By Alexia Despares |
Photo by Oliver Lumanas
Some become leaders to facilitate development, others become leaders for fame.
In education’s ever-changing landscape, one thing remains constant—the students' will to participate and form new dynamics between the students and their institution. In Ateneo, this persistent willingness to take the lead is fuelled by student leader opportunities, establishing essential foundations for the future leaders of the nation.
Student leadership takes many forms, a significant one being the volunteerism of the student body. This is the largest student leader role one could possibly hope to attain, and they play the biggest, most direct role in shifting the way things are done. However, student leadership can also be taking a leadership role in significantly small settings, like small group work initiatives and the like. A recurring term in Ateneo to promote student leadership is ‘sui generis leader’, which means, per translation, to be one of its own kind, or unique—so long as you are your own version of a leader, even outside the territory of the institution, you carry the flame of being a sui generis leader with you.
However, as teenagers get more exposed to the expansion and the thrum of social media, certain ‘trends’ are taken from content shared on the internet and applied, unconsciously or not, in real life. In this sense, clout culture. Clout culture, simply defined by the incessant need for social validation, has already penetrated different aspects of life, including educational settings. It translates to learners emboldened to snatch leadership opportunities at the first whiff of possible fame—which begs the question of authenticity in leadership and genuineness in action.
Clout culture, while not necessarily harmful, could change societal values and promote superficialism. The pursuit of fleeting fame and validation can change one’s thinking, for the worse. Everything one might chase is now a bid for fame, taking away sincerity. Additionally, clout culture brings shallow relationships. Quantity over quality, as they say—lacking the meaningful connections behind intrapersonal interactions.
Student leadership is a critical component of learning. If pursued selfishly, it could cause one to miss crucial learning experiences, and disregard the very core of leadership—collaboration.
D, a Grade 12 HUMSS student, explains that the reason for partaking in leadership is not necessarily the problem but the execution. Regardless of the reasons for joining student leadership roles, one needs to consider the impact of their actions on the people around them, most especially the people they will lead.
“You joined for clout, good for you.” D says. “But don’t you feel any remorse for the people who work under you? That they’ll need to do your job because you can’t do it properly?”
Not only is this a self-centered approach in leadership, but it also magnifies the effects an individualized perspective can bring to the table. D points out the irony of the situation. “How can they walk around with the title [of a leader], but they never act like one?”
D is only one of the many students who’ve experienced leadership underneath a leader with clout as the main pivot in pursuing leadership, without anything to show for their actions. Leaders in title only, and nothing more. But even this is questionable—leaders in Ateneo are in turn expected to be sui generis. If we take this into account, these so-called ‘leaders’ (even in name only) are not leaders, because to begin with they haven’t done anything to warrant them titles of leaders. They remain students who want popularity. Not unique, not one-of-a-kind. Clout-chasers only.
It is important to note, however, that not all who become leaders for clout-chasing turn out to be incompetent and fall short of their responsibilities. In the end, one’s actions severely override one's motivations. While these students may join first at the allure of fame, what is most important is what they do to show they are leaders not only in title, but by action as well. These are true leaders. Unique by their own terms, but at the same time, they possess the values great leaders had before them—sui generis leaders.
Leadership is not just a mere responsibility; it is a process, a continuous exchange of empathy and the build-up of scenarios that broaden your perspectives in dealing with beliefs far contrasting yours. Signing up for such an experience demands truth in intention, rooting from a strong will to advocate. It does not fuel, and even filters out, fleeting desires. It is a commitment. Clout culture in leadership is common, expected, even, but only true sui generis leaders make it out and make a name for themselves.
Commentaires