c
 

Albee͛s decision to make George a history professor and Nick a biology professor is a
pivotal one in the exploration of what I see as an underlying theme for all of the
interaction between George and Nick by bringing to light the age old debate of
history versus biology or more conventionally, humanity versus science.

Upon delving further into both ends of the spectrum of this debate I was introduced
to a very interesting theory from the Intelligent Design movement, a neo-creationist
campaign that asserts,"certain features of the universe and of living things are best
explained by an intelligent cause ͞. The particular theory that I thought had strong
link to the motivations of both George and Nick is one that is explo red in Richard
Weikart͛s book ͚From Darwin to Hitler͛. The basic ideology behind this theory is best
explained in the conclusion of his book where Wiekart writes:

͞Darwinism by itself did not produce the Holocaust, but without Darwinism,
neither Hitler nor his followers would have had the necessary scientific
underpinnings to convince themselves and their collaborators that one of the
world's greatest atrocities was morally praiseworthy. Darwinism - or at least
some naturalistic interpretation of Darwinism - succeeded in turning morality
on its head.͟

Albee͛s placement of George and Nick in these two contrasting positions sp arks a
dialectic wherein each George and Nick manage to embody the role of these two
immense historical characters; with George symbolizing the immorality and
corruption of Hitler and Nick the ambitious and revolutionary ideology of Darwin.
This is particularly evident in the duologue between Nick and George in A ct 1 when
George says: ͞You're the one's going to make all that trouble making everyone the
same. Rearranging the chromozones, or whatever it is, right?͟ By making this
statement Albee is able to give a warning about the future of life and the capability
of science. George is implying that science is attempting to create a so-called test
tube generation, thus eliminating all individuality and differentiation within the
human race and hence changing the rhythm of history.

This suggests two things; primarily it underscores the threat that Nick proposes to
George as a young, fertile man. ͞  

  



 




  
!
"



!   
 



#
 
  $





  % 
&

"









 
$

  

   
  

  
 


' 
#
  &


 


()
 c

*

 
c

 
!



 
  %







 





' 

$

$

Throughout the play George is portrayed in particular through Martha͛s eyes as

someone old, inadequate and ineffectual, this is a very effective characterization as
it exemplifies and epitomizes a common perception of the subject he teaches.
History, a subject about the past is considered by many as just that, a subject of the
c
 


past. A subject that is not only becoming increasingly irrelevant in our current
society but also being drowned out by the unstoppable and limitless realm of
science.

This is very apparent when George notes that students are increasingly starting to
pay less attention in his cl asses, something that parallels Nick͛s consistent dismissal
of George and his belittling and condescending demeanor. At a climactic moment in
the play Nick responds contemptuously to sincere advice from George with an "Up
yours!" This again illustrates the world of science͛s condescension towards the world
of humanities and how in our current society one is undoubtedly considered to be
more significant and more substantial. Nick being the ͞wave of the future͟ is able to
dismiss George and therefore history as an archaic and almost obsolete study as well
as imposing his undeniable presence and relevance to our current society more so to
our future. He is also able to dismiss the human aspect of history and again show a
disregard for the essential aspects of history: race, culture and civilization; and
instead approach the future with the detached mentality of Darwinism and natural
selection.

The future of both subjects and schools of thought is a key element of the duologue
between Nick and George. By pinning these two characters against each other and
creating a consistent hostility between them, Albee demonstrates two clashing
worldviews and the emergence of science as something quintessential in the
development and progression of humanity. George's lack of success in the History
department namely his failure to ͞run͟ it is very evident and a key part of his
portrayed inadequacy in the play, according to Martha, George is merely a part of
the history department, but is not and will never be ͞ 2
history department͟. This
apparent inability to rise to power as successor to the president of the college,
Martha͛s father juxtaposed with Nick's seemingly ambitious and relentless nature
and his plans to move ahead first taking over the Biology Department, then the
entire college creates a stark contrast between the future both men and their
respective subjects.

George͛s mocking of Nick, ͞oh you͛re the one who͛s going to make us all the same͟,
rearranging the chromosomes͟, demonstrates a criticism of many of the field of
science and Biology's ability to create a race of genetically enhanced or modified
identical beings. This is a very powerful statement as n ot only does it present a very
controversial issue, but George also makes a comparison to Hitler͛s plan to create an
Arian race. Underscoring the underlying horror and detrimental potential of
scientific progression. George, a manifestation of history in t his case, is portrayed as
powerless and helpless against science especially taking into consideration his ability
to reproduce and procreate and therefore his failure to carry his kind (historians)
into the future. Not only is George͛s shortfall emphasized through this argument but
also Nick and subsequently science͛s ruthless willingness to take any means
necessary including playing ͞musical beds͟ or ͞ploughing͟ men͛s wives to get ahead
in the world reveals how science manages to eliminate morality and possibly even
religious beliefs. When George tells Nick half-jokingly that the only way for him to
advance within the university is through the ͞wives bellies͟ the audience is exposed
to the frightening suggestion that uniformity is inevitability. In which the entire
c
 


world of humanities and arts as well as faith and emotion will be replaced by the
sterility of science.