La convivencia escolar en tiempos de conflictividades exacerbadas - Ana Campelo Beatriz Greco

Main ideas and lessons

• School conflicts have changed in nature and scale: Conflicts that schools could previously manage “relatively easily” now escalate into serious, harmful incidents across all educational levels, including early childhood and universities.
• The problem is not conflict itself, but escalation and “judicial/legal” framing:
  • Conflict can be positive and enriching when it allows differences and interests to coexist.
  • Escalation becomes violent when conflict is denied, covered up, or when one viewpoint overrides others and their subjectivity is crushed.
• Avoid equating childhood/adolescence problems with criminality:
  • Auto-generated or legal labels (e.g., “theft,” “rapist,” “perpetrator/victim”) risk criminalizing young people and “fixing” them into enduring roles.
  • Instead, the video argues for understanding incidents as part of development and as situations that can be transformed, not identities that define a person permanently.
• Bullying and violence are often made “visible” at too high a cost:
  • Bullying is defined as systematic peer aggression targeting the same person/group repeatedly.
  • Being bullied is deeply painful for children and families.
  • However, the mode of visibility—through legal complaint, social-media shaming, and demonizing narratives—can erode pedagogical authority and worsen outcomes.
• A broader social/political climate intensifies school violence:
  • The speakers connect current school conflict escalation to a wider pattern of bond fragmentation, social breakdown, inequality, and iatrogenic (harmful) “responses” that worsen the situation.
  • They introduce the concept of neo-authoritarianism (authoritarian styles emerging in democratic contexts), characterized by:
    • dissolving social bonds,
    • hate speech,
    • polarization and enemy-construction,
    • concentration of power in a leader who bypasses representation (often via social media).
  • In this climate, discourses that treat the “other” as an enemy and institutions as powerless become fertile ground.
• Reporting and punishment-oriented “solutions” can close dialogue:
  • The video critiques the automatic turn toward hotlines, punitive legislation, and revenge logic.
  • It argues that reporting/revenge frameworks often reject dialogue, producing cascades of conflict.
• Educational institutions should restore the bond through pedagogical mechanisms:
  • Schools must treat coexistence as the primary object of intervention, not only isolated misconduct moments.
  • The aim is learning to live together through participation mechanisms that enable democratic authority.

Concepts highlighted (key terms)

• Hegemonic discursive constructions around bullying (e.g., “victim/perpetrator,” “bully,” “aggressor”) that:
  • criminalize childhood,
  • demonize peers,
  • undermine teacher authority,
  • promote the other as an enemy.
• Judicialization of childhood:
  • When disputes become legal matters (court complaints, surveillance demands, perimeter measures).
• Iatrogenic responses:
  • “The cure is worse than the disease”—interventions that increase conflict rather than heal relationships.
• Trans-pandemic temporality / post-pandemic trauma (via a cited colleague’s concept):
  • the pandemic period fostered individualism, violent responses, and intolerance, interrupting dialogue.
• Conflict and School / Conflict 3.0 / social media and phones in school:
  • contemporary factors that intensify escalation.

Methodology / instructional elements (as presented)

The speakers do not give a strict step-by-step protocol, but they do outline a strategy framework for school coexistence in high-conflict times.

A. Reframe what “the problem” is

• Treat conflict as normal and potentially enriching.
• Identify the true problem as:
  • excessive escalation,
  • denial or avoidance of conflict,
  • and especially legal/media/punitive pathways that replace pedagogical work.

B. Prioritize pedagogical and relational intervention

• Base responses on relationships as the subject of teaching and learning.
• Use coexistence mechanisms as the first intervention target:
  • create space for dialogue,
  • allow differences to be articulated,
  • strengthen the common good.

C. Strengthen democratic authority (instead of removing authority)

• Authority is presented as necessary and not “dirty”:
  • Adults must take responsibility for enabling conditions where differences can emerge safely.
• Two crucial authority levels:
  • Teacher’s pedagogical authority (in-class democratic exercise).
  • Administrator/principal authority (institutional decisions, ongoing conflict resolution with families and organizations).
• A core principle: even when something resembles “bullying,” the answer should enable dialogue, not simply deny it or shift it to legal systems.

D. Replace enemy/role labeling with situation-based understanding

• Avoid permanently “fixing” children/adolescents into legal identities.
• Prefer describing incidents as:
  • developmental circumstances,
  • modifiable situations,
  • requiring adult mediation and educational handling.

E. Build long-term participation structures rather than reactive punishment

• Promote ongoing mechanisms such as:
  • coexistence councils,
  • classrooms where dialogue circulates,
  • assemblies,
  • moments where teaching is not sidelined.
• These structures are meant to:
  • process discomfort,
  • accommodate tensions,
  • prevent escalation chains.

F. Manage contemporary escalation channels (social media, phones)

• The course being introduced includes content about:
  • social media,
  • cell phone use in school,
  • and “conflict 3.0” as a contemporary context requiring specific coexistence work.

Speakers / sources featured (identified)

• Ana Campelo (speaker; host/introducer)
• Beatriz Greco / Beatriz Greco (Bea) (speaker; co-presenter)
• Gabriel Kessler (mentioned as a sociologist; referenced via The era of delusion)
• Perla Sermanovic (mentioned; cited for the concept of “transpandemic”)

Mentioned case/source contexts

• Mar del Plata (tragic incident referenced; relatives allegedly attacked/burned a home with a child inside)
• Mendoza (example of a draft bill charging parents of aggressors)

Media/social examples mentioned (not specific individuals)

• a “Bullying” video game where the bullied teen fights back against teacher/teacher-complicity/silence (name of the game is given; creator not stated)

Institutional/legal references

• “laws promoting coexistence” and anti-bullying frameworks (country-specific details are discussed, but not attributed to named lawmakers)