Discrimination and Inequality

Whilst telling the story of undoubtedly the most influential scientific discoveries in man’s history, Ziegler concurrently frames the era in which Rosalind strives as one fraught with sexism and antisemitism. Franklin struggles to be taken seriously in the context of the academic setting in which she finds herself – a predominately white, male-dominated workplace. It isn’t just that Rosalind herself is singled out, but the institution in which she is trying to breach is, as other academic schools of the era, predominantly male. Rosalind becomes acutely aware of this through many small restrictions that are inadvertently placed upon her by the various rules and regulations of the college, such as the rule that only males can dine in the senior common room and, likewise, Caspar reminds her that the United States’ Princeton University and Harvard all have restrictions upon women. Although this in itself is not enough to interfere with her studies, it contributes to a long line of consistent events that chip away at her feeling as though she doesn’t belongs. The strife that Rosalind undergoes is not to be taken lightly, arguably it can be seen to be the single reason why her career is derailed.

Emerging from World War 2, some members of the allied forces had a warped dislike for those they believed had been the root cause of the war and, as such, many immigrants became displaced in the communities they had moved to for safety. Rosalind is confronted by the ignorance of antisemitic behaviours throughout the play as she is seen to be the ‘other’ and is systematically excluded from much of the goings on. When Rosalind remarks that she is unimpressed by Wilkins’ work on the Manhattan Project during the war, which saw the construction of the nuclear atom bomb, Wilkins is quick to suggest that ‘you lot’ (p. 15), meaning the Jewish population, should be thankful that nuclear war saved them and brought about a cessation to the conflict. The manner in which he refers to the Jews, and by proxy, Rosalind, confirms his belief that she is not a peer and that they can never work on equal standing together. As the brash American, Watson feeds into this notion also when he says the ‘Jews really can be ornery’ (p. 40), grossly underestimating the difficulties Rosalind faces on a daily basis. In reality, although characters like Wilkins and Watson claim to be on the side of the allies fighting against the injustices, their narrow and often cruel worldview confirms an ingrained prejudice.

Whilst Wilkins might be forgiven for standing by and tolerating the antisemitic slurs that Watson and others visit on Rosalind in her absence, he represents a society complicit in their attitudes toward the Jewish population and, largely, anyone that differed from themselves. As their frustration over Rosalind’s tenacity deepens, so does their assault on her and the university research rooms become what so many workplaces would have ended up being for young, aspiring women of the time – fraught with toxic masculinity and inequality.

Rosalind exacerbates this notion of being the ‘other’ by continually ‘not being there’ (p. 25) when her colleagues refer to her – although her spontaneous trips to the European wilderness in order to recharge are perfectly reasonable, Watson’s disdain as he refers sarcastically to her being ‘too busy snow-shoeing’ and ‘enjoying things like… nature and small woodland creatures’ (p. 25) belittles her as a colleague of equal standing. Similarly, Wilkins furthers the notion that women are simplistic beings by advising that they can be easily won over with frivolity, suggesting to Gosling that ‘kindness always works with women… I’m a trifle concerned for you if you didn’t know that’ (p. 33) as he gifts Rosalind a chocolate bar to make amends over their fractured professional relationship. Although his insistence that she (and by extension, women) can so easily be placated is overturned by Rosalind who berates him for trying to ‘win me [her] over’ (p. 34), there can be no doubt that the men of the text, for the most part, believe women to be pliant.

Moreover, in an effort to ostracize her, the men’s consistent mis-reference to her is passed off as a social faux-pas, when the reality is singularly more damning. By using passive aggressive references to ‘Rosy’ (p. 42), Wilkins cleaves a chasm between them that never truly heals and although it may not be deliberate, he undermines her achievements as a scientist in her own right and creates a divide in their workplace. Although Rosalind’s witty retort to Caspar after he omits the reference to doctor in her title is obvious enough, she soon tires of correcting the behaviour of the men and their diminutives of her and. thus, she becomes precisely what they imagined she was anyway – submissive.

Perhaps the most disappointing, albeit predictable, shift of attitudes occurs on the rare occasion when Rosalind defends herself and begins to ironically call for the men to celebrate. She is immediately dismissed as ‘behaving a bit like a banshee’ (p. 47) and her flamboyance is stifled by Wilkins berating her for being carefree. Her admittance that she fervently prays that her ‘leap of faith every day’ (p. 48) of coming to work in such a toxic environment will ‘all be worth it, [and] that it will all ultimately mean something’ (p. 47) sits uneasily with Wilkins, who calls her ‘unspeakable[ly] difficult’ (p. 48) and downplays her confession that her working day is fraught with difficulty. In the same way, although the very nature of their craft means that hard work is valued above any other attribute, Wilkins and Watson commend its presence in men but condemn the same trait in women.

Ziegler suffuses the action of the play with consistent instances of Rosalind being reminded of her femininity and assuming that she is therefore, less capable, less intelligent and, most damning of all, less trustworthy. By using Rosalind’s struggle, Ziegler’s text suggests that discrimination and inequality (particularly in the workplace) can greatly impede the success and potential of an individual.

Discrimination and Inequality Quotes

‘But how can we get anything done if she’s constantly making me feel as though I’m being impolite to her? No, worse – offensive.’ (Wilkins) p. 32

‘When we shook hands, her handshake was far too firm. There’s nothing gentle, nothing remotely tender about her. She’s a cipher where a woman should be.’ (Watson) p. 43

‘Which leads me to believe that you’re here to insult me. That or you’re not aware of the fact that you’re insulting me, which is, perhaps worse. Do you think that if you demoralise me I won’t get it done?’ (Rosalind to Watson) p. 52

ROSALIND: I mean, if I’d only…
GOSLING: Been more careful around the beam.
WATSON: Collaborated
CRICK: Been more open, less wary. Less self-protective.
CASPAR: Or more wary, more self-protective
WATSON: Been a better scientist.
CASPAR: Been willing to take more risks, make models, go forward without the certainty of proof.
CRICK: Been friendlier.
GOSLING: Or born at another time.
CRICK: Or born a man.
(The men in chorus discussing Rosalind’s shortcomings) p. 80

Chance and Choices

In as much as it is about discrimination, inequality and the perseverance of people to excel in scientific discoveries, Ziegler’s text is also about the control characters have over their lives. Whilst placing blame at this late stage is arguably futile, it was choice that led Rosalind to delay publishing or sharing her findings with her colleagues. Whilst privacy of intellectual property should never be dishonoured, Ziegler shows how human choices can often unfold in ways that could never be predicted. By utilising theatrical devices such as flashbacks and omnipotent narration, Ziegler reinforces the notion that although individuals do have agency over themselves and their actions, chance and fate are mercurial forces that remain unpredictable.

Whilst commenting on the action taking place on stage, Crick and Watson surmise that the ‘force greater than she [Rosalind] was’ (p. 25) was fate, and they callously pass off their involvement in her losing credit for the discovery. The sense of dramatisation that is congruent to live theatre is furthered with the serendipitous meeting between Wilkins and Watson at Naples. Following a demonstration by Wilkins, the two meet and discuss how ‘exciting’ (p. 28) it is to be taking part in the race of such a scientific magnitude. Even Wilkins, who is prone to attributing all success entirely to his own merits, relinquishes some of the timing to ‘an element of fate’ (p. 28) at having being born at the time when fortune favoured the bold and discovery was encouraged. Even the underlying familiarity between the two scientists, and Watson asking ‘have we me before?’ (p. 28) suggests that their affiliation is kismet. Whether Ziegler was making this inference, or merely suggesting that the older Wilkins saw his younger self in Watson, does not take away from how the plot is intertwined by chance, choice and at times, coincidence.

By allowing fate and the promise of notability guide his decisions, Wilkins is unable to see past his ambition and at the error of his ways. In his narration, he haltingly justifies his decision to ally with Watson with ‘…maybe the two of us would have… maybe later my name would have… rolled off the tongue’ (p. 30); a sad soliloquy explaining how he hoped for notoriety at any cost. Even with the insight that he gains as the story progresses, Wilkins’ repentance is stunted and although he soon comes to realise that ‘there comes a point in life after which one really can’t begin again’ (pp. 59-60), he denies Rosalind a direct expression of regret and he and Rosalind settle in agreement that what has been done cannot be undone and that they both must come to terms with ‘the decisions you’ve [they’ve] made and then…’ (p. 83) either live with them ‘or spend your [their] whole life [lives] in regret’ (p. 83).

The nature of what the characters were pursuing meant that the fate of their findings rested on a precipice, and competition seemed the only way of succeeding.

Chance and Choices Quotes

‘It’s just incredibly exciting… to be born at the right time. There’s an element of fate to it, don’t you think? And I don’t believe in fate.’ (Watson to Wilkins at the Naples Symposium) p. 28

‘Maybe none of us really knew what we were searching for. What we wanted. Maybe success is as illusory and elusive… always just out of reach…’ (Crick) p. 50

‘For a moment, everything stopped. Different ways our lives could go hovered in the air around us.’ (Rosalind finds that she cannot bring herself to trust and discuss her research with Wilkins) p. 71

Nature (Time and Sex)

Ziegler’s play is celebrated for much but a primary reason for its resonance in audiences is her use of temporal fluidity. In addition to telling the story of a brilliant woman in a time of great discovery, Ziegler disconnects her characters from the linear movement through the years and invites them to comment on their own and one another’s pasts, presents and futures. This device serves the dual purpose of examining the crucial moments in the narrative when choice and chance interplay, whilst addressing the overarching issue of men’s power over events. The choral-like interjections of the male characters hurry along the story, reflecting the true nature of Rosalind’s race to not only solve the riddle of the structure of DNA but to do so before her untimely death. Whilst time might be seen as the enemy in this case, the characters fluctuate between embracing its tendency to propel them on and a single-minded resignation to it. Rosalind is certainly in no great rush when she first arrives at King’s College, in fact her meticulous attention to detail often means she appears too ‘wary’ (p. 80) and her capabilities are brought into question on more than one occasion. On a personal level, when Rosalind echoes Wilkins’ earlier epiphany that it’s impossible to ‘begin again’ (p. 83), and with the sudden realisation that she has lost any hope of getting credibility for her discovery, she believes she has wasted her time on Earth.

Despite being keen to conduct her work, Rosalind recognises the significance of taking time to recharge and decompress. Her spontaneous adventures into nature are the cause of much tension among her professional colleagues, but her need to immerse herself in nature seems to stem from her adventurous childhood and delivers her moments of clarity. But unlike the majestic natural scenes that she draws her strength from, Rosalind is felled by time; born in the wrong time, competing against time to solve the mystery of her project, and her time in the world being cut short. In a way, Ziegler retrieves time back for Rosalind on stage, by allowing her to lament her regrets in front of a sympathetic audience.

Allowing Rosalind to reclaim the spotlight at the play’s denouement is not the only time when Ziegler turns the tables and empowers her female protagonist against former injustices. Although at first, there is a sense of asexuality about Rosalind, her fallibility against love is soon shown to be as real as anyone else’s. Her fleeting relationship with Don Caspar illustrates a more human element to Rosalind and rebuts the men’s summation of her as ‘a woman whose exterior mirrored her seriousness’ (p. 57), and instead paints her as a person with inclinations and fancies – in effect, humanising what her colleagues have dehumanised. Whether it is Wilkins’ cloaked attraction as he gazes at Rosalind on stage and suggests there is more to ‘the shape of something’ (p. 41) that might indicate its ‘interior workings’ (p. 41), or Gosling’s sycophancy, attraction between the sexes is an undercurrent in the play. It seems none of the men are particularly adept at charming women; with Crick’s unstable marriage and his penchant to ogle other women, and the pernicious Wilkins floundering when speaking to the opposite sex, success in the field of romance seems unattainable. Caspar and Rosalind’s ease can be contributed to them both sharing a tragic Jewish ancestry, and neither feeling threatened by the other. Caspar’s attraction to Rosalind seemed to begin earlier than admitted as seen in his provocative description of the moment of discovery when he juxtaposes Rosalind’s separation of the molecular strands to separating a man and woman at the time of copulation – both natural states but awesomely ground-breaking to achieve.

Nature Quotes

‘I saw how the males could court the females, singing the most elaborate songs. Sometimes the female joins in and it’s a duet. Sometimes he sings only for her.’ (Watson observing nature) p. 29

‘…it turned out that, before, they’d been looking at one on top of the other, like… well, a man and woman making love, at that point when one body is indistinguishable from the other… but now Rosalind had discovered how to separate man and woman, how to brush them off, get them out of bed and really see them, naked before her.’ (Caspar narrating at the moment of discovery) pp. 37-8

‘We lose. In the end, we lose. The work is never finished and in the meantime our bodies wind down, tick slower, sputter out.’ (Rosalind) p. 78

‘…with a little bit more time, I like to think I would have [discovered the solution to DNA structure]… so then why didn’t I get those days?’ (Rosalind to Wilkins) pp. 79-80

‘It’s the tricky thing about time, and memory. I tell my grandchildren: whole worlds of things we wish had happened are as real in our heads as what actually did occur.’ (Caspar) p. 81

Connection with Science

Unlike most other ambitions, the pursuit of explorative science is at times overwhelming and without reward. Rosalind uses the metaphor of a mountain to explain the feeling that she had that the ‘vastness was made for me [her]’ (p. 25) and that she, like the others, considered succession of it as a challenge rather than a chore.
Ziegler intersperses language throughout the play that paints the scientists as obsessive, including seeing their instruments as ‘extensions of our [their] own bodies’ (p. 11) and therefore a craft that is essential for them to master. Wielding such instruments as x-ray photography, which in its day was the epitome of modern science, would have induced a sense of power among those using it and the one thing that all the characters share is that they live and breathe their work – ‘No. I don’t sleep. There’s too much to think about. You know there is’ (p. 53).

What is interesting to note is that although their discovery will change the face of genetics for all time, the men only ever consider the rewards and how this discovery will benefit them. Their mercenary inclinations lie in direct contrast to what a Nobel Peace Award is traditionally gifted for and their success is reduced down to the menial, such as the acquisition of ‘large homes in the countryside… [and] suits tailored to fit…’ (p. 65). In parallel, Rosalind’s altruistic motives surface when she condemns Wilkins’ propensity to conduct lectures on his findings and she labels his motives as ‘self-aggrandizing at the cost of any kind of integrity’ (p. 36).

Connection with Science Quotes

‘…I mean does the X-ray camera ever seem like it’s just an extension of your own eye, as though you and you alone possess the superhuman powers that allow you to see into the heart of things?’ (Casper) p. 35

‘I take a leap of faith every day, Maurice, just by walking through that door in the morning. I take a leap of faith that it’ll all be worth it, that it will all ultimately mean something.’ (Rosalind) p. 48

Religion

Although a minor theme, in the eyes of many, religion stands as the antithesis to science and discovery. To pursue a life of scientific discovery, and the ‘secret of life’ (p. 13) embedded in the building blocks of DNA molecular structure, might be seen as antagonistic to organised religion and, chasing such a dream, construed as flouting God’s law. Symbolic of their relationship, where Wilkins is oblivious to Rosalind’s toil, he explains that he has never felt that the two [religion and science] have to be at odds’ (p. 79) whereas Rosalind’s resignation that ‘they are intrinsically, unavoidably at odds’ (p. 79) confirms the divide between not only the plight to win the scientific race of the century, but also the divide between them as reluctant colleagues.

The calculating truth for many is that religion was seen to be ‘the enemy of progress’ (p. 29) and in Watsons’ case, ‘a tool used by the rich to give purpose to the poor’ (p. 29) and, therefore, saw men such as Watson and Wilkins embark on a feverish chase to denounce religion and strip away at the mysteries of life. By Rosalind’s own admittance, her reference to her father ‘who never believed’ (p. 79) is swiftly followed by the phrase ‘a man of science through and through’ (p. 79), as though the two could not possibly co-exist.

Religion Quotes

‘You’re absolutely right that the Jews should be in a more grateful frame of mind these days.’ (Rosalind’s sarcastic reply to Wilkins) p. 16

‘He said the worst thing is that it [religion] eradicates curiosity, because it solves everything. So, in my house there was no God. Which meant I needed to go looking for my own set of instructions for life.’ (Watson to Wilkins) p. 29