In the last decennia, 'school violence' has become an important topic of interest in Europe, the U.S.A. and other countries. It receives considerable attention in the media and in scientific literature (e.g. the existence of a 'Journal of School Violence'), is the subject for several national and international research or intervention projects (e.g. The Observatory of Violence, Connect UK-001), and leads national or supranational measures and recommendations to create 'safe' schools. The paper researches this 'discourse' on school violence from a governmental perspective (both in the Foucauldian sense). The literature is regarded as a way of speaking and writing that is connected with a particular rationality or way of thinking (mentalite), and with a form of government (Foucault, 1971, 1976; Lemke, 2001). Government here not only points at modes of (institutional) power, but at the processes of objectivation (or problematization) and subjectivation that constitute the core of power processes (Foucault, 1978a, 1978b, 1982). It is argued that analysis of the literature reveals a dominant insurantial perspective and the connected logic of risk (Ewald, 1991); violent incidents not being analysed in terms of cause, responsibility or fault - categories referring to a juridical or ethical model - but serving as a point of departure for research and intervention aimed at the prevention of violence. Knowledge on characteristics of violent students or dangerous situations is used to create 'risk profiles', and screening practices lead to the early detection students 'at risk' - likewise to become a victim or perpetrator of violence. Prevention either aims at a change in the characteristics of students classified 'at risk', e.g. by means of training in problem solving skills, social skills, conflict or self-management etc., or at school- wide interventions that preclude students to acquire risk characteristics, such as a general anti-bullying project, the improvement of school climate, etc. Analysed from a governmental perspective, literature on school violence thus shows how the logic of risk not only provides a particular kind of intellectual processing of school problems, giving 'school violence' a specific visibility or objectivity, but also at the same time opens a specific field of intervention or government (Castel, 1991; O'Malley, 2000). Prevention is introduced as a way to govern violence and to construct the secure environment that is needed for learning and teaching in schools, through an active management of the present, but aimed at a possible future. However, it is argued that this insurantial rationality is not to be considered as a mere analytical framework or model of intervention, but also produces particular effects in the field of school violence, exceeding the violent event and not limited to the aggressive student. The paper demonstrates that insurantial logic creates a connection between 'violence' - as meant in the narrow definition namely the physical aggression leading to injury or discomfort - and the indicators that point at a heightened risk of future violent behaviour (social competence, low levels of frustration tolerance etc.); and that this connection influences the perception of both the violence and the risk characteristics. Secondly, it is argued that a change in the relationship between violence and non-violence is induced: the prevention of school violence not only requires that each situation and all students are problematized and questioned on their dangerousity through 'risk assessment', but also installs the necessity for a permanent intervention and a specific form of government. Thirdly, insurantial logic is demonstrated to attribute a specific kind of subjectivity to students, inducing a shift in the focus of problematization from the violent student, over the characteristics of the student 'at risk' for future violence, ultimately to the possibility of violence in every student (a risk logically being high or low, but never being non-existent). The paper thus concludes by a statement that the specific problematization of school violence makes all students governable in a particular way. Castel, R. (1991). From dangerousness to risk. In: G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.). The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality, pp. 281-298. Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Ewald, F. (1991). Insurance and risk. In: G. Burchell, C. Gordon & P. Miller (Eds.). The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality, pp. 197-210. Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Foucault, M. (1971). L'ordre du discourse. Paris : Gallimard. Foucault, M. (1976). Le discourse ne doit pas etre pris comme ... In : D. Defert, F. Ewald, & J. Lagrange, (Eds.), Dits et Ecrits, II, 1976-1988, (pp. 123-124). Paris: Quarto Gallimard. Foucault, M. (1978a). Dialogue sur le pouvoir. In : D. Defert, F. Ewald, & J. Lagrange, (Eds.), Dits et Ecrits, II, 1976-1988, (pp. 464-477). Paris: Quarto Gallimard. Foucault, M. (1978b). La gouvernementalite. In : D. Defert, F. Ewald, & J. Lagrange, (Eds.), Dits et Ecrits, II, 1976-1988, (pp. 635-657). Paris: Quarto Gallimard. Foucault, M. (1982). Le sujet et le pouvoir. In : D. Defert, F. Ewald, & J. Lagrange, (Eds.), Dits et Ecrits, II, 1976-1988, (pp. 1041-1062). Paris: Quarto Gallimard. Lemke, T. (2001). The birth of bio-politics, Economy and Society, 30(2), 190-207. O'Malley, P. (2000). Uncertain subjects: risks, liberalism and contract, Economy and Society, 29(4), 460-484.