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

Abstract

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.