Chi Luu’s article “Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Words?” discusses the growing language censorship of words by politicians and departments and how it has started a “war on words” in modern language. She talks about how the government denies trying to censor words but won’t deny that they choose not to use certain words or phrases when addressing the public. The rhetorical devices she uses not only help bring to light the issue with language censorship, but also the growing problem of government administrations redefining common words and giving them a new meaning that society doesn’t use them for.

Chi Luu choice to mention of multiple department and foundations that have had some sort of language censorship of words is good rhetorical choice because it shows not only the reader how major organizations have been influenced by government censorship, but how people are also being influenced to follow those same censorships regardless if they agree or disagree with them. Luu’s mention of some national organizations like the National Science Foundation that she said, “NPR reports a drop in the number of grants awarded by the National Science Foundation containing the phrase ‘climate change’ in the title or summary, as many organizations are forced to self-censor in order to not offend official state sensibilities in the present political climate” and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC) which “In a bombshell report, the Washington Post stated that the CDC, under the auspices of its new Trump-appointed leadership, sought to ban seven words and expressions from official reports and documentation” proves that Luu’s claim that major organizations we depend own have already been affected by censorship; it shows that she has done research into the growing problem with censorship by the government and is qualified to talk about it. (Luu 1)

Throughout the article, Chi Luu discusses the banning of certain words that politicians try to enforce upon people which is a smart rhetorical decision because it demonstrates how politicians want to dissuade the people from discussing certain topics or themes that they might not agree with. Giving examples of so-called banned words like “evidence-based,” “transgender,” and “diversity” and providing instances where the government limited the amount of funds organizations get if they don’t self censor their work to not offend “official state sensibilities in the present political climate.” Stating “Words are available for use by everyone, but in some discourses, some words can seem to take on an ideological tinge that certain sides may balk at, and seek to find euphemisms for, even if the concepts they represent need to be referred to”(Luu 1) help prove Luu’s claim that politicians are trying to control the people’s opinions and idea they can discuss. Luu uses these facts in an effective way by highlighting that politicians are linking certain words to ideologies that they don’t like and are trying to restrict people’s access to those words to stop opposition help and to support their viewpoints and to stop opposition. 

Chi Luu providing information on old regimes that utilized censorship to alter the meaning of words to better suit their ideologies is one of the best rhetorical strategies because it shows what happened to the language of people living at the time and how it greatly changed how people expressed themselves. One example Luu mentions comes from a book smuggled out of Poland called the “Black Book of Polish Censorship”  in 1977 that described how “censorship infiltrated every minute detail of Polish life, from politics to home affairs to social relations, entertainment, and agriculture, dealing with language that appeared on documents such as stationery, theatre tickets, and even confectionery wrapping.”(Luu 1) Another example she mentions was back in the 1980s, when Oxford University Press allowed their Russian publishers to redefine words like “capitalism” and “socialism” to fit more with Russian ideologies. The inclusion of these instances of censorship being used for political propaganda only further proves Luu’s stance that government censorship is slowly being integrated into society and changing language in bad ways.

Chi Luu is successful with the rhetorical strategies she employs because it shows readers in her article that government censorship is slowly changing and redefining words over time and trying to get the people to follow their new “language” even if the words don’t reflect how they are used in society. Her rhetorical choices to include facts and examples of previous government censorship help validate her concerns and shine a light on the ongoing “war on words” that is happening without people noticing. Her article really puts emphasis on how linguistics is being warped to coincide with political affairs and ideologies to persuade the masses of their stances.

Work Cited

Luu, Chi. “Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Words?” JSTOR Daily, 3 Jan. 2018, daily.jstor.org/whos-afraid-of-the-big-bad-words/.

Reflection

The second major piece of writing I did for my English class was a rhetorical analyses essay about one of the writing of Chi Luu. My main goal for this essay was to proper analyze Luu’s work and write about how her choses of rhetorical moves help validate her stance on the topic she wrote about. For the most part my essay explained how some of her choices helped make her claims of government censorship seem like valid information and that she was a credited source on the topic. Some things I could done to make my essay more impactful were to add my own personal experiences with censorship in the academic setting and write about how rhetorical analysis is an important skill to have to help students better their own writings.