Context: Youth Violence & Group Psychology
Dennis Kelly and the World of DNA
DNA was written for the National Theatre’s Connections programme, which commissions plays specifically for young performers, and was first performed in 2007. The National Theatre’s own production followed in 2008. Dennis Kelly wrote it for teenagers to perform — and about teenagers doing terrible things. The play explores what happens when a group of ordinary young people commit a horrific act of mob violence and then try to cover it up. There is no adult authority in the play: no teachers, no parents, no police officers making things right. The teenagers are entirely alone with the consequences of what they have done.
Kelly has said that the play is about “gangs, genetics and the need to belong.” It asks uncomfortable questions about how far people will go to protect themselves and fit in with a group. The title itself is a double meaning — it refers both to the forensic DNA evidence used in the cover-up and to the deeper question of what is in our nature as human beings. Are we hardwired to follow a leader, even into cruelty?
DNA was written for NT Connections and first performed in 2007; the National Theatre staged it in 2008. Dennis Kelly wrote it for young performers, exploring mob violence, group psychology, and the absence of adult authority. The title refers to both forensic evidence and human nature.
Youth Violence and Gang Culture
The play was written during a period of intense public anxiety about youth violence in Britain. In 2007–2008, a series of teenage murders dominated the headlines, and politicians debated “Broken Britain.” Kelly does not set DNA in a specific time or place — there are no street names, no school, no identifiable city. This non-specific setting makes the play feel universal: this could happen in any group, anywhere.
The group in DNA is not a traditional street gang. They are ordinary teenagers who are bound together not by loyalty or friendship but by a shared secret. Once they have committed their crime against Adam, it is guilt and fear — not affection — that holds them together. Kelly shows that a “gang” does not require knives or drugs; it only requires a group of people too frightened to break away.
Kelly uses several distinctive techniques throughout DNA. Dialogue is often fragmented and overlapping — characters interrupt each other, repeat themselves, and leave sentences unfinished. This creates a naturalistic sense of panic and confusion. Stage directions are minimal, giving directors freedom but also reflecting the play’s stripped-back, confrontational style.
Violence is kept offstage throughout. We never see what happens to Adam in the wood; we hear about it through Mark and Jan’s fragmented retelling. This is a deliberate choice. By making the audience imagine the violence rather than watch it, Kelly forces them to become complicit — filling in the horrific details themselves, just as the characters reconstruct and distort what really happened.
The Psychology of Obedience
The behaviour of the group in DNA mirrors real psychological experiments about obedience and conformity. In 1963, Stanley Milgram conducted his famous obedience experiment at Yale University, in which participants were told by an authority figure to deliver electric shocks to a stranger. Sixty-five per cent obeyed to the maximum voltage, even when they believed they were causing serious harm. Milgram concluded that ordinary people will do terrible things when an authority figure tells them to.
Phil functions as the authority figure in DNA. He rarely speaks, but when he does, his instructions are followed without question. “What are you going to do?” the group asks him repeatedly, and whatever Phil says becomes the plan. The group does not challenge him because following orders is easier than taking personal responsibility. Cathy is the most extreme example of obedient cruelty. She finds the postman whose DNA will frame him, and later she helps to kill Adam. She carries out Phil’s orders with enthusiasm.
Milgram’s obedience experiment (1963) showed 65% of people would obey harmful orders from an authority figure. Phil is the authority in DNA — the group follows his instructions without question, even when those instructions become morally monstrous.
The Stanford Prison Experiment and the Bystander Effect
In 1971, Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment assigned volunteers to be either “guards” or “prisoners” in a simulated prison. Within days, the guards became sadistic and the prisoners became passive. The experiment had to be stopped early because of the psychological damage. It demonstrated that people adopt the roles they are given — put someone in a position of power and they may abuse it; put someone in a subordinate role and they accept mistreatment.
This maps directly onto DNA. John Tate begins as the group’s leader but cannot cope with the pressure. Phil steps into the power role and becomes increasingly controlling. Cathy, given permission to use violence, escalates rapidly. Meanwhile, the rest of the group — Richard, Danny, Lou — become passive bystanders, unwilling to intervene.
The bystander effect describes how people are less likely to intervene in an emergency when others are present, because each person assumes someone else will act. In DNA, nobody stops the bullying of Adam, nobody refuses Phil’s plan, and nobody goes to the police. Leah is the character who comes closest to moral action — she questions everything, she talks constantly about right and wrong — but even she ultimately fails to act. Her desperate monologues (“You need me”) are directed at Phil, who ignores her, and at an audience who cannot intervene.
Kelly suggests that moral awareness without moral action is meaningless. Leah knows what is right but does nothing, making her complicit. The audience, too, is implicated — we watch and do nothing, mirroring the bystander effect the play dramatises.
Why Context Matters for the OCR Exam
In Component 01, Section A, you may be asked to compare an extract from DNA with an unseen extract from another modern drama. Understanding the social and psychological context of the play — youth violence, obedience, the bystander effect — allows you to analyse Kelly’s intentions (AO3) while examining his use of language and dramatic techniques (AO2). The strongest answers connect specific quotations to broader ideas about human nature and group psychology.