Many credit the origins of governmentality studies to the French philosopher Michel Foucault (foo-coe). Foucault centered power in much of his work--exploring how power circulates, how disciplinary structures are formed, how individuals (or what he calls subjects) regulate their own behaviors in response to power, and how power relations are organized. Foucault acknowledged that the behaviors of people are not the result of deep-rooted identities or personalities, but rather the result of broader functions of power disciplining them to behave in particular ways, to view themselves in particular ways, and to interact with others in particular ways. In other words, we come to make sense of who we are in a given moment as we interact with one another and interact within particular systems. This self-forming activity is (very loosely) what Foucault refers to as the process of subjectification. Toward the end of his life, in a series of lectures given at the Collège de France, he introduced and explored the concept of governmentality, or the art of government, as another way we are shaped to behave and think in particular ways.

Broadly speaking, Foucault conceptualized governmentality as the “conduct of conduct.” In other words, how the government conducts (as in leads, like a conductor of an orchestra) people towards particular conducts (as in behaviors). To make this case, Foucault traced the historical shifts in the art of governing. In order to identify the underlying rationality of the modern state, Foucault traced conceptions of what it means to rule from the Greeks, to Roman rule rooted in Christianity and divine sovereignty, to the rationalism of the Enlightenment. As liberalism emerged in the 18th century, the central questions emerging around governance focused on finding the most effective ways to govern, while working to limit governments from impeding on certain inalienable, natural rights. These rights came to include access to a free market which would regulate itself (i.e. Laissez-Faire economics). However, as neoliberalism emerged and became more pervasive, the rational logic that guided and shaped government policies and its subjects became notably centered around economics, and governments shifted to play a significant role in organizing and regulating the market. In other words, the economic grid and its logics became applied to social life. Some refer to this as a shift of man from homo politicus, or those who live together as political animals, with a capacity for association, ethical judgement, and an ability to negotiate in the public square across differences in social groups, to homo economicus, or those whose self-interest's prioritize the benefit or utility for himself (through cost-benefit analyses, for example). Here, members of a society are not driven by political rationalities and capacities, but economic ones. In this way, neoliberal governmentality allows us to consider the mechanisms which ensure the general regulation of society through the economic market.

Foucault wrote about two technologies of governmentality, disciplinary power and control mechanisms. In schools, many structures are rooted in what Foucault called disciplinary power. For example, if a student broke a school rule, they may be disciplined with suspension. These disciplinary structures are common in many societal spaces, including, for example, schooling and law enforcement. However, paired with this disciplinary power are control mechanisms. Instead of exclusively relying on direct consequences, governmentality also relies on what Foucault calls technologies of control, where subjects are “nudged” towards particular desired behaviors. To be clear, governmentality -- including both mechanisms of discipline and of control -- connects to the ways power is exercised over individuals. However, these exercises continue to take on new forms--increasingly less overt in order to prompt the individual to regulate themselves. Foucault points to a range of “technologies” which function to promote the desired behaviors. In particular, these technologies of power are those that are embedded with goals of shaping conduct which produce certain desired effects and avoid certain undesired ones. To be clear, these mechanisms are powerful not just because they privilege particular behaviors, but also because they produce specific ways of knowing, allowing certain ideas about what is “true” or “right” to develop. This production of knowledge creates what Foucault called truth regimes. So, in addition to regulating behaviors, these mechanisms can also shape how we make sense of ourselves, of others, and of a range of ideas and values.

When exploring neoliberal governmentality more specifically, we are looking at the systematic and regulated practices (and truth regimes) which draw on a particular economic rationality. Rather than looking at the general regulation of behaviors associated with governmentality more broadly, neoliberal governmentality focuses on the mechanisms rooted in economic logics which guide behaviors. These logics and rationalities are often assumed to be connected to self-interest -- including cost/benefit analyses and working to maximize your individual interests. Again, these mechanisms for this guidance, or governance, can be both direct and indirect. Direct mechanisms would take on the form of discipline--typically indicated by rigid punishment structures or consequences. Indirect mechanisms rely on control -- typically indicated by guiding the masses towards particular desired behaviors. While more modern mechanisms of neoliberal governmentality rely on more indirect technologies of control, both continue to exist and supplement one another.

When exploring neoliberal governmentality in school spaces, it can be difficult to identify the technologies of control associated with neoliberal governmentality. Thinking of the ways we, as teachers, rely on economic logics to subtly direct our students towards desired behaviors or practices can be hard to recognize--particularly because the description of governmentality can seem nefarious. However, it can be helpful to be able to name why and how neoliberal governmentality is functioning in schools to begin to think about how we may be promoting and enforcing economic logics in our classrooms.

It may be easier to think of more general mechanisms of governmentality. Take, for example, the many ways teachers quiet a classroom. Governmentality could help explain the silence that is (sometimes) produced when the teacher stands before the class, hands on hips, silently signaling for attention. Students are signaled to be quiet, focus their attention, and wait for some instruction. In this way, the desired behavior--in this case silence--is produced by subtly signaling to students. This often gets normalized and internalized to where students begin silencing themselves, “shushing” their peers, and relying less and less on a cue from their teacher. Similarly, students may be prompted to walk on the right side of the hall by the taped lines running down the middle of the hallway floor, mimicking the road. This serves as a subtle nudge or reminder to follow the established flow of traffic. Additionally, think about the way many schools have been adopting curriculums that value mindfulness or other self-regulation strategies. While these may be helpful to focus students' attention, calm them after transitions, or to provide strategies to manage certain emotions, they appear rooted in a desire to teach students how to regulate (or govern) themselves in ways more aligned with school norms. We may want our students to be well adjusted and able to identify and respond to their emotions, but it is worth thinking if some of these strategies function to make our students easier to control in the classroom.

However, these examples are not rooted in economic logic, and therefore are not indicative of neoliberal governmentality. Instead, we can refer back to my own experiences with classroom dollars, pizza parties, and incentives. These increasingly common school experiences are an example of neoliberal governmentality because they are based on the good behavior economy created in many schools today. Other examples of this kind of neoliberal governmentality could include digital technologies like Class Dojo, or even more traditional gold star charts. In what follows, I will focus on one growing trend in schools which draws on this good behavior economy -- PBIS, or the Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports. Instead of centering more traditional disciplinary structures, PBIS seeks to promote particular behaviors through prevention. In this case, rather than being based on consequences, PBIS aims to promote positive behaviors through lessons and incentive programs.

As mentioned, neoliberal governmentality functions through nudges and a range of technologies of control. Similarly, PBIS operates by incentivizing the desired behaviors. The very use of incentives points to some elements of neoliberalism in that the motivation is based on rewards, recognition, and/or some variation of capital accumulation. In other words, these incentive based programs often appeal to students' economic self-interest, rather than a desire for a shared, common good in the school. The underlying logic for the program therefore seems to be economic.

dditionally, many PBIS programs rely on teachers recognizing the desired, positive behaviors as students demonstrate them throughout the day. This recognition is intended to cue the rest of the class to regulate their own behavior by adopting those same behaviors. For example, as teachers, we might find ourselves saying something like, “I like the way Billy is sitting quietly, waiting for instruction” or maybe, “I like the way Sarah is raising her hand.” These subtle recognitions of a desired behavior prompt students to follow suit. This becomes more rooted in economic logics, when we award incentive money to spend at the school store, for example. In this case, giving a school dollar to Billy, or assigning positive points to Sarah on Class Dojo. Students apply market logics to determine if the desired behavior is worth the possible reward (a simple cost-benefit analysis). When students do not like the incentives, for example, the PBIS system may not be as effective because the motivation to adopt the prompted behaviors is not as strong. However, the structure often positions students to act out of economic interests to behave and think in particular ways in the classroom.

PBIS is just one of the latest examples of the ways students are led to adopt certain desired behaviors through economic logic. There are likely many others. For example, consider how neoliberal governmentality may be functioning in visual displays in your school (i.e. Accelerated Reader point trackers, school posters, publicly displayed attendance percentages, etc.). Furthermore, these mechanisms do not exclusively function to regulate students. Take, for example, the ways school systems may rely on neoliberal governmentality to encourage teachers to adopt certain teaching practices (i.e. merit based pay which may incentivize particular pedagogical practices). Again, these practices are not inherently negative, but it is important to interrogate the ways schools govern students and teachers alike through neoliberal values--considering what these mechanisms promote, what they ignore, and how they limit what is invited into schools.

Governmentality is a concept that can easily become far reaching and hard to fully conceptualize. While offering small insights into how neoliberal governmentality may exist in schools, a few additional resources are provided below to help us continue to identify and name the ways students are governed in schools and how we might respond.