Locating Zombies

7/30/2019 Locating Zombies

1/17

Sociology Compass (2013): 114, 10.1002/SOC4.12053

Locating Zombies in the Sociology of Popular Culture

Todd K. Platts*University of Missouri Department of Sociology

Ab Q1stract

In this essay, focusing primarily on the cinema of the walking corpse, I provide an overview of zombiestudies and suggest potential avenues for sociological inquiry into zombie phenomena. I argue thatzombie films, comic books, novels, video games, and the like can be seen as significant cultural objectsthat reflect and reveal the cultural and material circumstances of their creation. Despite emanatingfrom complex culture-producing institutions and (arguably) capturing extant social anxieties, sociologyhas remained quiet on zombie phenomena. Issues of significance, history, and definition are discussed.

I then locate three avenues of inquiry ideally suited to the sociological toolkit: symptomatic analysis ofcontent, production, and audience response and interaction. I conclude by calling for a multiprongedsociological analysis into zombie culture.

Introduction

In this essay, primarily emphasizing zombie films, I provide an overview of the literature onthe emerging field ofzombie studies and suggest potential avenues for sociological inquiryinto zombie phenomena. In addition to delineating sociological contributions to zombiestudies, I also describe what zombie studies may add to topics of perennial sociological interest

(e.g., the meaning of culture, production, consumption, and reception). For purposes ofclarity, I place analytic focus on the zombies gestated from North Q2American popular culture(Bishop 2006; Richardson 2010, 121-136) as opposed to diverse folkloric traditions of thedead rising from their graves (Ackerman and Gauthier 1991 Q3, Koven 2007, 37-50).

Commonly understood as corpses raised from the dead and imbued with a ravenousinstinct to devour the living, zombies address fears that are both inherent to the humancondition and specific to the time of their resurrection. From an evolutionary perspective,zombies engender terror because of ingrained phobia of infectious contagion, loss ofpersonal autonomy, and death (Clasen 2010). From a cultural view, zombies represent amonstrous tabula rasa whose construction registers extant social anxieties (Bishop 2009,

2010; Dendle 2007; McIntosh 2008; Muntean and Payne 2009). In their modern form,zombie narratives commonly present apocalyptic parables of societies in the state collapse(or have already collapsed) wherein a handful of survivors receive claustrophobic refugefrom undead hordes. The survivors temporary rampart disintegrates not because of thezombies but because of the survivors inability to cooperate despite their differences.Zombie narratives often rely on images of communal desolation, infected others, piles ofuntended human corpses, and roving gangs of vigilantes. That such stories should witnessa resurgence in popularity after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the anthraxand SARS scares, and Hurricane Katrina is seen as no coincidence (Bishop 2009, Newitz2009). As Robert Wuthnow (1989, 3) argues, if cultural products do not articulate closely

enough with their social settings, they are likely to be regarded as irrelevant, unrealistic,artificial, and overly abstract, or worse, their producers will be unlikely to receive thesupport necessary to carry on their work. Along these lines, Kyle Bishop (2009, 18)

2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Journal Code Article ID Dispatch: 04.04.13 CE: Patrimonio, Pat

S O C 4 1 2 0 5 3 No. of Pages: 14 ME:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1920

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2930

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

3940

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

4950

51

52

53

54


2/17

observes, Because the Q4affereffects of war, terrorism, and natural disasters so closely resemblethe scenarios of zombie cinema . . . [they have] all the more power to shock and terrify apopulation that has become otherwise jaded by more traditional horrorfilms.

The zombie renaissance is not limited solely to the realm of cinema; it has transferred to ahost of other popular culture forms including video games (e.g., Resident Evil, House of theDead, Dead Rising, and Plants vs. Zombies), comic books (e.g., The Walking Dead and MarvelZombies), novels (e.g., The Zombie Survival Guide (Brooks 2003), World War Z (Brooks2006), and Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (Grahame-Smith 2009)), and even a successfultelevision series (e.g., The Walking Dead) to name a few. What can sociology learn fromexamining zombie culture? What can sociology add to current debates in zombie studies?Unfortunately, sociology in method and theory has not been applied to the examinationof zombie culture. Escalations in scholarship investigating the living dead have occurredlargely outside the analytic purview of the discipline (Drezner 2011, 1-3).

The remainder of this essay, then, suggests that zombies, the industrial production of theirculture, and its consumption can serve as fecund research sites for answering sociologicallypertinent questions. I proceed by first detailing the broader significance of zombies, fleshing

out their xenophobic past and ambivalent present, and discuss problems of classification anddefinition. I then highlight three intersecting modes of inquiry ideally suited for the sociologicalstudy of zombie popular culture: analysis of textual content, production, and audiencereception and interaction. I conclude by calling for a multipronged sociological analysis intozombie culture.

Why do zombies matter?

It may be tempting to brush zombies aside as irrelevant pop culture ephemera. Zombieinflected popular culture, however, now contributes an estimated $5 billion to the world

economy per annum (Ogg 2011). In addition to movies, comics, books, and video games,individuals routinely don complex homemade zombie costumes to march in zombie walksand/or engage in role-playing games like Humans vs. Zombies. This is not to mentionzombie-related merchandise (e.g., t-shirts, coffee mugs, mouse pads, toys, and bumperstickers), music (e.g., The Zombies and Evenings in Quarantine: The Zombie Opera), andfan sites (e.g., allthingszombie.com and zmdb.org). Though not covered in this essay,zombies have also become a metaphor for insolvent banks reliant on the government dole(Onaran and Bair 2012 Q5) and the failed, but still living, ideas of neoliberalism (Giroux2010; Quiggin 2010). Similarly, philosophers argue over the possibility of zombies to discussphenomenal consciousness (for a review and critique, see Kirk (20050). It seems that nearly

all aspects of (popular) culture have been subsumed by the zombie mob (Flint 2009).Clearly, they are telling socially relevant stories for the people who consume or employ theirlikeness.

Since zombie cultural forms (e.g., films, video games, and comics, novels) resonate withlarge swaths of consumers and result from complex social relations involving producers,receivers, and the social world, they constitute significant culture objects (Alexander 2003;Griswold 1987a, 2008). As cultural objects, zombie cultural forms reflect and reveal the socialcontext of their creation as filtered through the milieus in which they are created, distributed,evaluated, taught, and preserved (Peterson and Anand 2004, 311). Because zombies aretypically invoked in horror texts, they are one of the few sties where individuals are

encouraged to suspend reality and belief. . .

[and] consider, momentarily, the unthinkablydark side of life (Cerulo 2006: 70). As part of an extended family of horrific antagonists,zombies have offered bureaucratically managed representations of cultural anxiety for more

2 Locating Zombies

2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Sociology Compass (2013): 114, 10.1002/SOC4.12053

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1920

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2930

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

3940

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

4950

51

52

53

54


3/17

than 80 years. To ignore these mass-mediated cultural representations of fear and terror is toignore one of the largest and most enduring cultural sites in which thought and discussion ofand about fear and terror occurs. Sociology as a discipline designed to unearth the influencesof economic, political, institutional, and social forces is ideally equipped to unsheathe thebroader significance of zombie culture and, thus, add to debates in zombie studies (cf. Dowd1999, Sutherland and Feltey 2012, Tudor 2000).

A brief history of zombies and problems of definition

Before discussing the sociological purchase of understanding zombie popular culture, it isimportant to understand the history of the American zombie as opposed to the Haitianzonbi. Though some popular accounts of the creature date its presence back to the epicof Gilgamesh (e.g., Walz (2010)), most scholars track our modern understanding of thezombie to US misappropriations of Haitian spiritual ontologies (Bishop 2006; 2008; 2010,37-63; Dendle 2001, 4-7; 2007, 45-48; Kawin 2012, 118-120; McAlister 2012; McIntosh2008, 1-6; Moreman 2010, 264-268; Pulliam 2007, 724-730; Richardson 2010, 121-128;

Russell 2006, 9-17), but some go further back to the New Testament Book of Daniel(e.g., Mulligan (2009, 350) and Toppe (2011)).

Contra other monstrous antagonists, zombies, Peter Dendle (2001, 3) points out, pass[ed]directly from folklore to screen, without first having an established literary tradition.Zombies entered the US popular cultural imagination as a result of its military occupationof Haiti (1915-1934). In the occupations latter phases, a series of sensationalist travelogsemerged to sate the xenophobically welled curiosities of North Americans. WilliamSeabrooks The Magic Island ([1929] 1989) would prove to be the most germane for thezombies popular cultural development (Bishop 2006). By 1932, White Zombie became thefirst feature-length motion picture to spotlight the monster. Cultural entrepreneurs

exploiting Haitian folklife, however, have shown little interest in anthropologically rigorousapproaches to Haitian culture or Religion. They have taken the concept of the zombie, themindless walking dead, and run with it (Kawin 2012, 118). Throughout the 1930s and1940s, zombies headlined a handful offilms including Revolt of the Zombies (1936), King of the Zombies (1941), I Walked with a Zombie (1943), Revenge of the Zombies (1943), and Valleyof the Zombies (1946). Intoned with hyperbolic (mis)representations of Voudou, these filmswere more inclined to exploit rather than explore the topic (Senn 1998, 11). Becausezombies lacked a literary, heritage producers took liberties with the legend, displaying anirreverence that would have been unthinkable towards respected contemporary propertiessuch as Dracula or Frankenstein (Russell 2006, 27) enabling zombies to appear in numerous

radio serials, comics, novels, and short stories during the 1930s (Hand 2011, Pulliam 2007,Vials 2011) where they were capable of speech and complex thought.

Peter Dendle (2001, 4) posits, The 50s and early 60s represent a strange transitional timefor the screen zombie, as though the concept were ready to move beyond its stagnant, two-decade-old paradigm, but experienced some confusion in exactly which direction to go.Zombies remained popular in comic books and crime and pulp fiction circles where theyenjoyed increased production runs after superhero comics lost favor (Pulliam 2007, 732). Itis in the pages of Entertaining Comics Vault of Horror, Crypt of Terror, Haunt of Fear, and Tales

from the Crypt that the zombie began to take on the look of a putrid and decaying corpse(Pulliam 2007, 733). Cinematically, zombies became subsumed in a style of pictures known

as weirdies, an inexact nomenclature for an offbeat science fiction, fantasy, monster,zombie, or shock film, usually of marginal financing, fantastic content, and ridiculous title(Doherty 2002, 119) which included films like Creature with the Atom Brain (1955), Unearthly

Locating Zombies 3


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1920

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2930

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

3940

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

4950

51

52

53

54


4/17

(1957), Invisible Invaders (1959), Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959), The Incredibly StrangeCreatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies (1964), Horror of Party Beach(1964), and Orgy of the Dead (1965). These pictures largely eschewed elements such asvoodoo, racism, colonialism, and outright xenophobia, replacing them with fears ofinvasion, social homogenization, apocalypse, and just plain weirdness, paving theway for George Romeros landmark Night of the Living Dead (1968) (Heffernan 2002;

McIntosh 2008, 7; Russell 2006, 47).Night of the Living Dead was a game changer for films concerning the living dead. It

helped inaugurate zombies as we know them today. Its success partly popularized thecivilization ending zombie narrative described at the beginning of this essay (Bishop2010, 94-128; Dendle 2001, 7-8; 2007, 50-52; Kawin 2012, 120-125; McIntosh2008, 8-10; Moreman 2010, 270-273; Mulligan 2009, 358-361; Muntean and Payne2009, 245-246; Paffenroth 2006, 2-7; Pulliam 2007, 734-739, Richardson 2010,121-136; Russell 2006, 64-70), but Dawn of the Dead (1978) institutionalized the model(Thrower 2007, 17-18). Despite Dawn of the Deads impressive worldwide ticket sales(Gagne 1987: 100-101), zombies remained a low-key monster in mainstream cinema

and culture (Bishop 2009; Dendle 2007, 53). After Revenge of the Living Dead (1985)and Day of the Deads (1985) disappointments at the box office (Variety 1986), thezombie survived in other mediums, most notably video games (e.g., the ResidentEvil franchise).

Dendle (2001) and Russell (2006) document that low-end independent producerscreated backyard zombie epics into the early 1990s, but by the end of the decade,zombie cinema slowed to a veritable trickle leaving horror analyst Allan Bryce (1999,7) to lament, sadly the poor old zombie seems destined to stay dead for a little longerwhile the horror genre remains obsessed with Scream-type horror comedies. Thus,when the 2000s proved a watershed period for zombies, Peter Dendle (2012, 1)

proclaimed the resurrection of the zombie on screen in the 2000s came as a surpriseto everyone. The major difference between new zombies and Romero-zombies,Kyle Bishop (2009, 24) argues, is that most twenty-first-century zombies are faster,more deadly, and symbolically more transparent (see also Muntean and Payne 2009).Whereas Romero-influenced zombie texts are often read progressively insofar as theproblems presented therein cannot fold back into the dominant ideology (see Becker2006, Wood 2004), Muntean and Payne (2009) show contemporary zombie films tobe more ambivalent (more on this later). As this admittedly brief historiography ofzombies attests, a welter of contradictory creatures has carried the label.

Thus, one of the biggest problems associated with zombie studies has been determin-

ing the contours of the zombie itself. Defining the nature of the creature remainsproblematic, in part, due to its lack of anchoring literary tradition (Bishop 2006) andthe capricious brandishing of the term with few purists to police the monsters appro-priate boundaries (Dendle 2001, McIntosh 2008, Russell 2006) until recently (Dendle2012). As a result, no definitional consensus exists. According to Dendle (2001, 13),the substantial overlap among the various movie monsters precludes the possibility ofan all-encompassing definition of a zombie. What nearly all understandings anddepictions of popular culture zombies have in common is a flexible creature designedto evoke our macabre fascination and whose likeness adapts to contemporaneous tumult,concerns about manmade and natural disasters, conflicts and wars, and crime and

violence. This does not solve the problem of definition, but it is along this logicthat the diachronic and synchronic evocation of zombies should be comprehended(cf. Muntean and Payne 2009).

4 Locating Zombies


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1920

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2930

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

3940

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

4950

51

52

53

54


5/17

Toward a sociology of zombie popular culture

As discussed below, many analyses of zombie culture entertain sociological themes. Althoughmuch has been studied, there are important areas that have been neglected and ways thatsociology could lend unique and critical insight into current zombie research. I use theremainder of this essay to highlight three such avenues of inquiry. These points of departure

acknowledge three important insights in the sociological study of popular culture. First,cultural productions reveal something about the societies that created them, and patternsemerging from the content of cultural productions partly unsheathe underlying structuralpatterns of those societies (Barthes 1972, Bergesen 2006, Goffman 1979, Hughey 2012,Schatz 1981, Wright 1977). Second, productive milieu in terms of technology, law andregulation, industry structure, organization structure, occupational careers, and marketmatters in the composition of content (DiMaggio 2000, Lena , Peterson and Anand 2004,Ryan 2007). Third, audiences interpret culture actively often in ways not intended by itscreators (Hall 1996, Shively 1992, Vidmar and Rokeach 1974) and routinely constructsymbolic boundaries around consumption (Bryson 1996, Force 2009, Gans 1999).

Zombies as symptoms of social anxiety

Most zombie studies implicitly employ ritual approaches to understand zombie culture.Developed by Will Wright (1977) and Thomas Schatz (1981), ritual approaches viewcultural objects as collective expressions that serve as conduits of and for the exploration ofsocietal ideals, values, ideas, and ideological contradictions. According to this analytic orien-tation, each popular culture genre (e.g., rap music, romance novels, and crime films) grappleswith its own set of issues and develops a distinctive character in the process. Zombie studiesscholars suggest the monster can be read as tracking a wide range of cultural, political, andeconomic anxieties of American society (Dendle 2007, 45). Kyle Bishop (2009, 18)

similarly notes zombie cinema represents a stylized reaction to cultural consciousness andparticularly to social and political injustices. Likewise, Muntean and Payne (2009, 240)add The zombies basic fictional composition is determined by extant social horrors duringits time of production. Scholars within this tradition argue that zombies not only textuallyrespond to prescient social strife but numerically as well. That is, as Annalee Newitz (2009,16) puts it, war and social upheaval cause spikes in zombie movie production.

Playing off of cultural fears is not unique to zombies or even horror texts. Zombie studiesscholars generally fail to specifically pinpoint why the zombie is especially useful as a barometerof cultural anxiety (Dendle 2007, 45). It is suggested the zombies lack of clearly definedboundaries allows for the endogenous absorption of contemporaneous disquietude into the

monsters texts (cf. Kaufman 2004). Zombies, therefore, provide indexes of how we collectivelygrappled with past (and present) social issues (e.g., Bishop (2009, 2010), Dendle (2007), andRussell (2006)). Researchers deploying these diachronic assertions tend to supply synchronicanalyses of the monsters various phases of development as evidence.

For instance, scholars responding to early voodoo-themed zombie films reveal the creatureas a complex monstrous canvass imbued with various messages ranging from Orientalist (re)imaginings of Caribbean (particularly Haitian) cultures for Anglo-American cinemagoingaudiences (Aizenberg 1999; Bishop 2008; 2010, 37-93; Moreman 2010; Richardson 2010,131-136; Russell 2006: 9-17) to observations of the diffuse despair felt by working-classAmericans living in the depths of the Great Depression (Dendle 2007, 46-48; Matthews

2009: 60-68; Russell 2006: 20-27, Skal 2001: 168-169). Continuing this tradition,researchers note that zombie films of the 1950s and 1960s came to represent fears associatedwith a loss of identity (Dendle 2001, 4-5; 2007, 49-50; McIntosh 2008, 7; Pulliam 2007,

Locating Zombies 5


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1920

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2930

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

3940

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

4950

51

52

53

54


6/17

733; Russell 2006, 51-54) and the anxieties associated with nuclear radiation and the possi-bility of an apocalyptic future (Bishop 2010, 100-103; Russell 2006, 47). Night of the LivingDead has been read as providing a window into race relations (Harper 2005), a chronicleof the fall of the nuclear family (Dillard 1987), a testimony against the Vietnam War (Higashi1990), and a nihilistic turn in countercultural ideology (Becker 2006) to name a few. Dawn ofthe Dead with its quartet of survivors barricaded inside a palatial mall only to have it turn

into a hell offers clear indictment of our consumer culture (Bishop 2010, 151-157; Dendle2001, 42-44; 2007, 51; McIntosh 2008, 9; Pulliam 2007, 735-736; Russell 2006, 91-96).Additionally, the zombies in Dawn of the Dead are said represent us, a theme that runsthrough many zombie studies (see especially Moreman and Rushton (2011)).

Until the current resurgence of zombie culture, most scholars argue the paradigm cementedby Romeros original trilogy (e.g., Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, and Day of the Dead(1985)) remained intact (Bishop 2009, 2010; Kawin 2012; Muntean and Payne 2009; Russell2006) until the events of 9/11 recalibrated the genre (Bishop 2009, Muntean and Payne2009). Muntean and Payne (2009), for instance, argue 28 Days Later(2002) exhibits reactionaryconservative ideology by positioning the hetero-normative nuclear family as the natural,

essential, yet potentially vulnerable core of civilization, which must be protected by oppressivestate apparatuses such as the military (249) and attributing the zombie menace to a few badapples and/or rogue provocateurs. By way of contrast, Dawn of the Dead (2004) offers a moreleftist text insofar as the cause of the zombie outbreak remains shrouded in mystery, thesurvivors form a non-hierarchical communal system wherein decisions are made collectively,and the failure of existing social structures to persist in the face of the problem (Muntean andPayne 2009, 249-254).

Peter Dendle (2012, 5-6) rightly points out that analyses like the ones discussed above,tend to focus mostly on a handful of the most high-profile movies movies which areculturally important by dint of their popularity, but which are not always representative of

the broader genre. Ritualistic zombie studies remain vulnerable to empirical scrutiny,namely their assumptions to select certain examples as representative and regarding othersas not. Such analyses favor the sampling offilms commensurate with the authors quest todemonstrate the zombie as an analog to contemporaneous fears. As an example, Kyle Bishop(2010, 181) handles a thrush low-budget straight-to-video zombie films thusly, most of thezombie fare from the 1980s and 90s is lackluster at best, attempting little to no cultural workand providing scholars with almost nothing of substance to analyze. Likewise, ritualisticstudies too often attempt to construct essentialized zombie ideal types (e.g., voodoo-themed zombies from the 1930s and 1940s, Romero-styled zombies, and post-9/11 ragezombies), often missing the diffuse application of the idea in other (con)texts (Hand 2011,

Platts , Vials 2011).Sociologists analyzing films have tended to solve the definitional and selection problem by

carefully explicating a population of pictures to be studied and examining each of them orconstructing a sample (e.g., Hughey (2009), King (1999), and Tudor (1989)). Moreover,sociological analysis can problematize how zombies reflect fear by asking five questionssuggested by Brym (2008) and Sutherland and Feltey (2012, 14). (i) How [do zombie texts]reflect the social context? (ii) How [do zombie texts] distort social reality? (iii) To whatdegree [do zombie texts] shed light on common or universal social and human problems?(iv) To what degree [do zombie texts] provide evidence for or against sociological theoryand research? and (v) To what degree [do zombie texts] connect biography, social structure,

and history? In applying these questions, sociologists can provide enhanced perspective regard-ing what zombie texts treat as social problems. Sociologists can ask what problems areaddressed and what problems are not. Moreover, sociologists can also ask under what conditions

6 Locating Zombies


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1920

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2930

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

3940

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

4950

51

52

53

54


7/17

certain problems are aired (e.g., LGBT-themed zombie films are only released by low-budget,straight-to-video distributors). In providing context to text, sociologists can, likewise, unpackthe significance of the fact that the majority of zombie fare is produced by relatively privilegedWhite men and what limits this entails on zombies itinerary of terror.

Although zombies are fictional, they comment and respond to the real (Muntean andPayne 2009). Sociologists examining seemingly racially progressive films argue these

supposedly viewer-friendly depictions of racial cooperation stem from deeply entrenchedracial logics of contented Black servitude and White racial paternalism (Hughey 2012,752). Popular culture tells us something about society; we can learn much about a cultureby understanding how it scares itself and the zombies blank slate is perfect for thisendeavor. As one of the few places where we confront the dark side of human existence,zombies merit sociological investigation. The sociological lessons to be learned from themonsters our culture creates remain a disciplinary lacunae (but see Tudor (1989)); thus, itis one of the fruits to be gained from a sociology of zombies.

Producing zombie cultureWithin zombie studies, examinations of the impact of productive milieu on content remaindecidedly underdeveloped. This is likely due to the fact that the bulk of zombie studiesemanate from scholars within the arts and humanities who tend to study extraordinary textsrather than the ordinary events of their creation (Moretti 2005, 3-4). Sociology is ideallypositioned to address this issue with the production-of-culture perspective. Developedprimarily by Richard A. Peterson in the 1970s (DiMaggio 2000), the production-of-culture perspective examines how culture is shaped by its systems of production. Accordingto John Ryan (2007, 222), it focuses on the ways in which human beings organize theproduction of symbols (e.g., art, literature, music, and video) and how that organization of

production affects the nature and content of what is produced. As mentioned above, theapproach is primarily concerned with the transformative impact of law and regulation,market, organization structure, industry structure, technology, and occupational careers oncultural productions (for overviews, see Peterson and Anand (2004), Ryan (2007),and Lena ).

While many point to the events of 9/11 as an explanation for the rise of zombie popularculture, Peter Dendle (2012: 7-8) notices

Images of destruction, plague, and civil collapse are especially poignant in the post-9/11 world, and

its tempting to think of the zombie movie resurgence in the 2000s as a response to that event. But

28 Days Laterwas mostly shot before the attacks on the Twin Towers, and Resident Evilhad been inthe works since 1999.

Dendle (2012), in his admittedly non-systematic analysis of nearly 300 zombie filmsproduced between 2000 and 2010, also observes that explicit references to 9/11 are rare.Downplaying direct links between 9/11 and the current flux of current zombie cinema,Dendle (2012, 8) quips, if a number of zombie movies started to appear in 2002 and2003, that means that many of them had been in the works for quite a while. In any eventnone of those early movies deal explicitly with 9/11 anxieties.

Many of the elements said to correspond to post-9/11 anxieties were already built into the

genre (Bishop 2009, Dendle 2012, Muntean and Payne 2009, 243). Changes in the systemsof production lie behind the zombies newfound popularity (cf. Anderson 2008, Lobato andRyan 2011, Ryan and Hughes 2006). Peter Dendle (2012, 1-2) writes the current rush of

Locating Zombies 7


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1920

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2930

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

3940

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

4950

51

52

53

54


8/17

zombie popular culture would not receive wide-scale distribution: the titles would never bepicked up by Netflix of Amazon Instant Video or retail DVD companies. But independentfilm distributors leap on zombie movies in a heartbeat, because they know there s a readymarket. Dendle (2012, 4) also posits, one of the hallmarks of the twenty-first centuryzombie is the proliferation of diverse media and narrative formats. Just as John Ryan andMichael Hughes (2006) studied the influence of digital technology on music (self)-produc-

tion, so too could sociologists examine the influence of cheap digital cameras, desktoppublishing software, internet retail, and e-begging on the current profusion of zombiecinema and related culture.

Specifically utilizing the production-of-culture perspective, Todd Platts () in a study of 1930sand 1940s zombie cinema argues the oligopolized studios eschewed the Caribbean boogeymanbecause their industrial structures, organizational structures, (distribution) markets, and contrac-tual occupational structures favored presold properties such as Dracula (1931), Frankenstein(1931), and Dr.Jekyll and Mr. Hyde(1931) as opposed to unproven monsters such as the zombie.When the major studios did produce zombiefilms (e.g., The Ghost Breakers (1940), I Walked witha Zombie, and Zombies on Broadway (1945)), the creature simply provided exploitable dressing for

the real meat of the film (with the notable exception ofI Walked with a Zombie). Poverty Rowstudios, production companies existing on the periphery of the filmmaking industries, produceda rush of zombie-centered zombie films after 1940 (e.g., King of the Zombies (1941), Revenge ofthe Zombies (1943), Voodoo Man (1944), Face of Marble(1946), and Valley of the Zombies (1946)),in part, because the major studios signed an antitrust decree limiting the power of block book-ing (the practice of selling groups offilm on an all-or-nothing basis). Poverty Row studios alsodistributed theirfilms through smaller provincial distribution channels allowing them to targetniche audiences and genres generally disregarded by the majors. This set of circumstancesinfluenced their pursuance of zombie-centric zombie films, but post-war conditions causedthe studios to chase higher-budgeted product as the market for B-films temporarily dissipated.

Brad OBrien (2008), though not specifically employing the production-of-cultureapproach, published a study bearing its hallmarks. Ritual approaches often explain Italianzombie cinema as a reverse affirmation of the Catholic faith (cf. Jones 1999, Toppe 2011).Challenging this idea, OBrien (2008) demonstrates how interorganizational decision chainsplayed a greater role in formulating the Italian zombie cycle than a morbid reflection of theCatholic faith. Specifically, OBrien (2008, 56-57) remarks the first outright Italian zombiefilm was conceived as a quick way to cash in on the success of George Romero s Dawn of the Dead, which opened in Italy in 1978 and grossed a million dollars in a month and a half.OBrien (2008, 59) furthers Italian studios are reluctant to fund genre films unless they areimitations of other genre films whose success they can exploit and a successful genre film

will inspire dozens of imitations until audiences get bored with the genre. Thus, it was thesuccess of an American zombie film, Dawn of the Dead, and industry gatekeepers response to itthat spawned the Italian zombie film, not simply a response to Catholic spiritual ontology.

In addition to production-of-culture analyses, ethnographic studies akin to Gitlin (2000)and Grindstaff (2002) can provide us with a thickly descriptive assessment of the strategiesand rationales behind the production of zombie-related culture. Robert Kapsiss (2009)sociological study of slasherfilms, for example, details how Fear No Evil (1981) started outas a love story and wound up a horrorfilm when Avco Embassy determined the film couldsell better by injecting slasher-like elements into it. According to director Frank La Loggia,

Horrorfilms were doing very well and we were looking for a first project that our money peoplecould get behind, and so we developed an idea for a horror fantasy, approached them with that, and

were able to raise about a million dollars (quoted in Kapsis 2009, 8).

8 Locating Zombies


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1920

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2930

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

3940

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

4950

51

52

53

54


9/17

Such short-term economic logic lies behind numerous zombie efforts as well. ChristineParker director ofFistful of Brains (2009 Q7) revealed, I would like to do something other thanzombie movies right now but our fans are demanding more zombie movies so we ll keepmaking them (quoted in Dead Harvey). Similarly, recent trends that import the theoreticaldevelopments of the sociology of science and technology into the sociology of popularculture demonstrate how cultural productions serve as actants that mediate the collective

relations of their production and transformation (see especially Strandvad (2012)). JohnRusso (1985), co-writer and actor in Night of the Living Dead, for example, divulges howthe film went through various iterations as the cast and crew responded to a welter ofproductive limitations and the emerging film itself. Comparable studies on the productionof zombie-themed video games would also provide invaluable insights.

Production-based studies remind us of the fact that conventions dictate what iterations aredeemed appropriate in various cultural expressions and the importance and influence ofinterorganizational decision chains within companies in determining what expressions ofculture reach a mainstream audience (Hirsch 1972, Bielby and Bielby 1994, Rossman2012). A focus on production, thus, provides a more resolute picture of how zombies capture

the reverberations of social ills. The application of the production-of-culture perspective inthe study offilm and video games, in general, remains underdeveloped (Neale 2000, 254-255; Nowell 2012). Looking at the production of zombie-themed movies and video gamesoffers an opportunity to extend the approach beyond its traditional purview of music (Dowd2004, Roy and Dowd 2010) and literature (Griswold 1993, Isaac 2009), and, thus, add newperspective to old debates (Platts ).

Consuming zombie culture

Given that products containing the zombies likeness are produced as consumer goods, it is

surprising to note that audience consumption and reception is the least developed area inzombie studies. While many academics read zombies as advancing leftist critiques of societywrit large, sociologists note the way people view/perceive the world relies on backgroundassumptions (Gouldner 1970) and arises from the intersection of the social groups in whichthey are embedded (Brekhus 2007, Zerubavel 1997). If we are to understand the significanceof zombie culture, understanding audience consumption and response is central because themeanings derived from culture and the means to which they are employed depend onconsumers, not creators. This lack of audience information renders zombie studies incom-plete. Numerous social scientific studies uncover counterintuitive responses from audiences.

JoEllen Shively (1992), for instance, discovered that both Anglo-Americans and Native

Americans enjoy westerns, but for different reasons. Native Americans identified with thecowboy way of life which they associated with freedom and independence and thesetting of the film. Anglos also enjoyed the scenery but identified the cowboy as a link totheir own historical identity. Educated Native Americans rejected the films for their stereo-typical portrayals of Native Americans. In their audience study of All in the Family, NeilVidmar and Milton Rokeach (1974) found that viewers with less racial prejudices envisionedthe show as satirizing Archie Bunkers reactionary understanding of the world (an interpre-tation shared by the shows producers), but audience members with high levels of prejudiceregarded Archie as the hero and appreciated that he aired their sentiments on nationaltelevision. In these and other studies, audiences (re)interpret texts to fit their interests (Fiske

1989), and we can expect similar patterns in the consumption of zombie culture.Questions regarding the ultimate lessons of zombie narratives to their consumers remain

unanswered. Most academics read them as leftist and subversive texts, but do viewers?

Locating Zombies 9


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1920

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2930

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

3940

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

4950

51

52

53

54


10/17

Viewers may enjoy the gore effects and little else. Likewise, how do audiences understandthe apparent collapse of society in zombie texts? As a call for rugged individualism andan echoing of the Reaganite sentiment that the government is the problem? Or an indict-ment of our social institutions that construct and perpetuate hierarchies of (dis)privilege?Peter Dendle (2012, 9) finds prima facie evidence for right-wing reactionary readings ofzombie films, the gun fetishism in survivalist message boards on zombie forums is striking,

with users posting jpegs of their personal arsenals, and discussing in highly technical detailthe advantages of different weapons for different scenarios. Likewise, Ned Vizzini (2011)distils an Ayn Randian objectivist reading of Rick Grimes, the primary protagonist for TheWalking Dead comic book series and television series.

As consumers come to texts, they carry the baggage of their demographic profile (nationality,ethnicity, gender, age, race, sexuality, etc.) and the significance their society tells them thosesocially constructed categories have, social networks, and personal idiosyncrasies which forminterpretative communities (Zerubavel 1997) and horizons of expectations (Fish 1980). Thesecommunities provide the tools for interacting with texts that elicit or enhance certain readingsof them. Survey and interview methods would allow for an understanding of how audiences

interpret zombie popular culture and the ways in which they relate them to their own experi-ence(s). Unfortunately, zombie studies largely ignore viewers and their associated experiencesand motives, but sociology can provide a remedy for this neglect. With many zombie textsreleased internationally, it would be interesting to analyze cross-national reviews of them todistil collectivized nationalistic differences in reading the texts as discovered by Griswold(1987b) and van Venrooij (2011). In similar studies, Liebes and Katz (1993) found cross-national differences in viewers of Dallas, while Michelle et al. (2012) discovered likewise forreadings ofAvatar(2009), do such differences exist in zombie culture?

In addition to gauging responses to texts, sociologists should also assess enactments of theliving dead as seen in zombie protest walks or games such as Humans vs. Zombies. Zombie

walks, in particular, are important social movements that help spread awareness of local andglobal issues; the major theme at Zombie Walk Detroit 2012 was Walk Against Hunger.Sociological inquiry into these large events and the logics of their organizers can uncover the(f)utility and ironies of employing zombies in such causes.

Conclusion

The overview of zombie popular culture discussed in this essay only scratches the surface. Othernodal points untouched in this essay include the broader relation of the zonbi to Haitian culturewhich would be of interest to Caribbean sociology or sociologists specializing in globalization;

the Centers for Disease Control and Developments description of Zombie Preparednesswhich may interest scholars in the sociology of health or disasters, and the history of zombiecomic books which might pique sociologists of culture. Either way, sociology can contributea great deal to zombie studies and vice versa. Analyses of production and consumer interactionwith the resulting culture can extend and build upon existing literature. Sociologists can provideimportant perspective regarding how zombie culture reflects, challenges, and perpetuatesexisting inequalities, particularly in respect to race, class, gender, and sexuality. A critical under-standing of the impact of social structure on popular culture would add another dimension tothe study of zombie culture, continuing traditions on culture that demonstrate how culturalobjects have much to tell about social life, values, and ideologies. The issues covered in this

review encompass a wide array of sociological traditions, meaning a sociology of zombie culturehas the potential to integrate disparate sociological fields in unique and exciting ways; it requiresa multipronged sociological toolkit to unpack.

10 Locating Zombies


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1920

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2930

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

3940

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

4950

51

52

53

54


11/17

Short Biography

Todd K. Platts is a doctoral candidate in sociology at the University of Missouri. His researchinterests include media sociology, the sociology of popular culture, cultural sociology, andthe sociology of race. His forthcoming publication The Undead of Hollywood andPoverty Row: The Economics of Innovation, Differentiation, and Hybridity in Zombie

Film Production, 1932

46

which will appear in The Merchants of Menace: The Business of Cinema investigates the industrial genesis and development of zombie cinema. He has alsopublished in Sociology Compass.

Note

Q6*Correspondence address: Todd K. Platts, Department of Sociology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA. E-mail:

[email protected]

References

Ackerman, Hans-W. and Jeanine Gauthier. 1991. The Ways and Nature of the Zombi. Journal of American Folklore

104: 466-94.

Aizenberg, Edna. 1999. I Walked with a Zombie: The Pleasures and Perils of Postcolonial Hybridity. World Literature

Today 73(3): 461-6.

Alexander, Victoria D. 2003. Sociology of the Arts: Exploring Fine and Popular Forms. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Anderson, Chris. 2008. The Long Tail: Longer. New York: Hyperion.

Barthes, Roland. 1972. Mythologies, translated by Annette Lavers. New York: Hill and Wang.

Becker, Matt. 2006. A Point of Little Hope: Hippie Horror Films and the Politics of Ambivalence. Velvet Light Trap

57: 42-59.

Bergesen, Albert J. 2006. The Depth of Shallow Culture: The High Art of Shoes, Movies, Novels, Monsters and Toys. Boulder,

CO: Paradigm.

Bielby, William T. and Denise D. Bielby. 1994.

All Hits Are Flukes

: Institutionalized Decision Making and theRhetoric of Network Prime-time Program Development. The American Journal of Sociology 99(5): 1287-313.

Bishop, Kyle. 2006. Raising the Dead: Unearthing the Non-Literary Origins of Zombie Cinema. Journal of Popular Film

and Television 33(4): 196-205.

. 2008. The Sub-Subaltern Monster: Imperialist Hegemony and the Cinematic Voodoo Zombie. Journal of

American Culture 31(2): 141-52.

. 2009. Dead Man Still Walking: Explaining the Zombie Renaissance. Journal of Popular Film and Television

37(1): 16-25.

Bishop, Kyle William. 2010. American Zombie Gothic: The Rise and Fall (and Rise) of the Walking Dead in Popular Culture.

Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Brekhus, Wayne. 2007. The Rutgers School: A Zerubavelian Culturist Cognitive Sociology. European Journal of Social

Theory 10(3): 448-64.

Brooks, Max. 2003. The Zombie Survival Guide: Complete Protection from the Living Dead. New York: Three Rivers Press.

. 2006. World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War. New York: Crown Publishers.

Bryce, Allan, ed. 1999. Zombie. Cornwall, England: Stray Cat Publishing.

Brym, Robert J. 2008. How to Write a Sociological Movie Review. Retrieved December 1, 2012 ( http://projects.

chass.utoronto.ca/soc101y/brym/SocAtMovies.html#write).

Bryson, Bethany. 1996. Anything But Heavy Metal: Symbolic Exclusion and Musical Dislikes. American Sociological

Review 61(5): 884-99.

Cerulo, Karen. 2006. Never Saw It Coming: Cultural Challenges to Envisioning the Worst. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.

Clasen, Mathias. 2010. The Anatomy of the Zombie: A Bio-Psychological Look at the Undead Other. Otherness:

Essays and Studies 1(1): 1-23.

Dead Harvey. 2009. Interview with Christine Parker, Writer/Director of Fistful of Brains. Dead Harvey. RetrievedOctober 12, 2012 (http://deadharvey.blogspot.com/search?q=fistful+of+brains).

Dendle, Peter. 2001. The Zombie Movie Encyclopedia. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

. 2007. The Zombie as Barometer of Cultural Anxiety. Pp. 45-57 in Monsters and the Monstrous: Myths and

Metaphors of Enduring Evil, edited by Niall Scott. New York: Rodopi.

Locating Zombies 11


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1920

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2930

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

3940

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

4950

51

52

53

54
http://projects.chass.utoronto.ca/soc101y/brym/SocAtMovies.html#writehttp://projects.chass.utoronto.ca/soc101y/brym/SocAtMovies.html#writehttp://deadharvey.blogspot.com/search?q=fistful+of+brainshttp://deadharvey.blogspot.com/search?q=fistful+of+brainshttp://deadharvey.blogspot.com/search?q=fistful+of+brainshttp://deadharvey.blogspot.com/search?q=fistful+of+brainshttp://projects.chass.utoronto.ca/soc101y/brym/SocAtMovies.html#writehttp://projects.chass.utoronto.ca/soc101y/brym/SocAtMovies.html#write


12/17

. 2012. The Zombie Movie Encyclopedia Volume 2: 2000-2010. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Dillard, R.H.W. 1987. Night of the Living Dead: Its Not Like Just a Wind Thats Passing Through. Pp. 14-29 in American

Horrors: Essays on the Modern American Horror Film, edited by Gregory A. Waller. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

DiMaggio, Paul. 2000. The Production of Scientific Change: Richard Peterson and the Institutional Turn in Cultural

Sociology. Poetics 28(2-3): 107-36.

Doherty, Thomas. 2002. Teenagers and Teenpics: The Juvenilization of American Movies in the 1950s. Philadelphia, PA:

Temple University Press.

Dowd, James J. 1999. Waiting for Louis Prima: On the Possibility of a Sociology of Film. Teaching Sociology 27(4): 324-42.Dowd, Timothy J. 2004. Production Perspectives in the Sociology of Music. Poetics 32(3-4): 235-46.

Drezner, Daniel W. 2011. Theories of International Politics and Zombies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Fish, Stanley. 1980. Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretative Communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Fiske, John. 1989. Reading the Popular. New York: Routledge.

Flint, David. 2009. Zombie Holocaust: How the Living Dead Devoured Pop Culture. London: Plexus.

Force, William Ryan. 2009. Consumption Styles and the Fluid Complexity of Punk Authenticity. Symbolic Interaction

32(4): 289-309.

Gagne, Paul R. 1987. The Zombies that Ate Pittsburgh: The Films of George Romero. New York: Dodd, Mead, and Company.

Gans, Herbert J. 1999. Popular Culture and High Culture: An Analysis and Evaluation of Taste. New York: Basic Books.Giroux, Henry A. 2010. Zombie Politics and Culture in the Age of Casino Capitalism. New York: Peter Lang.

Gitlin, Todd. 2000. Inside Prime Time. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Goffman, Erving. 1979. Gender Advertisements. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Gouldner, Alvin W. 1970. The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. New York: Basic Books.

Grahame-Smith, Seth. 2009. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. Philadelphia, PA: Quirk Books.

Grindstaff, Laura. 2002. The Money Shot: Trash, Class, and the Making of TV Talk Shows. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago

Press.

Griswold, Wendy. 1987a. A Methodological Framework for the Sociology of Culture. Sociological Methodology 17: 1-35.

. 1987b. The Fabrication of Meaning: Literary Interpretation in the United States, Great Britain, and the West

Indies. The American Journal of Sociology 92(5): 1077-117.

. 1993. Recent Moves in the Sociology of Literature. Annual Review of Sociology 19: 455-67.

. 2008. Cultures and Societies in a Changing World 3d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Hall, Stuart. 1996. Encoding/Decoding. Pp. 128-38 in Culture, Media, Language, edited by Stuart Hall, Dorothy

Hobson, Andrew Lowe, and Paul Willis. New York: Routledge.Hand, Richard. 2011. Undead Radio: Zombies and the Living Dead on 1930s and 1940s Radio Drama. Pp. 39-49 in

Better Off Dead: The Evolution of the Zombie as Post-Human, edited by Deborah Christie and Sarah Juliet Lauro. New

York: Fordham University Press.

Harper, Stephen. 2005. Night of the Living DeadReappraising an Undead Classic: Romeros Canonical Work Remains

Timely Decades Later. Bright Lights Film Journal 50(3). Retrieved October 1, 2012 (http://www.brightlightsfilm.

com/50/night.htm).

Heffernan, Kevin. 2002. Inner-City Exhibition and the Genre Film: Distributing Night of the Living Dead (1968).Cinema Journal 41(3): 59-77.

Higashi, Sumiko. 1990. Night of the Living Dead: A Horror Film about the Horrors of the Vietnam Era. Pp. 175-88 inFrom Hanoi to Hollywood: The Vietnam War in American Film, edited by Linda Dittmar and Gene Michaud. New

Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Hirsch, Paul M. 1972.Processing Fads and Fashions: An Organization-Set Analysis of Cultural Industry Systems.

The

American Journal of Sociology 77(4): 639-59.

Hughey, Matthew W. 2009. Cinethetic Racism: White Redemption and Black Stereotypes in Magical Negro Films.Social Problems 56(3): 543-77.

. 2012. Racializing Redemption, Reproducing Racism: The Odyssey of Magical Negroes and White Saviors.

Sociology Compass 6(9): 751-67.

Isaac, Larry. 2009. Movements, Aesthetics, and Markets in Literary Change: Making the American Problem Novel.

American Sociological Review 74(6): 938-65.

Jones, Alan. 1999. Morti Viventi: Zombies Italian-Style. Pp. 12-27 in Zombie, edited by Allan Bryce. Cornwall, England:

Stray Cat Publishing.

Kapsis, Robert E. 2009. Hollywood Genres and the Production of Culture Perspective. Pp. 3-16 in The Contemporary

Hollywood Reader, edited by Toby Miller. New York: Routledge.

Kaufman, Jason. 2004. Endogenous Explanation in the Sociology of Culture. Annual Review of Sociology 30: 335-57.

Kawin, Bruce F. 2012. Horror and the Horror Film. New York: Anthem Press.

King, Neal. 1999. Heroes in Hard Times: Cop Action Movies in the U.S. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

12 Locating Zombies


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1920

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2930

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

3940

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

4950

51

52

53

54
http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/50/night.htmhttp://www.brightlightsfilm.com/50/night.htmhttp://www.brightlightsfilm.com/50/night.htmhttp://www.brightlightsfilm.com/50/night.htmhttp://www.brightlightsfilm.com/50/night.htmhttp://www.brightlightsfilm.com/50/night.htm


13/17

Kirk, Robert. 2005. Zombies and Consciousness. New York: Oxford University Press.

Koven, Mikel J. 2007. Film, Folklore and Urban Legends. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Liebes, Tamar and Elihu Katz. 1993. The Export of Meaning: Cross-cultural Readings of Dallas. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Lena, Jennifer C. forthcoming. Production of Culture. To appear in International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral

Sciences, edited by James Wright. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier.

Lobato, Ramon and Mark David Ryan. 2011. Rethinking Genre Studies through Distribution Analysis: Issues in

International Horror Movie Circuits. New Review of Film and Television Studies 9(2): 188-203.Matthews, Melvin E. 2009. Fear Itself: Horror on Screen and in Reality During the Depression and World War II. Jefferson,

NC: McFarland.

McAlister, Elizabeth. 2012. Slaves, Cannibals, and Infected Hyer-Whites: The Race and Religion of Zombies. Anthro-

pological Quarterly 85(2): 457-86.

McIntosh, Shawn. 2008. The Evolution of the Zombie: The Monster That Keeps Coming Back. Pp. 1-17 in Zombie

Culture: Autopsies of the Living Dead, edited by Marc Leverette and Shawn McIntosh. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Michelle, Carolyn, Charles H. Davis, and Florin Vladica. 2012. Understanding Variation in Audience Engagement and Re-

sponse: An Application of the Composite Model to Receptions ofAvatar(2009). The Communication Review15(2): 106-43.

Moreman, Christopher M. 2010. Dharma of the Living Dead: A Meditation on the Meaning of the Hollywood

Zombie. Studies in Religion 39(2): 263-81.Moreman, Christopher M. and Cory James Rushton, eds. 2011. Zombies Are Us: Essays on the Humanity of the Walking

Dead. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.Moretti, Franco. 2005. Graphs, Maps, Trees: Abstract Models for Literary History. Brooklyn, NY: Verso.Mulligan, Rikk. 2009. Zombie Apocalypse: Plague and the End of the World in Popular Culture. Pp. 349-68 in End of

Days: Essays on the Apocalypse from Antiquity to Modernity, edited by Karolyn Kinane and Michael A. Ryan. Jefferson,

NC: McFarland & Company, Inc.

Muntean, Nick and Matthew Thomas Payne. 2009. Attack of the Livid Dead: Recalibrating Terror in the Post-

September 11 Zombie Film. Pp. 239-58 in The War on Terror and American Popular Culture: September 11 and Beyond,

edited by Andrew Schopp and Matthew B. Hill. Madison, WI: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.

Neale, Steve. 2000. Genre and Hollywood. New York: Routledge.

Newitz, Annalee. 2009. War and Social Upheaval Cause Spikes in Zombie Movie Production.Annals of Improbable Research

15(1): 16-9.

Nowell, Richard. 2012. Getting Down to Genre Business. Iluminace 24(3): 5-12.

OBrien, Brad. 2008.

Vita, Amore, e Morte

and Lots of Gore: The Italian Zombie Film.

Pp. 55-70 in Zombie Culture:Autopsies of the Living Dead, edited by Shawn McIntosh and Marc Leverette. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Ogg, J. 2011. Zombies Worth $5 Billion to Economy. 24/7 Wall Street. Retrieved on 1 November 2012. From: http://

247wallst.com/2011/10/25/zombies-worth-over-5-billion-to-economy/.

Onaran, Yalman and Sheila Bair. 2012. Zombie Banks: How Broken Banks and Debtor Nations Are Crippling the Global

Economy. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

Paffenroth, Kim. 2006. Gospel of the Living Dead: George Romeros Vision of Hell on Earth. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.

Peterson, Richard A. and N. Anand. 2004. The Production of Culture Perspective. Annual Review of Sociology

30: 311-34.

Platts, Todd K. forthcoming Q8The Undead of Hollywood and Poverty Row: The Economics of Innovation, Differen-tiation, and Hybridity in Zombie Film Production, 193246. To appear in The Merchants of Menace: The Business of

Horror Cinema, edited by Richard Nowell. New York, Continuum.

Pulliam, June. 2007.The Zombie.

Pp. 723-53 in Icons of Horror and the Supernatural: An Encyclopedia of Our Worst Night-

mares, edited by S.T. Joshi. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Quiggin, John. 2010. Zombie Economics: How Dead Ideas Still Walk Among Us. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Richardson, Michael. 2010. Otherness in Hollywood Cinema. New York: Continuum.

Rossman, Gabriel. 2012. Climbing the Charts: What Radio Airplay Tells Us About the Diffusion of Innovation . Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press.

Roy, William G. and Timothy J. Dowd. 2010. What Is Sociological About Music? Annual Review of Sociology

36: 183-203.

Russell, Jamie. 2006. The Book of the Dead: The Complete History of Zombie Cinema . Surrey: FAB Press.

Russo, John. 1985. The Complete Night of the Living Dead Filmbook. New York: Harmony Books.

Ryan, John. 2007. The Production of Culture Perspective. Pp. 222-9 in 21st Century Sociology: A Reference Handbook,

edited by Clifton D. Bryant and Dennis L. Peck. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ryan, John and Michael Hughes. 2006. Breaking the Decision Change: The Fate of Creativity in an Age of Self-

Production. Pp. 239-53 in Cybersounds: Essays on Virtual Music Culture, edited by Michael D. Ayers. New York:

Peter Lang Publishing.

Locating Zombies 13


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1920

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2930

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

3940

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

4950

51

52

53

54
http://247wallst.com/2011/10/25/zombies-worth-over-5-billion-to-economy/http://247wallst.com/2011/10/25/zombies-worth-over-5-billion-to-economy/http://247wallst.com/2011/10/25/zombies-worth-over-5-billion-to-economy/http://247wallst.com/2011/10/25/zombies-worth-over-5-billion-to-economy/


14/17

Schatz, Thomas. 1981. Hollywood Genres: Formulas, Filmmaking, and the Studio System. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University

Press.

Seabrook, William. [1929] 1989. The Magic Island. New York: Paragon House.

Senn, Bryan. 1998. Drums O Terror: Voodoo in Cinema. Baltimore, MD: Luminary Press.

Shively, JoEllen. 1992. Cowboys and Indians: Perceptions of Western Films Among American Indians and Anglos.American Sociological Review 57(6): 725-34.

Skal, David J. 2001. The Monster Show: A Cultural History of Horror. New York: Faber and Faber.

Strandvad, Sara Malou. 2012. Attached by the Product: A Socio-Material Direction in the Sociology of Art. CulturalSociology 6(2): 163-76.

Sutherland, Jean-Anne and Kathryn Feltey. 2012. Introduction. Pp. 1-23 in Cinematic Sociology: Social Life in Film 2d ed.,

edited Jean-Anne Sutherland and Kathryn Feltey. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Thrower, Stephen. 2007. Nightmare USA: The Untold Story of Exploitation Independents. London: FAB Press.

Toppe, Jana. 2011. Reversing the Gospel of Jesus: How the Zombie Theme Satirizes the Resurrection of the Body and

the Eucharist. Pp. 169-82 in Roman Catholicism in Fantastic Film: Essays on Belief, Spectacle, Ritual and Imagery, edited by

Regina Hansen. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Tudor, Andrew. 1989. Monsters and Mad Scientists: A Cultural History of the Horror Movie. Cambridge, MA: Basil

Blackwell.

. 2000. Sociology and Film. Pp. 188-92 in Film Studies: Critical Approaches, edited by John Hill andPamela Church Gibson. New York: Oxford University Press.

Variety. 1986. Big Rental Films of 85. January 8, Pp. 22, 86, 100.van Venrooij, Alex. 2011. Classifying Popular Music in the United States and the Netherlands. American Behavioral

Scientist 55(5): 609-23.

Vials, Chris. 2011. The Origin of the Zombie in American Radio and Film: B-Horror, U.S. Empire, and the Politics of

Disavowal. Pp. 41-53 in Generation Zombie: Essays on the Living Dead in Modern Culture, edited by Stephanie Boluk

and Wylie Lenz. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Vidmar, Neil and Milton Rokeach. 1974. Archie Bunkers Bigotry: A Study in Selective Perceptive and Exposure.Journal of Communication 24(1): 36-47.

Vizzini, Ned. 2011. Rick and Rand: The Objectivist Hero in The Walking Dead. Pp. 127-41 in Triumph of the Walking

Dead: Robert Kirkmans Zombie Epic on Page and Screen, edited by James Lowder. Dallas, TX: Smart Pop.

Walz, Jon Alon. 2010. Fear Files: Zombies. DVD. New York: A & E Home Video.

Wood, Robin. 2004. An Introduction to the American Horror Film. Pp. 107-41 in Planks of Reason: Essays on the

Horror Film, edited by Barry Keith Grant and Christopher Sharrett. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.Wright, Will. 1977. Sixguns and Society: A Structural Study of the Western. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Wuthnow, Robert. 1989. Communities of Discourse. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Zerubavel, Eviatar. 1997. Social Mindscapes: An Invitation to Cognitive Sociology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

14 Locating Zombies


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1920

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2930

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

3940

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

4950

51

52

53

54


15/17

Author Query Form

Journal: Sociology Compass

Article: soc_412053

Dear Author,

During the copyediting of your paper, the following queries arose. Please respond to these by anno-

tating your proofs with the necessary changes/additions.

If you intend to annotate your proof electronically, please refer to the E-annotation guidelines.

If you intend to annotate your proof by means of hard-copy mark-up, please refer to the proof

mark-up symbols guidelines. If manually writing corrections on your proof and returning it by

fax, do not write too close to the edge of the paper. Please remember that illegible mark-ups

may delay publication.

Whether you opt for hard-copy or electronic annotation of your proofs, we recommend that you pro-

vide additional clarification of answers to queries by entering your answers on the query sheet, in

addition to the text mark-up.

Query No. Query Remark

Q1 AUTHOR: Please check if the captured abstract is correct.

Q2 AUTHOR: "US American" has been changed to "NorthAmerican" throughout the article. Please check and confirm

if this is ok.

Q3 AUTHOR: The citation Ackermann and Gauthier 1991

(original) has been changed to Ackerman and Gauthier

1991. Please check if appropriate.

Q4 AUTHOR: Please check whether "affereffects" should be

changed to "aftereffects".

Q5 AUTHOR: The citation

Onaran and Bair 2011

(original)has been changed to Onaran and Bair 2012. Please check

if appropriate.

Q6 AUTHOR: Please check whether the provided address is

correct.

Q7 AUTHOR: The publication year 2008 (original) has been

changed to 2009. Please check if appropriate.

Q8 AUTHOR: forthcoming has been added in reference Platts

since it has no publication year. Please update this reference.


16/17

USING e-ANNOTATION TOOLS FOR ELECTRONIC PROOF CORRECTION

Required software to e-Annotate PDFs: Adobe Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader (version 7.0 or

above). (Note that this document uses screenshots from Adobe Reader X)

The latest version of Acrobat Reader can be downloaded for free at: http://get.adobe.com/uk/reader/

Once you have Acrobat Reader open on your computer, click on the Comment tab at the right of the toolbar:

1. Replace (Ins) Tool for replacing text.

Strikes a line through text and opens up a text

box where replacement text can be entered.

How to use it

Highlight a word or sentence.

Click on the Replace (Ins) icon in the Annotations

section.

Type the replacement text into the blue box that

appears.

This will open up a panel down the right side of the document. The majority of

tools you will use for annotating your proof will be in theAnnotations section,

pictured opposite. Weve picked out some of these tools below:

2. Strikethrough (Del) Tool for deleting text.

Strikes a red line through text that is to be

deleted.

How to use it

Highlight a word or sentence.

Click on the Strikethrough (Del) icon in the

Annotations section.

3. Add note to text Tool for highlighting a section

to be changed to bold or italic.

Highlights text in yellow and opens up a text

box where comments can be entered.

How to use it

Highlight the relevant section of text.

Click on theAdd note to text icon in the


Type instruction on what should be changed

regarding the text into the yellow box that

appears.

4. Add sticky note Tool for making notes at

specific points in the text.

Marks a point in the proof where a comment

needs to be highlighted.

How to use it

Click on theAdd sticky note icon in the


Click at the point in the proof where the comment

should be inserted.

Type the comment into the yellow box that

appears.


17/17

USING e-ANNOTATION TOOLS FOR ELECTRONIC PROOF CORRECTION

For further information on how to annotate proofs, click on the Help menu to reveal a list of further options:

5. Attach File Tool for inserting large amounts of

text or replacement figures.

Inserts an icon linking to the attached file in the

appropriate pace in the text.

How to use it

Click on theAttach File icon in the Annotations

section.

Click on the proof to where youd like the attached

file to be linked.

Select the file to be attached from your computer

or network.

Select the colour and type of icon that will appear

in the proof. Click OK.

6. Add stamp Tool for approving a proof if no

corrections are required.

Inserts a selected stamp onto an appropriate

place in the proof.

How to use it

Click on theAdd stamp icon in the Annotations

section.

Select the stamp you want to use. (TheApproved

stamp is usually available directly in the menu that

appears).

Click on the proof where youd like the stamp to

appear. (Where a proof is to be approved as it is,

this would normally be on the first page).

7. Drawing Markups Tools for drawing shapes, lines and freeform

annotations on proofs and commenting on these marks.Allows shapes, lines and freeform annotations to be drawn on proofs and for

comment to be made on these marks..

How to use it

Click on one of the shapes in the Drawing

Markups section.

Click on the proof at the relevant point and

draw the selected shape with the cursor.

To add a comment to the drawn shape,

move the cursor over the shape until an

arrowhead appears.

Double click on the shape and type anytext in the red box that appears.

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	kozanaybar
View:	239 times
Download:	0 times

Locating Zombies

Documents