David Engels
We are very grateful to publish a short essay on leadership and education by Dr David Engels, member of the Lux Mundi Advisory Board, in three instalments – this is part 2. See here for part 1.
2. Erasing Responsible Leadership
The formation of leadership begins long before formal education. Thus, it is of course the family that constitutes the primary school of authority, transmitting through daily example the fundamental experience of responsibility and trust. Within the traditional understanding, not only present in Europe, but also many other civilisations, paternal authority oriented the child toward the external world — risk, duty, protection and confrontation with reality — while maternal authority cultivated belonging, empathy and emotional stability. These complementary poles allowed young individuals to internalise both firmness and care, preparing them for participation in social life. The growing absence or marginalisation of paternal figures in many Western societies and the increasing masculinisation of the feminine archetype through the advertisement of ‘strong independent womanhood’ has profoundly altered this equilibrium. Educational institutions increasingly inherit expectations that exceed their structural possibilities, as teachers are asked simultaneously to instruct, discipline, counsel and emotionally stabilise pupils whose first encounter with authority has already become fragile or ambiguous. Administrative reforms cannot compensate for anthropological deficits rooted in early socialisation.
Leadership formation depends equally upon symbolic environments shaped by culture and media. Earlier generations encountered narratives populated by explorers, saints, scholars, soldiers or statesmen whose biographies, even when highly idealised, still offered intelligible models of courage, restraint and responsibility. Contemporary cultural production, however, often oscillates between suspicion toward authority and exaggerated fictional heroism. Authority figures are portrayed either as oppressive remnants of ‘patriarchy’ or as unattainable superheroes detached from ordinary human development, if they are not replaced by the proverbial Karen-style ‘you-go-girls’. Young people thus encounter few credible intermediate models demonstrating that leadership consists primarily in disciplined service rather than domination or spectacle. The erosion of shared narratives thus contributes silently yet decisively to the educational crisis.
Revolutionary Bureaucracy – Solidarity; Source: https://libcom.org/article/revolutionary-bureaucracy-solidarity
Primary schooling reflects these broader transformations in institutional form. Across most Western countries, early education has become overwhelmingly feminised. The dedication and competence of female teachers remain beyond doubt, yet structural imbalance inevitably influences pedagogical atmosphere. Educational priorities increasingly emphasise cooperation, emotional regulation, security and consensus-building — virtues indispensable for social cohesion, yet insufficient for the formation of initiative, resilience and risk acceptance traditionally associated with leadership roles. Many boys experience schooling as an environment requiring continuous behavioural adaptation rather than constructive sublimation and channelling of energy. The resulting disengagement manifests itself statistically in declining academic performance and growing alienation from institutional authority, if not outright overcompensation by self-radicalisation. The issue concerns neither individual intention nor ideological accusation, but long-term civilisational consequences arising from the disappearance of masculine authority figures during formative years.
Secondary education historically introduced corrective encounters with diverse models of adulthood. Teachers often embodied vocations extending beyond classroom instruction, as many belonged to generations shaped by war, religious commitment or independent scholarly pursuits: they represented culture, authority and intellectual seriousness within local communities, and constituted, together with physicians and clergy, visible reference points linking knowledge with responsibility. Also, social life frequently extended beyond formal lessons through communal activities, mentorship and shared institutions such as boarding schools, where educational authority unfolded within lived relationships rather than administrative frameworks. Contemporary professionalisation however has transformed teaching into a regulated occupation governed by performance metrics and bureaucratic accountability, so that authority increasingly derives from institutional procedure rather than personal stature, reducing thus even further opportunities for imitation grounded in admiration.
Universities have undergone an analogous evolution. Mass higher education and managerial governance structures have weakened the traditional relationship between professor and student. Academic careers reward publication output and administrative compliance more consistently than intellectual mentorship, so that students may acquire formal qualifications, yet rarely encounter personalities whose intellectual passion suggests scholarship or other interesting occupations as a life mission, because true leadership formation presupposes proximity to individuals animated by conviction and intellectual courage. Where academic life becomes fragmented into specialised tasks and bureaucratic routine, education risks producing semi-competent professionals lacking orientation toward common goods and an experience on how to lead other people responsibly or to accomplish an assigned task diligently.
The problem extends beyond institutions toward the wider cultural understanding of leadership itself. Modern societies frequently equate leadership with visibility, rhetorical agility or strategic ambition. Political success increasingly depends upon media performance and the dangerous game of overcompensation through radicalisation rather than moral credibility. Young observers therefore internalise an implicit lesson: authority belongs to those most capable of self-promotion or extremism. Such an environment discourages precisely the virtues historically associated with leadership — humility, perseverance, restraint and willingness to serve purposes transcending personal advancement.