The complex transformation of education is implying the experimentation of new anthropotechnics, i.e. as the emergence of new theories of exercise in the fabrication of human kinds (Sloterdijk 2009; Popkewitz 2013). The new anthropotechnics are requiring telling changes in the topologies of education. The ‘here and how’ of education is challenged, education is made more mobile, and education spaces all over the world are interconnected in the transnational arena to such extent that is increasingly difficult to conceive it in the classical bounded, closed, suspended and static topology. A key role in the new anthropotechnics is played by the digital technologies that are changing the way education space is managed and at the same time the way education is delivered and practiced. In that respect,  notable investments in the digital technologies are modifying, the governance of education. As a matter of fact, the shaping of new topologies of education comes to associated with the emergence of the digital governance of education, a novel and interconnected configuration of data infrastructure, software, and related circuits of expertise(Dunleavy 2005; Williamson 2014). By drawing on the socio-material perspective on education (Fenwick & Edwards 2010; Fenwick & Landri 2012), this paper proposal is interested in investigating the material semiotics of the emergent configuration of the digital governance of education in the European Union. 

In particular, we are interested in the following research questions: In which way the digital governance is enacted in practice? How the digital governance of education in EU look like? What type of enactment of Europe through education is emergent? In what sense the digital governance of education contributes to making comparable the multiple worlds of education in Europe? In order to provide some replies to these issues, we will focus first on the emergence of a space of commensurability among the many worlds of European education, by presenting a brief archeology of the Europeanization of education and secondly on the enactment of European space of education made possible by the spectacle of data visualization. We will highlight how the enactment of European space of education is occurring through the concatenation of benchmarks of education policy and comparative databased digital technology, here a data visualization tool.

Barad, K., 2003. Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), pp.801–831. Available at: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/345321. Dunleavy, P., 2005. New Public Management Is Dead--Long Live Digital-Era Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), pp.467–494. Available at: http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/doi/10.1093/jopart/mui057 [Accessed July 11, 2014]. Fenwick, T. & Edwards, R., 2010. Actor-Network Theory and Education, London: Routledge. Fenwick, T. & Landri, P., 2012. Materialities, Textures and Pedagogies: Socio-Material Assemblages in Education. Intro. Pedagogy, Culture & Society. Gale, T., 2001. Critical policy sociology: historiography, archaeology and genealogy as methods of policy analysis. Journal of Education Policy, 16(5), pp.379–393. Latour, B., 2005. Reassembling the Social. An introduction to Actor-Network Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mattozzi, A., 2009. A model for the Semiotic Analysis of Objects. In S. Vihma & T. Karjalainen, eds. Design Semiotics in Use. Helsinki: Helsinki University of Art and Design Press. Popkewitz, T., 2013. The sociology of education as the history of the present: fabrication, difference and abjection. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 34(3), pp.439–456. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01596306.2012.717195 [Accessed May 26, 2014]. Sloterdijk, P., 2009. Du mußt dein Leben ändern. Über Anthropotechnik, Frankfurt am Main. Williamson, B., 2014. Governing by code : software in the governance of education. , (January), pp.1–52.