**1. Introduction**

Human activity is developed predominantly based on the pedagogical action, whose dis‐ course is closely related to education promoted at home that prepares men to be part of a political community and the one referred to by the culture in which they grow to form a home [1]. Thus, every educational system educates from the social ethos, but it relies on institutions such as the school for the formation of the whole man.

© 2017 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

The school has been the driving force behind this pedagogical system, which has its presence in different social formations [2], which has become naturalized as the founding element of education in modern enterprise, with a hegemonic presence in all societies, whose practices are not free from tensions, conflicts, and purposes not initially considered [3].

The school is proposed as the essential instrument for the establishment of the modern national state [4]*,* a symbol of progress [5]*,* a space that allows a career open to talent, merit, and social mobility, but also as a representative of an educational system that regulates and normalizes the actions and desires of the subjects through specific devices of discipline, the formation of curricula, universal and uniform practices, ordering, and decontextualization of academic content [5].

The fact that the school constitutes the axis of the formation of man derives from its connec‐ tion to other processes such as socialization, education in a broad sense, and literacy itself, as well as its hegemonic presence in all societies. All this sums up a modern vision of education, which includes the inculcation of the dominant social and market values through a unique reference of knowledge, which is science and technology.

Such imposition is legitimized in an environment of socio‐political‐economic globalization, a condition that sets out from the school to be a free and equal access for individuals into cultural objects, an illusion that results lacerating in the subjective student conformation. However, the school has maintained a vertiginous success, standing as an instrument of self‐ realization of the individual, of social progress, and of economic prosperity, aspect severely questioned from studies that discard such achievements, pointing out their disarticulation to other spheres such as labor and socioeconomics [3].

Having become naturalized, by living others' speeches as one's own, it is clear that this will awaken in students' and parents' expectations of social mobility, economic improvement, and even other work possibilities than those commonly planned for a social group. In an indigenous community, this is linked with the desire to continue studying and thereby trans‐ forming their present condition of life, through the appropriation of the word and hegemonic discourses of the dominant culture. In an indigenous community, this mates with the desire to continue studying and thereby transforming their present condition of life, through the appropriation of the word and discourses of the hegemonic or dominant culture.

The proposed education for indigenous communities has been the way in which historically the development of a national identity has been promoted, and an attempt that has been made to "Mexicanise" these peoples [6]. In this context, a curricular proposal has been developed for indigenous schools in which the tensions that emerge from the relations between local and western culture, from the subaltern and hegemonic, as well as from the indigenous and mestizo worldview, are replaced by "A new imaginary utopian, national and intercultural (…), which assumes equality, respect and coexistence in diversity without conflict [7]."

Indigenous schools develop a curriculum that favors contents that correspond to the domi‐ nant culture. In this process of "colonization of knowledge" [8], knowledge alien to the local culture is legitimized, which causes tensions, and conflicts with respect to one's own and others.

Negation of the culture of the indigenous subject in the school processes leaves aside the daily life of a family, his previous learning, and all those elements that give him meaning. Family life is the space in which the identity of the child is formed, through which he enters and becomes part of the community, through observation and participation in work, religious tasks, preparation of festive activities or community life such as assemblies; when he counters this experience, tensions, and ruptures are established between the forms of interaction and knowledge developed in the school and the culture of the community itself. Another area of concealment of culture is the banning of the use of the mother tongue, which does not appear in didactic interactions with teachers or because it even encourages students' castellanization (using Spanish as a second language).

The school has been the driving force behind this pedagogical system, which has its presence in different social formations [2], which has become naturalized as the founding element of education in modern enterprise, with a hegemonic presence in all societies, whose practices

The school is proposed as the essential instrument for the establishment of the modern national state [4]*,* a symbol of progress [5]*,* a space that allows a career open to talent, merit, and social mobility, but also as a representative of an educational system that regulates and normalizes the actions and desires of the subjects through specific devices of discipline, the formation of curricula, universal and uniform practices, ordering, and decontextualization of

The fact that the school constitutes the axis of the formation of man derives from its connec‐ tion to other processes such as socialization, education in a broad sense, and literacy itself, as well as its hegemonic presence in all societies. All this sums up a modern vision of education, which includes the inculcation of the dominant social and market values through a unique

Such imposition is legitimized in an environment of socio‐political‐economic globalization, a condition that sets out from the school to be a free and equal access for individuals into cultural objects, an illusion that results lacerating in the subjective student conformation. However, the school has maintained a vertiginous success, standing as an instrument of self‐ realization of the individual, of social progress, and of economic prosperity, aspect severely questioned from studies that discard such achievements, pointing out their disarticulation to

Having become naturalized, by living others' speeches as one's own, it is clear that this will awaken in students' and parents' expectations of social mobility, economic improvement, and even other work possibilities than those commonly planned for a social group. In an indigenous community, this is linked with the desire to continue studying and thereby trans‐ forming their present condition of life, through the appropriation of the word and hegemonic discourses of the dominant culture. In an indigenous community, this mates with the desire to continue studying and thereby transforming their present condition of life, through the

The proposed education for indigenous communities has been the way in which historically the development of a national identity has been promoted, and an attempt that has been made to "Mexicanise" these peoples [6]. In this context, a curricular proposal has been developed for indigenous schools in which the tensions that emerge from the relations between local and western culture, from the subaltern and hegemonic, as well as from the indigenous and mestizo worldview, are replaced by "A new imaginary utopian, national and intercultural (…),

Indigenous schools develop a curriculum that favors contents that correspond to the domi‐ nant culture. In this process of "colonization of knowledge" [8], knowledge alien to the local culture is legitimized, which causes tensions, and conflicts with respect to one's own and

appropriation of the word and discourses of the hegemonic or dominant culture.

which assumes equality, respect and coexistence in diversity without conflict [7]."

are not free from tensions, conflicts, and purposes not initially considered [3].

reference of knowledge, which is science and technology.

other spheres such as labor and socioeconomics [3].

academic content [5].

22 Indigenous People

others.

All these actions are narrowed in school practices that can be combined in rituals of instruc‐ tion, revitalization, or events that seek to exalt the commitment and forms of work in accor‐ dance with what is expected for the community and nation: rituals of intensification, which direct relationships and belonging to the group, and resistance rituals, which counterpose the legislation and ways of proceeding assumed by the school for the development of academic work [9].

Rituals express myths of the culture, which are usually performed in the community by mem‐ bers with authority, and in the school, by principals, teachers, and the parents' representative, are constituted in everyday, hegemonic and functional practices of the relationships that imply the exercise of authority, and belonging to the group. Therefore, the closer approach to their actions, language, and resources, the greater internalization of the institutional; in addition, they mediate much of the daily activity in the school practices of the different educational agents.

School practices are explained as the framework of experiences that take place in the class‐ room and school, in which "the objective reality is internalized by the actors, but at the same time it is shaped and shaped according to a variety of possible options, According to the indi‐ vidual and collective practices and knowledge that mediate reception [10]." In this social space merge different actions in which the participation or not of other agents of the community con‐ figures a way to develop school tasks, closer or not to the local environment. In this way, there is a dialectic of school practice, conceived as problematic acts [11], a diverse and contradictory scenario, of institutional demands promoted by the school and those formed from the culture.

The relations between agents with unequal power related to each other lead to processes of continuous confrontation in a relationship of domination‐subordination [10]. In this pro‐ cess, the teacher embodies the role of a cultural and political mediator, in which family and local culture are opposed to the school, whose hegemonic representation tends to deny or appropriate their presence and manifestations. However, pupils and parents and even teach‐ ers themselves because of their own original condition (indigenous, peasant, or worker) rest importance or oppose to such hegemony in daily work, as well as transgressing school or social rules [10].

Educational practice operates as a dynamic force for continuity and social change [12], which is constructed historically and politically through the meanings of action, available not only subjectively but also by the interpretation others make of it, which makes possible a critical form of reasoning, which enables a reflexive process, of participation, of relation‐ ship with the other, of encounter, and of present dialogue through the recognition of the other, which denotes openness to the community. If such recognition is omitted in school practice, the practice develops from a hegemonic perspective, denying the conflict itself of such contradiction.

In this context, the present work describes the tensions, ruptures, and resistances that are presented between the indigenous community practices, school devices, and subjectivities that construct their actors.
