Just because post-apocalyptic life requires a new kind of solidarity (derived from kenotic debt) does not mean that it will necessarily be realized. However, where kenotic solidarity grows, so does the quality of the mode of existence. There is an evolutionary argument, derived from the notion of survival of the best adapted, that suggests groups in which values such as honesty, honour, friendship, loyalty, truthfulness, selflessness, and generosity are widely practiced (as a practicing place) show more resilience and a greater ability to deal with unforeseen events.
This also applied to pre-apocalyptic conditions, but in those contexts, the conditions to get away with (proverbial or actual) murder were much more favourable. In post-apocalyptic worlds, such acts may result in forms of excommunication that make survival significantly more difficult.
We can see it around us: increased suicide rates, self-inflicted traumas, and identity disorders—such as those common in the manosphere—signal the real costs of forms of alienation that resemble excommunication, especially among younger generations. The very notion that one has “nothing to lose” can lead either to life-affirming practices or, conversely, to self-destruction. Those who cling to the need for generic recognition (e.g., through social media or consumption) and lack the infrastructures of kenotic solidarity are more likely to lose out—and lose themselves.
Kenotic solidarity is not being offered by the Establishment. In almost every aspect, it contrasts with what is provided by institutional systems such as education, healthcare, and social work. Schools claim to teach us the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to compete and succeed in the labour market, thereby demanding that we reduce ourselves to the needs and functions of work within the confines of capitalism and/or technofeudalism. Hospitals and medical institutions diagnose and treat afflictions that impair our ability to function in society, reducing us to conceptions and disciplines of “health” that regulate every aspect of life. Social work teaches us the norms and expectations for navigating institutional procedures that often create helplessness and dependency, even as they claim to support us.
Kenotic solidarity engenders convivial modes of existence because it starts from being indebted, rather than from ownership of property. Its mode of practicing place is not territorialization (taking place) nor offering hospitality (making place), but accepting hospitality and respecting the host in good faith. The host is not a particular estate but the web of life—the web that binds us and grants us existence. Hence, kenotic solidarity is both localized as concrete events and de-localized as sustainable life forms of adaptation (rather than imposition) with evolutionary advantages. Kenotic solidarity is what Donna Haraway described as “staying with the trouble.”
The suggestion that a post-apocalyptic society may require a new kind of solidarity to function is logical if one follows the sociological traditions of Durkheim and Parsons. However, before we embrace this kind of thinking—which is not so different from the sociological frameworks that gave us new social orders like postmodernity, reflexive modernity, risk society, transparent society, and post-truth society—we must first critically reflect on why the very idea of a third order might be problematic.
The first conceptual necessity—and this should be at the heart of every sociological attempt to think post-apocalyptically—is to accept that in a post-apocalyptic world, we cannot assume that any order exists. The best we can do is avoid precluding the possibility of concerted attempts to create particular orders. These are most likely to be multiple, contingent, and provisional—driven more by circumstance than ideology. In that sense, the distinction between order and disorder becomes ambivalent and arbitrary.
The second conceptual necessity is that these attempts at ordering must be identified in the present, not projected onto some dystopian future. If we live in a post-apocalyptic world, we must recognize it now—not speculate about what it might become. We are not on a path toward an apocalypse. The apocalypse has already happened.
If we are to identify kenotic solidarity as an emergent form in a post-apocalyptic world order—one that may enable the formation of a functioning order because it carries evolutionary advantages—we must be able to find such forms of association already today. My assertion is that kenotic solidarity has always existed. It is not a new form at all.
In the early Christian communities during periods of persecution, kenotic solidarity was often associated with martyrdom. This is because Jesus Christ himself preached kenotic solidarity as the path to salvation. Similar features can be found in the Benedictine Rule that governed early monastic life. Outside of Christianity, many traditions embrace kenotic solidarity as a mode of adaptation to challenging environments—examples can be found in post-colonial struggles, Jewish voices, friendships, kinships, animal rights movements, and more.
In many ways, kenotic solidarity overlaps with mechanical solidarity, as it is often rooted in place-based practices and face-to-face encounters—contexts where decisions must be made in the presence of those affected. However, whereas mechanical solidarity can easily slip into friend-versus-foe communitarianism, kenotic solidarity requires an openness to strangers and ambivalences that defy the binary logic of inclusion versus exclusion. In that sense, it also overlaps with organic solidarity, while resisting the latter’s formalistic, procedural institutionalization—which tends to corrupt both kenosis and solidarity.
Binary thinking may be the reason we struggle to recognize the deep historical roots of kenotic solidarity. Modern thought, including much of sociology, is structured around mutually exclusive oppositions. This is why “the modern” is often sharply contrasted with both non-Western ways of life and medieval European forms. Perhaps, though, we should resist this dualistic framework and instead assume that all forms of solidarity observable today have always-already existed in some form, and that they cannot be reduced to just three—or even two—types.
Kenotic solidarity shares elements with both mechanical and organic solidarity but cannot be subsumed by either. Moreover, there may be multiple forms of kenotic solidarity. This can only be affirmed or refuted through empirical observation. By introducing a third term—one that escapes the dualism embedded in traditional sociological thinking—we may more accurately recognize which modes of existence are best suited to post-apocalyptic life.
Disaffected Sociology 
Leave a comment