Vibrators and Power: A Review of Hysteria

Art by Grace Xue SC ’16

Is the story of an antiquated medical diagnosis relevant today? Until the twentieth century, hysteria was a blanket diagnosis ascribed to women with wide-ranging symptoms, often based upon male doctor’s perceptions. Symptoms of hysteria were considered to include depression, discontentment, or other emotional troubles, sometimes manifested through women’s nonconformist actions, and diagnosis was based on the belief that the uterus travelled around the woman’s body, upsetting her emotional balance. Doctors developed a variety of treatments for “hysterical” women including the rest cure, portrayed in Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s The Yellow Wallpaper, hysterectomy, and a “hysterical paroxysm,” or in other words, an orgasm. The film Hysteria, directed by Tanya Wexler and originally released in 2011 in the United Kingdom (2012 in the U.S. by Sony Pictures Classics), deals primarily with the last of these treatments. Wexler’s captivating romantic comedy portrays the invention of the vibrator as a solution to Dr. Granville’s carpal tunnel, which he receives from manually inducing “hysterical paroxysms” for his patients. While it is a period film, Hysteria seems to be in dialogue with contemporary society. Although Wexler risks softening the repressive element of hysteria, she also gives voice to issues of female sexuality still relevant today.

Wexler’s film has the typical elements of a romantic comedy. Although the film addresses serious issues, including the possibility of court enforced hysterectomy, it arrives at a predictable happy ending where the female protagonist’s repression by patriarchal forces is overcome thorough romance and women’s access to the vibrator foreshadows their future sexual empowerment. By neatly resolving Hysteria’s more serious strains, Wexler risks positioning contemporary society as a foil to Hysteria’s historical one and distancing audiences from the severity of issues such as forced hysterectomy. The film reenforces women’s increasing access to vibrators, and therefore sexual rights, through pictures of historic and contemporary vibrators displayed at the credits. Yet current political discussions on women’s sexual rights show that while hysteria is no longer an accepted diagnosis, issues concerning women’s rights are not merely curiosities of history.

The film’s portrayal of the treatment for hysteria is, perhaps, too softened. The only problem Wexler raises with inducing orgasms as a treatment is male doctors’ inability to recognize women’s sexuality. Although Dr. Dalrymple (Jonathan Pryce) insists that women are “incapable of experiencing any pleasurable sensation whatsoever without actual penetration of the male organ” (Dyer and Dyer), the film disproves this by making female sexuality visible. While Hysteria voices contemporary views on other aspects of women’s rights, it does not address the problematic power dynamics of male doctors’ assuming a position of control over women’s sexuality by administering this treatment, which could even be considered rape by today’s society. While Hysteria argues that the root of the “hysterical” women’s dissatisfaction is their confinement in the domestic sphere and husbands’ refusal to address their wives’ sexual needs, it slips into portraying hysteria as a sham diagnosis of unhappy housewives, less serious than physical injury or disease. This minimizes the actual severity of depression and misses the patriarchal structures that controlled women by imposing the diagnosis of hysteria and enforcing damaging treatments such as the rest cure or a hysterectomy. Furthermore, in critiquing evident sources of power such as the law, Hysteria devotes less attention to less obvious manifestations of power through culture and social interaction.

Wexler, however, incorporates a strong feminist voice with Maggie Gyllenhaal’s character, Charlotte, who refuses to behave as her society’s definition of a lady, runs a settlement house, and insists she will only marry “a partner, an equal” (Dyer and Dyer). Charlotte is not unfeminine, desexualized, or unjustly angry. She displays emotion which men in the film consider a symptom of hysteria, yet the film does not discredit her, for her anger is founded on the continual restrictions placed upon her because she is a woman. Charlotte has insight into her society, providing the contemporary voice that denounces inequalities. She eloquently states the predicament of confining women in a narrow role, claiming that through her charitable work, she is given “a useful life” (Dyer and Dyer). With this statement, Charlotte also comments on a central problem of the human condition, the struggle to impact something beyond oneself.

By making women’s sexuality a visible issue, openly showing women’s pleasure, and indicating the proliferation of the vibrator for home use, Hysteria engages with contemporary society to promote freer expression of women’s sexuality. While Hysteria was originally released in the U.K. in 2011, it is strikingly relevant to current American debates surrounding women’s sexual rights. Wexler’s film gives a voice to women’s sexual desires so often shut out of mainstream representations in the United States. Although some films and television shows have depicted women’s use of vibrators and masturbation, these subjects remain taboo. Hysteria’s direct portrayal of sexual pleasure from the vibrator insists upon women’s sexual desires, which American society often does not acknowledge.

Works Cited

Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. The Yellow Wallpaper. Ed. Thomas L. Erskine and Connie L.   Richards. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers U.P., 1993. Print.

Hysteria. Dir. Tanya Wexler. Perf. Maggie Gyllenhaal, Hugh Dancy, and Jonathan Pryce. Sony,   2012. DVD.