This article analyses the first seasons of two interconnected AMC series, ‘The Walking Dead’ and ‘Fear the Walking Dead’. Our analysis focuses on how these shows frame the emergence of a bio-risk, how the leading characters deal with the experience of bio-risks, and how they develop (or fail at developing) strategies to overcome, or, if this renders impossible, to tame such bio-risk. We have used a Grounded Theory approach to analyse the data, frame our analysis, and create a theoretical understanding of the ways these shows present bio-risks, and of the ways they depict the fictional experience of living a bio-emergency, without any official, institutional plan regarding to how to deal with it.
BeerD (2016) Fiction and social theory: E-special introduction. Theory, Culture & Society33(7–8): 409–419.
6.
BishopKW (2010) American Zombie Gothic: The rise and fall (and rise) of the walking dead in popular culture. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc.
7.
BourdieuP (2013) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
BrowningJE (2011) Survival horrors, survival spaces: Tracing the modern zombie (cine) myth. Horror Studies2(1): 41–59.
9.
CalhounC (1992) Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
10.
CanavanG (2010) We are the walking dead: Race, time and survival in zombie narrative. Extrapolation51(3): 431–453.
11.
ChoJYLeeE (2014) Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: Similarities and differences. The Qualitative Report19(32): 1–20. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol19/iss32/2
12.
ChristieDLauroSJ (eds) (2011) Better Off Dead: The Evolution of the Zombie as Post-Human. New York: Fordham University Press.
13.
ColeDHMcGinnisMD (2015) Elinor Ostrom and the Bloomington School of Political Economy: Resource Governance, vol. 2. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
FiskeJ (2011) Introduction to Communication Studies. London: Routledge.
18.
FoucaultM (1995) Discipline and Punish. New York: Vintage Books.
19.
HabermasJ (1974) The public sphere: An encyclopedia article (1964). New German Critique3: 49–55.
20.
HsiehH-FShannonSE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9): 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
21.
LuhmannN (2017) Trust and Power. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
22.
ManghaniSPiperASimonsJ (eds) (2006) Images: A Reader. London: SAGE.
23.
MortonSBygraveS (2008) Foucault in an Age of Terror: Essays on Biopolitics and the Defence of Society: Rethinking Biopolitics and the Defence of Society. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
24.
MulveyL (1989) Visual and Other Pleasures. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
25.
PopeCZieblandSMaysN (2000) Qualitative research in health care. Analysing qualitative data. British Medical Journal320: 114–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7227.114
26.
RoseG (2016) Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to Researching with Visual Materials. London: SAGE.
27.
SchützA (1964) The well-informed citizen. In: SchutzA (ed.) Collected Papers, vol. 2. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 120–134.
StiglitzJE (1977) The theory of local public goods. In: FeldsteinMSInmanRP (eds) The Economics of Public Services (International Economic Association Conference Volumes). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 274–333.
30.
StraussACorbinJM (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
31.
TurnerV (1979) Frame, flow and reflection: Ritual and drama as public liminality. Japanese Journal of Religious Studies6(4): 465–499.
32.
WebbJByrnandS (2008) Some kind of virus: The zombie as body and as trope. Body & Society14(2): 83–98.
