On the potential of non‐digital prosumerism: a critical analysis of Toffler's prediction of a prosumer society

Relevance. Consumer practices, being an integral attribute of the functioning and development of society, require constant scientific monitoring and study, since the structural and functional transformation of consumption serves as an indicator of macro and microsocial changes. Consequently, it is important to understand whether "classical" consumerism has lost its relevance and whether it has been replaced by prosumerism, indicating fundamental changes in the modern social system. In this regard, the question of integration and scaling, especially of non‐digital consumerism, requires a more cautious and balanced approach in the context of the dominance of consumer capitalism, with its clear division between producers and consumers. Aim. To critically analyse E. Toffler's prediction of the coming of the era of the prosumer society (the Third Wave) to assess whether the transition from "classical" consumerism to prosumerism, the most important feature of which is the institutional diffusion of production and consumption, has taken place. Methods. Theoretical and critical analysis, descriptive method, comparative method, generalisation and synthesis. Results. It is shown that the practice of self‐service as an orthodox property of prosumerism, indicating "consumer autonomy", today has an ambiguous and uneven manifestation. Despite the fact that there is an increased interest of consumers in self‐service in one, the consumer demand for services continues to increase in another, indicating "consumer non‐self‐ sufficiency". Its macro‐marker is the dynamic development of the service economy. The practice of "producing for oneself" is not capable of fully realised and function at the macro‐social level in societal systems. Proof is provided of the conceptual ‘instability’ of Toffler's idea, according to which there is ‘real’ production in Sector A, because in this sector it is possible to ‘produce’ only consumer value (or, more precisely, utility for oneself), but not goods and services. Technical and social differentiation of labour activity demonstrates the stability of structural and functional delimitation of the institution of production and consumption, despite the more active position of the consumer, influencing production, for example, due to mass customization. The peculiarity of modern customization is highlighted. It consists in the fact that producers, on the basis of consumer preferences, continue to form a fairly wide list of templates, standardized sets, from which consumers create different configurations and combinations. On the one side, it makes consumption more diverse, on the other side, this ‘diversity’ is controlled by producers and marketers, which is still a sign of traditional or classical consumerism. Conclusions. Despite the fact that prosumerism is a dynamically developing institution, it is premature to assert that the era of prosumerism has arrived in a society, in which consumer capitalism with its structural and functional differentiation into producers and consumers continues to dominate and develop.