Rational Womanhood in ‘Prima Facie’

Seven years after a shockwave-producing premiere in 2019, a revival tour of “Prima Facie” across its native United Kingdom and Ireland came to an end this March. The one-woman show written by Suzie Miller and starring Jodie Comer tells the story of Tessa Ensler, a bright young barrister who specializes in defending those accused of sexual assault. Her razor-sharp reasoning and rigorous education afford her plenty of success; she flourishes under the legal principle that guilt must be beyond reasonable doubt. The audience sees her balancing facts and narratives, seemingly deriving a cool satisfaction from her capacity to fortify strands of reasoning that emphatically play against women’s interests.

However, in a striking turn of events, Tessa finds herself a victim of the very crime whose suspects she has spent much of her adult life defending. A tonal shift in the play imitates her upended perspective as she finds herself literally on the other side of the courtroom. Whereas the intricacies and technicalities of legal procedure had previously worked in her favor, Tessa is betrayed by a system that requires absolute clarity in the face of an offence operating in the dimension of blurred lines.

All this is to say, sexual violence towards women seems to hold a unique position in contemporary thought. Discourse on this topic fervently clings to calls for “second chances,” and often provides ample space for devil’s advocates, which is not a tendency that usually persists outside of jurisprudence for other crimes. One must meticulously and forensically consider every side of a story and — through extraordinary empathy — give everybody their due grace. It is as though every discussion about sexual assault is preempted by a pact — which everyone must abide by — to uphold these societal pillars.

This is completely and existentially terrifying. Why is it that society insists that discussions around offences against women are paradigms of logical reasoning? For Tessa, this is reflected in her efforts to persuade those around her that she was indeed a victim — and that she is sane — before she even arrives in court. One can trace the attitude of those around her to the cult pseudo-condition hysteria. Historically used to describe excessive emotionality and irrationality in women, hysteria was once believed to be caused by a wandering womb; it finds its roots in Ancient Greek “hystera,” meaning uterus.

Even after the wandering womb theory was discarded, the principles for treating this condition resembled efforts to control femMale sexuality. A recommended cure was marital sex resulting in pregnancy, suggesting that women deemed hysterical were “treated” by depriving them of agency over both their sexuality and reproductive health. This sentiment of control is echoed in a devastating sequence where Tessa arrives at a police station to give DNA evidence the day after her assault, only to realize that she has washed it all away in the shower. Through Tessa’s grief and self-directed fury following this discovery, Miller questions whether there is humanity in a system that demands victims preserve a gruesome crime scene on their own bodies to warrant its protection.

Hysteria’s twisted legacy continues to pervade attitudes towards women’s issues today through its irreversible conflation of irrationality and female sexuality. Women’s attempts to take back sexual agency in the face of alleged exploitation are automatically treated with a liberal dose of caution. While “Prima Facie” explores this impact within a framework which admittedly demands the finest caliber of truth crafting, Tessa’s experience of having her very integrity be challenged is one that exists — robustly — outside of the courtroom. We live in a world where a vast societal chorus of stage whispers undermines possible victims’ sanity and slowly but surely drowns out women trying their best to tell their stories moderately, rationally, empathetically, and with balance and nuance.

Only in instances of sexual assault are victims expected to maintain a base level of reason and empathy. Nobody would tell a possible physical assault victim to consider the life circumstances of their aggressor or the way in which a criminal record could affect their prospects. Nobody would order them not to speak ill of the aggressor. In contrast, plaintiffs pressing charges of sexual assault are continually told to reflect upon the impact of their words. Their self-advocacy is limited to relaying objective events and, even then, the manner in which they relay their experience is monitored and scrutinized. We then thrust scalpels in their hands and instruct them to operate on their accused’s psyche to locate a kernel of reasoning explaining why someone might have chosen to act in such a way.

Of course, this piece is not a critique of critical thinking, evaluation, or any other virtues which underpin robust justice and truth. Allegations of sexual assault are not to be taken lightly, and it is as a result of this gravity that false allegations can indeed ruin lives. “Prima Facie” asks that we acknowledge the fatal skew of the law court in favor of sexual assault perpetrators: That much is clear. Further, it illuminates how we demand that one of the most brutal of wrongs be met with perfect humanistic rationale in our daily conversations, or else we turn our backs to the hysterics.