DANCES, PERFORMANCES AND (NEW) “EPIDEMICS”: WHAT DOES SCHOOL HAVE TO DO WITH IT?

INTRODUCTION

Perhaps the question that sounds most strongly when we encounter the scene presented here is: how does “any” performance is related to curricular aspects and the school environment? In our writing, we propose to reflect on the repercussions generated by a performance in which a dancer “swung” to the sound of Batcu, a song by drag artist Aretuza Lovi in ​​partnership with funk singer Valesca Popozuda. This occurred during the event “Em Prosa Brasil - 1st Meeting for Mobilization for Health Promotion in Brazil” on October 5, 2023, organized by the Ministry of Health. This context became the spark that reignited a whole discussion about what is considered appropriate or not for certain spaces. This is just one example we use to analyze part of a long-standing problem that affects—and terrifies—schools and teachers when “erotic” music and dance enter the walls of a place that should—at least in common sense—be sanitized. The issue is not Batcu, arrocha, funk, or dancing Na Boquinha da Garrafa, but rather what is allowed, what is not allowed, and what might be allowed, depending on the location.

Based on this question that emerges from the previous scene, and thinking about creating broader and more complex entanglements to dissect together² upon perceiving its nuances, we also present our main concerns, which will guide the ever-growing writing of this text: Which bodies can perform? Where can they perform? Is there a definition of an adequate territoriality for such performances? Shifting the debate to the field of education, how does such a movement allow us to also (re)think the school space, which is not a territory, but a place? According to Macedo and Ranniery (2022, p. 2):

In his well-known genealogy of neoliberalism, Michel Foucault (2008) showed how this regime, above all, constitutes subjectivities that are correlated with it. The neoliberal is not a distant other, but a kind of ethos that can come to characterize us all, even when claiming to be left-wing, even when defending human rights, or even when detesting its principles.

From this neoliberal standpoint and the signs produced within it, we embark on a journey following the paths of an undisciplined sub-methodology (Mombaça, 2016) to examine some of the mechanisms that render certain performances intelligible while marginalizing others. This occurs in a context where, on one hand, identity agendas advance in their demands, yet on the other, those who identify as dissenting bodies find themselves once again confined to specific spaces, particularly when hidden behind “four walls.” This confinement perpetuates structures of biopolitical exploitation that seek to control them (Paranhos; Wiggers; Willerding, 2022).

We have learned, especially when discussing performativity, that it is necessary to constantly shift our field of action to observe how other contexts have behaved in the face of neoliberal demands that are quickly impacting education, when they do not impact it in the first place. Thus, the “shaking” performed within a public space like the Ministry of Health, and especially all the repercussions that have resulted from it, “[...] offer us opportunities to think about ourselves differently” (Ball; Olmedo, 2013, p. 87, our translation), believing that, in our teaching practice, we must find ways to escape the constant captures perpetrated by the hegemonic neoliberal “cystem.”³

Thus, we organize this text based on the scene presented and this introduction. We continue presenting a conceptual debate around performance and performativity. In the third section, we consider how performativity constitutes a device that creates defined territories. We then present some comments taken from the social network Instagram that represent part of the repercussion generated from the performance in question. Finally, we focus on demonstrating the need to rethink performativity and school, so that the latter, as a place, truly opens itself to otherness, distancing itself - or, at least, attempting to distance itself - from the constant control of bodies.

PERFORMANCE AND PERFORMATIVITY⁴

Considering the centrality of subjectivation processes in our discussion, we believe that Judith Butler's readings become indispensable, putting them “[...] into operation to consider other normativities” (Macedo; Miller, 2022, p. 5). Such processes refer, broadly speaking, to the construction of subjects' subjectivities, always discussed theoretically in different ways, depending on the matrix on which they are supported (Mansano, 2009). Butler questions the processes of constructing subjectivities, subjectivation, because she understands that they disobey linearity and congruence. On the contrary, Butler argues that subjection is always contingent and precarious, since it never reaches an end. Performativity, the core of all the discussions proposed by the author, which begins to be developed in Problemas de Gênero (Gender Trouble), published in 1990, becomes central to this critical movement carried out by her (Colling; Arruda; Nonato, 2019).

When examining gender identity, Judith Butler questions how such identity is constituted by perceiving it within a framework of rigid regulations. Drawing on Michel Foucault's concept of inscription, Butler understands that power, in the form of social norms and conventions, is inscribed onto bodies, which then incorporate these norms and produce bodies—bodies of their own and others—that signify this law through their own corporeality (bodily marks). In this process—which we can perhaps perceive as cyclical—gender is formed from expressions that, for Butler, would also be its results (Rocha, 2014).

The process of inscription, production, and reproduction of bodies based on/in/with established social norms is considered by Butler to be performativity, “[...] understood not as a singular or deliberate ‘act,’ but rather as a reiterative and citational practice by which discourse produces the effects it names” (Butler, 2001, p. 154). For the author, the “[...] reality of the subject that speaks, of the body that speaks and acts, is performatively produced in situ⁵ by what is said and done” (Borba, 2014, p. 448). In other words, we can think that subjects are constituted from performativity, which is architected, in turn, by the performance of subjects.

However, criticisms directed at Judith Butler were not uncommon, considering that her theory was too voluntaristic. The author, to counter them,

[...] proposed a differentiation between gender performance and gender performativity. In this distinction, performance would be that performed by drag queens and characterized by a limited act, the product of the will or choice of the performer. 'It is a mistake to reduce performativity to performance' (Butler, 2002:69). Gender performativity, as previously explained, is not characterized by the subject's choice or agency, but by the repeated effect of the norm, even if these repetitions are not always carried out in the way the norms desire (Colling; Arruda; Nonato, 2019, p. 13-14).

We reach a point where we perceive “[...] a performative model of identity in which our actions, repeated incessantly, constitute identity as if it were something natural [,] an effect of repeated performances that re-actualize historically and culturally specific discourses” (Borba, 2014, p. 448).

Following Butler's perspective, we conclude that the interaction between performance and performativity produces, and is produced by, the norms prevailing in the social performative scenario. What we mean by this, based on Butler (2002), is that no subject is completely free in its construction, be it gender, social, political, or other, at the moment in which it has always been responding to the social norms that are the pillars of performativity, which depends on this constant interaction and, above all, on its repetition to be established.

Finally, we want to create an analogy here that perhaps simplifies our understanding of performativity, a quasi-concept that often raises questions. We can imagine language as a virus that, to spread, requires vectors—in this case, us, the subjects. Even if we don't realize it, thousands of viruses pass through our bodies every day and, from our bodies, spread to other bodies, whether human or nonhuman. The same occurs with language, which passes through us without us feeling any kind of strangeness, since linguistic exercise is something internalized in our lives; it is something automatic, something we make no effort to perform. Just as in viral dissemination, where, as viruses pass through bodies, they modify their structure, the same occurs with language, which, upon coming into contact with us, changes.

However, for dissemination to be successful and continue its multiplicative course, recognition is essential. Using the analogy of viral activity, we can say that recognition is the moment when the virus finds “gaps” in our bodies so that infection can occur. Returning to language as performativity, recognition is also mandatory for establishing iterability, promoting its dissemination. Even if there is no infection—recognition—the virus will spread using us as a vehicle. However, if we are affected by the virus, we often become potential transmitters, in addition to inaugurating a new “context,” which we call disease. It is no different with language. If it “infects” us, it will certainly be repeated in much more expressive ways, generating countless effects, as well as creating a context of meaning—opinions, assumptions, defenses, theses...

No matter how much we investigate the effects, it will be very difficult to pinpoint the genesis of any viral pandemic, since it began long ago and has reconfigured itself numerous times, eluding any possibility of finding its origin in an attempt at a “cure.” Given this, vaccines are generally developed to combat the vigor of viral activity, producing antibodies to combat it, rather than a medicine that produces a cure. What about performativity? We will return to this point later.

PERFORMATIVITY AND CREATION OF TERRITORIES

Given that no process of subjectivation and bodily materialization is immune to the influences of performative activity, it is essential to examine the context in which performativity currently functions. We must consider the implications this might have on everyday life, particularly for those individuals who possess a strong desire to liberate themselves from rigid narratives in the construction of their own identities.

Focusing mainly on the Brazilian scenario, we must return to 2013, when very significant protests began in our country, known as the June Days, which were quickly co-opted by the more conservative wings that, since the election of the first popular government in 2002, had been embittered in almost always supporting or even figurative positions. Due to the rapid and strategic mobilization, national conservatism gained a prominent place in the 2014 elections and, working tirelessly in the following two years, guaranteed the long-awaited impeachment of Dilma Rousseff, the first step towards coming to power in 2018. However, it should be highlighted that this movement followed, at the time, an international trend (Löwy, 2015), which was established based on the “[...] decline of liberal democracy and [the] repressive hardening of political regimes chosen through democratic procedures” (Almeida, 2019, p. 186).

For Löwy (2015), in his global analysis, conservative groups tend to use anti-corruption rhetoric as a way to attract the electorate's attention and, from there, begin to defend causes that are essential for the advancement of political, economic, and social neoliberalism. This strategy also allows them to “[...] justify the power of traditional oligarchies and, depending on the case, legitimize military coups” (Löwy, 2015, p. 662). Regarding the flags, unfortunately we can systematize an extensive list of agendas that tend to operate in an appealing way, gaining new defenders: religiosity, defense of traditional values, defense of the traditional family, militarization - calling for military intervention and bringing with it a nostalgia for dictatorial times -, armament, expansion of agribusiness and withdrawal of environmentalist agendas, defense of a minimal State, large-scale privatizations, among others (Löwy, 2015; Almeida, 2019).

Narrowing our contextualization and returning to the figure, quite controversial and, one might say, sometimes caricatured - but not in a positive sense -, of the former president who represented conservative values, we observe the invocation of a considerable prominence of the figure of the “macho,” virile and provider (Brito, 2022), which is illustrated through public demonstrations in which he made a point of reaffirming himself as the personification of such an image, as exemplified by his speech during the parade on September 7, 2022, when the former ruler chanted a chorus referring to himself: “unbreakable, unbreakable, unbreakable, unbreakable, unbreakable” (Senra, 2022).

The subject that represents this neoliberal and, often, conservative performativity is defined by Brown (2017) as homo economicus. It is no coincidence that the first term in the definition is homo, referring to the cisgender man. However, what interests us here is Brown's (2017, p. 277) discussion of the need for this performative subject to “[...] ontologize [...] the individual, the heterosexual nuclear family, and sexual difference” to organize the social fabric. Thus, drawing on a gendered performativity of labor, it is the man's responsibility—always endowed with capacity—to provide, and the woman's responsibility is to be the “breadwinner” of the family, but only for caregiving. After all, she will be responsible for all those individuals considered unproductive.

Put differently, while neoliberal homo oeconomicus is both gendered [...] and genderifying [...] in its ascendancy and dissemination, this is illegible on its terms. Women's continued responsibility to provide care, in various forms, both within and outside the home, means that women simultaneously require the visible social infrastructure that neoliberalism seeks to dismantle through privatization and are the invisible infrastructure that sustains a world supposedly formed by self-investing human capital. Therefore, the figure of homo oeconomicus is not simply illusory or ideological in its denial of the persons and practices that constitute and sustain human life. On the contrary, when homo oeconomicus becomes the governing truth, when it organizes laws, conduct, policies, and everyday arrangements, the burdens and invisibility of those excluded individuals and practices intensify (Brown, 2017, p. 280).

The reasoning we have been constructing is important to ensure that subjects are “[...] the result of endless processes of identity construction that are, to a greater or lesser extent, but never completely, constrained by the contingencies of the particular historical moment in which they are inscribed” (Ball; Olmedo, 2013, p. 87, our translation), but this, in turn, is never just a constant beginning or end. The subject inscribed in social performativity is a becoming or, as Wayar (2021) would say, a gerund, a “we-are-being,” as it is in a constant process of tension and displacement, considering the social, political, and economic assumptions that are inscribed in it.

If we are the results of performativity and, at the same time, “feed” it, we conclude that it can also be defined as a machinic activity, constantly formulating and reformulating, depending on countless intertwined aspects. “These situations are what we might call states of domination and imply the near-total impossibility of developing practices of freedom” (Ball; Olmedo, 2013, p. 90, our translation), making it impossible to escape what is established. From this point on, it is important to think contextually and analyze the fact that we have just “emerged” from a period in which discourses surrounding the traditional family, morality, and good customs were vehemently propagated, becoming overvalued and occupying a considerable space within social performativity.

It is essential to consider humanity through the lens of territorialization, as we are fundamentally territorial beings. The concept of territory holds significant importance in this context. According to Haesbaert (2007), territory has a dual connotation, encompassing both material and symbolic dimensions. Etymologically, the term "territory" derives from terra-territorium and terreoterritor, the latter being associated with the notions of “terror” and “terrorizing.” This implies that, on one hand, territory enables a form of “[...] (legal-political) domination of the land, instigated by terror and fear—particularly for those who are excluded or prevented from accessing the 'territorium'” (Haesbaert, 2007, p. 20). Conversely, for those who possess the privilege of enjoying such territoriality, it can evoke a positive sense of appropriation.

For territory to be possessed and, consequently, for it to be invaded and dominated, it is necessary to define the limits of this space, also known as borders. Here, we do not use the concept of borders as diffracted by Anzaldúa (2005), in which differences are instituted and (co)exist, but rather the border that divides and separates what is “inside and outside.”

We can, in simple terms, speak of four major “ends” or objectives of territorialization, which can be accumulated and/or distinctly valued over time: - physical shelter, source of material resources and/or means of production; - identification or symbolization of groups through spatial referents (starting with the construction of borders itself); - control and/or disciplinarization through space (strengthening the idea of ​​the individual through spaces that are also individualized, in the case of the modern world); - construction and control of connections and networks (flows, mainly flows of people, goods and information) (Haesbaert, 2007, p. 28).

Body-place is the quasi-concept from which Brito (2017) draws in his writing. For the author, place can be understood as a space of openness, where there are multiple experiences at the most varied scales, given that no boundary zone can define it. When we say that something “is there in that place,” we indicate, at the very least, where a given thing can be found, but this statement lacks precision because place has no boundaries. When this place is dominated, stimulating the emergence of different forms of authority over it, Haesbaert (2007) defines the true perspective of what is understood as territory.

Performativity creates diverse territories: territories of knowledge, territories of power, territories of meaning, territories of gender, cultural territories… Such zones—often conflictual—protect all those who comply with the regulated guidelines and, therefore, protect us. “Even if an image becomes hegemonic, it configures itself for a range of other possibilities—debating them tacitly, keeping them at a distance, or subordinating them” (Brown, 2017, p. 267), initiating veritable wars for the defense of territory, attacking with heavy ammunition all those who dare to remain outside the walls that protect territorialities.

Inside/outside is an opposition that weaves the plots of Western metaphysics, establishing hierarchical relations that understand the “outside” as always inferior, an opposition that, according to Derrida (2001), must be inverted or, better, deconstructed, emphasizing the need to implode such movements through operations that occur within such constructions - in our case, performative territories or territorial performativities.

THE BATCU AND AFTER THE BATCU

Although we began this text with a brief description of the performance at the Ministry of Health, we believe it is essential—beyond our obligation as researchers—to broaden our perspectives. After the event, the Ministry of Health issued a statement, stating its institutional position:

The Ministry of Health emphasizes that this isolated incident does not reflect the ministry's policy or the purpose of the debate on health promotion held at the meeting. The event, linked to the Secretariat of Primary Health Care, aimed to support the implementation and participatory management of the National Health Promotion Policy by sharing experiences among managers and workers from different states, with moments dedicated to cultural diversity. To prevent similar situations from occurring again, the ministry immediately created an event curatorship, linked to the Minister's Office, which will assess whether the proposed participations are consistent with the Ministry of Health's conduct and institutional mission (Brazil, 2023a).

Although it acted quickly, the Ministry was unable to contain a veritable flood of articles, speeches and positions strongly influenced by the conservative wing, which began a veritable “witch hunt”, primarily through speeches on social media (Oposição reage [...], 2023), demanding that the ministry disclose the expenses for the event (Marzullo, 2023) and taking the case to the Public Prosecutor's Office, demanding the opening of an investigation (Teixeira, 2023).

The media spared no expense with the headlines, labeling the performance in a variety of ways: “gynecological” (Vilela, 2023), “sexual” (Vilela, 2023), “obscene” (Evento da saúde [...], 2023), “sensual” (Blanes, 2023), and “erotic” (Batcu, 2023; Leite, 2023; Gadelha, 2023; Soares, 2023; Santos, 2023). This panorama prompts an intense debate about what is and is not appropriate and suitable for certain spaces.

The prevailing narrative surrounding this landscape has significantly influenced public opinion. A glance at Instagram showcases a deluge of comments, many of which have garnered substantial likes, asserting that the dance is inappropriate. The majority of these commenters justify their stance by arguing that the dance is inherently erotic, and they believe that common sense dictates its exclusion from the event (Figure 1).

Source: Research data (2023).⁶

Figure 1 - Comments collected from the Instagram network 

Other statements, however, seek support in ridicule (Figure 2). If we consider that the act of racializing consists of belittling, diminishing, or discriminating against a certain group due to shared characteristics (Lapolli; Paranhos; Willerding, 2022), we can then infer that the use of “fun” to attack a certain person, group, or movement consists, as Moreira (2019) reminds us, of a practice of recreational racism.

Source: Research data (2023).⁷

Figure 2 - Comments collected from the Instagram network 

The issue of territory and/or spatialization was also extremely present in the comments analyzed (Figure 3), all stating that it was an inappropriate environment for the type of performance proposed, which should be restricted to specific spaces.

Source: Research data (2023).⁸

Figure 3 - Comments collected from the Instagram network 

Finally, and we cannot fail to highlight, there is a very expressive cut in aspects of gender and sexuality, when, on the one hand, the transsexual or transvestite identity is delegitimized, stating that it is not a spectrum that performs in womanhood (Nascimento, 2021) or, even, linking it to prostitution (Figure 4).

Source: Research data (2023).⁹

Figure 4 - Comments collected from the Instagram network 

Our aim here is not to propose a discourse analysis in which we would delve into each of the statements presented. They are exposed to validate our preliminary assertions, as a basis for a broader discussion about performativity, and, further, lead us to reflect on the “indissolubility between materiality and signification” (Colling; Arruda; Nonato, 2019, p. 9), as well as on how such constructs render bodies, discourses, expressions, and practices intelligible, or even “acceptable,” to the detriment of others.

It is imperative to remember that “[...] the technology of performativity appears as deceptively objective and hyper-rational. Central to its functioning is the translation of complex social processes and events into simple figures or categories of judgment” (Ball, 2003, p. 217, our translation), which, in our view, is easily identifiable. From these, our attention has turned to the new phenomena emerging in the social scene, which, it seems to us, are once again willing to produce an abjection of the other, leading us to this attempt to think about a movement that threatens subjects of/in change from performativity (Ball, 2003).

We return to the territorialist logic of inside/outside, which leads us directly to Sedgwick's Epistemology of the Closet (2007), which, in its construction, debates the idea of secrecy and privacy present in our cisheteronormative society. Sedgwick's (2007) analysis focuses primarily on the analogy of the closet as a territory where sex-gender nonconformists find themselves hidden until they publicly acknowledge their identities and orientations. Note that the use of “territory” is no coincidence. Closeted individuals are not there out of genuine desire, but rather because of an entire “system” that structures a narrative capable of controlling the most diverse bodies and, through its operation, regulating their processes of subjectivation. The construction of the closet represents a

[...] specific crisis of definition [that] in turn marked other pairs so basic to modern cultural organization, such as masculine/feminine, majority/minority, innocence/initiation, natural/artificial, new/old, growth/decay, urban/provincial, health/illness, same/different, cognition/paranoia, art/kitsch, sincerity/sentimentality and voluntariness/dependence (Sedgwick, 2007, p. 28-29).

Within the neoliberal framework, “[...] 'the private' [has] been used to refer to a sphere or spheres of social life in which intrusion or interference with freedom requires special justification” (Okin, 2008, p. 306), and the public represents a territory of greater accessibility. Based on this definition, the public/private pair endorses both issues related to the State (public) and domestic life (private). Thus, very simply, we can deduce that everything we commonly associate with domestic life, such as family and intimate life, is intrinsically linked to the private context. The construction of a social divide is not recent, but dates back to the 17th century, particularly in the Western political fabric, where there is considerable influence from systems such as patriarchy, which connects to many other loci of power, even those more contemporary (Okin, 2008).

The established dichotomous relationship is widely used to argue that the State—public—should not interfere in private—domestic—life, ensuring, at least in theory, that such separations are applied to all subjects in the same way. Feminist studies, however, refute this definition, arguing that the “[...] liberal idea of ​​State non-intervention in the domestic sphere, rather than maintaining neutrality, actually reinforces existing inequalities in this sphere” (Okin, 2008, p. 320), a position from which we depart and expand, since not only gender inequalities are reinforced, but all those represented by subalternized subjects (Spivak, 2010).

In their study, which seeks to analyze teachers' understanding of issues of gender, sexuality, and diversity in the school environment from the teaching perspective, Madureira and Branco (2015) explain how the binary boundary of public/private still emerges in discourses as a validator of certain roles assumed by individuals in society, whether related to gender identity or affective-sexual orientation. Even though there is a “defense” of “diversity,” it ends when something inappropriate escapes the private space, causing estrangement within the social context.

The movement of “re-reterritorialization,” if we can call it that, based on performativity, conceiving a new idea of ​​the closet, where an inside/outside relationship is established that is the opposite of that which Derrida (2001) warned about elsewhere—since now it is what is inside that is considered inferior, deviant—has provided other clues beyond the Batcu performance. Let us begin with Bill (PL) number 580, of March 27, 2007, and the texts appended to it, which contradict the decision of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), which, in 2011, decided to equate same-sex relationships with cisheterosexual civil unions (Brasil, 2023b).

The Bill provides that, upon its approval, the terms “marriage” and “common law marriage” may no longer be used, as they will be used exclusively in marriages between people of the opposite sex. Instead, the word “contract” will be used, so that only property rights are guaranteed in same-sex unions (Brasil, 2007). The Bill was approved on October 10, 2023, by the Committee on Social Security, Assistance, Childhood, Adolescence and Family of the Chamber of Deputies, by a vote of 12 to 5, and now goes to the Constitution and Justice Committee of the legislative house (Júnior; Haje, 2023; Amorozo, 2023).

During the vote on the Bill, a veritable chorus against trans children was sung by the conservative bench (Mariah Aquino, 2023). This was not an isolated action, but one that represents a series of other bills also being processed by the house, such as Bill 192/2023, which “[...] criminalizes the conduct of people who encourage or allow sex change in children or adolescents” (Haje, 2023), Bill 204/2023, which “[...] prohibits sex change surgeries for minors under 21 and hormone therapies for minors under 18” (Brasil, 2023c), or even the approval of a debate by the Committee on Social Security, Assistance, Childhood, Adolescence and Family of the Chamber of Deputies, intending to question the “[...] guidelines of the Federal Council of Psychology and the Federal Council of Medicine for the treatment of children in gender incongruence, popularly referred to as trans children and adolescents” (Commission promotes [...], 2023).

Finally, on December 5, 2023, while we were still working on this text, we received news of the approval, in the Chamber of Deputies, of Bill 6256/2019, which establishes the National Plain Language Policy in direct and indirect public administration bodies and entities. This bill aims to share information between the government and its related/subordinate bodies simply and objectively, facilitating its comprehension. It so happens that, during its vote, a highlight presented by Representative Junio ​​Amaral, of the Liberal Party of Minas Gerais (PL-MG), prohibiting the use of neutral language by these bodies, received 257 votes in favor, 144 against, and two abstentions (Chamber approves [...], 2023). Such prohibitions on neutral language are increasing in municipal and state legislatures across the country, especially in the last year.

These are just a few facts that allow us to illustrate what we discussed earlier, while drawing an analogy between viral dissemination and performativity. In the current Brazilian context, there is a viral production, a dissemination that, little by little, gives us clues of a new pandemic, which has not been perceived with due attention by those of us in academia. In this emerging “new”¹⁰ performativity, there is no principle, no beginning, no epicenter that we can attack. It is merely a constant repetition and discursive-material proliferation (Barad, 2007), which has found recognition in some groups, resonated, and shaped the most conservative contexts possible.

If, in 2014, Barros, Ribeiro and Quadrado (2014, p. 201) stated that in “[...] contemporary times, we can perceive a loosening of the boundaries of what is permitted in public and private spaces in today's society,” ten years later, it seems to us that we are going backwards. Discourses like the ones we have presented illustrate the movement that aims not only to keep, but to hide away people who refuse to follow the paths of various normativities in the back of the closet, even throwing away the key and condemning them, once again, to segregation.

“BATCURRICULUM” - (RE)THINKING PERFORMATIVITY, (RE)THINKING SCHOOL

The virus we are confronting does not originate in Batcu. Instead, it infiltrates a previously defined territory—conservatism—where a process of recognition is established, serving as a necessary condition for it to become iterable and, consequently, repeatable. However, within this repetition, various effects arise, giving birth to new contexts. This virus has been propagating for an extended period, and any effort to trace its genesis will inevitably lead us back centuries. Yet, when we analyze a timeframe closer to the present, it is clear that we are dealing with a variant of the same virus that “began”—though, in reality, everything had already started long before—in our country in June 2013.

In his latest work, "Dysphoria mundi. The Sound of the World Falling Apart," Preciado (2022) deepens his explorations through a political-onto-epistemological shift aimed at understanding how contemporary bodies have employed counterproductive strategies to evade regulatory regimes. Written during the COVID-19 pandemic, Preciado (2022) utilizes the virus as an analogy to convey his insights. The philosopher argues that one of the methods states adopted to shield themselves from the pandemic was to reconfigure established borders and redefine territories, shifting them to much smaller spaces that facilitated governance. These territories became the bodies that were subsequently expected to adhere to the logic of confinement—a practice not unfamiliar in recent years, particularly applied to immigrants and refugees, ensuring their exclusion from community life. This illustrates an adaptation and transformation of a familiar viral dissemination, generating new effects, fostering new contexts, and reinforcing the stability of a performative policy.

Preciado (2022) continues to intricately explore thoughts surrounding a phenomenon that, at the time, appeared insurmountable, producing analyses that, in the aftermath of that challenging period, now seem remarkably insightful and necessary. Another noteworthy aspect of his work, which aligns closely with the exercise we propose here and relates to the territorialization of bodies, is what the Spaniard refers to as the “telerrepublic” of the home. On one side of this quasi-concept, the home is portrayed as a space of extreme technification, where advancements in work and control technologies have facilitated adherence to confinement norms. However, of greater interest here is the other notion embedded within the “telerrepublic,” which involves the re-enactment of the mechanisms that reinforce the public/private dichotomy. It is no coincidence that, during periods of social isolation, the incidence of domestic violence surged, as there was a perceived “security” of no external interference in the events transpiring within that space (Noal; Damásio, 2020; Fornari et al., 2021; Ornell et al., 2020).

At the end of his text, Preciado (2022) lists some practices that could help us implement a counterproductive approach, through exercises, according to Axt (2023, p. 320), such as

[...] disidentification, denormalization, the collectivization of the somatheque, hybridization, autobiohack, and resistance to polydrug-maniacal consumption. For Preciado, these are practices and strategies necessary to unleash the full "metamorphic and revolutionary potential," which will lead to the emancipation of the masses through the resensitization and resignification of bodies, consciousness, perception, and senses. These are practices of experimentation, reparation, and care. And, aggregated around the world, they already constitute the insurrections that have caused deep cracks in the foundations of the old regime.

Drawing on the dynamics of viruses, Preciado (2022) also noted the emergence of another form of social performativity—the same, yet different, yet the same, which we are observing here. They are intertwined and part of a dissemination process that intersects at various points. The practices highlighted by Preciado (2022) should be considered “vaccines” that have the potential to attack the spreading virus, practices that we can use within the field of education.

Whether it is the pandemic and its territorialist repercussions, the movements against trans children, same-sex marriage, gender-neutral language, or even the repercussions generated by the Batcu performance—the starting point for our argument—the central idea we defend as education researchers is the need to (re)think performativity and (re)think school, without any hierarchy in this relationship. All the evidence we present throughout this text demonstrates the urgent need to consider, based on the “new” performative organization, aspects that are extremely necessary to ensure respect and understanding of otherness within the school environment.

This is a demand we must embrace in our teaching, and there are several motivations for this. The first, and perhaps most crucial of all, is that, as subjects living within the neoliberal “cystem,” we are also repeatedly captured by performativity, operating from its norms and, at the same time, constituting them (Goodley; Perryman, 2022). In our work activities, we are increasingly led to develop an individualized practice, given the high workload, which prevents us from carrying out collective constructions, in addition to the introduction of “[...] a routine of constant reporting and recording of our practice” (Ball; Olmedo, 2013, p. 90, our translation), which leads to a permanent feeling of demotivation and insecurity, which we are not allowed to express, since we are obliged to always strive to do more and better.

A notable factor is the ongoing requirement to demonstrate our performance through various indicators, which are often defined and published in haste, often before we have engaged in any activities deemed as exemplary (Ball; Olmedo, 2013). This same logic dictates that everything we undertake must contribute some measurable value, ultimately hindering the ability to create simply for the sake of creation (Han, 2015, 2023). Given these observations, one might wonder: What does a dance like this contribute? Does it yield any tangible output? Answers are essential because “[...] results take precedence over processes, numbers overshadow experiences, procedures eclipse ideas, and productivity trumps creativity” (Ball; Olmedo, 2013, p. 91, our translation).

We pose the question: Is school a territory or a place? According to Macedo (2017, p. 551), “[n]egotiating with otherness deprives us of the tranquil place of a community of recognition,” suggesting that an ethical-political commitment to otherness is quite complex. However, he also states that “[...] this is an ethical path for education because it makes explicit our constitutive interdependence, obliging us to recognize the other as that which was not invented” (Macedo, 2017, p. 551). As school is a space that must embrace differences, and as we, as educators, are dedicated to advocating for such openness, we should understand it as a place without defined boundaries or limits that might obstruct or prevent the inclusion of many (Haesbaert, 2007).

Our role is to critically examine the new territory delineated by conservative movements, particularly because we often do not recognize its influence within ourselves. As Ball and Olmedo (2013, p. 89) note, the “[...] rationality of performativity emerges as the new common sense, perceived as both logical and desirable.” It may be that, upon witnessing the dance, we instinctively labeled it as inappropriate, indecent, or utilized another similar descriptor—responses that are anticipated by the dynamics of performative power. Nevertheless, “[r]esisting performativity at the discursive level requires us to problematize the essence and 'raw material' of our own practices. It necessitates the deconstruction and recreation of the self, along with a certain capacity for critical self-reflection” (Ball; Olmedo, 2013, p. 89, our translation).

The invitation certainly causes us fear, as it is taking shape within the educational environment, what is defined by Goodley and Perryman (2022, p. 10, our translation) as “panoptic performativity,” which refers to “[...] a regime of inspection in which teachers and students feel as if they are constantly being observed, and act accordingly, to escape the regime.” Currently, what we have in schools is the establishment of an environment of normalized visibility, indicating the unfolding of a kind of post-panopticism, where visual control is so great that it has already been internalized in our subjectivities.

This may also help us understand why individuals often act so swiftly, adhering to the patterns established by performativity, as exemplified by the speeches prompted by Batcu. This analysis can certainly be extended to conservative factions that, in their efforts to defend specific positions, respond to this performativity with a perceived “obligation” to “denounce.” This notion is reinforced by Ball and Olmedo (2013, p. 88, our translation), who state, “[...] neoliberalism distinguishes itself from previous iterations by replacing the logic of exchange with that of competition.” Furthermore, as Macedo (2017, p. 551) points out, “[...] we can assert that there is no life without this negotiation - it is constitutive of our subjectivity. Therefore, it is crucial to remain vigilant against attempts to delegitimize and render this negotiation invisible.” This underscores the importance of questioning the messages embedded within our language.