Globally, the question of how everyday school life is transformed towards more equal and democratic practices is receiving increasing attention in research, practice, and public debate. Often, such discussion aims to raise ways in which schools can facilitate such transformation from the perspective of local and situated practices (e.g., Fairchild, 2019; Leppänen, 2020). Thus, it is not surprising that the concept of micropolitics ─ the fluid, heterogeneous, and non-linear processes of everyday life ─ forms part of many of the studies concerned with these processes.

In this study, we draw on the concept of micropolitics as discussed by Felix Guattari (1984, 2009). Earlier research on Guattari’s micropolitics has built a vital understanding of how fluid (i.e., molecular) sides of everyday life can open our, perhaps sometimes restrictive, macro structures and make visible that everyday life is not that schematic. Our actions are not predetermined by some pre-existing reality, but rather, everyday life is constructed by multiple actions which make mundane life un-predictable (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987; Guattari, 2009). However, although in his writings Guattari in general emphasized the importance of everyday molecular movement (see, for example, Guattari and Rolnik, 2009), he did not consider molecular movements as inherently transgressive or liberatory actions undermining molar entities. Therefore, in this study we engage with Guattari’s (1984, 2009) writings in which he talks about two forces that produce micropolitics, the molar and the molecular. ‘Molar’ here refers to the stable sides of everyday life (i.e., structures, laws, regulations, etc.). By comparison, ‘molecular’ refers to the force that gains its movement from heterogeneous actions in everyday life. These include, for example, all aspects of school days that cannot be predicted beforehand. What we specifically aim to emphasize is that both of these sides exist at the same time, and they can only be realised in relation to each other (Guattari, 1984, 2009).

Placing special emphasis on acknowledging both of these sides as a part of the construction of everyday life, we build on theoretical perspectives that consider reality as relational and dynamic (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987; Guattari, 2009). Moreover, sensitizing ourselves to details does not offer universal facts. Instead, such a perspective helps us to focus on the wider connections between details, allowing processes hiding in mundanity to become visible (Decuypere, 2019). Thus, the purpose is to recognize issues that call for a response (Haraway, 2016). To better understand how this mundane everyday school life is constructed, we ask: How are the two forces, molar and molecular, realised in mundane school practices?

To be able to understand micropolitics in mundane school practices, we draw on ethnographic methodology (Gordon, Holland & Lahelma, 2001). The data were collected in two Finnish comprehensive schools during the school year 2018–2019. In every step of the research, special attention was paid to adhering to the ethical recommendations of the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (2012) and ethical practice. Both schools are medium-sized schools in urban areas, the one in a lower socio-economic urban area (compared to the average of the municipality), and the other in an area in which the poverty level of families with children is lower compared to the average of Finland. Although the schools are located in somewhat different areas, in both the school classrooms are inclusive and, at least to some extent, culturally and socio-economically diverse. Various kinds of ethnographic data were produced for the purposes of this study. First, through participant observations, the researcher compiled a field diary and notes on everyday school life, staff meetings, and the principals’ daily meetings with collaborators and stakeholders, for example municipality officials; recordings or notes of some of the discussions with teachers and principals; photographs; and school and municipality policy documents. In addition, the researcher conducted tape-recorded and verbatim transcribed interviews with three principals and 31 teachers. Since the interviews were conducted in the middle of the ethnographic field work, and the first author already knew the participants, as Niemi (2015) writes, it can be assumed that the interviewer and the interviewee shared common sensibilities, making it easier to record the shared moments in everyday life. The analysis was conducted in two main phases. First, notes and brief summaries were written up about sociomaterial entanglements in the school environments. Following this, using the methodology of thinking with theory (Jackson & Mazzei, 2012), we took a closer look at the events and asked the question: What kinds of micropolitical, that is, molar (i.e., sticky) and molecular (i.e., fluid) movements could be identified from the data? Lastly, in the third phase of the analysis, we asked: How do the molecular everyday events link to the molar elements of daily life?

Using the ethnographic data, we provide rich and meticulous descriptions that show how particular practices come into being through a two-sided micropolitical process embracing the molar and the molecular: 1) through molecular movements it is possible to open the children’s subjectification process in school spaces, and 2) despite its seemingly random movements, the molecular is never entirely free but always includes congealing molar and stable entities. Thus, our analysis first explores the situations in which molecular movements, for example, children’s initiatives to extend the way they are seen in school spaces, become visible. These situations relate, on the one hand, to the learning practices (i.e., how the pedagogical situations allow the children to choose their working methods or where the activities take place, etc.). However, interestingly, on the other hand, the majority of these situations relate to more general molar entities, such as how the children are positioned in terms of their social background. Thus, our study reveals how everyday school life is not just about learning activities, but also extends to the wider societal issues. Second, the interplay between molar and molecular forces assisted us to see that, although the children had multiple opportunities to extend the way their subjectivities were constructed in these settings, it should not be taken for granted that all children had these opportunities. Rather, the study shows how these molecular movements are not entirely free, but are also connected to the wider molar societal entities. Thus, the main argument we make in this study relates to the multiple co-existing realities in school spaces. We argue that to be able to examine the construction of everyday life in school we need to engage with the interplay between the different sides of micropolitics: the molar (sticky) and the molecular (fluid).

Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (1987) A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (trans. Massumi B). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Decuypere, M. (2019). STS in/as education: Where do we stand and what is there (still) to gain? Some outlines for a future research agenda. Discourse, 40(1), 136–145. Fairchild, N. (2018). The micropolitics of posthuman early years leadership assemblages: Exploring more-than-human relationality. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 20(1): 53–64. Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (2012). Responsible conduct of research and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in Finland. Gordon, T., Holland, J. & Lahelma, E. (2001). Ethnographic research in educational settings. In: Atkinson P. A, Coffey, A., Delamont, S., Lofland, J. & Lofland, L. (eds) Handbook of Ethnography. London: Sage, pp.188–258. Guattari, F. (1984). Molecular Revolution: Psychiatry and Politics (trans. R. Sheed). London: Penguin Books. Guattari, F. (2009). Soft Subversions: Texts and Interviews 1977–1985 (trans. C. Wiener and E. Wittman; ed. S. Lotringer). Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e). Guattari, F. and Rolnik, S. (2008) Molecular Revolution in Brazil (trans. K. Clapshow & B. Holmes). Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e). https://monoskop.org/File:Guattari_Felix_Rolnik_Suely_Molecular_Revolution_in_Brazil_2008.pdf Haraway, D. (2016). Staying with the trouble – Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University Press. Jackson, A.Y. & Mazzei, L.A. (2012). Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data across multiple perspectives (1st ed.) London: Routledge. Leppänen, T. (2020). Valta ja politiikka konstrukti¬vistisessa ja uusmaterialistisessa musiikintutkimuksessa: Rodullistamisen prosesseja turvapaikanhakijoiden musiikkileikkikoulutuokioissa. Musiikki 50(1–2), 45–68. Niemi, A.M. (2015). Erityisiä koulutuspolkuja? Tutkimus erityisopetuksen käytännöistä peruskoulun jälkeen. University of Helsinki, Faculty of Educational Sciences.