Long internal discussions about the role of science in society and its involvement in policymaking, pandemic governance and authoritarian and corporate agendas have led us to question ‘dominant’ science: the (techno)science that is often praised for its contributions to ‘innovation’ and is considered instrumental in furthering industry profits and GDP growth. However, it has equally complicated relations with power, as it has served the ruling classes in colonial, imperialist and capitalist domination. From other parts of the populace, it is caricatured and condemned as an instrument of the elites to rule the world.

Today, science is often presented as ‘value-neutral’ and policymaking as guided by ‘sound science’, typically characterised by precision, control and reductionism. In practice, however, these ideas are oftentimes used to enroll science in the service of narrow interests while concealing the values and power behind them. In our work, we have observed many critical voices from within and beyond science advocating for more pluralistic and conscious approaches to knowledge – ones that can effectively address the social and ecological crises exacerbated by today’s corporately driven technoscience. In this context, conviviality emerged as a useful framework for thinking about how to achieve this.

At its core, conviviality encompasses two key aspects. The first is what our late colleague and friend, the human ecologist Ulrich Loening, emphasised: ‘Con vivo’ – Latin for ’living with’ – meaning respecting and reckoning with the radical interconnectedness and interdependence of all life. The second is ‘convivencia’ – Spanish for ‘living together well socially despite all differences’; it means disagreeing well and not letting divisive forces take hold. In these two senses, conviviality fundamentally breaks with the worldview of separation and human elevation espoused by Bacon and Descartes (and the current dominant forces), by centring our perspective and practices on the interconnectedness and interdependence of all ecological and social existence. Together, these two dimensions of conviviality could reorient science so that it supports the flourishing of the human and natural worlds, embracing diverse perspectives rather than excluding them.

What conviviality offers is something simple but powerful: a worldview with a clear value orientation that centres on (1) ecological and social relationality not separation, on (2) intellectual humility and cooperation not hubristic promises and hypercompetition. Conviviality thus offers a positive horizon for all forms of sciences – existing and to be invented – that centre all their practices on these two simple but profound shifts. To build convivial sciences in effect means to re-orientate epistemic principles by which we judge what counts as valid scientific knowledge, and cultivate a different stance within and towards science. Convivially grounded sciences could then become a powerful societal resource for confronting the injustice and ecological breakdown exacerbated by today’s corporate technoscience. As conviviality at the heart of science, value neutrality is off the table, and sciences become harder to instrumentalise for corporate profitmaking or geopolitical agendas without scrutiny.

The task before us is clear: to unite the existing, pluriversal strands of critical inquiry under the banner of more humble, ethically grounded, and convivial sciences. Such sciences can become a beacon of hope in today’s crisis-struck world – if they work with the world rather than over it, and defend the public interest against attempts to hide power under the guise of neutrality and dominant versions of science.

Further reading: Pörtner, E. & Lebrecht, T. (2026). Towards Convivial Sciences. Uniting Strands of Critical Inquiry, Oekom.

Get in touch: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. / X: @CriticScienceCH / Bluesky: @criticsciencech.bsky.social / LinkedIn: Critical Scientists Switzerland