Apocalypticism is a powerful brew of eschatological belief and political imagination that is extremely persuasive. This article addresses the intersections between apocalyptic rhetoric and the technical communication of risk, disease outbreak, and disaster preparedness by analyzing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s zombie apocalypse preparedness campaign. Specifically, I argue that the framing of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s campaign relies on and extends problematic iterations of apocalypticism and undermines the educational objectives of disaster preparedness and response. I conclude with suggestions for how technical communicators designing public awareness and outreach campaigns can use existential risk rhetoric for engagement without succumbing to the pernicious side effects of apocalypticism.
AngeliE. L. (2012).
Metaphors in the rhetoric of pandemic flu: Electronic media coverage of H1N1 and swine flu. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication,
42(3), 203–222. doi:10.2190/TW.42.3.b
2.
BoiarskyC. (2017).
Effects of communicating with emails and texts in risk communication: Information poor, writer-based, a-synchronous. Technical Communication,
64(3), 194–209.
3.
BowdonM. A. (2014).
Tweeting an ethos: Emergency messaging, social media, and teaching technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly,
23, 35–54. doi:10.1080/10572252.2014.850853
4.
Center for Preparedness and Response. (2018, October 11). Zombie preparedness for educators: History. Retrieved from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website: https://www.cdc.gov/cpr/zombie/educate-history.htm
5.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). Preparedness 101: Zombie pandemic. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/cpr/zombies/#/page/1
ColtonJ. S.HolmesS. (2018).
A social justice theory of active equality for technical communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication,
48(1), 4–30. doi:10.1177/0047281616647803
9.
CrowleyS. (2006). Toward a civil discourse: Rhetoric and fundamentalism.
Pittsburgh, PA:
University of Pittsburgh Press.
10.
CuomoC. J. (1996).
War is not just an event: Reflections on the significance of everyday violence. Hypatia,
11(4), 30–45. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/3810390
11.
DaveA. (2015).
Categories as rhetorical barriers and the federal response to hurricane Katrina. Technical Communication Quarterly,
24(3), 258–286. doi:10.1080/10572252.2015.1044121
12.
DingH. (2009).
Rhetorics of alternative media in an emerging epidemic: SARS, censorship, and extra-institutional risk communication. Technical Communication Quarterly,
18(4), 327–350. doi:10.10.1080/10572250903149548
13.
DingH.ZhangJ. (2010).
Social media and participatory risk communication during the H1N1 flu epidemic: A comparative study of the United States and China. China Media Research,
6(4), 80–91.
14.
FraustinoJ. D.MaL. (2015).
CDC’s use of social media and humor in a risk campaign – “Preparedness 101: Zombie apocalypse”. Journal of Applied Communication Research,
43(2), 222–241. doi:10.1080/00909882.2015.1019544
GomelE. (2000).
The plague of utopias: Pestilence and the apocalyptic body. Twentieth Century Literature,
46(4), 405–433. doi:10.2307/827840
17.
GrabillJ. T.SimmonsM. (1998).
Toward a critical rhetoric of risk communication: Producing citizens and the role of technical communicators. Technical Communication Quarterly,
7(4), 415–441. doi:10.1080/10572259809364640
HorsleyJ. S.BarkerR. T. (2002).
Toward a synthesis model for crisis communication in the public sector. Journal of Business and Technical Communication,
16(4), 406–440. doi:10.1177/105065102236525
20.
HoughtonF.Del MonteK.GlessnerD.GoffJ.HopkinsE.LoneyK., . . . TomsJ. (2016).
Zombie pandemic preparedness: A cautionary observation. New Zealand Medical Journal,
129(1432), 97–99.
21.
JonesN. N. (2016).
The technical communicator as advocate: Integrating a social justice approach in technical communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication,
46(3), 342–361. doi:10.1177/0047281616639472
22.
JonesN. N.MooreK. R.WaltonR. (2016).
Disrupting the past to disrupt the future: An antenarrative of technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly,
25(4), 211–229. doi:10.1080/10572252.2016.1224655
23.
KatzS. B. (1992).
The ethic of expediency: Classical rhetoric, technology, and the holocaust. College English,
54(3), 255–275. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/378062
24.
KatzS. B.MillerC. R. (1996). The low-level radioactive waste siting controversy in North Carolina: Toward a rhetorical model of risk communication. In C. G. Herndl & S. C. Brown (Eds.), Green culture: Environmental rhetoric in contemporary America (pp. 111–140). Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.
25.
KellerC. (1996). Apocalypse now and then: A feminist guide to the end of the world.
Boston, MA:
Beacon Press.
LongoB. (1998).
An approach for applying cultural study theory to technical writing research. Technical Communication Quarterly,
7(1), 53–73. doi:10.1080/10572259809364617
30.
MaysR.WaltonR.LemosM.HaselkornM. (2014). Valuing what works: Success factors in disaster preparedness. An independent analysis of Red Cross/Red Crescent practitioner needs. PreventionWeb. Retrieved from http://www.preventionweb.net/publications/view/40938
O’LearyS. D. (1994). Arguing the apocalypse: A theory of millennial rhetoric.
New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
34.
O’LearyS. D. (1997).
Apocalyptic argument and the anticipation of catastrophe: The prediction of risk and the risks of prediction. Argumentation,
11(3), 293–313. doi:10.1023/A:1007704101604
35.
PetersenE. J.WaltonR. (2018).
Bridging analysis and action: How feminist scholarship can inform the social justice turn. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 32(4), 1–31. doi:10.1177/1050651918780192
36.
PorterJ. E. (2013). How can rhetoric theory inform the practice of technical communication? In J. Johnson-Eilola & S. A. Selber (Eds.), Solving problems in technical communication (pp. 125–145). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
37.
PottsL. (2014). Social media in disaster response: How experience architects can build for participation.
New York, NY:
Routledge.
38.
QuinbyL. (1999a). Millennial seduction: A skeptic confronts apocalyptic culture.
Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
RaschW. (2003).
Human rights as geopolitics: Carl Schmitt and the legal form of American supremacy. Cultural Critique, 54, 120–147. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/1354661
41.
ReamerD. (2015). “
Risk = probability × consequences”: Probability, uncertainty, and the nuclear regulatory commission’s evolving risk communication rhetoric. Technical Communication Quarterly,
24(4), 349–373. doi:10.1080/10572252.2015.1079334
42.
ScottJ. B.LongoB.WillsK. V. (2006). Why cultural studies? Expanding technical communication’s critical toolbox. In J. B. Scott, B. Longo, & K. V. Wills (Eds.) Critical power tools: Technical communication and cultural studies (pp. 1–19). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
43.
SimmonsW. M. (2007). Participation and power: Civic discourse in environmental policy decisions.
Buffalo, NY:
State University of New York Press.
44.
SlackJ. D.MillerD. J.DoakJ. (1993).
The technical communicator as author: Meaning, power, authority. Journal of Business and Technical Communication,
7(1), 12–36. doi:10.1177/1050651993007001002
WelhausenC. A. (2015).
Visualizing a non-pandemic: Considerations for communicating public health risks in intercultural contexts. Technical Communication,
62(4), 244–257.
