Eliot Glassheim Essay Scholarship

Essay Question: Is it still noble to be “a citizen”?

Once upon a time, being a citizen was considered the best and most noble life a person could live. In classical Greece and Rome, citizens were honored to self-govern and – if you believe the philosophers – strove to be virtuous as they voted for the common good. This no longer seems to be the case. The last presidential election had the largest turnout in American history, but still, only two-thirds of eligible voters participated. 62% of North Dakotans voted while Minnesotans made it all the way to 79%. If this is the best we can do, has something gone amiss? The excuses that most people give — “all politicians are the same,” “one vote doesn’t matter,” “it’s all about money,” passes the buck. What about our responsibility? How much are you and I to blame for shirking our duties as citizens, whether it’s voting, or being a NIMBYer (Not in My Back Yard), or lacking empathy, or just not being concerned with the common good?

The purpose of this essay is to explore what it means to be a citizen in a capitalist society. Is citizenship a political activity no longer meaningful when people are governed by their self-interest? Has participation in the marketplace replaced activity in the political sphere? Is it the case that all ways of life are equal? Ultimately, in this essay, we’d like you to answer the main question: is there something particularly noble in citizenship and if so, what might we do to encourage our fellow citizens to fulfill their duties and obligations to our political society?

HOW TO WRITE IT:
The point of this essay is to examine the controversy and connect to its key philosophical ideas. You may take any position you want, including finding some middle ground, but you must explain the opposing positions in the debate. Compare claims and evidence for each side—persuasively argue against yourself while you defend your conclusion. Do not rely on straw man arguments; make the best case for each position and then come to a defensible conclusion.

The essay must conclude with a clear and definitive position. It should strive to be fair, not polemical, and can connect examples from popular culture, literature, science, or any other arena that helps clarify the controversy. It may also use evidence from political science, anthropology, psychology, history, economics, sociology, or other disciplines that ask about the human social experience. However, it is first and foremost a philosophy essay and the argument must be philosophical in character. Examples from other disciplines should complement, not eclipse the philosophical argumentation.

The essay should be written for a general audience, not for a class or a teacher. Do not think of it as a research paper, but more like a magazine article or long-form blog post. It should be clear, thoughtful, and accessible to an average college student, not super-technical or confusingly abstract. The essay should not have extensive quotes or excessive footnotes, although it should have some quotes, at least. Classroom assignments will not be accepted without significant revision. Prospective authors are encouraged to look at previous years’ essays online to see some winning examples. Visit: https://philosophyinpubliclife.org/eliot-glassheim-essay-contest/ for more details and past winners’ papers.

Finally, essays will not be evaluated on what position they argue for, but on how well they argue. All conclusions have equal opportunity to win. IPPL is non-partisan and non-ideological.

WHERE TO START:

We encourage you to find secondary sources from newspapers, magazines, and reputable websites, to bolster your position. But again, all roads must lead to philosophy. Since this is a philosophical essay, it should examine the key ideas and terms found in and around the question. Explicit connections to specific philosophers and schools of thought are welcome, although these ideas and references must be presented without using jargon or overly academic prose.

Some examples of related philosophical questions you can address are: What is citizenship? Is citizenship different now than it was historically? Does increased diversity (including women, minorities, immigrants, etc.) make citizenship more or less special? What is human nobility? Is there such a thing as capitalist-citizenship? Can people overcome their selfishness? How important is education and can you teach people to be citizens?

Furthermore, it is worth asking which moral standards apply here. Are we supposed to judge the nobility of citizenship by its consequences, by the intentions of those involved, or by its promise to contribute a good life? And does it make sense to even ask whether a way of life is noble at all: isn’t politics just a neutral tool as good or bad as those who participate? How do ethics, politics, and economics interact?

Eligibility

Prize money will be disbursed through UND in the form of a scholarship. As such, entrants will have to be enrolled as a UND student next year, 2025-2026. Part-time students, international students, and graduate students are all eligible, including those at the law and medical school. Only one’s own work can be submitted, and group essays are not eligible. Essays must be original, never published, and be between 1500 and 2000 words.

For more information and to read past winners’ essays, visit: https://philosophyinpubliclife.org and look under the “Projects” menu for the Glassheim essay contest, or contact us at ippl@UND.edu