‘Freedom of choice’ is a key trope of the neoliberal discourse since Milton Friedman (Friedman & Friedman, 1980). Further reinforced by rational choice theories, the notion of ‘freedom of choice’ has been very influential in policymakers and policy scientists along the world, specially in USA (Fraser & Jaeggi, 2018). Research on neoliberalism from Foucauldian perspective on governmentality (Foucault, 2008) has paid close attention to ‘freedom of choice’, as it is a main mechanism of neoliberal government. Dardot and Laval identify it as a technology of government that “presupposes that subjects are led by an ‘invisible hand’ to make the choices that will be advantageous to each and every one of them” (2013, p 267). In this vein, it extends the rationality of competence to all spheres of life, including both the public-state sphere and the intimate life of persons. As Castro-Gómez explains (2015), under the current neoliberal frame, every daily decision must be preceded by a detailed cost-benefit examination. Herein, the "quality" of their decisions depends on their calculation and self-investment abilities.

In the field of education, school choice policies have expanded around the world along with the global extension of neoliberalism (Verger, Fontdevila & Zancajo, 2016). Several works have addressed these policies from Foucauldian approach on governmentality (Hidalgo & Fernández González, 2020; Olmedo & Wilkins, 2016). These works show how free choice reorganizes schooling according to the rationality of competence: it pushes schools to compete each other to attract students, and in doing so, they develop marketing and branding strategies that move families to adopt the role of consumers. Thus, it is a paradigmatic policy of neoliberal governmentality.

The Community of Madrid –governed since 1995 by the right-wing party Partido Popular– is a prime example of neoliberal policies in education in the Spanish context. Since early 2000s, the successive conservative governments have followed a neoliberal agenda in education, which includes: (i) standardised assessments, at the beginning also accompanied by rankings of results; (ii) promotion of “colegios concertados” –private schools, most of them catholic, that are publicly financed–; (iii) introduction and extension of the bilingual English-Spanish programme, which is inspired by human capital and entrepreneurial perspectives on education (Hidalgo McCabe & Fernández González, 2020; Relaño-Pastor, 2014); (iv) cutbacks in public education, specially in 2011; and (v) promotion of school choice. Drawing upon the approach of governmentality, our research has focused on school choice policies and how it reorganises public schooling in Madrid according to the rationality of competence. Through a qualitative research with in-depth interviews, we addressed how teachers, principals and parents describe and evaluate their practices in relation to school choice. In this paper, we will present the stances of fathers and, specially of mothers, in relation to their practices of school choice.

We interviewed 15 mothers and 5 fathers, whose children attend public schools, about their practices and stances in relation to school choice. This paper presents and overall view of our interview analysis. Combining the frame analysis (Lakoff, 2006) with the stance-taking analysis (Du Bois, 2007; Martín Rojo & Molina, 2017), we have traced the neoliberal rationality in their ways of reflection, and explored how they evaluate school choice policy in Madrid and their own practices in relation with choice. As a result, we have identified two clearly distinct stances. On one side, the stance of those mothers –middle and upper-middle class mothers– for whom choice implies work, effort, and frequently also embarrassment. On the other side, the stance of those mothers –middle class and working class– for whom school choice is a lie.

This research adopts a critical perspective, understanding ‘critical’ in two senses. Firstly, from a Foucauldian perspective, we understand it as an exercise of “problematization” (Martín Rojo & Gabilondo, 2000) aiming to interrogate the naturalised character of the rationality of competence. Secondly, following Nancy Fraser (Fraser & Jaeggi, 2018), we pose that critical research must map the social and political fissures that reveal the contradictions of the social order in the current phase of the neoliberal capitalism. Therefore, our analysis has intentionally focused on the tensions and contradictions that mothers showed in their discourses. We think that these tensions reveal the fissure of the neoliberal government of public schooling in Madrid through school choice. To conduct this analysis, we have drawn mainly in three analytical tools: (1) neoliberal governmentality, (2) frame analysis and (3) stance taking analysis. In first place, rather than a mere theoretical concept, we understand ‘neoliberal governmentality’ as an analytical tool, an intelligibility grid to trace the rationality of competence in the voices of our interviewees. From an anthropological approach, Gershon (2011) insists that there are more rationalities in play and, therefore, critical research must trace these complexities. In second place, we have applied the frame analysis. There are several formulations of the concept of ‘frame’. In this research, we have drawn upon the work of George Lakoff, who defines the frames as “mental structures that shape the way we see the world” (2004, p. xv). Lakoff insists that frames are part of our cognitive unconscious, so all our mental concept unconsciously remit to certain frame to articulate our common sense. In short, every word evokes a frame (Lakoff, 2006). In third place, we combine the frame analysis with the stance taking analysis (Du Bois, 2007; Martín Rojo & Molina, 2017). As we reject positivist approaches, we do not understand the interview as a gathering of the truth. We understand it as an interaction between the interviewer and the interviewee. Throughout this interaction, both participants describe the objects they are talking about, take a stance in relation to that object and before other persons in relation to it, and align or dealign in relation to those other stances.

Through neoliberal governmentality lens, we identify school choice a source of work and self-responsibility. Mothers engage in diverse practices, such as open days and interviews with principals, that involve effort and concern. When they describe their choice practices, frequently show reflexivity exercises calculating the costs and benefits of their choices. The frame analysis shows that school choice activates a market frame. For instance, most mothers employ market vocabulary, like “offer” and “supply”, and situates themselves as consumers in some of their practices, such as the open days. In relation to their stances, we have identified two clearly distinct stances. On one side, the stance of those mothers –middle and upper-middle class mothers– for whom choice implies work, effort, and frequently also embarrassment. For instance, a mother complained that school choice makes parents accomplices of inequality while feels embarrassed when she recognises that she would not have chosen a school with immigrant students. That is what literature has identified as hybrid identities in middle-class families in relation to school choice (Oría et al., 2007; Reay et al., 2008; Wilkins, 2014). On the other side, we identify the stance of those mothers –middle class and working class– for whom school choice is a lie or an upper class privilege. In light of this analysis, our main conclusion is that the rationality of competence is not ubiquitous: competence has not fully reached the subjectivities of the mothers in relation to their choice practices. The stance taking analysis reveals that most of the mothers do not believe in competence as the ethic principle that should guide schooling. Thus, rather than harmonic individualistic subjects inspired by the figure of the homo oeconomicus¸ neoliberal governmentality produces subjects penetrated by inner conflicts. We see in these conflicts a deep fissure of neoliberal government of public- state schooling.

Castro-Gómez, S. (2015). Razón de Estado, liberalismo y neoliberalismo en Michel Foucault. Bogotá: Siglo de Hombre Editores-Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. Dardot, P. & Laval, C. (2013). The New Way of The World: On Neoliberal Society. London: Verso. Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The Stance Triangle. En R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction (pp. 139-182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Foucault, M. (2008). The Birth of Biopolitics. Lecture at the College of France, 1978-79. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Fraser, N. & Jaeggi, R. (2018). Capitalism. A Conversation in Critical Theory. Medford: Polity. Friedman, M. & Friedman, R. (1980). Free to Choose. London: Secker & Warburg. Gershon, I. (2011). Neoliberal agency. Current Anthropology, 52(4), 537-555. Hidalgo McCabe, E. & Fernández-González, N. (2019). Framing 'choice' in language education: The case of freedom in constructing inequality. In L. Martín Rojo y A. Del Percio (Eds.), Language and Neoliberal Governmentality (pp. 69-90). Oxon: Routledge. Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think on an elephant! Chelsea green publishing. Lakoff, G. (2006). Simple framing. Available in: https://georgelakoff.com/writings/rockridge-institute/ Martín Rojo, L. y Gabilondo, Á. (2000). Michel Foucault. En J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman, J. Blommaert y C. Bulcaen (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics. 2000 Installment (pp. 1-22). doi:10.1075/hop.6.fou1 Martín Rojo, L. y Molina, C. (2017). Cosmopolitican stance negotiation in multicultural academic setting. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 21(5), 672-695. Olmedo, A. y Wilkins, A. (2016). Governing through parents: a genealogical enquiry of education policy and the constrution of neoliberal subjectivities in England. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 38(4), 573-589. doi:10.1080/01596306.2015.1130026 Oría, A., Cardini, A., Ball, S. J., Stamou, E., Kolokitha, M., Vertigan, S. y Flores-Moreno, C. (2007). Urban education, the middle classes and their dilemmas of school choice. Journal of Education Policy, 22(1), 91-105. doi:10.1080/02680930601065791 Reay, D., Crozier, G. James, D., Hollingworth, S. Williams, K., Jamieson, F. y Beedell, P. (2008). Re-invigorating democracy?: white middle class identities and comprehensive schooling. The sociological Review, 56(2), 396-416. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.2008.00786.x Relaño-Pastor, A. M. (2015). The commodification of English in “Madrid, comunidad bilingüe”: insights from the CLIL classroom. Language Policy¸14(2), 131-152. doi:10.1007/s10993-014-9338-7 Verger, A., Fontdevila, C. y Zancajo, A. (2016). The Privatisation of Education. A Political Economy of Global Education Reform. Nueva York – London: Teachers College Press. Wilkins, A. (2014). Affective labour and neoliberal fantasies: the gendered and moral economy of school choice in England. En M. Vandengeld Giles (Ed.), Mothering in the age of neoliberalism (pp. 265-282). Demeter Press: Ontario.