Conviviality

Sophie Wennerscheid

Related terms: degrowth, slow food, interspecies well-being, imagination, utopia, eco-georgics

‘Conviviality’ is commonly understood as the quality of being warm and hospitable, creating an environment where people feel welcome. It also refers more specifically to the enjoyment of festivities. Derived from the Latin con-vivere, meaning ‘living with,’ it carries the connotation of well-being, often associated with communal meals. In recent years, the concept of conviviality has gained significant traction in both intercultural studies (Hemer et al. 2020), critical food studies (Starck and Matta 2022), and transformative social theory (Adloff 2022), where it is similarly used to promote cooperative, joyful, and sustainable ways of living together. However, despite this growing interest, conviviality remains relatively underexplored within the broader discourse of environmental humanities. In this entry, I seek to present conviviality as a framework that transcends managerial approaches to environmental challenges, emphasizing instead the role of positive emotions and the power of the collective imagination in envisioning a world where humans and nonhumans can thrive together.

As a literary scholar, I first came across the concept of conviviality while searching for a way to articulate something that had struck me in a broad range of contemporary literature and films about rural life and agricultural practices. While human interventions in the land – particularly for food production – have rightly faced significant criticism as contributors to the environmental crisis rather than as part of the solution, the rural narratives that drew me in offered a different perspective. They reimagined agriculture in ways that emphasized interconnectedness, reciprocity, and mutual flourishing, telling a story that challenged dominant narratives of depletion and exploitation. Having previously worked with the concept of convivial dining (Wennerscheid 2024), I found ‘conviviality’ to be a particularly resonant term for capturing the sense of togetherness and joy that these narratives evoke. This insight became even more striking when I saw how the term had been embraced by the degrowth movement, adding a political dimension to the concept (Deriu 2014). Yet, as my thinking evolved to include the more-than-human world and its agency, I began to wonder whether ‘conviviality’ could extend beyond the human realm. This is how I arrived at the idea of ‘eco-conviviality’ – a concept that encompasses not only human togetherness but also the joyful and shared existence of humans and nonhumans alike. In the following, I will trace the trajectory of the concept from the realm of food through political theory to multispecies practices, primarily in agricultural contexts, exploring its significance for humanities-based research that supports the green transition of society. Additionally, I aim to highlight eco-convivial literature and film as valuable means of conveying an eco-convivial vision of the future, offering a vividness and emotional resonance that theoretical approaches may sometimes struggle to achieve.

In one way or another, all authors reflecting on conviviality draw from Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin’s The Physiology of Taste (Physiologie du goût, 1825). This rich essay delves into “the pleasures of the table, and all that relates to them” (2003, 30), not only championing culinary enjoyment but also highlighting the social bonds that form when people gather to share a meal and celebrate. About 150 years later, inspired by Brillat-Savarin’s notion of the “spirit of conviviality” (323), food enthusiasts from across various countries came together to resist the spread of fast-food culture and “the universal folly of the Fast Life,” advocating instead for “an adequate portion of sensual gourmandise pleasures, to be taken with slow and prolonged enjoyment” (Slow Food Manifesto, [1989] 2023, n.p.). From this manifesto, the slow food movement emerged, emphasizing local food production, traditional cuisine, and sustainable living. At its heart is a global network of local groups, known as convivia, where farmers, cooks, scholars, and consumers come together to enjoy food, foster community and take food-related action. Through this network, the movement’s “commitment to the ethos of convivium” (Panagia 2009, 140) extends the concept of conviviality beyond mere pleasure, framing people’s palates as “the loci of an ethical battle of geopolitical proportions” (ibid. 144).

The degrowth movement also invokes the idea of convivial togetherness, similar to the slow food movement, but with a sharper focus on environmental sustainability and anti-capitalist critique. Gaining momentum in the early 2000s, the movement challenges the paradigm of infinite economic growth and overconsumption while promoting values such as deceleration, decommodification, care, and shared community (D’Alisa et al. 2014, Kallis 2018). A central argument for advocating degrowth rests on two key insights: first, the recognition that the growth paradigm – long foreseen by the Club of Rome in the 1970s (Meadows et al. 1972) – has driven the planet to the brink of collapse, and second, the belief that less is more (Hickel 2020). This perspective holds that true happiness and non-material wealth arise from intentional simplicity and voluntary self-restraint, rather than from endless consumption and material accumulation. Serge Latouche (2014) captured this idea by coining the term “frugal abundance.”

The vision of fostering a convivial life within planetary boundaries is profoundly inspired by the thinking of Ivan Illich, who, due to his pointed critiques of mass education, mass medicine, and mass production, achieved intellectual prominence in the 1970s. In his seminal work, Tools for Conviviality (1973), Illich explores how people can reclaim their autonomy and thrive outside institutional constraints by creating and using tools that empower rather than control them. Understanding tools broadly as all kinds of devices, “be they artefacts or rules, codes or operators,” Illich conceives any tool that people use creatively to enrich their environment “with the fruits of his or her vision” (39), a ‘convivial tool’ or a ‘tool for conviviality.’ Although he is aware that the term ‘conviviality’ might evoke associations of “tipsy jolliness,” he insists on using it by arguing that the term has “proven effective” (12) in the work of Brillat-Savarin.  Illich defines ‘conviviality’ as “individual freedom realized in personal interdependence and, as such, an intrinsic ethical value” (26).

Although Illich does not explicitly include nonhuman others in his philosophy, his understanding of conviviality carries a strong environmental dimension. Fully aware of the devastating impact of humanity on the planet, Illich warns that “the whole earth [...] will die” (75) unless we drastically limit industrial production. To emphasize respect for ecological limits, Illich promotes “the value of joyful sobriety and liberating austerity” (30). Similar to Latouche’s concept of frugal abundance, Illich argues that doing better with less is not a sacrifice but, rather, the only viable path to more meaningful and ecologically sustainable ways of living. He goes so far as to claim: “The only solution to the environmental crisis is the shared insight of people that they would be happier if they could work together and care for each other” (77).

Although Illich’s proposed solution might seem simplistic and idealistic, his unwavering belief in people’s ability to connect, cooperate, and care continues to inspire contemporary environmental, social, and political movements. A striking example is the International Convivialist Association (ICA), which seeks to outline principles for joyful coexistence in the 21st century while acknowledging friction and conflict as inevitable aspects of human interaction. Although I do not share the ICA’s strong emphasis on competition as an inherent human trait and right, the idea of channelling potentially destructive energy into more cooperative forms of conflict resolution is compelling – especially when considering how we navigate conflicts and competing interests between humans and non-humans. This, ultimately, brings me to the concept of ‘eco-conviviality.’

While ‘conviviality’ traditionally refers to the ability to live well together within diverse human societies, I introduce the concept of ‘eco-conviviality’ to encompass relationships across the entire nonhuman ecosystem. As I define it, eco-conviviality functions both as a philosophical concept and an environmental practice, emphasizing that a good life is lived in a co-nurturing community with others – whether human or nonhuman. This challenges the notion that humans are the sole arbiters of what constitutes a good life and opens the door to understanding flourishing from a more inclusive, multispecies perspective. In practice, this means interacting with the natural world in ways that prioritize not only human benefit but also the health and well-being of ecosystems. To guard against anthropocentric bias, it can be helpful to consider the perspective of nonhuman species – not as something separate from us, but as part of the shared world we co-inhabit and affect. In every action or inaction, we might ask: what would this plant, this patch of land, or this animal make of it? Would it thrive, struggle, or resist? Recognizing our entanglement with this world, we must also acknowledge our responsibility: if the impact is negative, how might we adjust our behaviour to create conditions that are more tolerable, or even nourishing, in terms of ecological kinship?

That said, and in alignment with the ICA’s insights, eco-conviviality is not about idealizing nature or ignoring the conflicts and tensions that inevitably arise when species with competing needs interact. Human activities like organic farming, for instance, can still disrupt local ecosystems and displace wildlife. Conversely, fast-spreading plants that overtake garden spaces and crowd out desired crops can complicate a gardener’s work. Striving for eco-conviviality, then, means learning to navigate these frictions by developing thoughtful forms of coexistence, where diverse processes, activities, and needs are balanced and adapted to foster mutually supportive interactions between all participants in the ecosystem.

While there have been only a few theoretical attempts to reimagine agricultural practices in convivial terms (Busse 2022), a wide range of artworks illustrate the concept – even if they do not explicitly refer to it. In particular, speculative literature and film offer fertile ground for exploring eco-convivial futures. For example, Ernest Callenbach’s Ecotopia: The Notebooks and Reports of William Weston ([1975] 2014) presents a thriving, post-capitalist society through the eyes of a protagonist who, initially sceptical, gradually embraces the convivial values of this new world. A more recent example is Becky Chambers’ solarpunk Monk & Robot duology (2021, 2022), which presents an overtly optimistic vision of humans, technology, and nature coexisting in harmonious interdependence, showcasing diverse approaches to convivialist food production. Another example of a more tangible “convivial utopia” (Latouche 2009, 95) is Damon Gameau’s hybrid feature documentary 2040 (2019), which extrapolates real-life sustainable practices such as regenerative farming and marine permaculture into an envisioned future world of the year 2040.

What these and numerous other examples demonstrate is how readers and viewers, through diverse aesthetic strategies such as speculative projection, immersive world-building, and direct audience address, are invited into a world that remains grounded in the present and thus recognizable, yet extends into a positive, regenerative future. Central to this vision are protagonists who already today enact on a small scale what is promoted as a global solution for the world of tomorrow: living and working in ways that not only conserve the Earth’s resources but actively restore them where they have been depleted. The key concept here is ‘regeneration’ – not merely sustaining what remains, but actively rebuilding and replenishing.

The claim that such an approach is viable is not without its sceptics. Critics might contend that the works in question adopt an instrumentalist approach, designed “to inculcate ‘proper’ environmentalist feelings” (Seymour, 2018, 26) in their audience. Also, it could be argued that these narratives lean too heavily on optimism, overlooking the deep-rooted systemic barriers to large-scale transformation. Others may dismiss them as individualistic, arguing that their focus on small-scale action risks playing into neoliberal logic, shifting responsibility away from structural change. In my view, however, these texts and films are not prescriptive blueprints for readers and viewers to follow, nor mere endorsements of isolated lifestyle adjustments. Rather, I interpret them as engaging with complexity, struggle, and possibility from within, inviting the audience to take an active stance. More than that, I see them as illuminating the power of collective action and the fulfilment found in shared responsibility. Moving beyond escapist utopias, they present a vision that is both aspirational and grounded – demonstrating that another way of living is not only necessary but already emerging.

In closing, I see eco-conviviality as a promising conceptual and practical lens within the broader discourse of the environmental humanities, offering new ways to rethink human-nature relationships, ethical responsibility, and more sustainable ways of inhabiting the planet. While much environmental discourse rightly diagnoses the systemic failures driving ecological destruction, eco-conviviality shifts attention to the embodied, everyday practices that can help cultivate alternative futures. It provides a language for imagining and enacting forms of ecological belonging rooted not in domination but in mutual flourishing. This immersive engagement has the potential to inspire shifts in perception and action, making the convivialist vision not just a distant ideal but a tangible possibility – one that feels both meaningful to strive for and, ultimately, within reach. 

References

Adloff, Frank. 2022. Politics of the Gift, Towards a Convivial Society. Bristol: Bristol University Press.

Brillat-Savarin, Jean Anthelme. 2003. The Physiology of Taste [1825]. Translated by Peter Davies. Mineola, N.Y.: Dover Publications.

Busse, Tanja. 2022. “A Convivialist Solution for the Multiple Crisis of Biodiversity, Climate, and Public Health.” In Convivial Futures. Views from a Post-Growth Tomorrow, edited by Frank Adloff and Alain Caillé. Bielefeld: Transcript.

Callenbach, Ernest. 2014. Ecotopia: The Notebooks and Reports of William Weston [1975]. Berkeley, CA: Banyan Tree Books.

Chambers, Becky. 2021. A Psalm for the Wild-Built: A Monk and Robot Book, 1. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Chambers, Becky. 2022. A Prayer for the Crown-Shy: A Monk and Robot Book, 2. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

D’Alisa, Giacomo, Federico Demaria, and Giorgos Kallis, eds. 2014. Degrowth: A Vocabulary for a New Era. London: Routledge.

Deriu, Marco. 2014. “Conviviality.” In Degrowth. A Vocabulary for a New Era, edited by Giacomo D’Alisa, Federico Demaria, and Giorgos Kallis. London: Routledge.

Gameau, Damon. 2019. 2040. Madman Entertainment.

Hemer, Oscar, Maja Povrzanović Frykman, and Per-Markku Ristilammi, eds. 2020. Conviviality at the Crossroads: The Poetics and Politics of Everyday Encounters. New York: Springer Nature.

Hickel, Jason. 2020. Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World. London: William Heinemann Ltd.

Illich, Ivan. 2021. Tools for Conviviality [1973]. London: Marion Boyars Publishers Ltd., 2021.

Kallis, Giorgos. 2018. Degrowth. Newcastle upon Tyne: Agenda Publishing.

Latouche, Serge. 2009. Farewell to Growth. London: Polity.

Latouche, Serge. 2014. “Essays on frugal abundance.” Implicity Institute http://simplicityinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/FrugalAbundance1SimplicityInstitute.pdf

Meadows, Donella H. 1972. The Limits to growth; a report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. New York: Universe Books.

Panagia, Davide. 2009. The Political Life of Sensation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Seymor, Nicole. 2018. Bad Environmentalism. Irony and Irreverence in the Ecological Age. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Slow Food Manifesto. International Movement for the Defense of and the Right to Pleasure ([1989] 2023). https://www.slowfood.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/slow-food-manifesto.pdf

Starck, Edda, and Raúl Matta. 2022. “More-than-human Assemblages and the Politics of (Food) Conviviality: Cooking, Eating, and Living Together in Germany.” Food, Culture & Society 27 (3): 1-20.

Wennerscheid, Sophie. 2024. “Transformation Processes toward Low-Impact Pleasure: Rethinking Culinary Art with Karen Blixen’s Babette’s Feast (1950).” Gastronomica. The Journal of Critical Food Studies 24 (1): 36-45.