Jamming market rhetoric in Wisconsin's 2011 labor protests

Slosarski, Yvonne

doi:10.1080/14791420.2016.1151537

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 17 publications

(17 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We know that marginalized groups can assert claims to “rhetorical agency and political intelligibility,” (p. 125) and, Michael Middleton (2014) tells us, there are forms of political participation “that allow homeless persons to be seen otherwise and to challenge the responses to homelessness sustained by dominant constructions of their experiences and identities” (p. 125). There is certainly evidence of counterpublic resistance to neoliberal discourse and logics (Asen, 2017; Eltantawy, 2008; Slosarski, 2016). And, importantly, inclusion in a neoliberal public and assimilation into good consumer citizenship need not be the goal of such resistance (Chávez, 2015).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Expensive” people: Consumer citizenship and the limits of choice in neoliberal publics

Gent

2018

Communication and the Public

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a context of neoliberalism, decisions made for a “public” good are often articulated as what makes the most financial sense, and citizenship is exercised as a matter of consumer choice. Neoliberal theory positions choice as an unmitigated good, and as universally available when markets are deregulated and goods and services are privatized. Examining rhetorics of choice, however, illuminates the often-invisible power relations that shape choice, and makes visible the ways in which choice is conditioned by inequality. This essay attends to the cost–benefit analysis used to promote the spread of Housing First, an approach to addressing chronic homelessness in the United States. It argues that a neoliberal discourse of choice reconfigures possibilities for rhetorical citizenship by constructing “good” and “bad” consumer citizen subjectivities, constraining agency for “expensive” people while concentrating responsibility for public decision-making among “taxpayers.” These discourses thus limit membership to neoliberal publics to people with access to private resources.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Expensive” people: Consumer citizenship and the limits of choice in neoliberal publics

Gent

2018

Communication and the Public

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Jamming market rhetoric in Wisconsin's 2011 labor protests

Cited by 1 publication

References 17 publications

“Expensive” people: Consumer citizenship and the limits of choice in neoliberal publics

“Expensive” people: Consumer citizenship and the limits of choice in neoliberal publics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About