What is violence?

From a contextualized approach, violence is understood as a social phenomenon constructed in the relationship between people and is processed in such a way as to break codes, agreed through collective agreement (Soares, 2018), forging a transfer of individual powers to a regulatory structure that seeks to establish a supposed balance between subjects. The contemporary liberal state then acquires a monopoly on violence as a form of social control. In this sense, it is possible to say that state coercion is produced by a set of devices in which the ruling class holds and exercises the “legal monopoly” of violence, operating coercive apparatuses, commonly linked to police forces, but other social institutions play a similar role. This is the case with educational institutions.

On school violence

The school is a secondary socialization institution par excellence: it is “responsible for instilling in the individual the social, legal and behavioural norms” in order to “prepare them for the next two social stages, work and the State” (Porfírio, [s .d.]). There is a predominance of the use of aversive contingencies to carry out this behavioral conditioning in children within the school environment (Rodrigues, 2012).

Foucault (1926-1984) had already pointed out the similarities in the treatment given to groups at the limits of the social spectrum, where discipline and the instruments of domination and control are applied, in a clear vision of the man-object. Suppressing and taming divergent behavior has given institutions the possibility of conditioning the body and mind, and school architecture is part of this structure, reproducing the mechanism of control by punishing children (Foucault, 1987). The school makes the subject invisible through everyday violence, micro-violence and institutional violence where “this young person is stripped of their status as a young person and becomes a student” (Terçariol, 2019).

In addition to this institutional violence, interpersonal conflicts appear to be one of the biggest problems facing schools. According to Telma Vinha, such violence emerges in the teacher-student relationship, either vertically or in horizontal relationships between students, with bullying being the most common and well-known practice.

In order to deal with these multiple forms of school violence, it is advisable to create programs on coexistence and violence in schools. Through the participation, active voice and intervention of the school community, the work takes place so that the school can be understood as a territorial nucleus, as an environment of diversity that is susceptible to problems of coexistence and, therefore, the need to draw up an action plan that takes the context into account.

In this space, the problems of coexistence are manifold: incivilities are “attitudes that hurt what is expected by a good education”; indiscipline depends on the teacher-student relationship, as it is linked to pedagogical practice and transgression occurs when there is non-compliance or disobedience to established rules. If we have incivil behavior, it is recommended that teachers survey the most common or most annoying occurrences. In these cases, it is necessary to establish coherence and collectively plan interventions aimed at improving the quality of coexistence. For indiscipline, the object is the rupture of the learning contract, and it is necessary to establish a new contract (Vinha, 2017). It is important that the school does not establish the same sanction for different occurrences, since moral rules are indisputable, but conventional rules can be revised.

In a school that aims for autonomy, obedience occurs, because one understands why that rule exists and in the absence of understanding, there is room for questioning (Vinha, 2017). It is also proposed to create a school climate that adopts a culture of peace, which in no way means the absence of conflict:

“A culture of peace implies a process of conflict resolution that is respectful, that is dialogical, that considers perspective-taking […] It is through conflict that I force the other to argue, to see me, to see themselves and to see that collective (Vinha, 2017).”

More important than the causes that lead to an increase in violence within the school environment is the way in which the school deals with conflicts: the action is usually coercive, through the list of procedures established by rules that are followed to inhibit violence by sanctioning the student: application of warnings, suspensions, transfer and even expulsion from school. Dropout rates among elementary school children and adolescents reached an all-time high in 2024 (Silva, 2024) and it is up to the school to ensure that students remain in formal education and not, as an immediate deterrent, to distance them from the school environment.

The militarization of schools as a response to violence

In the face of media reports of violence in schools in recent years, the public authorities’ first reaction was to institute the militarization of schools, with civic-military management. The opposite of what we want to fight has been established, treating students more like “potential delinquents” than as individuals in formation, “who deserve to be considered and respected, the school must comply with the law and open its doors to the community […]” (Deacon, [s .d.]).

The school as a disciplinary environment is associated with the traditional model of teaching and is one of the pillars of school culture, which, with or without militarization, has been applied since the 18th century and defines the student as “bound to a true military system, which leads them to act only on orders and to submit to conditioning designed to make them docile and obedient citizens” (Bastos, 2011). Theoretical conceptions of authority and hierarchy are elements that make up the culture “constructed in daily interaction, defining different forms of participation in schools” (Silva, 2001), and the degree of participation in schools defines what will be understood as a process of constructing school culture (Silva, 2001).

It’s clear that the solution to the problem is related not to a widely applicable formula, but to understanding the social reality, the context in which the school is inserted, and this can only happen by opening up the school to the participation of that community (Deacon, [s .d.]).

Democratic school management

Participation and democratic management make school culture “the result of an interactive process” (Silva, 2001) and is not only pointed out as an alternative for reducing school violence, but also has a legal basis. Article 14 of the National Education Guidelines and Bases Law (LDBEN – Law No. 9394/96) defines the rules of democratic management in basic education and establishes the participation not only of education professionals but also of the school community and local population (Brasil, 1996) with the institution of School Councils and School Council Forums (Law No. 14.644/2023), deliberative bodies that seek to guarantee the effective democratic process in educational units and are applied in the search for solutions to the problems that afflict the school and the students, sharing “responsibilities, tasks and finding more creative, appropriate and above all effective responses” (Deacon, [s .d.]).

By sharing responsibility for the education of young people between schools, families and communities, democratic management opens up the possibility of coexistence between children and adults, broadening the knowledge to be shared beyond formal schooling. In this context, it is also explained that this dialogical relationship “between school and community is undoubtedly a benefit for children’s education” (Azanha, 1991).

Building a climate of democratic, plural, inclusive and peaceful coexistence is a challenge for the school organization, but the school “must now move towards shared power, towards equality for all people, […] towards peace” (Torremorell, 2021). But there is a lack of concern and the lack of investment in coexistence directly affects the climate of relationships and the school.

In opposition to the alternative transformation of schools into veritable “fortresses”, increasingly distant from the society they should help to form and transform, changes must be made by presenting alternatives to hierarchization and “must now move towards shared power, towards equality for all people, without exception, and towards peace as one of just living”:

“A democratic school environment derives from the active and real participation of all members of the educational community, starting with the children, who nevertheless constitute the great silent majority. The student body must have a voice and decision-making capacity in everything that affects educational problems, group organization, use of time and space, evaluation, etc.” (Torremorell, 2021).

Student unions and student participation

The (non-)participation of children and young people “and their articulations with institutions […] especially school, is currently one of the most expressive themes in educational and sociological studies of childhood” (Sarmento, 2005 apud Tomás, Gama, 2011), demonstrating that “it is becoming increasingly urgent and necessary to listen to children regarding their action and agency in the social space where they spend the most time: school” (Tomás, Gama, 2011). The effective participation of young people in drawing up and implementing educational proposals is necessary to overcome school violence (Terçariol, 2019), without the cultural component incorporating violence into the “universe of students” (Deacon, [s .d.]).

The identification of children as social actors with rights, “a socio-historical subject endowed with peculiarities and who, in contact with the environment, is driven to learn” (Pereira; Deon, 2022). However, schools continue to view children as passive recipients, disregarding not only what has been established since the beginning of the 20th century, with Piaget’s sequential constructivism (1896-1980), but also the social and cultural contexts in which these children are inserted (Pereira; Deon, 2022).

Student organization stimulates student autonomy and dialogue in decision-making, encouraging the development of skills for the consolidation of harmonious coexistence in the school environment and stimulating the inclusion of students in democratic management. Students have historically been major players in the struggle for human and social rights, in defense of education, and the Student Guild is an important stimulus for social participation and learning democratic concepts.

We reiterate that students “are, in the vast majority of cases, the real victims” of this violence that is intended to be repressed” (Deacon, [s .d.]), and it is urgent that we include institutionalized violence within educational institutions and legitimized by the educational system. to include institutionalized violence within educational institutions and legitimized by the educational system.

Participation: an alternative for a culture of peace

With an understanding of violence as a social fact and of the school as a socializing institution, it is essential that, through the participation of the entire school community, alternatives are sought for the use of negative reinforcements for cases of school violence in order to promote citizen education, an education that reiterates the human and social rights of children and young people and is not limited to trying to condition children’s behavior within the school environment:

“It is up to the school, based on its rules of coexistence, to develop its students in search of a culture of peace, which does not accept violence as a way of resolving conflicts, seeing dialog as the main tool for mediation (Bes, [s .d].).”

Formative actions for students, teachers and families, periodic seminars to raise awareness of students’ rights and duties, in order to teach basic lessons on constitutional rights, legislation, ethics and citizenship (Deacon, [s .d.]), together with the establishment of parameters for the teacher-student relationship, are the key to preventing violent behavior.

Combating violence in schools requires the involvement of the community, with its increasing integration into the school environment and effective participation in the debate about school-related problems, understanding that, by encompassing a heterogeneous set of youth expressions and practices, there is a collective effort not to reiterate the invisibilization of subjects through daily violence in the educational space.