"we are what we have... And we love what we have": resisting resistance

Supported by a postmodern view of consumption, the author of this article recognizes as legitimate and pertinent to consider the theme “consumer resistance” as a growing and relevant aspect in the study of the areas of Marketing and Consumer Behavior. However, it is postulated that more radical resistance behaviors on the part of consumers, especially boycotting, may result in ineffective effects in some types of market. This proposition is anchored in the prominent need to create, reinforce and extend the so-called self of consumers, especially when their consumption relationships are based on emotional aspects, as observed in offers related to sport, in which the sense of connoisseur or fan appears to violate the logic of exit or repudiation of brands, products or companies. In this way, the so-called fragility of the concept of boycott is proposed, considered as one of the most radical manifestations of resistance and also considered as one of the ways out of the market logic then in force through the real transfer and exercise of power by part of consumers. My arguments suggest that such a boycott may contain propositions considered innocuous or without practical effect in some consumer relations, such as those characterized and governed by fanaticism. In this way, this article suggests that emotions – an intrinsic characteristic of the aforementioned market – exert a moderating effect on the relationship between companies/entities and consumers, a fact that would make boycott efforts less likely, and continuous acts of extension of the so-called self more evident.