Rhetorical Analysis Of Doublespeak

Lutz’s unique style in this essay helps reveal his message about the dangers of doublespeak. He sets up his essay with a distinguishing style in order to develop his purpose - to not only help people to recognize doublespeak but to also oppose the dangerous aspects of it.

Lutz begins his essay with examples of doublespeak. All the examples, “pavement deficiencies” for potholes, “revenue enhancement” for taxes, and “fiscal underachievers” for the lower class, are specific to a common situation that everyday people find it easy to relate to. Additionally, Lutz does not blatantly reveal his purpose in this introduction. He simply states the examples with a minorly sarcastic tone. This tone subtly exposes his viewpoint of the topic of doublespeak.

It makes the audience question why Lutz is referring to the poor as “fiscal underachievers” and the robbery as an “unauthorized withdrawal. After these numerous examples , readers can figure out that he is ridiculing any authority who establishes this kind of language. Lutz keeps his perspective of doublespeak limited in the introduction paragraph. He does not introduce any arguments or any reaction to the examples of doublespeak except for the sarcasm. This is crucial to establishing a connection to his audience. If Lutz introduced his complete argument and thesis against doublespeak in the introduction, the essay would not be as appealing. If he started off the essay with the second paragraph, which begins with the definition of doublespeak, the essay would have no appeal to the readers. Moreover, Lutz has a biased definition of doublespeak. He states that doublespeak makes “the unpleasant seem attractive”, “shifts responsibility”, and “limits it (thought)”. This is bias because this definition omits the positive part of doublespeak, euphemism, that Lutz mentions later in the essay If this paragraph served as the introduction of this essay, not only would it

For example, in the 4th and 6th paragraphs, he switches to second person perspective, the most personal of the three point of views. This personal questioning of the audience makes the audience ponder about his ideas. While the 4th paragraph is more general about identifying doublespeak, the 6th paragraph’s use of the word ‘you’ makes the audience think of a time when they used euphemism. Lutz describes euphemism as a positive use of doublespeak as it is used in order to make a conservation sound respectful. Lutz is stating to the audience that the way that they use doublespeak is correct and acceptable. Of course, when you tell someone that what they are doing is correct, they are going to be more open to your perspective. This adds to Lutz’s connection to the audience and increases Lutz’s credibility in the eyes of the audience as he is also agreeing with something the audience agrees with - the acceptable use of doublespeak as euphemisms. This is because of the belief that if someone agrees with one aspect of your ideas ( Lutz agreeing with the audience), then they are going to be more open to other ideas that you have ( Lutz’s other beliefs on doublespeak). Additionally, in the other subsections about different types of doublespeak, Lutz places the blame on professionals, big corporations, and the government. This is a easily believable claim due to the fact that Lutz is not