Major Themes- An Experiment with an Air Pump By Shelagh Stephenson
Major Themes- An Experiment with an Air Pump By Shelagh Stephenson
Shelagh Stephenson (b. 1955) emerged from the socially conscious northern British theatre tradition of the 1970s, and her work is defined by its sharp ethical inquiry, dark humour, and profound compassion for the vulnerable. An Experiment with an Air Pump (1998) – joint winner of the Peggy Ramsay Award – is her masterpiece. The play takes as its inspiration Joseph Wright of Derby’s famous 1768 painting of the same name, and weaves two parallel narratives: one set in 1799, on the cusp of a new century, and another in 1999, on the brink of the millennium. In a single house in Newcastle‑upon‑Tyne, the same actors play different characters across two hundred years, creating a resonant dialogue between past and present.
Major Themes
1. Science Replacing Religion – The Scientist as Demiurge
The most explicit theme of the play, drawn directly from Wright’s painting, is the idea that science has taken the place of religion as the primary source of wonder, authority, and meaning in Western culture. Ellen’s prologue states it directly: “the scientist is where God used to be.”
In 1799, Fenwick dismisses the local vicar’s lecture as “not science, theology”. He despises monarchy because it claims divine right. He believes that the relentless advance of science will inevitably produce universal suffrage and the end of kings. His faith is messianic: science will redeem humanity.
In 1999, Kate speaks of the Human Genome Project in quasi‑religious language: “It’s like a new map of humanity – every element described and understood. It’s breathtaking.” She believes that genetic knowledge will eliminate suffering. Ellen is more cautious, but she too admits that she wanted to be “God the scientist”.
Stephenson is not anti‑science. She allows that scientific ambition can be a powerful, even noble, human passion. But she warns against the sacralisation of science – treating it as an unquestionable good, exempt from ethical scrutiny.
2. The Ethical and Moral Limits of Scientific Research
The play’s central ethical question is: what lines should science not cross? In 1799, the issue is grave robbing – using the bodies of the poor for dissection. Armstrong has no compunction; Roget is deeply troubled. “The ends justify the means,” Armstrong argues. “Morality kills science.”
In 1999, the issue is stem cell research and prenatal genetic testing. Kate dismisses the moral dimension: “It’s a cluster of cells.” Phil, whose uncle Stan had manic depression, replies: “You never met him. You don’t know anything about what went on in his life.”
Stephenson refuses to give a definitive answer. Ellen agonises, and in the end she accepts the job – but the play does not tell us whether she is right or wrong. What the play insists on is that the question be asked. Silence is complicity.
3. The Role of Women in Science Across History
The doubling of actors is the play’s most powerful device for exploring this theme. In 1799, the women are excluded from scientific conversation. Susannah is ignored; Harriet is mocked for wanting to be a physician. In 1999, Ellen and Kate are the scientists; Tom is the redundant humanist. On the surface, this represents progress.
But Stephenson complicates this narrative. Ellen’s professional success does not liberate her from ethical agony. Kate, though powerful, has internalised the cold, reductive values of the patriarchal institution she serves. The play asks: has the structure changed, or have women simply learned to operate within it?
Isobel, the servant with a spinal deformity, is the ultimate figure of the female body as object of scientific scrutiny. She is studied, seduced, and discarded. Her death is the cost of progress.
4. Estrangement, Ignorance, and the Public Understanding of Science
Phil represents the general public – intelligent but not formally educated, suspicious of science, reliant on popular media for information. He believes in UFOs, spontaneous combustion, and urban legends. Kate mocks him. But Phil’s instincts are often more ethical than Kate’s professionalism.
The play suggests that the gap between scientists and the public is dangerous. When scientists speak only to each other, in their own jargon, they lose accountability. Tom accuses Kate: “You do all your experiments in a vacuum.” The air pump becomes a metaphor for the bubble of scientific isolation.
5. Gender and Power Reversal – 1799 vs. 1999
The role reversal between the two time periods is stark. In 1799, the men are the educated, powerful figures; the women are domestic and marginalised. In 1999, the women (Ellen, Kate) are the scientists; Tom is the stay‑at‑home (redundant) spouse.
But power has not disappeared – it has shifted. Tom feels emasculated: “I’m going to sail into the twenty‑first century as a middle‑aged redundant man supported by a younger sexier wife.” His joke masks genuine pain. The play refuses to celebrate the reversal as simple justice; it shows that power imbalances hurt everyone, regardless of gender.
6. Class, Nationality, and the Vulnerable Body
Isobel is multiply marginalised: she is a woman, a servant (working‑class), Scottish (a national minority), and physically deformed. Her body is the site on which the play’s ethical questions are inscribed. Armstrong does not love her; he wants to study her hump. When she realises she has been tricked, she kills herself.
The box of bones found in the 1999 basement is the material trace of this exploitation. The poor, the disabled, the colonised – their bodies are used and discarded. The play asks: who will be sacrificed for the next scientific advance?
7. Memory, History, and the Colonisation of the Past
The dual time frame is not just a gimmick; it is a philosophical device. The play insists that the past is not dead – it is alive under the floorboards, in the bones, in the walls. Tom feels a spiritual connection to the dead girl; Phil lights a candle for her soul. Ellen is impatient: “She’s dead.” But the play sides with Tom and Phil.
The plan to turn the house into a “heritage trail” – a themed attraction – represents the commodification of history. Ellen is horrified: “The history of this house is the history of radicalism and dissent and intellectual inquiry, and they’re going to turn it into a tin of souvenir biscuits.” The play mourns this erasure.
No comments:
Post a Comment