 1465-3346 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cbse20

Self-made school and the everyday making in

Buenos Aires slums

Silvia Grinberg

To cite this article: Silvia Grinberg (2019): Self-made school and the everyday making in Buenos
Aires slums, British Journal of Sociology of Education, DOI: 10.1080/01425692.2019.1565991

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2019.1565991

Published online: 05 Mar 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cbse20
British Journal of Sociology of Education
https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2019.1565991

Self-made school and the everyday making in Buenos

Aires slums
Silvia Grinberg
Laboratory of Human Sciences Research, School of Humanities, National University of San Martín, UNSAM,
Buenos Aires, Argentina

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

A governmentality ethnographic approach is adopted to examine the Received 3 Febraury 2018
everyday making of school in Buenos Aires slums. By addressing events Accepted 6 December 2018
at the intersection of the life of school and of the neighborhood, in this
article we problematize schooling – how it is put together and the ten-
sions that beset it on a daily basis. The notion of the self-made school KEYWORDS
is proposed as a way to delve into how management society calls on Self-made schools; slums;
governmentality;
the population to manage itself. We identify micro-procedures that take
managerial age;
the shape of silent struggles to turn the school/neighborhood into a responsibility; everyday
place to live. As a hypothesis, we propose that school is produced at struggles
the intersection of everyday struggles and the struggle for the everyday
in the context of the precarization of life in the age of management.
From a methodological standpoint what are at play are not dichotomies,
but rather the stickiness and tension of daily practices.

If we close our doors, they’ll have beaten us.

I am so excited, so moved. You know very well we’ve been through a lot together … next year
is going to be good, we’re going to take things further. You know that if there’s a problem, I
want you to find a solution – aim high, keep at it. (Liliana, secondary teacher)

With these words, Liliana, a teacher at a secondary school located in a slum in the Buenos
Aires Metropolitan Region, opened the graduation ceremony for the school’s first graduating
class. Figure 1 shows the scene: a banner that reads ‘Graduating Class of 2017, School 47,’
followed by the name of the neighborhood, La Carcova, adorns the hall – and this is not a
minor detail for the school. These words and the name of the neighborhood are not a
coincidence. Both express the years and years of struggle to make school in an artisanal
process. From the very beginning in the late 1980s, when the primary school was opened,
to the formation of a complete secondary school in 2014, the process has entailed mobili-
zations and demonstrations, community meetings, and tireless struggle so that the school
could open its doors and welcome students every day. Liliana speaks in the plural. She
speaks for her fellow teachers, the families, the students, and the Carcova neighborhood.

CONTACT Silvia Grinberg grinberg.silvia@gmail.com Universidad Nacional de San Martin, Laboratorio de

Investigaciones en Ciencias Humanas, Escuela de Humanidades, Martin de Irigoyen 3100, Buenos Aires 1650, Argentina
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 S. GRINBERG

Figure 1.  Graduation ceremony.

‘We’ve been through a lot … we’re going to take things further’ are just some of the words
she chose to open the ceremony. They are also the ones we choose to open this article,
because they capture the history of a school in a slum – one of many in Argentina, Latin
America, or the Global South in general – that has grown up since the 1970s with the crisis
of industrial capitalism and, later, with the configuration of neoliberalism or, following
Dean (2003), with the culture of governance that in the region began to take root during
the last military dictatorships.1
But the extended history of ‘Carcova,’ like other slums in Greater Buenos Aires, really
goes back even further, to the first half of the twentieth century with mass immigration –
mainly from Europe – to the country and to the region. Those years witnessed the growth
of the population of San Martín county – known, starting back then, as the nation’s industrial
capital – and of the small town of J. L. Suárez, where Carcova neighborhood is located.
Many of those settlements quickly turned into working-class neighborhoods. The slums
mark a movement in the other direction: their growth is part of the crisis of that same
industrial capitalism at the end of that same century (Romero 1986; Ratier 1985). Three or
four generations have, in many families, grown up in these neighborhoods. That is partly
why, despite poor public infrastructure and precarious access to utilities like gas, clean water,
electricity, and sewers, the construction of the housing in these neighborhoods improves
year after year. These are no longer temporary settlements. Carcova, one of these neigh-
borhoods, is where, since 2008, we have been doing research at the intersection of school
and neighborhood in everyday life.
In this article, from the perspective of ethnographic research conducted in the secondary
schools located in Carcova, we will follow Das (2003) to address events at the intersection
 British Journal of Sociology of Education 3

of the life of the school and of the neighborhood – a shootout that left the school under fire
in 2014 and the graduating ceremony in 2017. More specifically, we will discuss the everyday
making of school and the tensions that beset it on a daily basis. Through this event, then,
we will problematize how certain increasingly globalized power mechanisms place vast
sectors of the population in a situation of absolute precarity (Butler 2010); we are often left
virtually speechless before what are also blinding images of saturation (Sontag 2006). This
is the case, to some extent, in the episode we will relate here. A shootout near the school
could be a scene from The Wire2 or a story in the crime section of the newspaper. What
matters here, however, is not its spectacularness, but its effect on school life. So, by address-
ing events of the everyday life of school and of the neighborhood, we problematize schooling
– how it is put together and the tensions that beset it on a daily basis. We identify micro-pro-
cedures that take the shape of silent struggles to turn the school/neighborhood into a place
to live.
The notion of making school refers to the artisanal process of daily life: a tangle of yarn
is unraveled and we see that each thread leads in a different direction. But that might be
the case of any daily practice. What concerns here are two specific circumstances. First, in
the framework of governmentality studies (Foucault 2006; Rose, Valverde, and O’Malley
2007), we discuss the life of schools that, since the end of the twentieth century, have been
told to manage themselves, to changes themselves, because they must change something
in relation to their very being, but not on the basis of what they should be or do (Ball 1997,
2000). In the age of management (Paltrinieri 2017; Foucault 2007; Grinberg 2008) and of
managerial forms of urban governance (Gulson and Predroni 2014), schools are instructed
to undertake community-oriented projects; teachers become coaches3 who supervise learn-
ing processes (Biesta 2005), which are now the responsibility of their students; and teachers
must answer for their successes and, of course, for their failures (Ball and Olmedo 2013).
Teachers must coach students on, among other things, how to manage their emotions, how
to monitor their attitudes, and how to adjust them to correct what are deemed mistakes,
errors in conduct and disposition. Another tangle at the core of this scene is the more and
more precarious social life that gives individuals and institutions the freedom to make
themselves, to be self-made but without the resources to do so. These narratives take on
special meanings in schools in slums as Liliana’s words express resoundingly, but not
dramatically.
The notion of the self-made school is proposed as a way to delve into those processes,
heeding how management society calls on the population to manage itself. In the midst of
those dynamics, we also identify micro-procedures that take the shape of silent daily strug-
gles (Bayat 2000) to turn the school, or the neighborhood, into a place in which to live, to
make that school and that neighborhood inhabitable or, to use Butler’s (2017) term, co-hab-
itable. In the study of school life, we come upon practices akin to an artisanal process, where
teachers relentlessly look for ingenious ways to undertake the task of teaching, where stu-
dents insist on schools in which they are taught and in which teachers provide explanation.
In these schools, administrators become architects, erecting gymnasiums or drywall divi-
sions to make classrooms. Those are among the scenes that unfold in school life that ensues
in a jumble of daily events in between the cruel optimism (Berlant 2011) of the age of
management and the daily responsibility (McLeod 2015) for making school. It is in that in
between where we come upon practices that fly away from entrepreneurism, and make
spaces livable where all that is expected are ruins.
4 S. GRINBERG

We will look to post-structuralist ethnographic research (Youdell 2006), and specifically

an ethnographic approach to analytics of governmentality (Brady 2014), to discuss some
of the threads in the tangle in the everyday making of school. In doing so, the notion of the
self-made school refer to the lines of action and policies aimed at the community (Rose
1997; Dean 1999) that, in the everyday life of slums – and of schools located in them – are
where the needs and demands of citizens are addressed and resolved through the agency
of neighborhoods, community organizations, and subjects (Besana, Gutiérrez, and Grinberg
2015). It is, indeed, in that very fabric that the precarity (Butler 2010) that besets neighbor-
hoods and institutions is produced. Making oneself, the promise of being ‘self-made’ – as
if that was remotely possible –requires having the resources necessary to do so. On the one
hand, these are rhetoric that calls the self (Foucault 1984) to be as big as it dreams, the
dreams of a self that must make itself; a self that builds an identity, a subject that can make
a difference (Kelly and Harrison 2015). On the other, this call to make the self takes place
in an increasingly precarious world where, as Strauss pointed out, the flipside of boundless
freedom is the meaninglessness of the choice (Bauman 2001; Hall 2003). The focus here is
on the effects, even the unexpected effects, of this call to be oneself, on the fabric of choice
in the daily making of schools in the slums – that is, lines of force, the regulation of conduct
and its contestations (Ball and Olmedo 2013). While these statements compose what is
being called the age of responsibilization (Shamir 2008; Peters 2016; McLeod 2015), a
phenomenon that exceeds any one region, country, or city, it operates in a particular way
in Latin America, and in other impoverished metropolitan areas in the Global South
(Manjrekar 2015; Smitha 2017; Nambissan 2017). If the region participates in the globalized
world of the circulation of goods, culture, and currencies, in the process of metropolization,
and in the circuit of a cosmopolitan citizenry, it does so in such a way that the result is
growing polarization and inequality. Economies grow and expand, and governments
demand austerity and sacrifice to fulfill the promise of development. Indeed, they have
done so – in Argentina, and throughout the region – since the end of the last century. But
economic austerity has yet to bring an end to poverty. On the contrary, for vast sectors of
the population, austerity means deeper and deeper poverty and more and more unemploy-
ment – in other words, the precarization of life.
Beyond the apocalyptic and dystopian images (Arabindoo 2011) of urban decay, crim-
inality, and danger at play in the notion of ‘a planet of slum’ (Davis 2006), Buenos Aires,
like other cities in the Global South, is a center of increasingly liberal economies; that is, of
the production, distribution, and services, and of the cosmopolitan ways of living, that those
economies entail. The words slum, villa miseria, or favela – or any other word that attempts
to capture the same urban reality – are just attempts to grasp the tension at play in the
current call to make oneself, to be self-made, in the age of selective metropolization (Prevot-
Schapira 2001) and growing urban precarity. Those tensions beset the life of neighborhoods
and of subjects, as well as the life of schools. In sum, while the question of inequality is by
no means new, it has become increasingly important in recent years, and, as will be discussed
below, schools are not only not exempt from that reality, but occupy a key place in the daily
struggle it entails.
It is in this framework that an event – a dramatic occurrence – provides us with a starting
point, a way to begin discussing the daily making of school. ‘If we close our doors, they’ll
have beaten us,’ one teacher tells me – and that statement is part of that making. The precise
context in which she said it will be discussed later, but for now it provides a means to
 British Journal of Sociology of Education 5

formulate a hypothesis both on everyday struggles and on the struggle for the everyday that
ensues at the intersection where school is produced: the life of the school and of the slum
in the age of management. From a methodological standpoint, addressing those practices,
the lines of that making, means understanding that what is at play are not opposites or
dichotomies, but rather the stickiness and tension of daily practices. Our reading does not
heed binary pairs, but tensions; it is assembled from the ‘ands’ rather than from the ‘ors.’

The age of management: the self, the self-made, and the government of
the self
For at least the last three decades, scholastic reforms have been focused on school admin-
istrators’ ability to pinpoint and develop their own guidelines, to formulate their own proj-
ects and plans; in other words, policies that act like a Trojan horse (Eacott 2011), singularities
of the government of others that take the shape of the government of the self. This means
practices now at the core of the management of schools that are part and parcel of logics
geared to increasing community participation and engagement. In Latin America and in
Argentina, management narratives turn schools into architects of themselves and of their
futures (Grinberg 2008; Sisto and Fardella 2014). The 1990s in Argentina witnessed an
educational reform geared at, among other things, decentralization in order to help schools
meet local needs. Schools, like teachers and students, are told to make themselves, to grab
the reins of that process; in so doing, they become freer – or so they are told – empowered
to make decisions, to become the agents of their own making. Selves freer and freer, selves
pushed to their limits. Starting at the end of the last century, entrepreneurism and its strategy
of empowerment became the cornerstones of our society in a discourse enmeshed in no-lon-
ger-new modes of government that answer the questions: ‘Can there be a crisis of “not
governing enough” in which the state has failed as regulator and which requires direct
intervention by states acting alone or together?’ (Dean 2010, 463). Both parts of that question
constitute modulations of the government of the population in a back and forth between
‘too much government’ and ‘very little government’ that, as Dean points out, confronts its
own crisis again and again. According to this mode of intervention, while schools were left
to their own devices (Grinberg 2011), as we will discuss further, mechanisms and particular
modes of government are generated that act as policies that make us make ourselves; that
cast individuals and/or institutions into a permanent struggle to be, and to be self-made,
regardless of exhaustion and a scarcity of resources (Ball 2006). The self and its skills must
be bolstered, put into gear, rallied, and reexamined relentlessly:
We can recognize the growing power of the belief, however banal, that by acting on our brains,
we can improve our mental life and enhance our everyday capacities to meet the ceaseless
demands for self-development and self-management characteristic of our contemporary form
of life. (Rose and Abi-Rached 2013, 226)

Slums and their schools – the case we address here – are conceived as abject urban areas,
zones of inhabitability that, like a ghost, imperil the production of subjectivity and the
well-being of the metropolis. The ‘management of the social’ (Rose 1996) takes on particular
traits in contexts where the State is by no means absent, but rather everywhere through an
array of programs. In other words, entrepreneurialism does not mean a withdrawal of
government but rather a government that constantly calls for virtuous citizenship (Osborne
6 S. GRINBERG

and Rose 1999) so that the community can become the agent of its own well-being.
Regardless of the rhetoric of slums, of slum-dog cities (Arabindoo 2011; Roy 2011), and
the call to raise the potential of subjects assessed as suffering from low self-esteem, our
research shows time and again a neighborhood that acts and persists. We come across the
government of the population, lines of manageability (Paltinieri 2017), based on the sup-
posed empowerment of the community, as well as lines of flight that erupt, sometimes
silently, where that agency becomes a complex cluster of practices that have nothing to do
with the images of planets of slums (Davis 2006). That counter-formation entails accom-
panying opportunities and demands for care, interdependence, and relational responsibility
– of others, not only the self (McLeod 2015).
Life in the neighborhood and in the school is a constant back and forth where subjects
undertake an array of actions to ensure things that should be a matter of course (access to
running water and electricity, school desks to sit at, and blackboards to write on). Daily life
means the constant administration of so many details; it is always on the verge of coming
undone. In the neighborhood and in the schools, the norm becomes making do with what
is at hand and finding a way to get the rest. Particular ways of stepping up develop in an
endless chain of battles and accountabilities. Almost any infrastructure that is in these spaces
is the result of the direct action of those who live there. One night, for instance, residents
set up a complex water distribution system that reached all of the houses in the neighbor-
hood. The words ‘we’ve been through a lot’ express that, and it is this statement that we will
address first in relation to methodology and then to the debate on the field material.

Methodological notes on modulations and strata

The research discussed here involves, as already stated, a governmentality ethnographic
approach. What longstanding fieldwork, illustrated here through the idea of the event and
its effects on daily life, reveals is that the ‘everyday’ does not form a coherent apparatus but
rather a set of modulations, of stratified lines of forces, and of multiple power relations.
There is no room for univocal or binary readings in discussing such uncodified flows and
their regulation and organization. Performing research like this means experiencing striated,
discordant, and/or juxtaposed realities that ‘link neoliberal political rationalities with non‐
liberal rationalities as well as the actual processes through which subjectivities (such as an
enterprising self) are formed’ (Bradly 2014, 13).
The analysis of a process of making that sometimes seems straight out of a science fiction
story or of a comedy of errors runs the risk of getting lost in the details. That is, the risk of
seeing what happens as practices that are enacted in a single school, in a single neighbor-
hood, to envision them as the personal actions of teachers or as the result of individual
choices or strategies.4 But that would mean an idealization of a daily practice that is cruel,
not romantic. Indeed, such readings end up reinforcing the logics of the self-made insofar
as they focus on individuals – their agency, choices, and achievements – or, on the contrary,
they suggest that subjects are resigned to conditions that they cannot change. In the Third
World, following Bhabha (2002), there is the additional risk of boasting of amazing feats
born of suffering.
To avoid falling into reading the detail, the particular, we turn to the notion of singularity
which refers not to the individual but to:
 British Journal of Sociology of Education 7

… the case, the event, the potential or, rather, the distribution of potentials in a given matter.
To draw a political map of an individual, of a group or of a society is essentially the same thing:
it is a question of prolonging a singularity all the way to the neighborhood of another so that
‘a configuration of events’ is produced, that is, the richest and most consistent set possible.
(Deleuze 2002, 160)

Ethnography here is envisioned as making that political map – a process bound to conduct,
to sedimented practices, to an era’s modes of veridiction, but also to the actual; that is, to
subjects that effect divisions and detours – in other words, to broken historicity (Deleuze
2007). As will be discussed in the following, making school5 is tied to both that notion of
the self-made and to an everyday process of making. Insofar as a matrix of experience
(Foucault 2009), historicity becomes a way to address the processes at stake in what might
seem like an individual fate (of subjects, of institutions), but that in fact constitutes the
fabric of practices in space and time. What we have is a process and practice, a making, that
sometimes involves resistances, counter-pedagogies (Sadlier 2018), and other modes that
shatter the line of the given.
What we try to do is grapple with the multiple and interconnected fabric of schooling
not on a small scale, but as a scene, as an incident in the lines of that historicity. We look
to the notion of event (Das 2003) as that which penetrates and takes root in the daily, where
it takes on its own dynamic. The ethnographic research from a post-structural approach
(Ringrose and Coleman 2013; Youdell 2006; Choi 2006) described here has been underway
for over a decade (2008–2018); it has involved a great many stages in the terrain of the life
of the neighborhood and of the school. The fieldwork involves participant observations, as
well as formal and informal interviews and conversations with teachers, parents, and stu-
dents. Over the years, we have also carried out audiovisual and visual ethnography research
(Pink 2008) conceived not as illustrations but as lines of force, as singularities that, as we
will see in the following, sediment in the school/neighborhood as walls and windows. Here
we will look at an incident and some scenes on the ground that intersect and cluster; that
push back against and disrupt the dynamics of daily life at a school and in a neighborhood
that, due to – among other things – their position in the metropolis, are among the spaces
in the Global South called slums.
Two concepts are key to studying these spaces. First, the notion of strata that refers to
the phenomena of thickening, accumulation, coagulation, and sedimentation, and folds
both molecular and molar (Deleuze and Guattari 1987). Conducts and counter-conducts
do not constitute two opposite points in history, but rather multiple lines. As will be dis-
cussed, the statement ‘if we close our doors, they’ll have beaten us’ expresses both at the
same time. Carcova and its school take shape and thicken in the history of flexible capitalism
that has left vast sectors of the population with precarious housing and employment con-
ditions. In Buenos Aires, as in Latin American megacities, the liminal population (Foucault
2007) has, since the end of the last century, begun to live in spaces that are barely urbanized.
Slums, like Carcova, constitute one of the urban sedimentations that most precisely embody
those processes. In this framework, the notion of strata entails great mobility, where one
layer forms the basis for another, and on top of them transcodifications, intermediate steps,
and combinations take shape. While slums constitute a clear sedimentation of the crisis of
industrial capitalism and the configurations of the managerial society, they are also the
8 S. GRINBERG

folds on which re-combinations of forces operate. Carcova neighborhood and its school
are both clearly part of that history.
Hence, slums can be – and are often – read in terms of victimization, on the one hand,
and criminalization (Codoceo, Ampuero, and Pérez 2016), on the other. At the same time,
other lines open up, lines associated with how forces both molar and molecular come
together and expel one another, and are actualized in daily life. It is in those terms that the
notion of modulation becomes relevant; it helps us to grapple with intermediate modes,
strata, and exterior forces as well as intermediate forces that push up against and also cross
that exterior.6
At play here are not one exterior and one interior force that necessarily contest those
organized centers. Instead, the life of this school and this neighborhood, their processes of
making, is the result of daily practices, of an ingenious reworking of another daily process
of making that takes the shape of management policies. The research has been carried out
at the intersection of school and neighborhood life along the last decade with different
intensities and aims regarding the questions of social and educational inequality, and spe-
cifically the conducts, counter-conducts, and lines of flight in contexts of extreme urban
poverty. It is in the framework of the fieldwork that through participatory observation and
informal interviews we came across the episodes discussed.
The school where the fieldwork is carried out was created in the late 1980s as a direct
result of the constant arrival of people to the area starting in the final decades of the twen-
tieth century. They settled in empty terrains – swamps, actually – that they gradually filled
with rubble, trash, and so forth.7 As a result, the neighborhood, like many others with
similar histories, has a completely improvised layout. As the area’s population increased,
there were so many students at the closest grade school that it had to stay open for three
two-and-a-half-hour shifts. As the current principal of that school, who at that time was a
teacher, explained, the school back then had time to give kids a meal but not much else.
That was how teachers and parents in what was then a new neighborhood embarked on a
long struggle to create a new school. After marches and demands, a new grade school was
opened. It would take another chapter to explain how the building was constructed, mainly
thanks to the community’s own efforts. The school as such is a conquest, the result of
struggle – that is in its genetic make-up.
Those molecular forces are often no more than ways of adapting to what is happening,
to that which casts people into a state of precarity. The perhaps bold methodological ques-
tion here, then, is how to grapple with that process of making, with practices that do not
revolve around poles but ensue in multiple points that cluster and pull apart, that connect
and reconnect.8 In the framework of governmentality studies, this intermedial space is what
matters here; its lines link together and unfold in daily life in a space where the molar and
the molecular cluster and scatter, where they take shape and flight.

The self-made school: in between everyday struggles and the struggles for
the everyday
This section starts with an event that has affected in different ways the school and those
who work there, its relationship with government offices, and, unquestionably, me. The
event is extreme because of its gravity and of its exceptionalness. It is a glaring reminder of
 British Journal of Sociology of Education 9

the rhetoric of slums (Arabindoo 2011) and the precarity that beset them, but also a way
to come into contact with finer lines of daily life that, along with readings of the episode,
take shape in precarity and in its effects; that is, in self-made schools and the tensions that
they entail.
We will first recount the episode and then discuss some of its effects which we place in
three groups. If, from a general perspective, those effects interconnect like links on a chain,
from another perspective they are more like threads in a tangle. A closer look shows us how
school is made at school and explains why, at the beginning of a graduation ceremony, a
teacher – both proud and distraught – starts out by saying ‘We’ve been through a lot.’

The event
That morning in 2014, the school was under fire. During the days before and after, the
atmosphere was strange not only in the immediate area, but in the surrounding neighbor-
hoods as well. Every time we9 went to the school, another episode of violence had occurred
in the community. The students told us that everything was berserk. There were shootouts
at around noon and they were afraid to go out, even just to buy bread. Situations like that
were and are uncommon in the neighborhood. As the neighbors often say, there are unspo-
ken rules and if something is going to happen it will happen at night, when there are fewer
people out. But during those weeks none of those unspoken rules seemed to apply. We had
never heard, let alone witnessed, shootouts at midday. One day, we started to get texts saying
that there had been another shootout and that they had to hit the ground in the classrooms.
None of the bullets was specifically aimed at the school, but it served as a protective ‘trench.’
A hub of illegal business had been set up in the passageway10 behind the school simply
because someone involved had moved back and that is where his house was.
The ordinary life of the school was completely disrupted. The fact that there were
shootouts in the neighborhood was not news to the students, to the teachers, or to us, but
in 30 years they had never had to hit the ground during school hours, in broad daylight.
This unfortunate series of events occasioned a range of effects and decisions. The first was
to close the school until safety could be restored if not in the neighborhood, at least in the
school itself. Meetings of neighbors were held at the school, now closed, some of them
attended by the police who – by then– we all knew to be accomplices in what was happening
(see Figure 2, an image of the local police station with the word ‘corrupt’ as graffiti on it).
In response to the violence that led the school to be closed temporarily, teachers, left to
their own devices, found themselves having to fight for the physical safety of the school.
Pursuant to demands that someone take responsibility for what was happening, they were
granted a meeting with authorities from the Department of Education. We will call that
Effect A.

The Department of Education: the making of the self-made school

After filing several complaints through the teachers’ union, the teachers managed to get a
meeting with the authorities from the department. A number of teachers attended the
meeting, which was not held at the school but at another, more central, location. (The
teachers had hoped that top-level Department of Education officials would come to the
10 S. GRINBERG

Figure 2. Graffiti in the police station: corruption.

school and the meeting, but they did not – mid-level officials were the ones who came.)
After conveying their understanding and sympathy, the government officials started to
interrogate the teachers about how the students’ center was organized. At that time, there
was an initiative at the Department of Education to promote student participation. The
meeting was used as an opportunity to provide them with guidance on how to organize the
students’ union.
The teachers left the meeting distraught: their lives and the lives of their students were
in danger, and the government’s only response revolved around how to organize a students’
union. There were no further meetings and, months later, other officials (these of still lower
rank) came to give them ballot boxes and train them on how to hold elections for the student
government.
As if from a school management handbook, talk of management, commitment, and
engagement took up the whole meeting.11 What we have, as stated earlier, is not an absent
State, but a State that tells individuals to take action and, in so doing, produce a position
that we call the making of the self-made, the responsibilization of the self (Shamir 2008).
Individuals are positioned as accountable in what Rose would call a turn toward an eth-
nopolitics. Insofar as, in this case, its actions revolve around the organization of student
participation, the school must find other means to address the question of violence. Effects
B and C are clearly associated with the position in which subjects and institutions are placed
in this and so many other scenes.

Taking leave, meetings in teachers’ homes, and busing students

While efforts were being made to get the meeting with the Department of Education author-
ities, the two schools – that is, the grade school and the secondary school that operates on
the same premises – began to activate different mechanisms and devise alternative strategies.
After the meeting, that process continued, if through other channels.
Some of the teachers asked for a leave of absence. While many had worked at the school
for years, the fragility and danger to which they were exposed now was too much for them,
and they felt they had no choice but to take leave, with or without pay. As one teacher told
me: ‘This is too much for me. I need to take some distance.’ The home of that teacher became
 British Journal of Sociology of Education 11

the gathering place, the place to talk and think about what to do. Those gatherings included
not only teachers, but local residents and us. This explains Liliana’s use of the word ‘together’
at the graduation ceremony. If the school is there at all, it is thanks to a framework of
togetherness that allows and creates the very possibility of persisting: ‘aim high, keep at it.’
The school closed its doors for a few days, and one suggestion was to bus students to
another, more centrally located, school. That amounted to closing the school, however, and
neither the teachers nor the families liked that plan. Which leads to Effect C.

‘If we close our doors, they’ll have beaten us’: erecting walls, putting up curtains,
and building a wall around a gas tank
Around the time of the shootouts, Liliana, who – as explained earlier – is one of the teachers
who has been at the school the longest, came over to me worried. In the middle of the
meetings, she told me: ‘If we close our doors, they’ll have beaten us.’ While debating whether
to bus the students elsewhere, whether to close the school for an indeterminate period and
send students to other institutions, Liliana – tears in her eyes – told me that they had to
hold out because otherwise the school would be closed for good. It was not the first time
the school was left to its own devices, depending solely on the efforts of teachers and parents.
They had learned that they had to find the way to hold their ground – that was the only
way to carry on. Liliana was trying to figure out ways to get the students back into the
classrooms.12 That was particularly important since many of the students were involved in
neighborhood disputes and school was the only way to ‘protect them.’
In the midst of debate, the two schools – the grade school and the secondary school –
decided to stay open. They could do so by supporting each other, and thanks to the help of
the parents. Since there were occasional shootouts during this period, they had to close at
times, but never for more than a day or two. Meanwhile, they also took some measures to
protect themselves. Since in front of the school there is a gas tank that, if hit by a bullet,
could blow up the school, they decided to build a wall around it (Figure 3 shows the wall
to the left, next to the dog). Similarly, since one of the windows of a classroom opened up
onto the passageway in the back of the school (see Figure 4) where part of the neighborhood
dispute was underway, they agreed, after negotiating with the neighbor who lived there, to
buy curtains and no longer go anywhere near that window. Toward the end of the school
year, they also decided to extend the walls around the school for protection. Liliana took
charge of the situation; she went to talk to the neighbor, who had once been a parent of a
student at the school. They agreed on some logistical issues, and she specifically asked that
her students, some of whom were being threatened, be left alone. The school was kept open,
thanks to the same small everyday struggles that had made its creation and construction
possible.
Micro-procedures that are the result of being left to one’s own devices, where subjects
are cruelly called on to make themselves, to be self-made, are the stuff of this everyday
struggle for the everyday. Because, as Liliana told me, otherwise they will have beaten us.
Rather than acceptance or resignation (Butler 2017; Davis 2006), what is at stake in both
the neighborhood and the school’s self-making is largely silent, but constant and relentless,
everyday struggles. Except for a few situations that entail large mobilizations,13 many of the
struggles waged at school and in the neighborhood are like the ones described here; that
is, characterized by silent and constant micro-operations. When Liliana told me that if we
12 S. GRINBERG

Figure 3.  Protecting the school.

Figure 4. The classroom window to the passageway in the back.

close, they will have beaten us, she was referring to the neighbor, the Department of
Education officials, and the police, but she was also thinking of Luciano, Dylan, and so
many other students for whom the school is a key place to engage, to keep from getting
lost. We were thinking of them too, as were all of the other teachers – that was what was
discussed at the meetings. What we find here is not responsibilization but a sense of respon-
sibility (McLeod 2015). Modulations, lines of force that involve silent struggles (Bayat 2000)
for the everyday.
Everyday struggles in and for the everyday in the age of management means small–large
practices that strive to continue because, again in Liliana’s words, ‘aim high, keep at it.’ The
students’ center had nothing at all to do with this episode, but it did have to do with Effects
B and C. Not in terms of the strategies in management handbooks, but in terms of the
artisanal practice of making school. When, at the graduation ceremony, Liliana said that
‘we’ve been through a lot together,’ everyone knew what she was talking about and what it
meant to be there.
The year before, while we were walking through the neighborhood with students as part
of an environmental laboratory14 organized jointly by the university and the school, a
 British Journal of Sociology of Education 13

student, who clearly felt uncomfortable, started mumbling to himself. I did not understand
why since we had been working on this project for months. I asked him what was going on
a number of times before he told me: ‘and if we find out that we are getting poisoned, where
will they send us?’ At that moment I understood, almost like an epiphany, that – far from
those monolithic images of the planet of slums and decay (Davis 2006) – the dynamics in
the neighborhood are like so many knots and turns of tangled threads. His family, like so
many others, had found in this neighborhood somewhere to make a home, a place for
themselves. Carcova is by no means a ‘shit-hole.’15 A few months later, a local resident would
tell me: ‘Carcova is my place.’ Despite everything, the struggle that this student, this resident,
and the teachers kept up every day was for that place, for its constant improvement.
As if taken from a school administration handbook, what we have chosen to call Effect
A shows how government officials read this scene and offer ways to reach a solution. In the
age of managerial responsibilization (Shamir 2008; Rose 2007), teachers are blamed for
failures in administration and told to work with the community to bring the shootouts to
an end. They are then given guidance on participatory management strategies to learn how
to engage the community –which is quite ironic, considering that it is with the community’s
engagement that the school is run on a daily basis.
This is either cynical or cruel, or both. Cruel optimism (Berlant 2011) would have it that
many teachers experience feelings of devastation, exhaustion, and dejection because they
are deemed accountable, because they are blamed, but mostly because they know they are
absolutely on their own to deal with something that imperils their lives. That is why everyone
understood the teacher that asked to take leave.16
But at no point did the teachers feel guilty about the situation or about the lack of a
students’ union, which brings us to the lines of force. Of course, many of them felt exhausted,
all alone, and hence unsure whether to take leave, bus students out, or close the school for
a few days. Nonetheless, gradually Effect C gained the upper hand in a struggle that is the
result of teachers and parents knowing themselves to be alone and of a history that gathers
and sediments in the daily life of Carcova, which is both tied to a struggle and is itself a
struggle for the everyday life that this student in the laboratory fretted over (‘Where will
they send us?’).
‘If we close, they’ll have beaten us’ is the expression of these struggles that are not an
intrinsic part of the life of the school or of the neighborhood. They are, rather, the result of
that making/self-making that occurs as the neighborhood is populated and grows expo-
nentially or, on a more glocal17scale, as the crisis of industrial capitalism, of neoliberal
policies, and of the constant forced displacement of populations intensifies. Like so many
other neighborhoods, Carcova is the result of searching for and building a place in which
to live one’s life.
School is part of that self-making. At stake is not resignation, but struggling and persist-
ing, a relentless insistence that ensues in the everyday process of becoming, especially in
places that are by no means cities of wretchedness but places built on the basis of the forms
that the struggles to make school life take in the age of management.

By way of an epilogue
The first of the episode’s effects (Effect A) described here is clearly tied to the age of account-
ability and self-management. The other two are tied to disruption, to the unexpected
14 S. GRINBERG

response to critical events, which is, in turn, bound by definition to the overwhelming
nature of traumatic situations (Das 2008). But, like the decision to fight to have school, the
determination to ‘aim high, keep at it’ also takes hold of the scene. The doors are kept open
and alternative strategies devised because ‘If we close, they’ll have beaten us.’
Berlant says that cruel optimism arises in ordinary life whose conditions produce exhaus-
tion since:
people are not Bartleby [; they] do not prefer to interfere with varieties of immiseration, but
choose to ride the wave of the system of attachment that they are used to, to syncopate with
it, or to be held in a relation of reciprocity, reconciliation, or resignation that does not mean
defeat by it. (2011, 28)

What we find here are conditions of ordinary cruelty, and the neighborhood, like the school,
makes itself in those conditions and is sustained by the struggles to make, to be present in,
and to render inhabitable the neighborhood and the school. This is where we must resituate
Berlant’s question and ask how that making and self-making takes shape – what exactly it
is – when the promise of living a good life is in doubt. In that doubt, alternatives that have
nothing to do with resignation or romantic struggle arise. A set of practices makes way in
a battery of decisions conducive to staying open, to not giving in unless that means Pyrrich
victories.
Daily life in schools in slums ensues according to that logic. But there is one aspect in
particular that we would like to point to. While, on the one hand, management logics
demand that schools produce bold individuals capable of assuming risks, school life itself
enacts the storm. From building classrooms to getting the books, from access to utilities to
the physical safety of schools to keep the schoolyard/gym from becoming a minefield, school
life becomes an obstacle race that must be run by administrators, teachers, and students.
Why dwell on this particular event, which might seem anecdotal? Precisely because life in
schools looks a lot like the management of everyday impossibility.
That is what we have been talking about here. Most precisely, amidst the ruins that seem
at times to surround the school and the neighborhood, the muck in which both are caught
– the sweeping image of cities of wretchedness – we find details that suggest something
else. Lives that do not matter, abject bodies that often seem to verge on resignation to a bad
life, show us glimmers of other ways of understanding not only those very lives but also the
production and reproduction of inequality.
So, like a jigsaw puzzle always missing a piece, we find a number of things in those daily
practices. On the one hand, the cruelty of the statement of an official who, due to firmly
held beliefs, malignant neglect (Wacquant 1996), or privileged irresponsibility (McLeod
2015), calls for engagement before a glaring process of devastation, ruin, or crisis. Yet at no
point did the teachers feel guilty: they keep going. In the age of responsibilization, of selfies
and self-making, we come across another kind of responsibility, one that emerges in the
‘together’ that insists on persisting because ‘If we close, they’ll beat us.’

Notes
1. We cannot delve into this issue here. On this this topic, see, among others, O’Donnell (1976),
Brunner (1981), Garretón (1984), Lechner (1988), Borón (1977), and Puello-Socarrás (2017),
Felipe (2010).
2. See Accessed 16 Jan 2018. https://www.filmaffinity.com/ar/film399474.html
 British Journal of Sociology of Education 15

3. See, among others, ‘Why Teachers Are Like Coaches’ (Accessed 24 Jan 2018. http://www.
globalteacherprize.org/why-teachers-are-like-coaches/), O’Neil and Hopkins (2002), and
Stellwagen (1997).
4. Readings of the sort at stake in, for instance, the efficient schools approaches (Bàez 1994) and
what are currently called schools in challenging circumstances (Harris 2010).
5. While we look to De Certeau (2000), here the notion of making refers critically to the idea of
the self-made, as well as the possibility of procuring elements for that cartography.
6. In the words of Deleuze and Guattari (2005, 409): ‘There may be a greater or lesser number of
intermediate states between the molecular and the molar; there may be a greater or lesser
number of exterior forces or organizing centers participating in the molar form. Doubtless,
these two factors are in an inverse relation to each other and indicate limit-cases. For exam-
ple, the molar form of expression may be of the “mold” type, mobilizing a maximum of exte-
rior forces; or it may be of the “modulation” type, bringing into play only a minimum number
of them. Even in the case of the mold, however, there are nearly instantaneous, interior inter-
mediate states between the molecular content that assumes its own specific forms and the
determinate molar expression of the outside by the form of the mold. Conversely, …’
7. Due to considerations of space, we will not dwell on a description of the neighborhood here.
On that topic, see Grinberg (2011).
8. Looking to Simondon, the authors of A Thousand Plateaus explain that we are not before a
hylomorphic model with two defined terms or ends of a chain, not before ‘a simple relation of
molding behind which there is a perpetually variable, continuous modulation that it is no
longer possible to grasp,’ but rather in between those two extremes in an intermediate dimen-
sion or ‘a space unto itself that deploys its materiality through matter, a number unto itself
that propels its traits through form’ (Deleuze and Guattari 1995, 4009).
9. I use the plural because the situation was experienced not only by me, but by other members
of the Centre for Studies in Inequalities, Subjectivities and Institutions (CEDESI)/ Laboratory
of Human Sciences Research, School of Humanities, National University of San Martin
(UNSAM).
10. In this shantytown, like many others, improvised passageways serve as streets.
11. For considerations of space, we will not delve into the minutiae of those policies here, except
to point out that in 2013 Law 14581 was passed. Its aim was to guarantee and to promote the
creation bodies representing students, specifically students’ centers (Accessed 12 Dec 2017.
http://www.gob.gba.gov.ar/legislacion/legislacion/l-14581.html)
12. This teacher understood that any interruption in the school year significantly increases the
risk that students will drop out.
13. For considerations of space, we cannot address this complex question here. See, among
others, Mantiñan (2018).
14. See Accessed 23 Nov 2017. http://noticias.unsam.edu.ar/2012/10/15/observatorio-ambien-
tal-carcova-en-busca-de-un-futuro-mejor/
15. While I was finishing this article, President Trump used the term shit-hole in reference to a
number of Third World countries.
16. In another context, Sadlier (2018) speaks of the gathering.
17. I am here following Accessed 17 Jan 2018. http://www.glocalismjournal.net/

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

ORCID
Silvia Grinberg http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9261-9035
16 S. GRINBERG

References
Arabindoo, P. 2011. “Rhetoric of the ‘Slum’, City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy,
Action”. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group 15 (6): 636–664.
Ball, S. J. 2000. “Performativities and Fabrications in the Education Economy: Towards the
Performative Society?” The Australian Educational Researcher 27: 1. doi:10.1007/BF03219719
Ball, S. J. 1997. Good School/Bad School: Paradox and Fabrication. British Journal of Sociology of
Education 18 (3): 317–336. doi:10.1080/0142569970180301.
Ball, S. and A. Olmedo. 2013. “Care of the Self, Resistance And Subjectivity Under Neoliberal
Governmentalities.” Critical Studies in Education 54 (1): 85–96. doi:10.1080/17508487.2013.740678.
Bauman, Z. 2001. La Sociedad Individualizada. Madrid: Ediciones Cátedra.
Bayat, A. 2000. Social Movements, Activism and Social Development in the Middle. East Geneva,
Switzerland: UNRISD.
Bhabha, H. 2002. El Lugar De La Cultura. Buenos Aires: Manantiales.
Biesta, G. 2005. “Against Learning. Reclaiming a Language for Education in an Age of Learning.”
Nordisk Pedagogik 25: 54–66. ISSN 0901-8050.
Berlant, L. 2011. Cruel Optimism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Bàez de la Fe, B. F. 1994. El movimiento de escuelas eficaces: Implicaciones para la innovación educa-
tiva, Revista Iberoamericana de Educación Número 4. Enero – Abril.
Besana, P., R. Gutiérrez, and S. Grinberg. 2015. “Pobreza Urbana, Comunidad Local Y Estado-Socio
En Argentina: La Provisión De Servicios Públicos En Un Asentamiento De La Región
Metropolitana de Buenos Aires.” Revista Mexicana De Ciencias Políticas Y Sociales 60 (225): 79–
102. doi:10.1016/S0185-1918(15)30020-9
Brady, M. 2014. Ethnographies of Neoliberal Governmentalities. Foucault Studies 18: 11–33.
doi:10.22439/fs.v0i18.4649.
Borón, A. 1977. “El fascismo Como Categoría Histórica: En Torno Al Problema De Las Dictaduras
En América Latina”. Revista Mexicana De Sociología 2.
Brunner, J. 1981. La Cultura Autoritaria En Chile. Santiago: Flacso
Butler, J. 2010. Marcos De Guerra. Las Vidas Lloradas. Buenos Aires: Paidós.
Butler, J. 2017. Cuerpos Aliados Y Lucha Política. Buenos Aires: Paidós.
Choi, J. 2006. “Doing Poststructural Ethnography in the Life History of Dropouts in South Korea:
Methodological Ruminations on Subjectivity, Positionality and Reflexivity.” International Journal
of Qualitative Studies in Education 19 (4): 435–453. doi:10.1080/09518390600773163
Codoceo, F., F. Ampuero, and C. Pérez. 2016. Criminalización De La Pobreza. La construcción
Política Del Sujeto Peligroso. Osorno: Centro de Estudios Regionales, Universidad de Los Lagos
Das, V. 2003. “Trauma and Testimony. Implications for Political Community.” Anthropological
Theory 3 (3): 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/14634996030033003
Davis, M. 2006. Planets of Slums. London: Verso.
Dean M. 1999. Governamentality. Power and rule in modern Society. London: Sage publications.
Dean, M. 2003. Culture governance and individualisation. In H. P. Bang (Ed.), Governance as social
and political communication (pp. 117–139). Manchester, England; New York: Manchester
University Press.
Dean, M. 2010. “Power at the Heart of the Present: Exception, Riskand Sovereignty.” European
Journal of Cultural Studies 13 (4): 459–475. doi:10.1177/1367549410377147
De Certeau, M. 2000. La Invención De Lo Cotidiano. 1 Artes De Hacer. Méjico: Universidad
Iberoamericana.
Deleuze, G. 2007. Pericles y Verdi. Valencia: Pre-textos.
Deleuze, G., and C. Parnet. 1995. Dialogues II. New York: Columbia University Press.
Deleuze, G., and F. Guattari. 1987. A Thousand Plateaus. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Deleuze, G., and F. Guattari. 1995. El antiedipo. Capitalismo y esquizofrenia. Espana: Paidòs.
Deleuze, G., and F. Guattari. 2005. A Thousand Plateaus. London: University of Minnesota Press
Minneapolis.
Deleuze, G., C. Parnet, and G. Deleuze. 2002. Dialogues II. New York: Columbia University Press.
Felipe, V. 2010. “Estado, golpes de Estado y militarización en América Latina: una reflexión históri-
co política.” Argumentos (México, D.F.), 23 (64): 175–193.
 British Journal of Sociology of Education 17

Foucault, 1984. La última entrevista a Michel Foucault. Hubert Dreyfus Paul Rabinow Publicado en.
https://redfilosoficadeluruguay.wordpress.com/2016/06/30/la-ultima-entrevista-a-michel-
foucault/ 30 junio, 2016.
Foucault, M. 2006. Seguridad, territorio y población. Argentina: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Foucault, M. 2007. Nacimiento De La Biopolítica. Argentina: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Foucault, M. 2009. El Gobierno De Sí Y De Los Otros. Argentina: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Garretón, M. 1984. Dictaduras Y Democratización, Santiago: Flacso.
Grinberg, 2008. Educación y poder en el siglo XXI. Gubernamentalidad y pedagogía en las sociedades
de gerenciamiento. Buenos Aires.
Grinberg, S. 2011. “Territories of Schooling and Schooling Territories in Contexts of Extreme Urban
Poverty in Argentina: Between Management and Abjection.” Emotion, Space and Society 4 (3):
160–171. doi:10.1016/j.emospa.2011.01.001
Gulson, K. and T. Predroni. 2014. Neoliberlism, Cities and Education in the Global South and North.
New York: Routledge.
Hall, S. 2003. “Introducción: ¿quién necesita identidad?” In, Cuestiones De Identidad Cultural,
edited by S. Hall and P. y Du Gay. Buenos Aires: Amorrortu Editores.
Harris, A. 2010. “Effective Leadership in Schools Facing Challenging Contexts.” School Leadership
& Management 22 (1): 2002.
Kelly, B. C., and L. Harrison. 2015. “‘Don’t Be a Smart Arse’: Social Enterprise-Based Transitional
Labour-Market Programmes as Neo-Liberal Technologies of the Self.” British Journal of Sociology
of Education 36 (4): 558–576. doi:10.1080/01425692.2013.829744.
Lechner, N. 1988. Los Patios Interiores De La Democracia. Subjetividad y Política. Santiago: Fondo
de Cultura Económica.
Manjrekar, N. 2015. “The Neighbourhood and the School.” In: Working Papers of the Max Weber
Foundation’s Transnational Research Group India “Poverty Reduction and Policy for the Poor be-
tween the State and Private Actors: Education Policy in India since the Nineteenth Century”.
Mantiñan, L. 2018. La violencia hacia la vida en contextos de pobreza urbana y degradaciòn ambien-
tal. PHD Thesis, buenos aires. National University of San Martin.
McLeod, J. 2015. “Reframing Responsibility in an Era of Responsibilisation: Education, Feminist
Ethics and An ‘Idiom of Care.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 38 (2):
185–196. doi:10.1080/01596306.2015.1104851
O’Neil, D., and M. Hopkins. 2002. “The Teacher As Coach Approach: Pedagogical Choices for
Management Educators.” Journal of Management Education 26 (4): 402–414 doi:10.1177/
105256290202600406
O’Donnell, G. 1976. Reflexiones Sobre La Tendencia De Cambio En El Estado Burocrático-Autoritario.
Buenos Aires: Documentos Cedes.
Osborne, T. and N. Rose. 1999. “Governing Cities: Notes on the Spatialisation of Virtue”,
Environmental and Planning D, Society and Space 17: 737–760. doi:10.1068/d170737
Paltrinieri, L. 2017. “Managing Subjectivity: Neoliberalism, Human Capital and Empowerment.”
Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 10 (4): 459–471. doi:10.1007/s40647-017-0200-0
Pink, S. 2008. “Mobilising Visual Ethnography: Making Routes, Making Place and Making Images.”
Forum: Qualitative Social Research 9 (3): 36. http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/
Peters, M. 2016. “From State Responsibility for Education and Welfare to Self-Responsibilisation in
the Market.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 38 (1): 1–8. doi:10.1080/0159
6306.2016.1163854
Puello-Socarrás, J. 2015. “Neoliberalismo, Antineoliberalismo, Nuevo Neoliberalismo. Episodios y
Trayectorias Económico-Políticas Suramericanas (1973–2015).” In Neoliberalismo en América
Latina. Crisis, Tendencias Y Alternativas, edited by P. Socarrás. Asunción: CLACSO
Prevot-Schapira, M. 2001. “Fragmentación Espacial y Social: Conceptos y Realidades”. Perfiles
Latinoamericanos 9: 19.
Ratier, H. 1985. Villeros y Villas Miseria. Buenos Aires. Centro Editor de América Latina.
Ringrose, J., and Coleman, R. 2013. Deleuze and Research Methodologies. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Romero, J. L. 1986. Latinoamérica: Las Ciudades Y Las Ideas. Buenos Aires. Siglo Veintiuno Editores.
18 S. GRINBERG

Roy, A. 2011. “Slumdog Cities: Rethinking Subaltern Urbanism”. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research 35 (2): 223–238. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2011.01051.x
Rose, N. 1996. The death of the social? Re-figuring the territory of government. Economy and
Society, 25 (3): 327–356. doi:10.1080/03085149600000018.
Rose, N., and J. M. Abi-Rached. 2013. Neuro: The Brain Sciences and the Management of the Mind.
New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Rose, N. 2007. The Politics of Life Itself. Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Scott Eacott, 2011. “Leadership strategies: re-conceptualising strategy foreducational leadership.”
School Leadership & Management: Formerly School Organisation, 31 (1): 35–46.
doi:10.1080/13632434.2010.540559To.
Shamir, R. 2008. “The Age of Responsibilization: On Marketembedded Morality.” Economy and
Society 37 (1): 1–19. doi:10.1080/03085140701760833
Sisto, V. and C. Fardella, C. 2014. “El eclipse del profesionalismo en la era de la rendición de cuentas –
Modelando docentes en el contexto del nuevo management público.” Pelotas 49: 3–23.
Smitha, K. C. 2017. Entrepreneurial Urbanism in India The Politics of Spatial Restructuring and Local
Contestation. Singapore: Springer Science + Business Media.
Sontag, S. 2006. Sobre la fotografía. México: Alfaguara.
Stellwagen, J. 1997. “The Teacher as Coach: Re-Thinking a Popular Educational Paradigm.”
The Clearing House 70 (5): 271–273. doi:10.1080/00098655.1997.10543934
Wacquant, L. 1996. “De l’Etat Charitable à l’Etat pénal: Notes Sur Le Traitement Politique De La
Misère En Amérique.” Regards Sociologiques 11: 30–38.
Youdell, D. 2006. Impossible Bodies, Impossible Selves: Exclusion and Student Subjectivities.
Netherlands: Springer.