Gender Representation in The Contingency Plan

Identify and discuss key ways in which gender is represented and explored in The Contingency Plan (that is, in both On the Beach and Resilience).

Gender distinctions are a vital part of the exploration of ideas through characterisation in On the Beach and Resilience, the two plays that comprise Steve Waters’ The Contingency Plan. Drama critic Micheline Wandor has pointed out that, in post-World War 2 British drama, “The imperative of gender is as fundamental to the imaginative world of the play and to its meaning as historical period, class or social position, geography (setting) and race” (23-24). Wandor further elaborates that focusing on gender in drama “augments” rather than “exclude[s]” the analysis of other subjects:

This . . . enables us to see whether the play is “about” men or women, how the play makes both distinctions and relationships between the sexes, how it represents (in whatever form) social realities, and, indeed, how these very social realities are realised and defined in terms which are gendered. (24)

The Contingency Plan is generally not described as being a play “about” gender relations, but its overt subject matter is decisively shaped by the way that gender shapes the identities and interactions of its characters. In this discussion I will focus first on the gendered representation of science and scientists, and then on the way that gender relations are shown within the realm of politics. Finally, I will consider the way that power and agency is presented within the marriage of Robin and Jenny.

The Contingency Plan is highly concerned with exploring the social dimensions of science, and this hinges on representing science as a predominantly masculine undertaking. At a literal level, this is evident in Steve Waters’ decision to portray only male scientists in either On the Beach or Resilience: the retired glaciologist Robin Paxton; his former collaborator and now Government Scientific Advisor, Colin Jenks; and Robin’s son, Will, who is also a glaciologist. The two older scientists, Robin and Colin, both reveal sexist attitudes in their treatment of Sarika, a young female civil servant who is herself trained as a biochemist. When Robin first meets her, he offers a range of guesses as to her profession that show his basic assumption that science is a male undertaking, concluding with the comment: “Don’t look like the biochemists I knew. They all had beards” (36). Although Sarika is able to laugh off this comment, her frustration is far more evident after Colin tells her that she is merely a “bag-handler in a minor ministry,” summing him up as a “Mansplaining fucker!” (85). Both these actions might be partially dismissed as the behaviours of men from an older generation—and thus not necessarily casting light on the conduct of science and the nature of the scientific community—but Will is also shown to take a condescending towards his mother’s understanding of a carbon calculator. In addition to the behaviour of these men, their discussions of science and scientific research often also carry masculine connotations. If there is an edge of violence to the way Robin talks about “demolish[ing]” his past theory (25), there is a more gently paternalistic tone to Colin’s description of his government role as being like “the nation’s family doctor” (81). In Robin’s fight with Will, moreover, he adopts more overtly sexualised imagery to differentiate the rigours of scientific research from the seductions of politics: “Off you go, then – chop, chop, your government paymaster’s calling, oh yes she’s very agreeable, a very agreeable distraction from the hard slog of glaciology –” (54). Steve Waters’ portrayal of male scientists thus produces a mixed view of science, where its obvious necessity for understanding climate change is complicated by the often arrogant way that Robin, Colin, and Will behave.

The plot of Resilience brings politics to the foreground, as the setting shifts to the corridors of power in the Ministry for Resilience, but here also gender is shown to be an important and complicating factor. This is staged primarily through the two politicians at the helm of the Ministry of Resilience: Christopher Casson, “forties/fifties – Secretary of State for Resilience,” and Tessa Fortnum, “sixties – Minister of State for Resilience” (76). In the initial stages of the play, it would seem that the audience’s sympathies are directed towards the younger, more charismatic, and more senior male politician. Tessa discloses that she once considered “global warming to be a hoax,” and she is described as having a “track record that tilts to the authoritarian” (81, 97). Chris admits he has very little prior understanding of global warming but is shown not only learning about it quickly but also seeming to desire radical action in response—including hiring Will to overrule Colin’s cautious advice—as well as being gregarious. As the play unfolds however, and especially by the time that Act Two commences several months later, these shallow initial judgments of likeability are put into question as it transpires that Tessa is far more willing to act than Chris. Whereas Sarika describes Tessa as “Lady Macbeth,” Will labels Chris the “Minister for Procrastination” (138). The gendered dimension of their rivalry is brought into sharp focus following the arrival of the catastrophic storm surge, whose impact has been made worse by Chris’s decision to rescind the evacuation orders. As Chris begins to accuse Tessa of scheming against him, she describes his stance as an “alpha-male act” and “macho bullying” (152). As Chris’s rage escalates, Tessa’s ability to maintain her composure becomes ever more apparent:

CHRIS. You scheming Machiavellian – witch –
TESSA. Oh, you’re really going to regret saying that.
CHRIS. Shafting me, fucking me over and over –
TESSA. Just stop your stream of childish filth, Christopher. (152)

Chris’s language here, and elsewhere in the play, reveals an underlying misogyny beneath his gregarious exterior. (In the original edition of the play, he uses an even more derogatory term than “witch”). The political plot of Resilience thus employs gender to question the extent to which politicians are assessed for their likeability, as Tessa is shown to be more competent in the face of catastrophe, even as she is shown to have encountered and had to overcome overt sexism throughout her career.

One final arena where gender is represented and explored is Robin and Jenny’s marriage as portrayed in On the Beach, where it is never entirely clear whether Jenny is an equal participant. At times, they are shown to have a loving and equitable relationship, whether in Act One when they spar over the significance of the Eurasian spoonbill Robin, or in Act Two when they reflect on how they have changed their property:

ROBIN. Look, tonight’s about here, right? Fort years of building dams, clearing ground, rewilding, all of that.
JENNY. Yes. Yes! Forty years of love and hard work.
ROBIN. That’s right!
JENNY. A ruined watch-house, a hectare of wetland.
ROBIN. Without us what would be here? A ow of holiday homes and a hideous seawall.
JENNY. Yes. (60)

Indeed, early on, it could be said that Jenny is the dominant partners in the relationship insofar as Robin is largely dependent on her for his mental stability. Yet, as Sarika observes to her, their home remains “a very male world” (43). This might appear an innocuous remark, except that Jenny is also shown to be concealing a mobile phone that she does not want Robin to know about—and with good reason, given that he destroys it in Act Two after discovering her trying to communicate with the outside world. Robin is revealed to be the dominant partner, both intellectually and physically, as he refuses to consider Jenny’s opinions and as he takes action to destroy their home’s sea protections without her knowledge. This raises the question as to whether she has agency in her marriage. On the one hand, as she tells Robin, “Nobody forces me into anything” (62). On the other hand, we are left to question this statement as she is effectively trapped at home by Robin with the storm bearing down, and she ultimately rages at his principles: “I have made an idol of your science” (72). The ultimate status of their relationship arguably remains indeterminate as On the Beach reaches its tragic end, with the stage directions showing that Jenny initiates them holding hands even as there is the sound of rising waters and the stage is plunged into darkness.

Works Cited

Wandor, Michelene. Post-War British Drama: Looking Back in Gender. Rev. ed. Routledge, 2001.

Waters, Steve. The Contingency Plan: On the Beach & Resilience. Nick Hern Books, 2022.