RESEARCH FIELD

We developed the research in the neighborhoods of Cruzeiro, Lomba do Pinheiro, and Restinga. All of them had an expressive population growth in the 1960-70s, due to migration from the countryside to the state capital or displacements within the city. These phenomena are associated, in Brazil, to governmental measures that provoked an intense rural exodus to metropolitan regions and the dynamics of real-estate market that tend to push poor communities to the outskirts of the city (^{Moura, 1996}). Considering statistical series published by the Observatório da Cidade de Porto Alegre (^{ObservaPoa, 2017}), a comparative analysis shows that those places were among the most economically and culturally vulnerable.

Our research assumes schooling as a structural proof, be it due to its recurrent association with social mobility through the articulation with the job market, as indicated by the literature². Be it due to our ethnographic incursions and interviews in outskirt contexts, since 2011, from which we have regularly observed individual and/or family efforts of investment in school, aiming to improve their living conditions. Despite the tensions for staying at school in vulnerable contexts, the relation with the institution has been shown to be mobilizing and a reference when narrating individuals’ failures and successes.

We have designed the research field through the interlocution with young people who are students in different educational levels, in public schools located in the aforementioned neighborhoods³. First, the investigation was based on the application of questionnaires about cultural consumptions and school use. Until the writing of this work, we had reached 583 observations (146 in Cruzeiro; 180 in Lomba do Pinheiro; and 257 in Restinga). It was a random non-probabilistic sample. The access to the students would depend on the agreement of the educational institutions, which had to be public schools (municipal, state, or federal) and attend an expressive presence of young students. This type of sample does not allow statistic extrapolations, but can lead to a significant analysis, particularly when used together with other techniques (^{Field, 2009})⁴. In this sense, the instrument used was a structured, self-applied, multiple-choice questionnaire, applied mainly between April 2017 and June 2019.

The questionnaire population was distributed among the categories: young-teenager (52%), young people between 18 and 24 years of age (29%), young people between 25 and 29 years of age (13%), and adults (6%). Females represented 58% of the observations. 47.6% declared themselves white and 52.4% black (black and mixed race). About family income (393 questionnaires), 62.5% indicated an income of up to 2 minimum wages (MW), 28% between 2 and 5 MW, and 9.5% more than 5 MW. It is worth highlighting that there was a significant correlation between schooling and income in the sample.

The distribution on institutions and educational levels is presented on the Table 1.

Regarding the answers to the questionnaires, we will discuss aspects related to work, schooling of respondents and their families, their common sources of information and online surfing, and how they prefer to spend their time at the educational establishment. About this last topic, we have worked with the options provided in the questionnaire, previously categorized based on the literature of sociology of education and of youth. The practices were divided into “institutional”, “sociable-institutional”, “sociable”, and “divergent”, though, as we will discuss, the analysis shows different articulations in the field.

We held discussion groups in 5 state schools, 1 municipal one, and one federal institute⁵, where we had also applied the questionnaires. Each discussion group had around 10 participants. We choose the institutions aiming to raise a dialogue with the students, considering different educational levels. This procedure is commonly used to know about the social experience of subjects and their relation with their contexts. It is normally held with people with common experiences or similarities, and even among people that know each other (^{Weller, 2006}).

Finally, we selected students for narrative interviews (^{Jovchelovitch, 2002}). Based on the references and methods we have used, the different pathways narrated aimed to understand common experiences. This last part of the interlocution, in our case, was guided toward themed questions that would support us to deepen the narratives on the individuals’ work when facing the social proof of schooling.

We have selected five interviewees among the participants of the discussion groups who seemed interested to continue the dialogue. We tried to reach different levels of education and, furthermore, consider elements highlighted during the previous phase, especially the relation of the subjects with school performance and the “forms of presence” identified in the questionnaire.

SCHOOL AND FIELD RESEARCH: EVIDENCES OF AN IMPERATIVE

Youth unemployment is a global issue (^{IBGE, 2018}). In Brazil, when considering the work conditions of young people, we see a higher rate of unemployment and informality when compared to the average of the population (^{Corseuil, 2016}). So, as highlighted by ^{Corrochano (2016}), if we consider the establishment of a labor imperative as a way to “earn a living” and the perception of work as a need among low-income youngsters, we could think about the poignancy associated to work expectations in socially vulnerable contexts. In this sense, ^{Zago (2011}) discussed the inter-relations between work possibilities and schooling expectations in underprivileged groups, sometimes pointing to family wishes of social climbing, other times tensioning school obligation.

My mom always established discipline, you know? I say I didn’t have a childhood because I was never someone who would go outside and play with friends, you know? This type of things, I was always at home, I was always a homebody. I would arrange my things, my dolls, you know. I’d organize and play with them, and then it was already time for other things [...]

Like, I’ve always learned to be strong, you know? Like, with all the losses I’ve suffered, of course, we are never mature enough for anything, but I’ve learned to be strong. This year I am feeling very down, you know, but I’m working. Thank God, I’m earning a lot!

My mom has had a restaurant for the past seven years, so since the beginning, I’ve helped her, something here and there. But now I really work […] Now I’ve built my house, it’s in the backyard of my mother’s house, but it’s mine. My house and my two pets. (Camile⁶, 16 years old, High School junior, night shift, July 2019)

Our interlocutors indicated that, according to their family material conditions, the work imperative could increase and/or join the demands for autonomy. However, this call for work, an urgency to work, due to necessity or to the fruition of consuming seems to be common, in the resaerched outskirts. This is broadly articulated with a moral imperative for independence and responsibility to face adversities. When commenting on the efforts and “overcomes”, the narratives portrayed a position-taking code when facing the key social proof, established in the individual tasks, and modern heritage, of producing their own existence, of creating the conditions for their achievements in the world.

However, when considering specifically young students, there is an inflection to observe. In most cases, we have subjects who expanded their schooling and permanence at school when compared to their ascendants, as shown by PNAD data. Around 60% of them were not working at the time they answered the questionnaires and 33% had never worked, focusing mainly on school attendance.

Here we have a relatively complex situation to analyze. On the one hand, the interviews indicate that young people in most vulnerable conditions had informal work activities, supported by parental and friendship networks, but, as a rule, they were short-duration jobs. On the other hand, there are those with no work experiences. In this case, the testimonies show that their permanence at school was due to collective family efforts that started (or could start) to prioritize children’s schooling. In these arrangements, we could see that younger children tended to be more privileged, as the older ones would more often work in the household chores or outside to help support the family.

I come from a humble family of 8 siblings. I think my childhood was nice. Surprisingly we didn’t grow up with many difficulties, you know? Also because my siblings have always been very independent, so, it wasn’t that bad for me, thank God! […] My oldest brother worked in a carwash he had with his friend. The second oldest was a house cleaner. The other two, one played soccer and even had a manager, the other worked in a bus company. And they helped [...]

My mother has always encouraged us to study, because she studied little, just as far as the third grade. My father also just finished elementary school and got to the junior year of high school. My other siblings didn’t graduate either, so she wanted to invest a lot on the studies of the young ones.

I’m not currently working. During the day I help my mom with the household chores, then I talk a bit with my girlfriend on the phone, in the afternoon I help my stepfather build the house. I wanna work to have my house. I wanna live alone. (Samuel, 17 years old, High School Senior, night shift, June 2019)

The establishment of a protection network for children and teenagers, and the governamental programs in the years 1990s and 2000s, focusing more on the youth, have been competing for the social production of the times of children and youngsters, despite its insufficiency and precariousness to attend underprivileged groups (^{Sposito, 2008}). According to them, our interlocutors had family arrangements that preserved their childhood and schooling (even if intermittent), though they had some domestic responsibility in many cases. Then, youth is established by the demand to work, but privileging the graduation on basic education.

In other words, using the analysis of ^{Lahire (1997}), there is a type of family mobilization at play. We observe the continuation of the alluded moral imperative; though the socialization through work is postponed, a certain disposition toward the “duty” seems to be established in the family demands, associated to the counterpart of the support previously received and the need for independence faced by possible adversities. On that space the responsabilization for domestic chores and the concern on their own schooling seem to be not only a sign to improve life conditions but a share of youngsters’ daily efforts. Work and school, which can compete for the daily priorities, are axiologically close when narrating the challenges they face.

However, on the other hand, the increase of school permanence and, therefore, peer interaction establishes disputes on the processes of youth individuation. School has been part of the social moratorium intended for youth and forming youth (^{Margulis and Urresti, 1996}). We understand that youth experiences is potentialized in this space, in the fruition of reflexive and non-work time, in the sociable exchanges between classmates, and the possibility of sharing cultural interests.

If we cannot talk here about the cultural condition of class, the tendency of the “dawn of duty”, as affirmed by ^{Martín-Barbero (2017}) when evoking the analysis of Gilles Lipovestisky on contemporary capitalism, we need to also be aware of the specific dynamics established in the relation of youth and periphery schools, as has been indicated by the sociology of youth (^{Dayrell and Carrano, 2014}; ^{Pereira, 2016}).

TO START WITH...

Initially, we have to observe the conditions in which the relationships with school take place, connecting them with some consolidated inferences in the literature. First, the information we summed up through the questionnaire indicate an association between the respondents’ schooling and that of their “mothers” and “father”, as seen in the classic thesis of cultural inheritance (^{Bourdieu, 1999}).

We could see that young people with longer school trajectories had parents with a higher level of education, especially the mothers. However, the trajectories of the children were normally longer when compared to the previous generation. The guardians of those in elementary education during the research had left school before graduating this level, while the same happened with those in high school, though less frequently. Besides this, the schooling of uncles/aunts also had a significant positive association. However, this did not happen when analyzing the grandparents’ educational status, which was unknown for most elementary students (37.3% total against 56.3% for the referred group, considering maternal grandmother as an example).

This information seem to refer to the historical increase in school access in Brazil (^{Brasil, 2000}; ^{IBGE, 2018}), but can also lead us to consider that the relation with schooling is articulated to a network of interdependencies present in family dynamics, as suggested by ^{Lahire (1997}). The recurrent reference to the mothers’ educational level⁷, together with the correlation with the uncles/aunts condition, may be a sign of what we have suggested. The fact that the grandparents’ school life is unkown makes us believe that, if on the one hand the mastery of cultural capital preconized by school objectively and comparatively operates in favor of school carrer, the senses of the institution are understood in the forms of a family inheritance depending on the success of the subjects and their close relatives in the educational system.

Considering this hypothesis on the symbolic value of school, we reflect on an approximation with a scenario of increasing expectation toward the school success of the younger members of low-income families, as highlighted by ^{Cabanes (2006})⁸ when discussing the reality of São Paulo, as an effect of the agencies that foment school access since the beginning of institutional democratization. A context that makes us question the place of the aforementioned tensions and dissonances in the interaction with the search for meanings and the conditions of coproducing the time spent at school.

INTERNET, SCHOOL, AND INTERACTIVITY

Up to this point, the problematization has invited us to jointly consider the historical increase of school access (especially basic education), the unequal conditions of orign, and the uneven schooling experiences, and, besides this, the senses built in the framework of modern social virtuality, mainly the expectations of work, social mobility, and independence. When we focus on the everyday life of school, the present time spent in that locus, there are aspects to obseve that, regarding such scenario, can lead us to interpretation nuances.

For our analysis, we would like to focus on a certain interactive tendency on the everyday uses of social media indicated by the data produced in the field research. When asked to indicate the means through which they search for information, respondents mainly answered “Internet” (90%) and “TV” (61%). On the Internet, the most accessed ones are “social networks” (79%), “music” (42.4%), “films” (35%), “study content” (34.2%), followed by “series” (24.3%), and “online newspapers” (23.9%). There seems to be a prominence of interaction and entertainment purposes, with some consumption of school content or news. On TV, the most recurrent were “films” (58%), “news” (51%), “soap operas” (39%), “series” (37%), and “sports programs” (25%). Once more, entertainment stands out.

For those who regularly go to schools, or even through the observation of general everyday routine, it is possible to empirically deduce the broad uses of Internet and social networks (specially via cellphone). ^{Kubota (2016}) also indicated an increasing appropriation of these technologies as we descend to the younger strata (16 to 24 years old, especially), mainly for interaction and entertainment (social networks, films, music, games, etc.). The search for jobs or educational alternatives gain prominence, as they get older. Similarly, the access to the internet, social networks, and cellphones for such uses are higher among young people as their income and schooling increase.

When we analyze in our sample the “time dedicated to school” and “Internet access frequency”, we perceive that among the non-students (normally adults), Internet access is distributed between the time dedicated to the activity (for instance, 30.8% “stay connected” and 23.1% “do not access”), while those who had a regular time at school were concentrated in the option “stay connected”. By correlating respondents’ answers to “Internet access frequency” and “schooling”, we perceive an increase of 19 percentage points from ES to Higher Education (HE). The “access to the internet” also progressively increases with the “years of study” accumulated (26.3% to “4 to 7 years” and 68.2% to “15 years or more”). Given that the item “years of study”, in our case, indicates the duration in school during the trajectory (and not the progression associated with educational level) (^{IBGE, 2017}), this information leads to an important reflection: possibly, not only the progress in schooling would influence Internet use, but also the permanence in school, making us reflect on the possible effects of peer interaction.

Another significant data, if “Internet” and “TV” are the main sources of information, the question “time searching for information” has many “do not apply” answers. Thus, we can imagine that both sources are mainly used for interaction and/or entertainement. Furthermore, we can think that the enlargement of the uses of the Internet together with schooling would not necessarily be associated to an informational-educational use, but with an interactive and socializing one⁹.

However, during the discussion groups, the testimonies mentioned the intersection of school practices and media use. They told us that when they had time left in class, they would access social networks or listen to music¹⁰. They would also use their cellphones as a distraction when the classes were boring. Furthermore, if media fruition was part of the school routine, they also supported students’ activities, as there were many online groups and communities to inform on activities and tests, including some cunning strategies as the sharing of “cheat sheets” for the exams.

Therefore, though we can see dissonances or even ruptures of the instituitional time, we believe it would be pertinent not to consider the tatics used by young students as an indication of a rift between youth and student role. Beyond reminding us on the articulation between the social-historic production of youth and the related social moratorium, in a way a consequence of the establishment of a social time at school (^{Margulis and Urresti, 1996}), we approach the results of ^{Souza and Leão’s research (2016}), which indicate a tense and mutual relation between being young and being a student in online interactions. In the words of the authors:

Another element that called our attention was that students simultaneously reflect the role of student in the classroom and reproduced it in online spaces [...] this reinforcement or reproduction of students’ work online has called our attention to other elements that crossed such work and that are typical of youngster-students, nowadays mediatic: the nonlinear time of school work, a more collective practice of school work, the intensification of learning exchange, the diversification of the ways to access school content. (^{Souza and Leão, 2016}, p. 299)

CHOICES IN SCHOOL ROUTINE

When asked about the elements they liked better in their experiences at school, students’ answers to the questionnaires point to peer sociability¹¹. When crossing the information on “educational level” and “elements liked in school” (see Table 2), we see a predominance of “moments with classmates” in all levels. The option “classes with some teachers” is the second most cited. When considering the answers of higher education students (technologists), we observe a slight tendency toward “content of some subjects”, in addition to the fact that “talking with teachers” surpasses “breaktime”.

We can perceive the maintanance of the socializing interaction in the different educational levels, with a gradual approximation to elements that indicate the traditional role of educational institutions during higher education. Though there is a redimensioning of the proportion dedicated to items associated to sociability, as they progress in schooling and age, with possible institutionalization toward the search for cultural capital, the item “moments with classmates” remains even when observing different educational establishments.

If we analyze the distribution of “elements liked at school” per place of questionnaire application, the item “moment with classmates” is the most cited one, maintaining the same percentage (around 66%). However, there are some nuances: in the state schools, where we applied the questionnaires with high school students, the items “breaktime”, “joking around with classmates”, and “outings organized by the school” have a similar percentage (around 43%) and are in the second position. In the municipal schools, with Youth and Adult Education elementary school students, the second most common option was “classes with some teachers” (56.3%), followed by “breaktime” (34.4%), and “content of some subjects” (31.3%). In the Federal Institute, with YAE and higher education students, “classes with some teachers” was the second choice (63.5%, very close to “moments with classmates”), followed by “content of some subjects” (47.1%). We can discuss some findings. The preference for items related to the institutional educational dynamic increases with initiatives connected to professionalization, though maintaining the importance of peer interaction and the relationship with the knowledge mediated by the teacher. Municipal and state schools researched seem to show signs of tension in their relationship with students, so that their preferences are guided toward items indicating a personal interlocution and/or a rupture of school rythms. For students of ES/YAE, teachers’ mediation seem to be particularly meaningful. Finally, the higher education admission exams segregate, from the start, those with cultural capital, therefore we find, among these students, those who live in richer areas of the city or even other cities.

Thus, we can think that the nuances to approximate the institutional educational dynamic vary depending on the educational establishment. More specifically, depending on the precarization of the infrastructure, on teachers’ work conditions¹², the on admission process, and their possible association with the job market. The literature commonly cites the latter (^{Dayrell and Jesus, 2016}; ^{Freitas, 2016}). Furthermore, for the most vulnerable groups, in our case mainly ES/YAE students, their presence at school is strongly marked by sociability (with classmates and teachers).

Going to the end of our discussion on the topic, we will deal with the articulation perceived between the “elements liked at school”, so as to categorize the “ways to be present” in school associated to what we have presented here (as shown in the Table 3). Those who chose “breaktime”, tended to opt for “moments with classmates” (71.6%) and, with less emphasis, “classes with some teachers” (33.8%). However, in this case, we should highlight that this is closed followed by “joking around with classmates” and “outings” (both with 29.7%). From this, we point out to the first, which we named sociable-convergent.

The choice of “joking with friends” is reinforced by “moments with classmates” (77.6%) and “breaktime” (44.9%). It is interesting to see that, even in this case, the item “classes with some teachers” is significantly present (42.9%). Those who selected “classes with some teachers” (a constant item, together with “moments with classmates”) commonly chose “moments with classmates” (59.9%), “content of some subjects” (47.9%), and further down “talk with teachers” (29.6%). Here, two ways of presence are drawn: the first, we called sociable- tensioner; the second, we defined as sociable-institutional, given its approximation to elements of the school dynamic, but still mindfull of interaction and sociability. The establishment of the latter form seems to be reinforced by the choices associated to “content of some subjects”, “time in the library”, and “talk with teachers”.

Certainly, the classification above is not meant to be exhaustive or extrapolated. We only draw some lines for future studies. Despite the limits, we understand that an important aspect refers to the articulation between institutional and sociable elements in the groups. We believe that, probably, the ways to be present, though indicating modulable ways of acting in the schoolin process, are organized tense relationships rather than ruptures. Or, in other words, youth sociable dynamics and virtual interactions compose the ways of school fruition, though under variations according to the objective conditions of access to the institution.

I was at school for the social [aspect]. I joked around, hanged on the back of the classroom. But...I don’t know, the teachers noticed that I also respected them. You know, I’d missbehave and had to go to the principal’s office, then I’d talk to the teachers, and it was all fine. I got along with the teachers; I liked to talk with them too […]

Then, later, I tried to study Law, but I gave up. I didn’t like it. It was not for me. Then, I left it and didn’t study for a long time. I worked, traveled...I tried Law again after a while, but couldn’t. My mind had changed. Then I decided to take the course I’m in now. I had to get prepare and studied by myself. I used many YouTube videos; there are many good things on YouTube. (Ênio, 29 years old, third semester higher education, Sep. 2019)

Some aspects brought up in discussion groups can help us understand the power of sociable and interactive dynamics in the experience of schooling and/or the articulation between youth and student practices. According to what they have told us, the preference for the breaktime is associated to the possibility of circulating and the many conversations established. We need to use ^{Simmel (2006}) at this point to observe “sociable conversation” from the perspective of the games established. Conversations do not dispense protagonism and lead subjects toward the excitement of unexpected subtleties, at the same time, they need to guarantee that the integration between the interlocutors is kept. It is a ludic game of exchanges in which the presence of the other and its singularity need to be considered in the balance of the interactions¹³.

As we observed, such narrative and sociable performance extends to the interactions in social networks. Strategies to express emotions simulating facial features (such as emoticons) and creative appropriations tensioning the textual format (for instance, abbreviations and use of images) translate the dynamic of sociability, loaded with a tone of oral language.

So, on the institutional practices themselves, the young-students pointed out that the quality of the classes they attended were under evaluation, considering the level of teachers’ implication with the students’ experiences, so that, without denying the supposed “duty” to learn the contents or school sucess, they asked for these contents to be delivery in an interacticve way. In a discussion group, a student said: “if all teachers were like Andre, who turns his back to us and fills the blackboard, school would be over. They have to talk to us, give examples”.

Their narratives often indicated that the school time, the rational and sequential relation with knowledge was tensed by fragmentation and connectivity, interposing online interaction or musical fruition during teachers’ breaks. However, we understand that, together with this, there is a contradictory preference regarding the types of knowledge that cross the different forms of presence. Below, we present some interview excerpts of students who participated in the research.

My mom, she is like “honey, you did well, this is great, but you can do even better!” [..] When I was 6 I started to study music. It was not my first access to culture but it was the first time I started to study there; you know? So, I started to play the flute and soon the transverse flute and I also played piano […]

I like reading, but I mainly like to listen, so I listen and try to see what I’ve learned and I try to teach someone what I’ve learned. Then I see that I need to pass on what I’ve learned, though it is never exactly [..] I do this with the people on the student council; they are my lab rats [laughs]. [...] I learn much better with this strategy of talking with people than when I study alone. When the school asks something and I don’t have the will to learn that thing, I memorize it. And sometimes you need it, you know, because there is always a little trick [signs to the sleeve of the shirt as if hiding a small cheat sheet]. (Marja, 17 years old, Senior High School student, day shift, Jun. 2019)

The excerpt above is from an interlocution with a student, member of the student council. Her daily life is marked by intense activities in the school and at the student movement. She had good results on institutional activities and, besides that, showed a relatively critical knowledge on the school routine during her interview, with categories commonly used by teachers during explanations. Despite her cultural capital, built with family support and her political immersion, she used compensatory devices, which go against institutional prescriptions. Thus, subscribing to interactive and interlocutive ways to relate with knowledge. Here are two more examples:

Then, at school, like, I don’t make much effort, unless it is a test or something like it, but I don’t really read outside the school, first because I don’t have much time, and, second, because I get sleepy, you know? That is why I pay a lot of attention in class, mainly on the examples, like, the examples the teachers give get stuck in my mind. I like questions and answers, like, the exercises they give, you know. When they don’t, it’s hard, because reading...I can’t remember well [...] I like teachers that explain! Explain and give many examples. Those who compare, I don’t know, a duck with Physics, I don’t know, I memorize that. (Camile, 16 years old, High School Junior, night shift, July 2019)

I just have a look on what’ll be on the test. If the teacher gave that subject, I’ll have it in the notebook, then I just skim it and go do the test, it normally works out. It isn’t a problem, like, as if I had to sit down for 3 hours to study and get a good grade. (Gilson, 27 years old, T5 - Elementary education - YAE, night shift, June 2019)

The two cases narrate situations of intense and simultaneous involvement with work during schooling. The second interviewee described an itinerary crossed by material precariousnees and episodes of violence, having an intermittent school trajectory. They differ in their most recurrent ways of presence during schooling, sociable-convergent and sociable-tensioner, respectively, though Gilson tried to prioritize his graduation on elementary school when we talked. However, we could see common aspects regarding the relation with the knowledge priviledged by teachers. On the one hand, both showed they had built a certain familiarity with school routine and teachers’ prescriptions and evaluations, so they have tried to find a way to adequately prepare for a established obligation. On the other, an announced preference, similar to Marja, toward teachers who relied on orality, interlocution, and examples to have good results.

If we can think about an association to the different domains of cultural capital in the cases above, we can also consider the effects of inhabiting the institution, in the experience of its prescriptions and expectations, articulating other references and resources as supports. The ways to be present can then signalize a position taking in the co-production of schooling.