Zom Disease

doi: 10.1111/tsq.
12150 The Sociological Quarterly ISSN 0038-0253
BETWEEN THE LIVING AND UNDEAD: How

Zombie Cinema Reflects the Social
Construction of Risk, the Anxious Self, and
Disease Pandemic
Robert Wonser*
Los Angeles Valley College
David Boyns
California State University, Northridge
The zombie film has become an important component of contemporary popular culture. The
sociological nature of the themes addressed by these films reflect prominent social concerns, and
lend themselves to sociological analysis as texts themselves. This article examines the zombie film
genre, its history, predominant themes, and its illustration of sociological dynamics related to
identity, collective behavior, disease, contagion, and the privileges that come from social
inequality. Particular attention is placed on what the zombie films, themselves, can tell us about
society and how they illustrate sociological principles. First, we examine the origins and history of
zombie cinema. Next, we move to a discussion of the central narrative devices around which
zombie films are organized. In particular, we focus on two narratives in zombie films: those that
emphasize zombie possession; and those that focus on the sociological risks of zombie pandemics.
The discussion then moves to an analysis of zombies as selves, and how zombie films express
cultural anxieties about selfhood, loss of autonomy, and threats of de-individualization. We then
explore the roles of power and privilege in the social epidemiology of zombification, paying
particular attention to how those who succumb to zombiedom illustrate the sociological
dynamics of health disparities in the real world. Finally, the sociology of infectious disease is used
to address how zombiedom correlates with real disease outbreaks, what we know about the social
aspects of infectious disease transmission, and the sociology of pandemics.
Keywords: zombies; sociology of film; identity; collective behavior; disease; privilege; inequal-
ity; power
INTRODUCTION
The 21st centuryzombie film has become a mainstay of American cinema. With its
roots in classic films like White Zombie (1932) and independent cinema like George
Romeros Night of the Living Dead (1968), the 21st centuryzombie film has become a
prominent motif in popular American movies and provides a fertile series of texts for
sociological investigation. Zombie films have been nominally known as cult cinema, but
*Direct all correspondence to Robert Wonser, Los Angeles Valley College, Sociology, 5800 Fulton Ave-
nue, Valley Glen, CA 91401; e-mail: wonserrg@lavc.edu
628 The Sociological Quarterly 57 (2016) 628653 V

C 2016 Midwest Sociological Society
Robert Wonser and David Boyns Between the Living and Undead
recent blockbuster zombie filmslike Resident Evil (2002) and its offspring; the
acclaimed film 28 Days Later (2002); the remake of the Romero film Dawn of the Dead
(2004); the parodic Shaun of the Dead (2004); more recently the comedies Zombieland
(2009) and Warm Bodies (2013); and the fast zombie, apocalyptic horror film World
War Z (2013)have collectively reflected popular and mainstream interest in zombie
cinema. In fact, a growing cultural industry has emerged around zombies, and the pub-
lication of satirical zombie survival guides (e.g., Max Brookss [2003]) and mashup,
parody zombie novels (e.g., Pride and Prejudice and Zombies [2009]) have been recently
featured on the New York Times Bestsellers list. The popularity of zombies in mainstream
culture, and specifically in film, is reflective of their utility as symbolic and critical repre-
sentations of the societies from which they emerge and as metaphorical illustrations of
the cultures zeitgeist. This article seeks to situate the zombie film within sociological
analysis and examine how cinematic depictions of zombies illustrate sociological
dynamics related to identity, collective behavior, disease, contagion, and the privileges
of social inequities.
While the zombie film is typically examined as a social commentary on cultural con-
formity, political apathy, and mindless consumerism, an unwavering characteristic of the
zombie film is that it is centrally about the issues related to self, identity, and the sociology
of health and disease. This article is organized around four primary topics, each of which
examines central sociological concepts related to the sociological implications of narrative
devices used in zombie cinema, particularly those related to individual zombie possession
and pandemic disease; how zombie films express social anxieties about the social con-
struction of self in the context of disease, stigma, and threats of de-individualization; the
roles of power and privilege in the social epidemiology of disease; and, finally, the sociol-
ogy of infectious disease in the context of globalization and pandemics.
A statement about our approach is warranted here. Scholars have long looked to the
stories being told in the popular culture for the purpose of illustrating power relations
(Marx [1844] 1978; Gramsci 1992; Adorno and Horkeimer 2002), dominant fears
(Glassner 1999), and as a reflection of societys beliefs and values (Denzin 1991). Socio-
logical analyses of cultural oeuvres like cinema have traditionally taken either a
sociology of film or a sociology in film approach (Sutherland and Feltey 2013).
Both are useful for different reasons. Our analytic strategy embraces both approaches to
best allow us to examine how zombie cinema represents societal dynamics that reflect
cultural anxieties present in contemporary society. Specifically, zombie cinema is
uniquely suited for the task of revealing important, sociological aspects of society
because it highlights collective anxieties about social life in the contemporary world in
graphic fashion. Whether zombie films engage themes of the other, risks of nuclear
proliferation, or pandemic disease, their sociological relevance is in their ability to
depict principles of sociology in strikingly ruthless, sometimes humorous, and often
gory detail. Regardless of a sociology of film or sociology in film approach, it is our con-
tention that film broadly represents a useful tool for understanding complex societal
phenomena, particularly when it comes to emerging sociology subfields like sociology
of health and disease. Consequently, there is no better genre of film for this analysis
The Sociological Quarterly 57 (2016) 628653 V

C 2016 Midwest Sociological Society 629
Between the Living and Undead Robert Wonser and David Boyns
than the zombie genre. Zombie films highlight a number of acutely modern concerns in
an increasingly globalized and technologically driven world. The following analysis
explores these in greater detail.
We begin with a discussion of the role of zombie films in American culture. Much
has been written about the cultural significance of zombie cinema but comparatively lit-
tle attention has been directed to zombie films as sociological texts. First, we examine
the origins and history of zombie cinema. Next, we move to a discussion of the central
narrative devices around which zombie films are organized. In particular, we focus on
two narratives in zombie films: those that emphasize zombie possession and those that
focus on the sociological risks of zombie pandemics. From there we move into a discus-
sion of what the zombie films can tell us about society and how they illustrate sociologi-
cal principles. Here we develop an analysis of zombies as selves, and how zombie
films express cultural anxieties about selfhood, loss of autonomy, and threats of de-
individualization. We describe the social aspects of zombies, how they differ from living
humans, and what this distinction tells us about how zombie films represent collective
anxieties about the self in the context of disease. We then explore the roles of power and
privilege in the social epidemiology of zombification, paying particular attention to
how those who succumb to zombiedom illustrate the sociological dynamics of health
disparities in the real world. In particular, in a cinematic world threatened by zombie
contagion, we find that the most likely to be infected are those who have large numbers
of informal social connections (either through their occupations or living conditions);
lack the resources necessary to evade and/or treat infection; and lack the privilege to
physically separate themselves from potentially infected populations. Finally, the sociol-
ogy of infectious disease is reviewed to address how zombiedom correlates with real dis-
ease outbreaks, what we know about the social aspects of infectious disease
transmission, and the sociology of pandemics.
ZOMBIE FILM ORIGINS

The origin of the American, full-feature zombie film can be traced to Victor Halperins
White Zombie (1932), which depicts the malevolent and intentional creation of zombies
by Haitian plantation owners, to create mindless and unresisting workers for their sugar
cane factories. As Dendle (2001, 2007) suggests, White Zombie is important as a founda-
tion for zombie films because it establishes the genre as a barometer of cultural anx-
iety (2007:45). Fear of the other, apprehension about the loss of autonomy, and
threats of totalitarian control and exploitationmotifs of enduring centrality to zombie
filmsall have been central concerns of the American experience, as well as central
themes of sociology.
Since White Zombie, the zombie film has been a constant element of American cin-
ema. While the prevalence of zombie film production has endured ebbs and flows,
Bishop (2010:13) argues that this pattern corresponds to the periods of social and politi-
cal unrest within the United States. Increases in zombie film production coincide with
increased societal unrest, and are reflective of societal tensions undergirding the

narrative structure of the films. The earliest zombie films were particularly expressive of
the dubious nature of the master/slave dichotomy. For example, the cultural anxieties
associated with imperialism, worker exploitation, and slavery are illustrated in White
Zombie, and also in other early zombie films like Jacques Turneurs I Walked with a Zom-
bie (1943) (Bishop 2010). As Bishop (2010:13) explains, by allowing native voodoo
priests to enslave white heroines, these inherently racist movies terrified Western viewers
with the thing they likely dreaded most at the time: slave uprisings and reverse colo-
nization. Others have argued that the zombie films produced in the 1950s and 1960s
personified Cold War anxieties and uncertainty over the changing racial order in the
United States as well as the tensions surrounding the Vietnam War (Dendle 2001; Bishop
2010, 2015; Vuckovic 2011; Wetmore 2011). Films of the 21st century continue the trend
of zombie cinema reflecting contemporary cultural anxieties. As Bishop (2015) argues,
recent films like Wasting Away (2007) and Warm Bodies (2013), emblematic of the cur-
rent zombie renaissance, are possible because of contemporary and collective fears
about terrorism and international pandemics (as well as fears about anthrax, bird flu,
mad cow disease), and cultural concerns over immigration and identity politics.
In looking at the history of zombie cinema, a crucial turning point was reached
when George A. Romero released the seminal Night of the Living Dead (1968). It is with
Night of the Living Dead that the first true and popular zombie film was born; it is also
one of the first films to usher in a new theme in zombie cinemathat of the survival
narrative in the midst of a zombie apocalypse. With it came the flesh-eating ghoul,
slow(ish) moving, pack traveling tropes, and mass zombie contagion, all of which have
become hallmarks of zombie cinema. Bishop argues that Night of the Living Dead is
both a critique of, and an expression of the racial tensions of the times. In one sense, as
the films only black character, Bens inclusion as the protagonist is symbolic. Bishop
(2010:119) argues however, that although Bens attempts are really only to resist the
white patriarchys othering of his autonomy and authority, they recall the threat of
the Other as depicted in the voodoo-zombie films. Simultaneously, however, in the
midst of the social upheavals of the Civil Rights Movement, Ben manifests the greatest
fear of many white Americans: that black men would become socially impertinent and
come to threaten the safety of white women (2010:120). Following Night of the Living
Dead, replacing (and even reversing) the racist and imperialist fears associated with the
voodoo master/slave dichotomy were new themes reflecting the societal and racial ten-
sions of the 1960s, and emerging critiques of racial discrimination in America (Maddrey
2004). Night of the Living Dead infused new vigor and vitality into the zombie genre,
irrevocably altering its form and function as well as establishing the zombie as a sym-
bolic representation of societal illsa pattern that continues in present-day cinema.1
When viewed as a whole and through the lens of time, we can see Romeros films as
emblematic of the larger social changes taking place in American society. This is espe-
cially true for the two remakes; Night of the Living Dead (1990) and Dawn of the Dead
(2004). When compared with the originals, we see stark contrasts in both films. In the
1990 version of Night of the Living Dead, we see gender politics assume a more promi-
nent role with the films lead female character, Barbara, taking on a more active role in

self-preservation unlike the passive, frightened victim needing protection, as she was
portrayed in the original version. The Dawn of the Dead remake notably rids itself of the
overt commentary on consumerism in the shopping mall setting, focusing instead on
the mall as a region of social control and ending not, with a hopeful prospect of escape,
but with everyones fate in jeopardy. In line with a more modern, mediated world, the
films final moments are recorded via video camera; thus, documenting the decline of
civilization and humanity (Wetmore 2011).
As the millennium approached, the genre took a dramatic (and sometimes comedic)
turn toward faster, stronger, and more ingenious zombies, beginning with the parodic,
punk rockinspired film Return of the Living Dead (1985). The emergence of the fast
zombie was solidified with the release of 28 Days Later (2002) where the speed, dexter-
ity, and strength of zombies were taken to new levels of dangerousness and ferocity, all
with the intensity of a full-throttled sprint. Considering most of the zombie films since
28 Days have continued to feature fast zombies (e.g., the remake of Dawn of the Dead
[2004], and the sequel to 28 Days Later, 28 Weeks Later, the Resident Evil series, Zombie-
land, World War Z), it might be that the fast zombie is here to stay (there are of course
notable exceptions to fast-moving zombies from Romero himself and 2004s Shaun of
the Dead). Symbolically of course, the move toward the fast-moving zombie mirrors
societys seemingly increasing approach toward a postmodern speed culture (Gott-
schalk 1999) and fast capitalism (Agger 1989, 2004), and reflects a new fear alto-
getherthat of rapid social change, particularly in an era of social media and rapid
information transmission. As we will explore below, these fast-moving zombies provide
some of the best analyses of the zombie as a contemporary, environmental pandemic.
ZOMBIE NARRATIVES: POSSESSION AND RISK

Zombies are uniquely positioned in the popular imagination as liminal figures: neither
fully dead nor fully alive. They are, instead, animated (or re-animated) corpses that are
undead (Leverette 2008). As an undead creature, the cinematic representation of the
zombie illustrates important principles related to the sociology of the individual, partic-
ularly related to cultural fears concerning self, identity, and stigma.
In the earliest examples of zombie cinema (particularly in the White Zombie era),
the loss of individual selfhood is a dominant theme. There, the fears of zombies are
those articulated through the possession narrative where individuals are typically threat-
ened by a voodoo priests control over the human will through supernatural forces. In
such films, an individuals loss of personal autonomy is a primary leitmotif, reflecting
the cultural fear of de-individualization and enslavement by callous and authoritarian
masters (usually able to exercise control through paranormal means). These films have
been considered a narrative reflection of the fears of fascism and communism of the
postWorld War II era (Gunn and Treat 2005). But they also express an important sub-
text: loss of independence matched with rampant conformity are markers of a loss of a
distinct sense of self. As undead creatures, zombies are symbolic representations of the
consequences of the loss of self. However, it is not the mere fact that they are undead

that is at issue in the world of cinema. Instead, because zombies are both undead and
without selfhood, they are somehow radically nonhuman. Other undead creatures that
appear in film do not carry the same connotation. Vampires, for example, are undead
but also, and most notably, they retain selfhood and are depicted much more sympa-
thetically (George and Hughes 2013). As the popularly of the Twilight films attests, being
undead with selfhood makes vampires much more appealing than being a dehumanized
zombie, and is a state of being a human might actually find desirable.
As the zombie film genre has progressed beyond the focus on the possession narra-
tive, the cinematic theme of the loss of selfhood has begun to more directly reflect a pre-
occupation with the risks of the modern world. Fears of individual zombie possession
have been replaced by a focus on enormous hordes of nameless, faceless zombies chas-
ing, infecting, and transforming the living into a de-individualized, undead multitude.
Here, the zombie phenomenon has become massified, and threats of zombie infection
are vulnerabilities not only to individuals, but also to entire communities, nations, and
even civilizations. In the 21stcentury zombie film, these narratives have taken on more
apocalyptic overtones; the threat is not only the loss of individual self, but also the pos-
sibility of the extermination of cultural selfhood, and of the extinction of human self-
hood as a marker of the species.
In contemporary film narratives, zombie plagues have emerged as a consequence of
fallout from the uncertainties of modernity (Koven 2008), a result of what Beck (1992)
has called the risk society of the late-20th century. Such themes still retain a focus on
possession narratives, of becoming just another face in the zombie crowd; but these
themes are coupled with risk narratives that explore anxieties about the shortcomings of
modern technology. Whether it be from a radioactive probe (as in Night of the Living
Dead) or the release of a highly contagious socially engineered virus (as in Zombieland,
28 Days Later, and the Resident Evil films) the cause of the zombie pandemic is usually a
catastrophe of human origin. While selfhood remains imperiled in contemporary zom-
bie cinema, this threat has apocalyptic connotations and is a prominent, sociological
subtext that drives todays popular preoccupation with zombies.
ZOMBIE SELVES AND THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE ZOMBIE

Because zombies are nonliving individuals but, at the same time, group-dependent,
they are essentially social creatures without selves. Following Meads (1934) analysis of
the self, it could be said that zombies lack any conception of me, reflective sense of
themselves as an object in the world, and lack the capacity for the social reflexivity
required for selfhood. As such, the sociological situation of the zombie is paradoxical:
they lack individuality, are weakest when alone; yet, they thrive in crowds and are most
dangerous as mobs. In cinema, zombies follow the often-noted adage about the social
nature of primatesin much the same way that the lone primate is a dead primate,
the lone zombie is usually a dead zombie. In fact, and with very few exceptions (e.g., the
character R in Warm Bodies), an individual zombie lacks the individuality, creativity,
empathy, and imaginative forethought that are hallmarks of self.

While most zombie films do not show zombies as having any semblance of self,
they are social creatures, and through their mob-like organization develop a form of
social organization as a means of survival. The social nature of zombies is perhaps
the most common, and unspoken theme in zombie cinema. Zombies are almost
totally reliant on the mob as a form of social organization. Because zombies have lit-
tle sense of self, their survival essentially depends on collaborative group hunting,
matched with systems of communication that are prelinguistic and nonsymbolic.
Such communication systems are often characterized as spontaneous or
emotional communication (Buck and VanLear 2002), and facilitate the group con-
tagion that seems to motivate most zombie groups. These zombie congregations are
loosely defined, flow spontaneously through emotional contagion without much
definition, but their strength emerges as their numbers grow. Their collective power
and social organization is epitomized by what Le Bon (1897) describes as the impul-
sive, irrational and contagious crowd. Alone, a zombies slow, staccato shambling
renders it an easily dispatched threat for most protagonists. As a crowd, however,
the zombies are powerful, more easily able to overtake and (both literally and figura-
tively) consume their victims.
As they are depicted in film, zombies are metaphorically members of a great,
unwashed mass and are explicitly and almost exclusively social creatures. They are
driven by the basest of human desires: a purely id-like compulsion toward the con-
sumption of human flesh. While the motivation to bite, infect, and eat living humans
makes zombies appear antisocial, their mob-like behavior can actually be considered a
form of what Wilson (2012) describes as cooperative eusociality. While virtually all
zombie cinema since Night of the Living Dead has typically depicted zombies as relying
on the group hunt for the successful pursuit of humans, more recent films like World
War Z illustrate what might be called the eusocial zombie, with members of zombie
mobs engaging in impulsive, yet cooperative behavior to scale large barricades in order
to reach their human prey, much like army ants build living bridges to cross gaps in
the forest floor.
Because the hallmark of the zombie is that it is characterized by sociality with-
out individuality, matched with a concomitant suspension of personhood, the
social construction of the zombie is such that it is defined as a human that is
other than human. In zombie cinema, the infected quite literally experience what
Goffman (1961) describes as a mortification of self. This mortification is a pro-
cess not necessarily a product of the bureaucratic de-individualization described by
both Goffman and Weber (2009) but is, instead, a consequence of a biological
transformation paired with the social organization of the zombie mob. Such anxi-
eties about totalitarian absorption of the individual by the group have been long-
standing themes in classical sociological theory, reflected in Marxs ([1844] 1978)
analysis of alienation, Durkheims ([1893]1997) theory of mechanical solidarity,
and Simmels (1971) description of the blase attitude of denizens of the metropolis.
The social organization of the infected in zombie cinema reflects these same fears

of de-individualization and alienation, and pivots on the mortification of self as a

consequence of zombie infection.
Even though in most zombie cinema the inflected have no sense of self, they do
retain some vestiges of their human past. Because of their social nature, and as for-
mer members of society, zombies are often indistinguishable in both manner and
dress from the uninfected. As a result, the distinction between human and zombie is
a necessary and socially constructed one. However, regardless of previous occupation
or identityand in film, zombies are frequently dressed in their normal attire as hos-
pital patients, police officers, doctors and nurses, mail carriers, and so ona zombie
is first and foremost a zombie. While the cause of their disease is frequently
unknown, their social position is a hyperbolic version of that described by Talcott
Parsons (1951) in his discussion of the sick role and by Erving Goffman (1963) in
his analysis of stigma. Stigmatized individuals are ostracized from the rest of soci-
ety as they are no longer viewed as acceptable members. This stigmatization furthers
the out-group process providing little chance for reintegrating zombies, and often
leading to their extermination.
Travis (2014) suggests that the stigmatization of the zombie is a consequence of
how they are defined. As his analysis of the legal situation of the infected demon-
strates, an understanding of the social and existential definition of the zombie is
negotiated using preexisting, and socially constructed frames. Following Travis, one
of the most useful frameworks for understanding the existential situation of the zom-
bie is that articulated by Agamben (1995), who distinguishes between bare life and
socially recognized life. Defining a living thing as having bare life means that it
has been identified as living, but is not necessarily recognized as having a socially or
morally significant life. Having a socially recognized life affords one protection
under the normative order of a community. However, having bare life without also
being defined as having a recognized life makes individuals vulnerable, gives them
the status of a Homo sacer, placing them outside of the boundaries of the social order,
making their life sociologically valueless, and targeting them as able to be killed with-
out ethical consequence. Historically, animals, concentration camp inmates, indige-
nous peoples, and prisoners are examples of those who have been framed as Homo
sacer. In zombie cinema, the infected have bare life but not life in the political or
sociological sense. Marking zombies in this way identifies them as special kinds of
people without agency and subject to separate norms than those of full-fledged peo-
ple. The debate around what kind of life animated corpses are imbued with demon-
strates the meaningfulness of social construction processes in understanding the
sociological nature of zombies and their emergence in film.
In his analysis of the legal rights of zombies, Travis (2014) maintains that if zom-
bies are understood under the medical model, then it follows that because zombies
only have bare life and do not have selves, they can be socially constructed as non-
persons, outside of the boundaries of social norms, and subject to elimination. We
see in The Walking Dead definitional contestation between two characters, Hershel
Green, who maintains that zombies may have suspended selfhood, and Dale

Horvath who is convinced that they are nonhuman. Hershel believes that zombifica-
tion is only a temporary state and that the infected may one day be retransformed; as a
result, he has been warehousing friends and family members in a barn hoping they
may eventually be cured:
Hershel: I saw the broadcasts before they stopped, saw the irrational fear, the atrocities, like
the incident at my well.
Dale: We put down a walker.
Hershel: You killed a person.
Dale: Well, if you watched the same broadcasts I did, you saw walkers attack, kill. Theyre
dangerous.
Hershel: A paranoid schizophrenic is dangerous too. We dont shoot sick people.
Dale: With all due respect, you are cut off from the outside world here. But Ive seen
people that I cared about die and come back, and theyre not people.
Hershel: My wife and stepson are in that barn. Theyre people.
Dale: Im sorry. [38: 206]
Ultimately, Dale realizes that the only viable course of action is in fact to kill zombies,
conceding (and thus affirming the definition) that zombies only have bare life, are
not people, and represent an existential threat to humanity.
While in zombie cinema protagonists frequently debate the existential situation of
the infected, the aggression of zombies toward the living causes them to be encountered,
and usually defined, as ecological adversaries to humans. As such, killing the infected is
not only deemed acceptable in zombie films, it is necessary for the survival of human-
kind. Consequently, in some films (e.g., Dawn of the Dead and Zombieland), individual
zombies are sniped wantonly for sport. In other films (e.g., Day of the Dead and 28 Days
Later) they are warehoused for crass experimentation. With the issue of zombie selfhood
as a pivot-point, however, many protagonists are confronted with moral questions over
the human nature of the zombie. Is killing a zombie equivalent to killing a human?
How can one kill what is already dead? What are the implications of killing a human
that does not have a self?
The moral struggle over the personhood of the zombie is an important narrative
device in much of zombie cinema, and is a salient subtext of many such films. Because a
zombie is human in appearance, but exists without self, there are ambiguities as to
whether or not they should be considered full-fledged members of the human commu-
nity. If zombies are infected, but still living people, then the harm inflicted on them by
the uninfected is problematic. If, however, zombies are in fact dead, devoid of person-
hood, and aggressive, then humans are under no real social or moral imperative to help,
protect, or refrain from killing them. This predicament is a central theme underscoring
the drama of zombie cinema: Are zombies people with suspended selves deserving to be
saved; or are they undead ghouls to be feared and ultimately exterminated for the sur-
vival of the human species?
As a narrative focus, the moral quandary about zombies and their selfhood is
directly explored in many zombie films. As a consequence, individuals like Hershel

Green are often portrayed as unwilling to kill their infected friends and family members.
This is also illustrated in films like Dawn of the Dead and Shaun of the Dead. What if
Hershel Green is right and a residue of the human self remains? As examples of the
prevalence of this theme, zombie films like Fido, Shaun of the Dead, and Day of the Dead
all examine the potential existence of a vestigial self among zombies. In Day of the Dead,
Romero uses the setting of the shopping mall to create an allegory of mindless consum-
erism and give his protagonists the opportunity to debate the existential situation of the
zombie. During one famous scene, zombies lumber aimlessly past abandoned store-
fronts and pause to stare blankly at forsaken window displays. A group of humans
(including Francine and Stephen) who have taken refuge on the rooftop of the mall
comment on the paradoxical behavior of the zombies and reflect on their absence of
selfhood:
Francine: What are they doing?

Why do they come here?
Stephen: Some kind of instinct. Memory of what they used to do.
This was an important place in their lives.
That the zombies appear to have some memory left of their living past raises the
question as to whether or not some semblance of selfhood remains. Similar
examinations of the selfhood of zombies are further explored in Land of the
Dead (2005), where some zombies continue to instinctually engage in their old
jobs, most notably Big Daddy who repeatedly pantomimes the pumping of
gasoline.
The clearest philosophical treatment of selfhood and the zombie comes, perhaps,
from Day of the Dead (1985). In this film, a scientist named Dr. Logan attempts to
socialize zombies through behaviorist systems of punishment and reward. Logan has
trained one zombie, whom he has named Bub, to engage in simple human behaviors
and to use basic language. His efforts are met with some success. In conversation with
his assistant Sarah, Logan remarks:
Dr. Logan: You see, Sarah, theyre they are us.

They are the extensions of us.
They are the same animal, simply functioning less perfectly.
They can be fooled, you see?
They can be tricked into being good little girls and boys,
The same way we were tricked into it on the promise of some reward to come.
For Logan, while zombies may have lost their own sense of self, they may have
retained the capacity to learn, if properly taught using stimulus and response
conditioning.
In one memorable scene depicting Logans socialization experiments, he gives Bub a
telephone to play with:

Dr. Logan: He remembers. He remembers everything that he used to . . .

[Giving Bub a telephone, Bub puts the phone to his ear.]
Extraordinary isnt it?
Thats right, Bub! Say hello to your Aunt Alicia!
Say, Hello, Aunt Alicia! Hello!
Bub: A-. . . a-. . . alloooooleeeeesha!
In another example, Bub engages in some purposeful communication with Cap-

tain Rhodes as Bub salutes him:
[Bub salutes the group and stands at attention.]

Dr. Logan: Apparently he was in the military!
Return the salute! See what he does!
Captain Rhodes: You want me to salute that pile of walking pus?
Salute my ass!
Dr. Logan: Your ignorance is exceeded only by your charm, Captain.
How can we expect them to behave if we act barbarically ourselves?
As Land of the Dead informs us, while lacking a fully formed self, zombies are capa-
ble of behavioristic conditioning. To Dr. Logan it seems, this development could sig-
nal the need to reevaluate how we understand zombies; not as mindless cannibals
but something more akin to wild animals capable of at least some rudimentary
training.
In some films, such as the comedy Shaun of the Dead, the moral issue of zom-
bie selfhood is taken to an extreme. While saving Shaun and his girlfriend,
Shauns best friend Ed is overwhelmed by zombies and succumbs to the attack.
As the film closes, the viewer finds that Shaun has kept a zombified (and poten-
tially threatening) Ed alive in his backyard shed so they can continue to play
video games together. While Ed does not appear to have a sense of self, he is
regarded by Shaun as a person with a socially meaningful life. Of course, zombies
like Ed create ambiguities surrounding the sociological membership of the zombi-
fied in the world of humans, but highlight selfhood as an important theme in
zombie cinema. Even Ed remains a threat to the uninfected. The primary danger
of the zombie is that with their bite they threaten to steal away individual self-
hood, and reduce a human to their bare life, a de-individualized member of an
anonymous mass.
In Warm Bodies (a zombie cinema spin on Romeo and Juliet) the issue of the
zombie self is examined in a new way. Here, a unique set of zombies emerge, those that
do maintain vestiges of self, complete with an inner phenomenology that allows them
to imaginatively ruminate on their own experience. In the film, the protagonist, R, a
zombie, falls in love with a living person named Julia. The narrative unfolds through
the viewers access to Rs inner monologue. For instance, the story begins with an intro-
duction to Rs inner world:

R: [voice-over]: What am I doing with my life? Im so pale. I should get out more.
I should eat better. My posture is terrible. I should stand up straighter.
People would respect me more if I stood up straighter. Whats wrong with
me? I just want to connect. Why cant I connect with people? Oh, right,
its because Im dead. I shouldnt be so hard on myself. I mean, were all
dead. This girl is dead. That guy is dead. That guy in the corner is
definitely dead. Jesus these guys look awful.
Later in the film, we see more evidence of Rs conscious experience, ability to self-
reflect, and ultimately his ability to distinguish himself from other zombies:
R: [voice-over]: I wish I could introduce myself, but I dont remember my name anymore.
I mean, I think it started with an r but thats all I have left. I cant
remember my name, or my parents, or my job. . . although my hoodie
would suggest I was unemployed.
Introducing his best friend M to the viewer, R remarks:
R: [voice-over]: This is my best friend. By best friend, I mean we occasionally grunt and stare
awkwardly at each other. We even have almost conversations sometimes.
Cooley demonstrates that someone needs an ability to recognize oneself as separate and
distinct from othersself-differentiationin order for a more complex self to emerge
(Cooley 1902). When R discusses M we can see that, in the realm of zombie cinema
at least some are capable of distinction from one individual to the next as well as beyond
the dichotomy of alive versus dead and shambling. Ultimately, it appears that a rudi-
mentary form of self might be possible among the undead. Such a revelation might not
only call for a reevaluation of the zombie in cinema as a mindless threat worthy of
immediate extermination to one that might need to be contained instead, but might
indicate a change in the society writ large. If it can be argued that previous zombie films
reflected the cultural zeitgeist; namely, a fear of individuals becoming consumed into a
mindless, faceless mass then perhaps the shift toward a new kind of zombie, one capable
of self-differentiation within a faceless mass, might reflect societys changing beliefs
about what it means to be a part of a larger aggregation of people (i.e., a crowd where
some semblance of individuality can remain).
In zombie films, the distinction between living and (un)dead, individual and crowd
takes on real significance. For those unable to escape their stigmatized identities and for
the uninfected, individuals go to great lengths to either isolate themselves from the dis-
eased (as in Dawn of the Dead), or malign zombies as subhuman through embarrass-
ment, ridicule, and physical attack (as in Zombieland). As stigmatized and maligned
individuals, zombies are caught within a social construction process that ascribes to
them an unalterable master status that parallels, in many ways, that experienced by indi-
viduals with disease or disability. And while zombies are distinct among the stigmatized
in the overt threats they pose to the uninfected, they also exemplify the culture of fear

(generally unfounded) that emerges around the issue of disease and its epidemiology
(Glassner 1999).
Ultimately, the way in which characters in zombie films delineate who is, and who is
not a zombie and which actions are appropriate to take against each is a complex pro-
cess of sociological import. The aforementioned examples of zombie interaction, differ-
entiation between the living and the dead, and zombies as a special in-between category
demonstrate this struggle throughout zombie cinema. The social organization of the
formerly living also presents a fascinating opportunity to examine what it is about
humans that makes us social beings as well. Perhaps equally interesting is who becomes a
zombie (or avoids this fate worse than death) in the first place. As in real life and reel
life, the answer mirrors social divisions prominent throughout society and social
epidemiology.
The 21stcentury zombie film certainly represents a hyperbolic treatment of issues
related to contemporary health and disease. However, it does provide a unique opportu-
nity to examine a broad range of concernsboth micro and macrorelated to the soci-
ology of self, stigma, health, health care, and disease.
THE ROLES OF POWER AND PRIVILEGE IN THE SOCIAL EPIDEMIOLOGY

OF ZOMBIFICATION
In zombie films, particularly during the setting of a zombie apocalypse, not everyone
becomes a zombie. Consequently, an analysis of who does and does not become a zom-
bie reveals salient dynamics about the sociology of infectious disease. In fact, most 21st
century zombie films are survival narratives that follow protagonists as they struggle to
avoid infection. Survivors have common characteristics and are often uniquely posi-
tioned sociologically. To a considerable degree, the survival narratives in zombie cinema
reflect an epidemiological stratification of infectious disease and the benefits of power
and privilege in disease prevention.
In zombie films, particularly during a zombie apocalypse, virtually everyone is at
risk of being attacked and bitten by a zombie (which normally begins the process of
zombification). In zombie cinema, the social inequities that circumscribe individuals
allow them differing chances of survival. Such illustrations follow the framework of epi-
demiological research that suggests the transmission of disease has important sociologi-
cal origins (Dubos 1959; Link and Phelan 1995; Heymann 2005). That is, various forms
of wealth, power, and other valued resources can make the likelihood of infection signif-
icantly lower for the more privileged members of a society (Farmer 1996, 1999). In
zombie films, several factors come into playsocial density, social isolation, access to
social networks, and access to valuable resourcesfactors that echo the results of
research into the social origins of infectious disease.
Social Density
Zombies, like the carriers of many infectious diseases, are generally encountered in large
numbers in densely populated, urban areas. Here, Durkheims ([1893]1997) analysis of

social density becomes a central factor in the social epidemiology of zombification.

Much like the spread of infectious disease, ones chance of infection increases with ones
potential proximity to the infected, particularly in highly dense urban areas of contem-
porary cities (Weiss and McMichael 2004). It is extremely rare in zombie cinema for
survival narratives to take place outside of urban environments, except perhaps as survi-
vors seek refuge in rural spaces, as shown in The Walking Dead series and the original
Night of the Living Dead. In fact, Rule #31 of Zombieland is to beware of bathrooms
and other social situations likely to have high, even if only temporary, social density.
Perhaps, the greatest illustration of the role of social density in zombification comes in
World War Z when a zombie stowed away aboard the socially dense environment of a
commercial airplane gets loose in the passenger compartment and quickly spreads infec-
tion among the passengers.
The chances of zombie infection increase dramatically in large-scale, social environ-
ments with social structures that weave individuals more cohesively together. For exam-
ple, in the first installment of the Resident Evil series, the film begins with narration
describing the Umbrella Corporation, a massive conglomerate that not only controls
military, business, and medical resources, but also ties them together into a unified net-
work. This voice-over sets that stage at the beginning of the film:
Narrator: At the beginning of the 21st century, the Umbrella Corporation had become the
largest commercial entity in the United States. Nine out of every ten homes
contain its products. Its political and financial influence is felt everywhere. In
public, it is the worlds leading supplier of computer technology, medical
products, and healthcare. Unknown, even to its own employees, its massive
profits are generated by military technology, genetic experimentation, and
viral weaponry.
When the genetic experimentation of the Umbrella Corporation goes awry, the breadth
of its social influence allows nearly the entire global population to succumb to zombie
infection.
Social Isolation
In zombie cinema, during an outbreak, those who initially remain uninfected and who
survive the longest, tend to live in remote locations or in relative social isolation. Such
individuals are free from the daily contact with others that has been demonstrated to be
an important factor in the spread of infectious disease (Eubank et al. 2004; Mossong
et al. 2008). In fact, survivors in zombie films are generally well aware of the importance
of social isolation as a protective factor in avoiding zombie infection. Many go to great
lengths to travel to remote areas. For example, Alice and her companions in Resident
Evil: Extinction journey to the Nevada desert, and Jim, Selena, and Hannah from 28
Days Later ultimately flee the city to find refuge in a secluded rural cottage where they
wait out the starvation of the zombies in anticipation of rescue by other survivors of the
infection.

In some films, social isolation as a survival mechanism is a function of institutional

seclusion. For example, in Resident Evil, Alice, the films primary protagonist, is institu-
tionally confined and isolated during the public outbreak of the zombie-inducing T-
virus. This segregation renders her free from contact with the potentially infected. Simi-
lar narratives emerge for protagonists in other zombie films, like Jim in 28 Days Later
and Rick from The Walking Dead, both of whom wake up in hospital beds having been
comatose, thereby managing to avoid contact with the infected during the onset of the
zombie apocalypse.
Other examples of zombie cinema explore social isolation as a function of limited
social interaction, as in Zombieland where we meet the socially awkward Columbus,
who prefers to play online video games rather than interact with others face-to-face.
Columbuss initial survival during the zombie outbreak is a consequence of his disinter-
est in venturing outside, unwillingness to answer the door, and his decision to remain
holed up in his apartment. In fact, Columbuss story helps to illustrate the importance
of weak network ties in the examination of the sociology of infectious disease. While
his isolation keeps him sociologically risk-free from zombie infection, his random
encounter with a female neighbor from a nearby apartment (a weak tie) exposes him
to the zombie virus. Unknowingly infected from having been bitten, but not yet trans-
formed, the young woman falls asleep on Columbuss couch, only to awaken as a raging
zombie, chasing Columbus throughout his apartment until finally he is able to slay her.
While Columbuss initial survival is a function of his social isolation, the threat of
infection comes from the power of what Granovetter (1973) has described as the
strength of weak ties. In fact, in zombie films, infection seems most likely to spread
through loosely organized and informal social relationships. This point is illustrated
repeatedly in zombie films where in the early stages of infection, the walking dead are
depicted in the clothing of those whose social roles would put them in contact with
large numbers of individuals throughout the course of their day. Such individuals
mail carriers, couriers, doctors and nurses, convenience store clerks and other service
workers, police officers, medical patientsare commonly seen among the infected in
their occupational garb. Similarly, zombie outbreaks are also likely to be depicted in
film spreading among other weakly connected individuals, like those in shopping malls,
airports, or stalled automobile traffic. This is graphically illustrated in a scene from
World War Z where a horde of zombies quickly overtakes and infects unprepared groups
of travelers stuck on congested urban roadways. In zombie cinema, individuals weak
ties place them at risk of succumbing to zombie infection. After all, zombie social orga-
nization is a loose confederation of weak social ties, and while zombie films illustrate
that social network ties are significant contributors to infection, they also illustrate that
they are essential factors intrinsic to survival.
Social Networks
In zombie films, survivors almost always inhabit or create supportive and protective social
networks to help them stay alive, secure resources, and fend off would-be attackers (both
among the dead and living). In fact, in zombie cinema it is extremely rare to find a lone

individual who successfully survives without social support; most survivors of a zombie
apocalypse have to collaborate. Mark, in 28 Days Later, expresses this directly in his con-
versation with the newly awakened Jim: Rules of survival. Lesson one - you never go any-
where alone, unless youve got no choice. The importance of collaboration is similarly
and most simply illustrated by Columbuss 29th Rule of Zombieland, The Buddy Sys-
tem, which recommends that during the zombie apocalypse it is crucial to find some-
one on whom you can rely. The importance of cooperative networks in increasing the
odds of survival is a point made explicitly throughout zombie cinema, and humorously
so in one scene from Shaun of the Dead. Here, as Shaun and his friends hide out in a
local pub preparing to rally themselves into action, he prepares his friends to use an
ornamental shotgun to clear an escape path through the zombies outside:
Shaun: Twenty-nine shells. So we should work together on this. I need someone to help
me reload and everyone else to keep look out. Ill fire.
As Bertrand Russell once said, The only thing that will redeem mankind is
cooperation. I think we can all appreciate the relevance of that now.
Liz: Was that on a beer mat?
Shaun: Yeah, it was Guinness Extra Cold.
Liz: I wont say anything.
Shaun: Thanks.
The salience of social networks is a protective factor, the centrality of which has been
demonstrated in many studies of infectious disease (House, Landis, and Umberson
1988). In short, social networks have been found to mediate the onset, severity, and pro-
gression of disease (Cohen 1988). However, it is not simply ones network embedded-
ness that it is important in disease prevention, it also is the extensity and intensity of
supportive social networks (Berkman et al. 2000).
Zombie films provide many examples of the significance of social networks in sur-
viving the breakout of a zombie virus. For example, the original Night of the Living
Dead establishes the thematic motif of the survival narrative, where a loosely connected
group of survivors converge and seek refuge in an abandoned home. Without mutual
support and cooperation, individual survival would certainly have been abbreviated,
particularly for a character in the film like Barbara, whose survival skills are minimal
and who is essentially reduced to hysterical panic. Other notable examples can be found
throughout zombie cinema. In Zombieland, Columbus eventually becomes buddies
with Tallahassee, and later with Wichita and Little Rock, and despite several instances of
mistrust they ultimately find their chances for survival are significantly increased by
mutual support. Central to both incarnations of Dawn of the Dead, teamwork among
survivors becomes crucial as they divide up tasks and collaborate to kill the zombies
lurking around the shopping mall. Finally, throughout the Resident Evil series, groups of
survivors cluster around the central protagonist, Alice, as they explore various strategies
to undermine the Umbrella Corporation and keep the T-virus at bay; as the series pro-
gresses, Alice even collaborates with clones of herself. As a survival mechanism, the

strength found in the supportive and cooperative relations, so central to protection

from infectious disease, is a central theme of the zombie film.
In films like World War Z, the importance of social networks in developing survival
narratives is taken to a more intensive and global scale. The films protagonist, Gerry
Lane, must rely on his United Nations connections to help ensure his and his familys
survival; he must also rely on these same networks to travel the globe in search of a rem-
edy for the virus causing the infection. Lanes political and military connections allow
for access to special rooftop helicopter transportation to safety from densely populated
and zombie-infested Newark, New Jersey, a luxury not accessible to most people. Similar
narrative devices are also seen in other films, like 28 Weeks Later, as military helicopter
pilot Flynn is able to rescue and transport the central characters of the film, Tammy and
Andy (whose immunity to the virus may provide a key to unlocking the antidote to the
zombie virus), away from England, and to the supposed safety of Paris. While these
examples illustrate the importance of social networks in the survival narratives of zom-
bie cinema, they also highlight an additional theme: the collaborative refuge of social
networks is fundamental to the survival of infectious disease; collaboration with others
who have access to valuable resources is even better.
Access to Valuable Resources

Many survivors in zombie films are able to endure because they have sufficient institu-
tional or economic resources to keep themselves both alive and at a distance from zom-
bies. In zombie cinema, these resources include not only access to social networks, but
also to food and water, weapons, medicine, transportation, knowledge and information,
and shelter. The ability to mobilize valuable resources is a long-recognized factor in the
success of collective action (McCarthy and Zald 1977). It is also privileged access to
these resources that often separates those who survive a zombie outbreak from those
who succumb to infection. Such dynamics mirror the well-established social science
research that has examined the role of social inequality in creating systems of epidemio-
logical stratification among infectious disease (Farmer 1996, 1999).
In illustrating the characteristics of survivors, zombie films help us to understand the
dynamics of social epidemiology and how power and privilege facilitate health and func-
tion as sociological barriers to disease. The spread of the zombie contagion is depicted
in densely packed urban areas in The Walking Dead spinoff, Fear the Walking Dead,
where the outbreak begins in Los Angeles densest neighborhoods ensuring a rapid rate
of transmission to those not wealthy enough to be as secluded as Victor Strand in his
beachfront mansion. When it comes to surviving the zombie apocalypse however, seclu-
sion from others vis-a-vis, the threat of being infected or eaten alive, is a matter of life or
death.
An example from the zombie romance Warm Bodies provides a poignant illustration
of the importance of the unequal access to resources in the epidemiology of infectious
disease. In a pivotal scene, the zombie protagonist, R, saves the uninfected Julia from
being attacked by other zombies while she is on a reconnaissance mission to find medi-
cine; he does this by covering her with zombie blood to disguise her scent from other

zombies. Rs privileged knowledge of the sensitivities of zombies (after all, he is a zom-

bie) secures Julias safety, and ultimately, allows him to provide her food, shelter, and
transportation when she is separated from the rest of her group. While most of her group
perished in the zombie ambush, including her boyfriend, Julia survives not only because
of supportive social ties but also because of the access to resources provided by these
social ties.
Other examples of the epidemiological stratification of infectious disease permeate
zombie cinema. For example, in Zombieland, Bill Murray (as himself) is able to stay
secluded from the zombie outbreak because his fenced off Hollywood Hills mansion is
sufficiently remote. This privileged seclusion affords him the luxury of geographic sepa-
ration from others (both the living and undead), and also allows him to warehouse
enough supplies to stay alive without having to venture off his property. Others, like
Alice in Resident Evil, have access to medical services that can provide treatment and
immunization to herself and her companions. In zombie films, most people do not
have access to these privileged institutional and economic opportunities and simply
become infected in the course of a zombie apocalypse.
Given the stratification inherent in zombie breakouts, the compelling nature of
zombie film survival narratives often involves epidemiological social inequality as a cen-
tral plot device. A stark example of this comes from Land of the Dead in which the weal-
thy have found sanctuary high above the turmoil in Fiddlers Green (a walled off high
rise with intense security and denying entry to the poor). The compound relies on
reconnaissance missions from those not afforded a secure, comfortable life inside the
walled compound. In this setting, Voltaires quote from his poem The Prude about
the comforts of the rich depending on the poor rings true in the literal sense, in that the
poor are utilized as physical barriers against infection by the well-to-do living within the
borders of Fiddlers Green.
One of the resources used most frequently in zombie films is weaponry, particularly
guns (although tire irons, baseball bats, shovels, automobiles, and chainsaws are also
often used). Guns are important for survival as they provide the fastest way to dispatch
a zombie and are the primary means of defense against the slow moving zombies in the
Night of the Living Dead series. However, guns alone are not enough to ensure survival
because of the mob-like manner in which zombies attack.
The inadequacy of relying solely on guns for defense is apparent in contemporary
fast zombie cinema, where the undead move too quickly and numbers too large to be
sufficiently handled by such means. Instead, in contemporary zombie cinema the living
are shown protecting themselves by building walled compounds separating themselves
from the infected (and of course from those among the living unlucky enough not to
have privileged access). As illustrated most poignantly in World War Z (but also in
Warm Bodies and 28 Weeks Later), the ability to create physical separation is the most
important means of defense when confronted by global and fast-moving pandemics. In
discussing how best to protect ones self during the zombie pandemic, Gerry Lane,
World War Zs protagonist, suggests that although guns are a viable resource, they are of
limited value. As the discussion ensues, it is revealed that in reality, other resources are

ultimately necessary, like physical barriers, in order to protect against pandemic-like

zombie attacks:
Gerry Lane: Are they [North Koreans] surviving this?

Gunter Haffner: Indeed, they are.
Gerry Lane: Using your guns.
Gunter Haffner: Guns are. . .half-measures.
Gerry Lane: How then?
Gunter Haffner: They pulled the teeth of all twenty-three million, in less than twenty-four
hours. Greatest feat of social engineering in history. Brilliant. No teeth,
no bite, no great spread.
Gerry Lane: Bullshit.
Gunter Haffner: More books, fewer receptions, Boutros. Now, why do you have to burn
them to ashes to get them to finally stop? Why do they move like a
plague? Why is Israel winning?
Gerry Lane: How is Israel winning?
Gunter Haffner: They sealed off their entire country days before the undead attacked,
man. First to know, first to act.
Gerry Lane: People have been building walls there for two millennia.
As exemplified in this excerpt, an emerging trend in contemporary zombie cinema

is the narrative of zombie infections as a social commentary on elitism created by the
unequal privileges of political, military, and corporate interests.
Elitism and epidemiological stratification is a dominant theme that runs throughout
most contemporary zombie cinema, a theme that reflects Domhoffs (2006) sociological
theory of elites. In zombie films, not only are the origins of zombie pandemics typically
derived from human sources, but they are almost always due to some malfeasance on
the part of institutional elites. In many zombie films, government and private industry
are important social institutions that are complicit in the outbreak of the infection lead-
ing to zombification. This is particularly the case in both Resident Evil and 28 Days Later
where malicious and experimental viruses are accidentally released on an unguarded
and uninoculated public. In both of these films, either government agencies or private
medical/research facilities are the sources, of the disease, and they maintain restricted
access to antidotes, immunizations, treatments, and potential cures. While these elite
institutions act as both sources of outbreaks and gatekeepers for cures, their role in
zombie pandemics typically arouses the suspicion of survivors. This distrust is perhaps
best illustrated in 28 Days Later when Jim expresses hope that governments will be able
to provide a resolution to the pandemic:
Jim: What about the government? What are they doing?

Selena: There is no government.
Jim: Of course theres a government! Theres always a government! Theyre in a . . . a
bunker, or a plane!
(Continued)

Mark: No. Theres no government. No army. No police. No TV, no radio, no electricity.

Youre the first uninfected person weve seen in six days.
Jim: What about your family?
Mark: Theyre dead. So is Selenas.
Selena: And yours will be dead too.
Given the context of a zombie pandemic, the pessimism toward government expressed
by Jims companions is not unexpected. Their families are dead, they are disconnected
from any sense of larger social community, and they have few promising prospects for
survival. Their nihilism is symbolic of the lack of public trust that exists for public insti-
tutions (Putnam 1995; Newton and Norris 2000), a growing theme in contemporary
zombie cinema.
What do zombie films tell us about the role of social institutionslike government
and corporate medicinein the prevention of disease? They metaphorically exemplify
the growing tendency in the United States for healthcare to be out of reach for consum-
ers. With changes in government health care expenditures, matched with growing
privatization of the health care industry, fewer individuals have access to healthcare
(although Obamacare has helped to reverse this trend). In zombie films, potential
treatments for infectious disease rest in the hands of military, political, and corporate
elites.
THE SOCIOLOGY OF INFECTIOUS DISEASE AND THE ZOMBIE PANDEMIC

The role of power and control by political and corporate elites manifests beyond just
treatments for zombie viruses but also is evident in the genesis and eventual spread of
the zombie virus. In that vein, zombie films provide an excellent context for investigat-
ing issues related to the macro-dynamics of disease. Epidemiological studies indicate
the importance of social variables in understanding, treating, and preventing the spread
of disease (Barrett et al. 1998; Weiss and McMichael 2004; Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention 2013). These patterns are depicted in nearly all zombie movies.
Causes of Pandemics as Represented in Film

In many zombie films, the initial source of contagion is left unanswered but once
initiated, the infectious disease that causes mass zombification begins to spread
exponentially. Many films provide footage from the evening news about emergency
rooms being overrun with people infected by an unknown disease. It is in these
moments where we get our biggest clues as to what the origin of the virus might
have been. One report in Night of the Living Dead mentions in passing a radioactive
probe (although Return of the Living Dead later retcons this as an escaped barrel of
trioxin). News reports in other films report the release of a highly contagious
socially engineered virus (as in Zombieland, 28 Days Later, and the Resident Evil
films). In Shaun of the Dead, Shaun is watching the news and flipping through the
channels completely missing the unfolding zombie outbreak before him. One of the
early scenes in Dawn of the Dead depicts Anna, a nurse in the emergency room, as

countless infected people seek treatment. We hear news reports throughout Night of
the Living Dead indicating mass murders occurring and about instances of the dead
not staying dead and beginning to attack the living. Dawn of the Dead begins with a
newscast detailing some of the initial reports and how to dispatch zombies.
Zombie Film as Reflective of Pandemic Fear

Within most zombie films, we can see numerous examples of fear spreading throughout
society, causing panic, and worsening the spread of the zombie outbreak. As the protag-
onist Ben in Night of the Living Dead begins boarding up the farmhouse, we hear a radio
broadcaster announcing the following:
Do not venture outside for any reason until the nature of this crisis has been
determined, and until we can advise what course of action to take. Keep listen-
ing to radio and TV for special instructions as this crisis develops further. Thou-
sands of office and factory workers are being urged to stay at their places of
employment, not to make any attempt to get to their homes. However, in spite
of this urging and warning, streets and highways are packed with frantic people
trying to reach their families or, apparently, to flee just anywhere. We repeat,
the safest course of action at this time is simply to stay where you are.
Despite this advice, the streets are packed as people attempt to flee. Much of
the carnage results when the uninfected, in a panicked and frenzied state, attempt
to flee the infected thereby exacerbating the threat of the zombies themselves. In
World War Z, as the films protagonist attempts to drive down a busy street with
his family, pandemonium breaks loose as heavily congested streets clog up escape
routes and zombies begin to attack. The stores experience a rush and food and
water quickly disappear. In one scene within the store, people fight over and shoot
each other for the last remaining necessities. In other ways also it is the living that
constantly threaten and steal from the films band of survivors. For instance, in
Diary of the Dead, after numerous foibles the gang encounters some rogue National
Guard soldiers who rob them of their valuables, possibly condemning them to
death by zombie. In virtually every zombie movie we see fear grip people, causing
infighting and suspicion and preventing vital cooperation. In the nascent stages of
a zombie outbreak the zombies have not grown too numerous and have yet to
begin pack feeding. This initial stage does not last long as the number of zombies
grows rapidly and the undead soon begin to outnumber the living. In this manner,
zombie cinema depicts the spread of the disease in much the same pattern as any
other highly infectious disease (e.g., SARS, Ebola, influenza, etc.). In fact, this point
is made explicitly in most zombie films. It does not take long before societys infra-
structure begins to erode and lawlessness and anomie take root.
How Pandemics Move Through Space and Time

The literature on infectious diseases demonstrates that epidemics are not new. In
fact, Barrett et al. (1998:248) argue that there are three distinct epidemiologic

transitions, each defined by a unique pattern of disease that is intimately related to

modes of subsistence and social structure and that we have entered into a new
epidemiological period predicated on globalization. The previous periods corre-
sponded with large-scale societal shifts such as transitioning from small groups to
semipermanent settlements and widespread use of agriculture. This current phase is
also situated within time and place only it is now characterized by the globalization
of pandemics. The zombie pandemics depicted in the aforementioned films fit with
this new understanding emerging from epidemiologic transition theory (Barrett
et al. 1998). Epidemiologic transition theory contends that there are unique patterns
of disease according to demographic patterns and human ecology. In the case of
the modern zombie film, this is the increasingly globalized world. As quoted in
Barrett et al., The concept of the epidemiologic transition was first formulated by
Omran as a model for integrating epidemiology with demographic changes in
human populations (Omran 1971). Omran (1998:249) stated that this model
focuses on the complex change in patterns of health and disease and on the inter-
actions between these patterns and the demographic, economic, and sociological
determinants and consequences. The modern zombie films emphasis on global
pandemics illustrates that the socio-historical particulars (technology, air travel,
cities, and increased permanent cities) that brought about a globalized society also
allow for the rapid transmission of the zombie virus and to humanity being over-
run by zombies.
While the organizations tasked with keeping the public safe often collapse after the
outbreak has begun, they are in fact often the source of the pandemic in the first place.
Once the initial outbreak occurs, the disease is transmitted through social contact, and
once infection is established the onset of the disease is rapid and potent. Since the
spread of the disease happens so abruptly, there is a greater likelihood as expressed in
most zombie films, that cities are the most dangerous places to be due to their popula-
tion density. However, considering the typical method of infection stems from a bite,
the process of determining who is or is not infected is simplified, making quarantining
and treating the infected more straightforward but only in small numbers. The main
strength of zombies as predators is how they feed in large groups and this becomes the
dominant modality within hours or days of initial reports of infection. Once this sets in,
the numbers of the undead increase exponentially.
In World War Z, we see that the zombie virus itself needs a healthy host in order to
replicate and transfer from host to host. Weiss and McMichael (2004:S74) argue, Like
the ships of centuries past, the speed of modern air travel works wonders for the disper-
sal of infectious diseases. SARS was eventually constrained by quarantine and strict
adherence to infection control guidelines in hospitals, but not before it quickly traveled
from Guangzhong to Hong Kong and on to Toronto. In films like 28 Weeks Later and
World War Z this is precisely what we see; initially interpersonally locally spread disease
but once someone who is carrying the virus or a zombie itself stows aboard an airplane
(also in 2007s Flight of the Dead) or ship (e.g., 1979s Zombie) it spreads and crosses
oceans causing a global pandemic.

Increasingly Globalized Nature of the Zombie Apocalypse Narrative

World War Z provides another example of an increasingly common theme in recent
zombie films where the outbreak is not contained by geography and instead is capable
of spreading internationally. Most zombie films allude to global pandemic status with-
out depicting it but in World War Z we see Gerry Lane travel throughout the globe in
search of answers about the virus. He begins in the United States and sees the carnage
firsthand and diffuse. From there he heads off to South Korea, Jerusalem, Wales, and
finally Nova Scotia to reunite with his family. The implication in 28 Days Later is that
the virus might be spreading outside of the United Kingdom and this hypothesis is later
confirmed in the sequel, 28 Weeks Later. We see the virus spread globally in the Resident
Evil films as well. The zombie films, which explain the source of the zombie outbreak in
terms of being a virus, also tend to depict a globalized pandemic.
CONCLUSION
The zombie films prominence in American cinema continues into the present and likely
will for some time to come. As it evolves, these films will continue to provide rich texts
for sociological analysis. As a genre, zombie cinema presents more than a source of
entertainment; it also expresses cultural anxieties about the contemporary social world.
We have suggested that the zombie film is an important source of cultural critique, and
provides a rich, sociological expression of the dynamics of identity and disease, conta-
gion and pandemic, and the privileges that circumscribe health and social inequality.
As a text for sociological analysis, the zombie film highlights key sociological princi-
ples regarding the insight zombie narratives can provide us about ourselves and our
social world. We have suggested that zombie cinema provides a window into anxieties
about the social nature of human beings, examining our collective angst regarding self-
hood, disease, and stigma. Ultimately, zombie films compel us to make ethical inquiries
into what counts as human, and how the prejudices that often accompany disease
(and disability) express collective and existential fears about selfhood, loss of autonomy,
and mortality.
Fears about self and mortality are often framed by the sociological dynamics of
power and privilege, dynamics that are often central to zombie films. The social epide-
miology of zombification is reflective of the inequalities endemic to the stratified access
to healthcare in the contemporary world. In zombie films, not everyone succumbs to
zombiedom, and survivors embody the privileges that come from social power and
prestige. In our contemporary social world, much like in the cinematic world threatened
by zombie contagion, those most likely to be infected by contagious disease are those
whose life circumstances imbed them in the midst of the ongoing, and informal flow of
social life (e.g., those in the service sector), who lack the resources necessary to evade
and/or treat infection, and do not have the privileges necessary to physically and socially
separate themselves from potential carriers of disease.
On the most macro-level, zombie cinema expresses key principles of the sociology
of infectious disease in the context of globalization. Fears of the zombie apocalypse

correlate, albeit hyperbolically, with anxieties about overpopulation, global transporta-

tion and trade, risks of biomedical science and experimentation, and real pandemic out-
breaks. As global technologies of communication and transportation have compressed
physical space and simultaneously expanded social interconnections, so too have con-
comitant collective fears about worldwide threats of contagious disease. Zombie cinema
provides a unique window, not only into the possibilities of the spread of infectious dis-
ease, but also encourages us to imagine creative solutions to the threats of global
pandemics.
As our analysis suggests, zombie films provide an illuminating window into the
sociological dynamics of 21st centurysocial life. A sociological examination of zombie
cinema encourages us to take film seriously as a medium through which the sociological
principles of self, disease, stigma, contagion, social inequality, and globalization can be
studied and illustrated. Such films can serve, not only as a vehicle for entertainment,
but more importantly as an educational lens through which sociological insights can be
demonstrated and expressed to both students and the broader public. Filmmakers and
sociologists might benefit from mutual collaboration in the development of future nar-
ratives in the zombie film genre. The widespread interest in zombie cinema is a testa-
ment to the popular resonance of topics that arouse the sociological imagination, and
of the potential for the principles of sociology to be embraced by a broader and more
varied audience.
NOTE
1
Romeros Night of the Living Dead and its sequels became the vanguard of an approach to the
zombie film as social commentary, a pattern he has continued throughout his career, tackling
issues like: rampant consumerism (1978s Dawn of the Dead); the misguided use of science and
military force (1985s Day of the Dead); economic greed and perverse inequality (2005s Land of
the Dead); the fallacies of contemporary war and media saturation (2007s Diary of the Dead);
and the need for collaborative effort to ameliorate social ills (2009s Survival of the Dead).
REFERENCES
Adorno, Theodor and Max Horkheimer. 2002. Dialectic of Enlightenment. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Agger, Ben. 1989. Fast Capitalism: A Critical Theory of Significance. Chicago: University of Illinois
Press.
. 2004. Speeding Up Fast Capitalism: Internet Culture, Work, Families, Food, Bodies. St Paul,
MN: Paradigm.
Barrett, Ronald, Christopher W. Kuzawa, Thomas McDade, and George J. Armelagos. 1998.
Emerging and Re-emerging Infectious Diseases: The Third Epidemiologic Transition.
Annual Review of Anthropology 27:24771.
Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Vol. 17. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Berkman, Lisa F., Thomas Glass, Ian Brissette, and Teresa Seeman. 2000. From Social Integration
to Health: Durkheim in the New Millennium. Social Science & Medicine 51(6):84357.
Bishop, Kyle William. 2010. American Zombie Gothic. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

. 2015. How Zombies Conquered Popular Culture: The Multifarious Walking Dead in the 21st
Century. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Brooks, Max. 2003. The Zombie Survival Guide: Complete Protection from the Living Dead. New
York: Three Rivers Press.
Buck, Ross and C. Arthur VanLear. 2002. Verbal and Nonverbal Communication: Distinguishing
Symbolic, Spontaneous, and Pseudo-spontaneous Nonverbal Behavior. Journal of Communi-
cation 52(3):52241.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2013. Health Disparities and Inequalities Report.
Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control. Retrieved January 17, 2016 (http://www.cdc.gov/
DisparitiesAnalytics/).
Cohen, Sheldon. 1988. Psychosocial Models of the Role of Social Support in the Etiology of
Physical Disease. Health Psychology 7(3):26997.
Cooley, Charles Horton. 1902. Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Charles Scribners
Sons.
Dendle, Peter. 2001. The Zombie Movie Encyclopedia. Jefferson, NC: MacFarland.
. 2007. The Zombie as Barometer of Cultural Anxiety. Pp. 4557 in Monsters and the
Monstrous: Myths and Metaphors of Enduring Evil, Vol. 38, edited by N. Scott. New York:
Rudopi.
Denzin, Norman. 1991. Images of Postmodern Society: Social Theory and Contemporary Cinema.
London: Sage.
Domhoff, G. William. 2006. Who Rules America?: Power and Politics, and Social Change. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Dubos, Rene. 1959. Mirage of Health: Utopias, Progress & Biological Change. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
Durkheim, Emile. [1893]1997. The Division of Labor in Society. Introduction by Lewis Coser,
translation by W. D. Halls. New York: Free Press.
Eubank, Stephen, Hasan Guclu, V. S. Anil Kumar, Madhav V. Marathe, Aravind Srinivasan,
Zoltan Toroczkai, and Nan Wang. 2004. Modelling Disease Outbreaks in Realistic Urban
Social Networks. Nature 429(6988):18084.
Farmer, Paul. 1996. Social Inequalities and Emerging Infectious Diseases. Emerging Infectious
Diseases 2(4):25969.
. 1999. Infections and Inequalities: The Modern Plagues. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
George, Sam and Bill Hughes. 2013. Introduction: Undead Reflections: The Sympathetic Vam-
pire and Its Monstrous Other. Gothic Studies 15(1):17.
Glassner, Barry. 1999. The Culture of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid of the Wrong Things. New
York: Basic Books.
Goffman, Erving. 1961. Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other
Inmates. New York: Anchor Books.
. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Gottschalk, Simon. 1999. Speed Culture: Fast Strategies in Televised Commercial Ads. Qualita-
tive Sociology 22(4):31129.
Gramsci, Antonio. 1992. Prison Notebooks. New York: Columbia University Press.
Granovetter, Mark S. 1973. The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology 78(6):136080.
Gunn, Joshua and Shaun Treat. 2005. Zombie Trouble: A Propaedeutic on Ideological Subjectifi-
cation and the Unconscious. Quarterly Journal of Speech 91(2):14474.

Heymann, David L. 2005. Social, Behavioural and Environmental Factors and Their Impact on
Infectious Disease Outbreaks. Journal of Public Health Policy 26(1):13339.
House, James S., Karl R. Landis, and Debra Umberson. 1988. Social Relationships and Health.
Science 241(4865):54045.
Koven, Mikel, J. 2008. The Folklore of the Zombie Film. Pp. 1934 in Zombie Culture: Autopsies
of the Living Dead, edited by S. McIntosh and M. Leverette. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.
Le Bon, Gustave. 1897. The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. Southampton, England:
Fischer.
Leverette, Marc. 2008. The Funk of Forty Thousand Years; or, How the (Un) Dead Get Their
Groove On. Pp. 185212 in Zombie Culture: Autopsies of the Living Dead, edited by S. McIn-
tosh and M. Leverette. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.
Link, Bruce G. and Jo Phelan. 1995. Social Conditions as Fundamental Causes of Disease. Jour-
nal of Health and Social Behavior 35:8094.
Maddrey, Joseph. 2004. Nightmares in Red, White and Blue: The Evolution of the American Horror
Film. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Marx, Karl. [1844]1978. Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Pp. 66125 in The
Marx-Engels Reader, edited by Robert C. Tucker. New York: Norton.
McCarthy, John D. and Mayer N. Zald. 1977. Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A
Partial Theory. American Journal of Sociology 82(6):121241.
Mead, George Herbert. 1934. Mind, Self and Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Mossong, Joel, N. Hens, M. Jit, P. Beutels, K. Auranen, R. Mikolajczyk, M. Massari, S. Salmaso, G.
S. Tomba, J. Wallinga, J. Heijne, M. Sadkowska-Todys, M. Rosinska, and W. J. Edmunds.
2008. Social Contacts and Mixing Patterns Relevant to the Spread of Infectious Diseases.
PLoS Med 5(3):e74.
Newton, Ken and Pippa Norris. 2000. Confidence in Public Institutions: Faith, Culture, or Per-
formance? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Associa-
tion, September 15, 1999, Atlanta, GA. Retrieved March 1, 2016 (http://citesource.trincoll.
edu/asa/asaconfpaper_002.pdf).
Parsons, Talcott. 1951. The Social System. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Putnam, Robert. D. 1995. Bowling Alone: Americas Declining Social Capital. Journal of Democ-
racy 6(1):6578.
Simmel, Georg. 1971. The Metropolis and Mental Life. Pp. 32429 in Georg Simmel: On Indi-
viduality and Social Forms, edited by Donald Levine. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Sutherland, Jeanne-Anne and Kathryn M. Feltey. 2013. Cinematic Sociology: Social Life in Film. 2d
ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Travis, Mitchell. 2014. Were All Infected: Legal Personhood, Bare Life and The Walking Dead.
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law (Revue Internationale de Se miotique Juridique)
28(4):787800.
Vuckovic, Jovanka. 2011. Zombies!: An Illustrated History of the Undead. New York: St. Martins
Griffin.
Weber, Max. 2009. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. London, England: Routledge.
Weiss, Robin A. and Anthony J. McMichael. 2004. Social and Environmental Risk Factors in the
Emergence of Infectious Diseases. Nature Medicine 10:S70S76.
Wetmore, Kevin J., Jr. 2011. Back From the Dead: Remakes of Romero Zombie Films as Markers of
Their Times. Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Company.
Wilson, Edward O. 2012. The Social Conquest of Earth. New York: Liveright.

Copyright of Sociological Quarterly is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.

Zom Disease

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Zom Disease

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

doi: 10.1111/tsq.

12150 The Sociological Quarterly ISSN 0038-0253

BETWEEN THE LIVING AND UNDEAD: How

628 The Sociological Quarterly 57 (2016) 628653 V

The Sociological Quarterly 57 (2016) 628653 V

ZOMBIE FILM ORIGINS

630 The Sociological Quarterly 57 (2016) 628653 V

The Sociological Quarterly 57 (2016) 628653 V

ZOMBIE NARRATIVES: POSSESSION AND RISK

632 The Sociological Quarterly 57 (2016) 628653 V

ZOMBIE SELVES AND THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE ZOMBIE

The Sociological Quarterly 57 (2016) 628653 V

634 The Sociological Quarterly 57 (2016) 628653 V

of de-individualization and alienation, and pivots on the mortification of self as a

The Sociological Quarterly 57 (2016) 628653 V

636 The Sociological Quarterly 57 (2016) 628653 V

Francine: What are they doing?

Dr. Logan: You see, Sarah, theyre they are us.

The Sociological Quarterly 57 (2016) 628653 V

Dr. Logan: He remembers. He remembers everything that he used to . . .

In another example, Bub engages in some purposeful communication with Cap-

[Bub salutes the group and stands at attention.]

638 The Sociological Quarterly 57 (2016) 628653 V

Introducing his best friend M to the viewer, R remarks:

The Sociological Quarterly 57 (2016) 628653 V

THE ROLES OF POWER AND PRIVILEGE IN THE SOCIAL EPIDEMIOLOGY

640 The Sociological Quarterly 57 (2016) 628653 V

social density becomes a central factor in the social epidemiology of zombification.

The Sociological Quarterly 57 (2016) 628653 V

In some films, social isolation as a survival mechanism is a function of institutional

642 The Sociological Quarterly 57 (2016) 628653 V

The Sociological Quarterly 57 (2016) 628653 V

strength found in the supportive and cooperative relations, so central to protection

Access to Valuable Resources

644 The Sociological Quarterly 57 (2016) 628653 V

zombies. Rs privileged knowledge of the sensitivities of zombies (after all, he is a zom-

The Sociological Quarterly 57 (2016) 628653 V

ultimately necessary, like physical barriers, in order to protect against pandemic-like

Gerry Lane: Are they [North Koreans] surviving this?

As exemplified in this excerpt, an emerging trend in contemporary zombie cinema

Jim: What about the government? What are they doing?

646 The Sociological Quarterly 57 (2016) 628653 V

Mark: No. Theres no government. No army. No police. No TV, no radio, no electricity.

THE SOCIOLOGY OF INFECTIOUS DISEASE AND THE ZOMBIE PANDEMIC

Causes of Pandemics as Represented in Film

The Sociological Quarterly 57 (2016) 628653 V

Zombie Film as Reflective of Pandemic Fear

How Pandemics Move Through Space and Time

648 The Sociological Quarterly 57 (2016) 628653 V

transitions, each defined by a unique pattern of disease that is intimately related to

The Sociological Quarterly 57 (2016) 628653 V

Increasingly Globalized Nature of the Zombie Apocalypse Narrative

650 The Sociological Quarterly 57 (2016) 628653 V

correlate, albeit hyperbolically, with anxieties about overpopulation, global transporta-

The Sociological Quarterly 57 (2016) 628653 V

652 The Sociological Quarterly 57 (2016) 628653 V

The Sociological Quarterly 57 (2016) 628653 V

S-ar putea să vă placă și