thanks for the compliments.

i dont have access to your ESPN paper, but the idea of “inter-agency” seems very interesting. I was wondering, with the data that I have from my shoes studies (shoes consumption and self construction) that some of the consumption of the multiple shoes are constraint by the society. Others are free.

So, if we accept that the self is fragmented and multiphrenic, that we perform different personages in our life (life as theater), maybe, some of these personages have more strict costumes, they are constrict (one of my interviewee hasnt bought a shoe from adidas, which is made with the marijuana leaves, because of the personage of the professor that he needs to perform) by the society (more or less the same idea of the authoritative performances by arnould and price). Other shoes are free, that the interviewee can use and perform a more free personage, doing mainly what he wants, not what the market (society) wants (this idea is also similar to the authenticating acts).

But, now that I’m reading Gergen, he says that this multiphrenic self is a construction of different selves that we have contact (direct or indirectly). So, if we act the way we act because of this construction of a multiphrenic self, which is a reflexion of selves from others, we are still under structure. Or do we have an agency position to choose which self we can add to our personages wardrobe?

but in the end, the discussion stil remains agency vs. structure. Or agency+structure, understanding that these dichotomies “doesnt” exist in postmodernity.