Arrogance and risk- Enron

'aren't in parliaments or palaces but in corporate boardrooms all over the United States'- Employee 3, Act 1, scene 1

Employee 3’s assertion that power “aren’t in parliaments or palaces but in corporate boardrooms all over the United States” relies on antithesis to displace authority from democratic and monarchical institutions to private corporations. The parallel structure of “parliaments” and “palaces” evokes public accountability and tradition, which is then undercut by the blunt modernity of “corporate boardrooms”. This linguistic shift exposes Prebble’s critique of neoliberal capitalism: power has become centralised, unelected, and opaque. By giving the line to a minor employee, Prebble suggests this belief is culturally internalised rather than contested, reinforcing the play’s warning that corporate dominance is normalised and largely unquestioned.

'countries are meaningless'- Skilling, Act 1 scene 3

 a statement that relies on dismissive abstraction to strip nations of human significance. Prebble thus critiques neoliberal ideology through linguistic reduction: anything that resists quantification is rendered irrelevant.

'Risk is just the fear of losing something. Risk is life basically'- Fastow, Act 1, scene 8

Arrogance in Enron is frequently conveyed through compressed aphorisms, which mimic the seductive clarity of corporate rhetoric while masking ethical complexity. Fastow’s declaration that “Risk is life basically” uses tautology to erase distinction between recklessness and vitality. The casual adverb “basically” trivialises enormous consequences, exposing how language is used to normalise danger.

'Only people prepared to lose are ever gonna win'- skilling, Act1 scene 4

Skilling’s claim that “Only people prepared to lose are ever gonna win” adopts the binary logic of competition — win/lose — eliminating moral nuance. Prebble repeatedly stages these lines as performative slogans, suggesting that Enron’s leaders are not reasoning but evangelising.

'doesn’t matter how you win as long as you win'- skilling Act 2, scene 2

uses tautology and binary logic to erase ethical complexity. The repetition of “win” foregrounds obsession, while the absence of moral qualifiers or agents syntactically mirrors the absence of responsibility. By reducing success to outcome alone, Skilling articulates a utilitarian distortion in which means are irrelevant. Prebble uses this blunt, slogan-like phrasing to expose how corporate language legitimises moral compromise, presenting victory as self-justifying and inevitable.

' the greedy or the inept'- skilling, Act 1, scene 7

Skilling’s phrase “the greedy or the inept” employs binary opposition and loaded adjectives to construct a false moral dichotomy. By reducing failure to either moral corruption (“greedy”) or intellectual deficiency (“inept”), he excludes the possibility of systemic flaws or ethical restraint. The clipped phrasing mirrors corporate bluntness, while the definite article “the” generalises and dehumanises, turning people into categories. Prebble uses this reductionist language to expose Skilling’s arrogance and his refusal to acknowledge responsibility beyond individual blame.

'The only difference between me and the people judging me is they weren't smart enough to do what we did'- Skilling, Act 2, scene 7

uses comparative structure and elitist diction to collapse moral judgement into intellectual hierarchy. The phrase “only difference” deliberately narrows accountability, while “weren’t smart enough” reframes illegality as failed ingenuity. The collective pronoun “we” diffuses responsibility, suggesting shared brilliance rather than individual guilt. Prebble uses this defensive rhetoric to expose how intelligence is weaponised as a moral alibi, reinforcing the play’s critique of arrogance that persists even in the face of collapse.