When you see Baudrillard celebrating consumer society, he is aligning himself very much against Marxist thought. Derrida deconstructs texts and ideas for a point, whether he is trying to undermine capitalism, religion, or simply dogmatic devotion. The truths might be “multiple” but they are all singing, in some sense, the same tune.

Definitely, giving voice to others and alternate views, and doing this in an aware and open-minded way is preferable to doing it in some sort of shrill activist manner. But I think the point here is that these types of studies would have a sense of “moral fiber” (which in my mind highlights the appeal of the most appealing postmodern work) and not simply seek to entertain or to go around in evocative, resonant circles with no socially-directed end or conclusion (which is something I tend not to like about some postmodern work).

I would like to ask you something. When you are talking about collective context of consumer behavior, and for a more critical view, are you also talking about “making” a axiology of something? That something is more important than another thing?

I think that the answer is yes. Because of your early postings that discussed ethics and aesthetics, and, for me, axiology is about that.

If so, how a postmodern (with the multiple narratives, multiple perspectives, multiple truths) can construct such an axiom? Arent these axioms unique or individual?

Or these different axioms that appear in the text (from the researcher(s), from the interviewees) should be debated IN THE TEXT, to produce something new. Give voice to the other? text=narrative