The end of the world is a topic that has gained extraordinary interest over the past decades. The thought of the nearing apocalypse is ever-present within popular culture, be it in the shape of traditional apocalyptic imagery related to Judaism, Christianity and Islam or special effects laden Hollywood scenarios composing the most picturesque versions of mankind’s end. After the Y2K panic had passed, a new fear struck society with the 9/11 terror attacks, proving that no one is safe in this new millennium. The fear continues high with weapons of mass destruction such as biological weapons taking up the top percentages of perceived threats. It is not suprising then that a number of movies have embraced this fear and turned it into disturbing treatises on human demise.
The Biblical Apocalypse is an event that purges Earth, creating a state of ultimate peace and goodwill for all. So what do we do if that hasn’t happened (yet) after the world as we know it has abruptly ended? A popular topic in contemporary horror film is that of the pandemic wipe-out of the general population. A pandemic may fulfill some of the purging characteristics ascribed to Armageddon, it may rinse the world of sin, but what if it doesn’t?
Two horror films of the 21st century dealing with the issue of a viral pandemic annihilating civilization are 28 Days Later (Danny Boyle, 2002) and I Am Legend (Francis Lawrence, 2007). Both films have similar settings: a highly contagious virus infects most of the population, and, instead of killing them, turns them into violent creatures. The ‘Rage’ virus in 28 Days Later transforms the infected into extremely aggressive monsters, whose only aim it is to attack and bite the uninfected. The virus in I Am Legend is a panacea-gone-bad when a virus intended to cure cancer mutates and creates menacing hordes, sensitive to light but nonetheless belligerent. While the ‘Rage’ virus is transmitted through contact, the ‘Krippen’ virus has both an airborne and a contact strain, making it all the more dangerous. While anyone clever and fast enough can outrun ‘Rage’, immunity paired with ingenuity is necessary to survive the ‘Krippen’ outbreak. Both films broach the issue of the end of civilization. All of a sudden, a handful of uninfected is forced to adjust and organize as quickly as possible. The threat is not solely a matter of life and death, since the virus transforms instead of killing. The problem is trying to establish an effective society that allows the uninfected to endure these hard times.
Humanity is pursuing Aristotle’s eudemonia after all, striving for the ultimate state of good, yet in between, it is distracted and winds up destroying society as we know it. Post-apocalyptic horror fictions posits several assumptions about humanity. For one, it portrays mankind’s good intentions as a suicide mission. It is undoubtedly in most of our interest to make life as liveable and cruelty-free as possible, and as we purport endeavouring to achieve equality and justice on a global level, we simultaneously make choices that lead us further into our doom. Secondly, the individual’s quest for pleasure and the highest possible form of privacy is equally as detrimental to the world’s continuity as the scientific group effort to progress ruthlessly. Faith in science, technology and progress is brutally destroyed once it becomes clear that these advancements serve to propel the Apocalypse.
Humanity is portrayed as its own worst enemy, only surpassed by a homemade pandemic sweeping it off the face of the Earth by either killing everyone in the wink of an eye or by turning regular people into braindead hordes of walking dead, driven by the urge to kill and maim. The aggressive drive latent in all humans continues to exist in these infected, except it is the only urge left. All categories of morality have ceased to be. The virus serves the purpose of an invasion: it enters our countries, our homes, and deprives us of all that identifies us with this home. It takes our culture by eradicating all people upholding it; it deletes all structure by killing off the government that once structured our lives. A new structure needs to be established as soon as possible to bind and to protect those unharmed by the pandemic, and to restore societal order. Maybe the viral pandemic serves as a revolution, an invasion bestowing the chance upon the remaining few to start over?
The elements contributing to the erection of a functional society that both regulates communal life and functions to the well-being of most, if not all, members are dialogue and interaction, consent, delegation of responsibility, trust, the notion of togetherness and the collective awareness of present and future. A society that is unaware of its present needs and unable to foresee its future requirements (procreation, nourishment, shelter) is bound to perish. The basic principle of any form of government must be to manage resources, so the community can endure and be able to establish a future for them.
I concur with Sigmund Freud’s notion that overcoming the hostility of nature by group effort is civilization’s main purpose. The order created by civilization is unceasingly rejected by human nature, Freud states, because it always seeks satisfaction of its own pleasures. Therefore it is necessary to offer some kind of gratification, substituting the satisfaction of pleasure with leisure time, wages, and security. These only partially serve their purpose, but suffice to ensure the longevity of the civilized group as a whole as well as its members. This desire to pursue selfish pleasures is never entirely abandoned however, and when renunciation fails and it returns to the surface of society, Freud refers to this as the ‘return of the repressed’, the sordid side of social order. Although the general goal is happiness, this cannot be achieved without restrictions. Due to the fact that aggressiveness is part of human nature for example, Freud postulates the need to suppress this and other selfish urges in humans in order to establish a working society. He contends that “the creation of a great human community would be most successful if no attention had to be paid to the happiness of the individual."(Freud 87)
Arguably, the repressed returns and reigns when all social order is abolished, for example by means of a viral pandemic that erases the majority of humans or turns them into something other than themselves. The inherent evil Freud postulates within humans rears its ugly head when all restrictions are gone, and humans have to revert to their own responsibility. Humanity’s dark side is not only present in the post-apocalyptic society of survivors, it is also personified in the infected. Grouped together as a massive threat, they are reduced to those human emotions that lead to society’s collapse: mindless aggression, rage, brutality. "The problem before us is how to get rid of the greatest hindrance of civilization - namely, the constitutional inclination of human beings to be aggressive towards one another." (Freud 1969, 89) This intrinsic human aggression is exponentiated by the virus, wherefore the repression of aggressivity in the survivors for the sake of solidarity is crucial.
Individualism vs. Togetherness
In 28 Days Later, the protagonist Jim is immediately portrayed as a foresighted individual. As soon as he awakens from his coma and realizes the askance state of the world around him, he begins to collect food and drinks from the hospital’s lobby, as if instinct tells him to stock up on nourishment. He goes out to seek other people, and finds the infected instead. When he encounters two survivors, Mark and Selena, he refuses to believe there is no more government, and demands to go out alone in order to search for aid. Mark and Selena understand the importance of togetherness in their situation, insisting that “you never go out alone” because “no one ever comes back” from going out by themselves. Rules of this sort are communicated in order to protect each other, and once a rule is broken, this is punished by an onslaught of infected. As Jim lights a candle in the darkness of his dead parents’ house, the house is overrun by the menacing creatures, and Mark’s life is lost in the process. Only airtightly planned systems ensure survival, and a strong community can contribute to this. The young girl Hannah and her father Frank join the group to build a functional family-like system, and as they go out to find the soldiers broadcasting about the “answer to infection”, they grow together. But this bond is broken when Frank is infected and has to be killed; none of the communities formed in this movie seem to last.
The soldiers’ aim is to rebuild society, so they claim. As it turns out, the radio transmission’s intent is to lure women into the camp in order to raise the troop’s morale and to help them rebuild, since “women mean a future”. Due to the fact that the women are to be forced to engage in sexual activity with the men and then raise their children, this system is destined to fail. Denying women the right to their own body, and instead expecting them to sacrifice themselves for the good of society is a type of overboard welfarism that cannot last. This dystopian vision of a future family is quickly destroyed by Jim, who runs amuck in the garrison; the only difference between him and the zombies is the fact that he is not infected. His rage is out of control, and he annihilates the solider’s community just as the virus once obliterated the general society.
Jim, Selena, and Hannah return to living by themselves. The film pleads for survival in small groups, since human nature cannot be trusted to establish a stable community made up of a multitude of facets. The fact that a plane flies across, signalling that help is on the way, underlines this view: they are being saved because they stayed away from large groups. There is no safety in numbers in this world.
Once the population has been decimated considerably, the basics of society need to be spotlighted. If the individual does not consider himself a meaningful part of a community, he will not feel the need to contribute, as Ferdinand Tönnies argued in Community and Civil Society. In order for a small, post-apocalyptic community to function, selfless action and a firm belief in a higher purpose – in this case, the collectivity’s future - is required. Instrumentalizing individuals to make ends meet will destroy such a small-sized society. Survival is only possible when survivors live in small and independent subdivisions. The larger a group in size, the more potential for strife emerges out of conflicting interests. Diffusion of responsibility makes it difficult to restore order in large groups, as can be seen in the garrison town. Even if Major West in 28 Days Later had planned for society to be re-built on democratic principles, he is unable to control his men and keep them placid by promising them democracy.
‘With us or against us’ is a motto of many post-apocalyptic horror movies in the same vein as addressing the dichotomy of healthy versus infected. Borders need to be erected to keep the good in and the bad out. Instead of focusing on individual needs, a strong sense of community is mandatory for a functioning post-apocalyptic society to develop. The cooperation of citizens necessary to build a new society negates any type of individualism. The latter would only serve to disrupt the remaining humans’ relationship even further. If everyone looked out solely for themselves, then they might at some point begin to regard each other as enemies. Groups can plan more efficiently, and cooperating on building the foundations of a new society as soon as possible after the downfall of the old society can ensure survival more productively than individualism. However, as stated above, large groups tend to be dysfunctional, which is why the only way to structure a post-apocalyptic society is to divide the survivors into subdivisions that may or may not co-operate loosely without inhabiting the same area.
‘Every man for himself’ is therefore pitted against the team effort of re-socialization. Both approaches to survival are functional, as long as individualism remains just that, instead of evolving into hatred and distrust and thereby aggression towards others. The downside of individualism is the lack of a future: while the group can plan not only their ressources (e.g. by building silos, sowing crops, raising livestock, finding shelter from nature), they can also plan the procreation of their group, thereby guaranteeing a future, which the individual is incapable of. I Am Legend’s virologist Dr. Robert Neville in appears to be the last man on Earth due to his immunity to both the virus’ airborne and contact strain. His only companion is his loyal dog Sam. Neville fervently searches for a cure, testing different compounds on infected rats and even humans. He lives in a hermetical system to shield himself from the diseased masses, his house barricaded and stocked with nonperishables. Generators arrange for electricity and hot water, and pre-taped television programs give him a sense of community. Every day, Dr. Robert Neville sits on the same spot on the pier, hoping that survivors who heard his broadcast will find him. Up until the last minute, he believes he can “fix this”, he can “save everybody”.
When Sam is infected and he is forced to kill him, he loses all hope and attempts suicide. While he subsists just fine in his current situation, he forgets how to be a social animal. When Anna and Ethan arrive just in time to avert his suicide, saving him from the infected, we come to realize that he is completely incompetent in dealing with other people. He is antisocial and aggressive, and easily irritated when confronted with requests. Slowly he has to learn to re-integrate himself into a group, but this is never meant to be carried out to the end. Neville not only sacrifices himself like a martyr to save two healthy humans who will bring the cure to the remaining survivors, he also gives up on communitarianism. The imposed individualism he lived barricaded his return to society. Due to Neville’s lack of human contact (caused by the general lack of human surroundings), social re-integration has failed.
The makeshift society in the soldiers’ provisional garrison town in 28 Days Later is also an example of a failed re-organization and federation. While they do provide shelter from the threat and seem to plan accordingly, they are a misogynistic, quasi-fascistic community of men, which renders this society unfit for survival. It may not be necessary to distribute legislative powers equally among the population, but this endeavor only functions if no one is suppressed or worse yet physically harmed by a dominant group. Their refusal to treat others as equals proves their incompetence and unwillingness to cooperate in order to survive in a way that stabilizes their society. Instead of coming to the aid of their fellow men, the latter actually have to rely on the enemy to ‘save’ them from the disturbed soliders.
Plato insisted that all forms of government are subject to constant decline, moving from aristocracy to timocracy, then to oligarchy, followed by democracy, and finally to tyranny. If this holds true, then the form of government chosen by the remaining survivors hardly matters at all and is not a definitive chance to start over. As stated before, focusing on supplying the basic demands may just be the groundwork needed for any formation, and instead of planning which exact form of government is most desirable in the future, said future must be consolidated. This might be a difficult proposition, but maybe it does not matter so much who makes the rules, as long as all participants’ basic needs are fulfilled. The ideal of a perfect basic democracy will not be accomplishable right away. Both films suggest that the erection of a government or any kind of political system is not the most pertinent action in these crises. The post-apocalyptic society can only flourish if it subscribes to moral standards that “govern interpersonal relationships or call for a concern with others’ welfare or a concern with human good and harm”. Moral standards with a “relevant social function”, like “making cooperation and social life run more smoothly, maximizing human good, and minimizing harm to humans” (Copp 1995, 79) may be more important as a basis than finding a distinguished political form. Moral codes need to be re-established or re-evaluated in terms of social harmony.
It is imperative that all individuals the society is comprised of understand the need for these standards, and desire for them to be widely accepted. If non-conformity regarding basic moral standards persists, coexistence becomes impossible. The garrison town in 28 Days Later is a good example of this. Jim, Selena and Hannah’s moral code differs from the soldiers’ (which is to be considered a moral code despite its inhumaneness, as philosopher David Copp insists), and if neither side is willing to subscribe and conform to a common code, they cannot subsist peacefully. Thus moral common grounds are required, an agreement upon certain rules and codes, which are easier to decide upon in subdivisions. Moral differences cannot be tolerated when lives are at stake, and large groups raise the danger of dissent. Of course, a tyrant could rule a large, heterogeneous group with an iron fist, keeping the remaining humans under his firm grip and thereby suppressing discord. However, since we are striving for a harmonious post-apocalyptic society, a moral consensus endures longer than abiding by the rules through coercion, for fear of punishment.
The moral standards of the ‘other’ society, the infected, is opposed to that of the uninfected, and subject to violent proselytization, although David Copp claims that the desire to proselytize is not part of moral standards, and that the desire for currency of one’s moral standard in society does not cause intolerance of moral differences. In this case however, these boundaries are lifted when the infection erases all sociability and human nature in general, installing only hostility.
Society’s sordid side
As the title implies, the end of civilization in 28 Days Later has occurred recently, leaving no time for either infected or uninfected to really adapt or organize. In I Am Legend, three years after the outbreak, it seems as though the only existing society that is left are the infected, who by instinct horde themselves together and learn to exist apart from what they used to be. One might say they have adapted to their situation and used their reduced brain function and identity to establish their model of a functioning society.
The infected have not died by starvation, instead they have formed a hierarchical community. Their ability to communicate is demonstrated when the strongest and most aggressive male utters noises to send out his legions as well as his attack dogs. They are capable of anticipatory planning, as seen when they set a trap for Neville that resembles the trap he set to capture one of them. So even though their urges and their keen sense of smell attracting them to blood may seem primal, instantly reminiscent of animal instincts, their brain function exceeds this level. Not only do they recognize each other, they are also capable of emotions. When Neville apprehends a female for testing, one of the males exposes himself to sunlight (which could kill him instantly) out of rage and possibly despair. Neville’s mistake is his negligence of this fact. He misjudges it as a sign of their ultimate “social de-evolution”, thinking they are ignoring their survival instincts due to starvation while they are in fact displaying signs of self-awareness.
The society of infected is not the only remaining community, as we later find out that there are survivors after all, who have fenced themselves off in a small community far out in the countryside, trying to find a cure. Federation was functional in this case, where the remaining few have grouped together to re-build society. Anna and Ethan arrive to bring this cure. The movie thereby ends on a bittersweet note, as the infected side with their newly found community will be invaded by the survivors, who might try to heal them from their disease. Or, depending on your viewpoint, it ends on a positive note: the survivors are able to take back their domain, and the infected will be cured or just expunged.
The new ‘order’ that has been established by the infected masses in I Am Legend and 28 Days Later is obviously not an order per se, it is a general state of mayhem. However, the world has been overrun by the infected, who are now dominant. The survivors are hiding in small groups from this raging mob whose only interest it is to ‘convert’ them to their ‘system’. It is quite interesting how antipodal arrangements in groups arise from the pandemic apocalypse.
The concept makes even more sense when paralleled to political development. Imagine the following scenario: a group of individuals deems the current system to be ineffectual, and acts upon their separatist impulse by erecting an isolated community. This community is governed differently than the rest of the country (let’s say they based it upon anarchistic theories) and is therefore seen as a threat to the existing government, which refuses to accept this commune as an independent ‘state’ without question. Since the commune will legally still be expected to abide by federal and national law, there will be violent struggle on both sides. The commune will be expected to renounce its ideas and return ruefully to the state it shunned, but it will most likely defend itself by force. In the movies’ case, a truce cannot be established by seperating the two spheres of influence, since one is purely instinct-driven and set on gaining the upper hand. Also, the films show the infected, whom I have labelled as “separatists” to have become the majority. The standards of normativity have been reversed.
The infected in I Am Legend as well as 28 Days Later however never chose to be turned into an angry mob of zombies, but they grew into a new community. They have since forgotten their old selves, their identities, and their aggressions focus on the uninfected, while they never hurt their own kind. It seems as if they are content in their situation. They have actually managed to establish a formerly-human form of counter-culture, which unfortunately is functional for a rather limited amount of time due to their methodical incapability.
While the infected do represent a society of sorts, their lack of higher brain function inhibits any type of planning on their parts. They will run out of nourishment, and perish rather sooner than later. This is implicitly addressed by 28 Days Later, when Major West states that since the infected are only driven by their aggressive impulses, they are not cultivating plants, raising livestock or building shelter, which is why they have no future. They are also incapable of procreation due to their lack of brain function, or, respectively, due to the fact that their bodies are infected and/or dead. It is safe to say that the infected are not even close to being as instinctual as animals; if they were, they would follow their nesting instinct and seek shelter. This ensures the survival of a properly functional and well-organized and uninfected postlapsarian society, making a communitarian disposition highly valuable.
The infected society imagined in I Am Legend is bound to last longer, since their intelligence level is high enough to allow them to adapt to new situations. They feed off the wild animals that roam the streets and have been inventive enough to survive for three years. For the survivors to reclaim their world, this society of menaces needs to be taken over and ‘converted’, or for a more neutral spin, cured.
Whether the infected will be injected with a cure as is implied in I Am Legend’s ending or they starve to death as in 28 Days Later, the world will go back to its routine, and for this reason it is essential for the remaining survivors to agree upon moral standards: “People killing people”, as Major West states in concordance with Sigmund Freud, is the normal state of the world.
Bibliography
Copp, David. Morality, Normativity, and Society. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Freud, Sigmund. Civilization and its Discontents. Edited by James Strachey. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1969.
Plato. The Republic. New York: Penguin, 2007.
Tönnies, Ferdinand. Community and Civil Society. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Filmography
I Am Legend. Dir. Francis Lawrence. 2007. DVD. Warner Home Video.
28 Days Later. Dir. Danny Boyle. 2002. DVD. Twentieth Century Fox.
Originally published in Jura Gentium Cinema
