new location!

i've found a site that is much easier to use and much more visually pleasing...




so here is my new blog.  enjoy!

fearing what we already are: how zombies and the undead are a reflection of modern society

this entry consists of a [rather long] essay i wrote for a class called "visual sociology." we had to write an essay in place of doing a final exam and our instructions were pretty vague. basically, we were told we could write about ANYTHING as long as we somehow related it to visual culture. since i'm a lover of zombie films, i decided to focus my essay around the underlying messages that a lot of zombie films illustrate about modern culture. so here it is:

undead beings, such as zombies and vampires, have been discussed in literature for centuries. the advent of film gave viewers a chance to see the horrifying monsters previously only seen in the mind's eye. although some of these films have focused on merely being shocking and disgusting (after all, zombies are not pretty creatures), certain films have stood out, giving theorists texts rich with information about individuals, groups, and society as a whole. sure, zombies are mindless eating machines, constantly in search of their next fleshy meal, but do they represent more than a cannibalistic palate? since zombies were previously human, there are some obvious parallels between "us" and "them." it is a widely accepted opinion that becoming a zombie is disturbing and unacceptable. people would rather be killed while still "alive" than become a zombie. there is evidence of this in film every time a character says something along the lines of "promise me i'll never become one of those things." a great many theorists would argue that we are already living in a zombified state within our obsession with consumerism and pleasure seeking. as humans, we live in a comfortable state, much like the neo-natal years that lacan describes. we are comfortable in our consumerism because it satisfies us in that we always have something more to buy, more to acquire, more to add to our status. however, zombies operate in the same manner, constantly wanting more flesh, more brains, and more food. to be undead is to be without choice: a zombie wants flesh and nothing more. this is the ultimate peril of the consumer and the individual: to be without perceived choice. the reason we fear zombies then, is because they are not only a reflection of how we already are, but a look into the possibility of what we can become if capitalism, consumerism, and modern society were to fail.

when examining our fear of becoming zombies, we must inquire as to what part of being undead frightens us. possibly the thought of consuming flesh at any cost is what makes us shudder. maybe the fear lies in the fact that we have no idea what goes on in the rotting head of a zombie. our fear may be comprised of the notion that we will no longer possess our personal identity after we have died and become undead. hamish thompson claims that maybe we are not so different from the undead and this is what truly spooks us. "the portrayal in shaun of the dead of the line of checkout assistants who mindlessly (if rhythmically) 'beep' the purchases of customers, or of shaun's best friend as he whiles away the hours [playing] video games followed by a rapidly induced drunken stupor at the local pub, raises the terrifying possibility of our own general normal condition of zombiehood" (thompson 36). within the film, we see that even after the zombie apocalypse has begun, the characters do not act much differently than they did before the end of the world. comparing the film's pre-zombie world to one with zombies, we see nothing changes beyond the fact that people are eating one another.

pre-zombie world, an employee of a grocery store shuffles his feet as he gathers stray shopping carts in the parking lot. after the zombie uprising has been controlled, a zombie has been given this same task, but his chain tying him to the job is visible, where the previous man's was only implied. as thompson mentioned, we see the line of checkout clerks at the grocery store, one of which is a woman named mary. her face is blank and her motions are repetitive. she in turn, is the first zombie that shaun or his best friend ed consciously encounter and not much has changed about her. in fact, she remains as unresponsive in undeath as she was in life so much so that shaun and ed think she is drunk. the only time mary "comes to life" is when she is attempting to eat shaun. pre-zombie world, we see a line of men at a bus stop waiting to begin their morning commute. as these men stare off into space or robotically check their cell phones, they already look and act like the zombies they will eventually become. a group of london youth is shown ambling down an alley, oblivious to anything but their music, which reflects their zombified state later in the film where rigor mortis and decomposition leave the with only the ability to amble and where flesh is their only focus. outside of shaun's house, a young boy rhythmically bounces a soccer ball with his knees and later, as a zombie, he kicks a ball at shaun's head. women supposedly constantly surround snakehips, a regular patron of shaun and ed's local pub, the winchester, and we later see a group of female zombies devouring his innards. even shaun's morning routine of walking a block to the nearby convenience store for soda is paralleled in the zombie world.

this brings about kim edward's claim that "the horror genre regularly explores the notion that to know, understand and thus defeat one's enemy one must become the enemy" and that in this regard, shaun doesn't need to be "bitten and become a zombie. instead, the implication is that he always was one, and the film becomes simultaneously a satirical social commentary on the drudgeries of modern life and a witty validation of the sedentary lifestyles of young males refusing to grow up" (edwards 99).

it is evident that shaun and ed are completely comfortable in their womb-like environment. they are either at their house playing videogames, or at their local pub getting drunk where they are concerned only with satisfying their needs. shaun cannot fathom why liz wants to do more than go to the pub or hang out with ed. this is descriptive of lacan's neo-natal state where "a baby needs and seeks to satisfy those needs with no sense of any separation between itself and the external world or the world of others" (felluga, "modules on lacan: on the structure of the psyche," par. 2). after zombies are an apparent part of life, shaun's comfortable environment is torn to pieces. he no longer exists in a world where his needs are all that matters and "lacan sometimes represents [the neo-natal] state of nature as a time of fullness or completeness that is subsequently lost through the entrance into language" (felluga, "modules on lacan: on the structure of the psyche," par. 2). indeed, shaun's realization of the zombie-infested world forces him to open his eyes to the direness of the situation when ed asks if there are any zombies waiting outside. shaun begs ed not to use "the zed word" as it further drives home the reality of their "newfound" circumstances and describes lacan's concept of "the real" (felluga, "modules on lacan: on the structure of the psyche," par. 2).

six months after the devastating events of "z-day," we see that still, nothing drastic has changed in shaun's world. "all obstacles between shaun and liz have been successfully removed an all additional pressures neutralized without shaun having to significantly change" (edwards 103). liz's friends, shaun's parents and annoyingly responsible housemate, pete, have all been turned into zombies and killed or eaten by them. thus liz and shaun can focus solely on one another without any "mindless" distractions. even though ed has become a part of the legion of zombies, shaun still has the same relationship with him as ed is locked in the shed with his beloved videogames. ed's "new un-life is manifestly no different to his old existence" (edwards 103). all of the characters in the film, including shaun, do not change in a post apocalyptic world. instead of realizing how quickly life can be "changed," and thus doing what liz suggested at the beginning of the film by "living a little," shaun's "ultimate happy ending is that he has not actually had to change at all" (edwards 103).

another horrifying aspect of zombies is that humans cannot reason with them. a zombie has instincts that it cannot turn its back on. the essence of zombies is that they are consumed with devouring human flesh and a human would never be able to talk a zombie out of attempting to do otherwise. this one-track mind makes zombies unstoppable and "the true horror of zombies is that they are slow, weak, and dull, yet unrelenting. you can stop them one on one, but there is not one. they are everywhere, slowly trudging toward you" (priester, "night of the living subconscious conflict: the psychological relevance of the zombie horror film, par. 18). however, it is possible for zombies to express some semblance of their once apparent "humanity" in that they "occasionally exhibit fleeting and poignant flashes of something like human memory, such as the instinct that brings the zombies in dawn of the deadto the shopping mall that was an 'important place' in their lives. in land of the dead, one zombie still carries around the gas pump nozzle he operated in life as a filling station atttendant, as though our of residual sense of professional responsibility" (greene xv). what is interesting here is that when discussing the human memory of the zombies mentioned above, we see that these memories are reflective of a capitalist consumer culture. the zombies headed for the shopping mall are fulfilling their destiny to be consumers evermore while the zombie who is unwilling to give up an aspect of his job could be seen as one of the casualties of workaholism within today's "gotta have more" mentality.

george a. romero's dawn of the dead examines a world where zombies have existed for some time, though of course, the scientific reasoning for their existence is never given although a religious representative has stated, "when there is no more room in hell, the dead shall walk the earth." within this zombified world, what is left of humanity is quickly going under, swallowed both figuratively and literally by the zombie crisis. a group of four survivors escape philadelphia and take refuge in a shopping mall in pittsburgh. of course, zombies follow them there not only because they want food, but also for the reason of human memory or instinct mentioned above. matthew walker interjects that "in depicting zombies as the ultimate consumers, romero satirizes consumerism - the search for happiness through material acquisition" (81) and that "reading aristotle can help us understand the motivations and desires that romero's zombies share with today's devotees of consumerism. it can also help us get clear about why a life organized around material acquisition might constitute the sort of 'living death' that romero suggests" (82).

walker states that

romero is fairly explicit about the parallels between the living and the undead. in one

scene, the survivors - absurdly overdressed in fancy furs - survey their maximum-security

consumer utopia. while the groaning hordes of zombies try to claw their way back into the mall,

the survivors wonder what drives them. peter [says], 'they're after the place. they don't know why.

they just remember. remember that they want to be in here.' stephen [asks], 'what the hell are

they?' peter [replies], 'they're us. that's all.' (walker 83)

"by equating 'us' with the walking dead outside the mall, peter hints that we the living might not be so much better off

than the zombies" (walker 84).

so why do we allow ourselves to repeatedly live like zombies day in and day out? why are we drawn like a moth

to flame to the bright lights and promise of the shopping mall? walker asks, "why might...both [zombies and humans]

have ceaseless desires to consume things?" (84). to answer this question, walker turns to aristotle who used the

term pleonexia, which is "the disposition to have more" (walker 84). similarly to romero, through obviously senior to

him, aristotle explains pleonexia as the "unlimited desire for sheer survival" or as that which is "motivated by an

excessive desire to hold onto life. by taking more than their fill of the goods of fortune...those who 'grasp' seek to

keep at bay the inescapable bad fortune with which death confronts us. to this extent, the grasping differ from those

whom peter says 'still believe there's respect in dying'" (walker 84).

this desire for sheer survival as outlined by aristotle can also be looked at in terms of the horror film 28 days

later, which can be regarded as a zombie film in that citizens become infected with a virus that causes them to have

no other emotion beyond rage. they resemble zombies in that they are blindly consumed by only one desire, which in

this case, is to maul anyone who shows real signs of life. paul priester looks at the character of selena in the film,

who has not only survived the past 28 days of anarchy, but is concerned only with her further survival as "at one

point she states, 'do not make plans. staying alive is as good as it gets.' initially she refuses relationships with

anyone who will 'slow her down.' in the end, she realizes that the only meaning in life comes from relationships with

others and that all humans, regardless of their survivalist value, are sacred" (priester, "night of the living

subconscious conflict: the psychological relevance of the zombie horror film, par. 12). 28 days later is on par with

romero's films in that there is the constant grasping for survival, however, the former focuses on the solitude and

isolation brought about by simply surviving (priester, "night of the living subconscious conflict: the psychological

relevance of the zombie horror film). romero's take on survival is thus more representative of "the other" and begs

the question "are 'they' a mirror image of us, obedient in our insatiable hunger for the consumerist culture?" (priester,

"night of the living subconscious conflict: the psychological relevance of the zombie horror film, par. 20).

how are we to explain, beyond scientific reasoning, why zombies exist? bringing this question back to the

zombies of dawn of the dead, it is evident that "one explanation for the dead's return to life is that their graspingness

in life - rooted in their unlimited desire for life - knows no bounds. from beyond the grave, they grasp for more living,

even if such survival fails to count as living well" (walker 85). this explanation is eerily similar to the one given by

characters in zombie films that deny suicide as a choice. as long as they are not "undead," they are "alive" and

therefore posit that any life is worth living as long as they are not mindless pieces of flesh, which is how they see the

zombies. however, romero illustrates that there is no difference between being alive and being "undead" in the reality

of a capitalist consumer culture. "the sweet life that romero thinks the mall advertises, we might guess, is a

hedonistic life - a life of enjoyment like the one aristotle talks about. but given what happens to his gang of four,

romero seems skeptical about the sweetness of this life. it wouldn't seem to be so sweet after all" (walker 86).

dawn of the dead begs us to examine our priorities not only as individuals, but as a society as well. the old

adage is that you do not realize what you have until it is gone. romero is suggesting that we questions the values of

humanity before we wipe ourselves out. romero shows us that we are living zombies that neglect to experience life

and instead focus on buying experiences. "the life of enjoyment is not one somebody can truly lead. and since it

leads to the atrophy of those capacities that most fully manifest our humanity, aristotle believes that it cant fully

satisfy us. as the path to frustration taken by dawn's characters [with the inevitable boredom of wanting for nothing],

it proves a kind of living death" (walker 88).

the ending of dawn of the dead is ambiguous in that two survivors are left, but as they leave the mall where they

had everything, the re-enter the world with nothing and nowhere to go. "to the extent that a life of unlimited means has

blinded them to the ends that make a life worth living, it has left them without a clear destination" (walker 89). in light

of the recession currently taking place in the united states where citizens are not only losing their investments, but

also their ability to spend, ergo to consume, can this period be seen as a sort of zombie apocalypse? if we allow our

essence to be defined by what we own and suddenly find ourselves without material objects and without the means to

obtain new identities, what are we but the hordes of mindless consuming zombies drawn to the shopping mall but with

no means of satisfying our hunger? society will not be able to overcome this zombified state until our priorities are set

straight and the importance of material goods as the things that define us is annulled.

if we accept that consumerism is a sort of death of humanity and that the zombie is the ultimate consumer, we

can understand the terror ignited by the zombie. roland barthes describes the noeme of photography as something

"that has been" (115). in this way, photographs are seen as representations of death as barthes theorizes that once a

picture has been taken, the subject of it no longer exists as they were within the photograph. using barthes idea of

photography capturing images of death, we look at zombies as society's moving noeme: they had existed as

individuals, but are no longer the person they were when they were alive. we can then examine zombies not as

monsters, but as tragic figures.

there are similarities between the zombie and the other popular undead character, the vampire. although the

vampire is not decomposing and is quite articulate, unlike the zombie, both have a dual role as monster and pathetic

creatures. in dracula, "stoker explored the pathos and psychological terror of a human being, with a core of goodness,

becoming trapped inside a godless and eternally undead body" (barrows 69). comparing this to zombies, it is

generally accepted within zombie culture that the physical appearance of the creature is the only part of the original

person left behind. for example, if your mother was to become a zombie, she will try to eat you no matter who you

were to her while she was alive. she could have loved to knit and hike while alive, but none of her passions,

emotions, or memories (with the exception of possibly her love for shopping) are carried over into her undead state.

as humans, it is natural to fear anything that would take away our perceived essence of "who we are" and zombies

shove this in our faces (all the while trying to eat our faces). similarly to a vampire, killing a zombie is then an act of

love for the person who used to exist in that body. "to kill a vampire, for stoker's 'vampire-hunters,' is not just to

satisfy a blood-lust or to combat evil, but to liberate a 'true' humanity which is trapped inside a 'false' humanity"

(barrows 71). the fear of being eating by a zombie is outweighed by the fear of becoming one, which can be seen as

the "psychological fear of becoming 'false,' or having one's death, a fundamental part of one's natural being, taken

away, leaving the core of 'true' humanity encased in a pallid deathless shell of skin and bone" (barrows 71).

barrows uses martin heidegger's theories of the role of death in further examining undeath.

for heidegger, a confrontation with death is not simply some kind of perverse morbidity. it is an act of

'courage.' inauthentic beings ('they') cover up death and are thus always partial and incomplete, living

blindly and deludedly into a future that will be an endless succession of present moments. since the life of

'they' has no end, it has no borders or limits and is unable to be grasped by the mind. 'true' being, in

contrast, is a bordered whole, with death making it a complete entity. for heidegger, this state of being is

described almost ecstatically as a passionate anxious freedom toward death which is free of the illusions

of 'the they' and certain of itself. societal pressures try to 'tranquilize' or 'veil' this freedom, but authentic

beings reject such pressures. (barrows 74)

jen webb and sam byrnand suggest that we sometimes sympathize with zombies for the same subconscious

reason that we fear them: they are us.

just as anxious self-aware humans try to suture the gap between the self and its unfathomable parts, and

between those two deaths, so too producers of zombie-type narratives often attempt to reconcile the two

sides...in day of the dead, dr. logan turns zombie [bub] into a kind of pet by means of behavioural

treatment - and [bub] later avenges his death as only a human would do. their 'like-us-ness' manifests;

something is reconciled; the horror is put back into the closet, out of sight - until the next relapse. (webb

88 - 89)

truly, any viewer of day of the dead sympathizes with bub the zombie as they would a small child or a mentally

handicapped individual. he is not a monster, just as lennie is not a monster in steinbeck's of mice and men. viewers

do not fear bub, but instead the possibilities of what could happen to him after dr. logan, his post-apocalyptic

surrogate father is killed. in fact, zombies like bub "clearly fall above the criterion of death when we consider them in

contrast to severely brain-damaged individuals. zombies can clearly respond to basic environmental stimulation albeit

in a somewhat anti-social and ponderous manner" (thompson 36).

if we are similar in both "life" and "undeath," how are we to regard our zombie selves? do we feel sorry for our

family members who have become zombies in that they no longer get to live their lives, or do we see killing their

zombie bodies as freeing them from a falsehood? do we even see a difference between the people we once knew and

the mass of decomposing flesh standing before us (other than the fact that we are now viewed as a meal)? should we

consider ourselves more refined and deserving of "life" than our zombie counterparts? regardless of the fantastical

nature of the subject at hand, these are deep philosophical and social questions with the possibility of generating

many opinions and debates about "human nature." at the beginning of this essay, the idea was put forth that zombies

are really just individuals without choice, be it in what they consume, but also in how they exist in their undead lives.

capitalism is said to give the individual, a.k.a the consumer, a multitude of choices, but when the only choice is

limited to buy this or that, the essence of humanity and what it is to be alive is lost. we cling desperately to our

material possessions because they are what defines us and complain that too much emphasis is placed on tangible

goods, but we have yet to break free from this cycle. perhaps a zombie uprising in true apocalyptical form would

inspire us to se our priorities straight. but then again, maybe we're already living in a world of zombies.