Rhinoceros (1959)

Eugene Ionesco (1909-1994)

Themes

 Berenger and Jean – contrast

 Berenger and Daisy
 Rhinoceritis
 Jean’s transformation
 Rhinoceros as an absurd play
 Ionesco’s characters as political cliches of the 20th century
 Lack of a clear political point of critique
 Naturalistic and non-naturalistic elements in Rhinoceros
 A critique of contemporary Fascism or a sellout against communism?
 Significance of the Logician
 Want of consensus about the phenomenon of Rhinoceritis

Rhinoceros explores one man’s struggles to resist the seductive force of conformity by
maintaining his unique identity. Just as totalitarian regimes fed on the mass hysteria of
crowds gathered to watch parades and shows of force, in Rhinoceros the people become
infatuated with beasts and choose to join the rushing, trumpeting animals. Ionesco’s plays
became part of a movement called the Theatre of the Absurd, which included the authors
Samuel Beckett, Jean Genet, and Harold Pinter. Ionesco's play Rhinoceros became a mirror
to the anxieties haunting the societies that it was held up to. Back in the 1960s, it came to
symbolize (Neo)Fascism and Far-Right dangers in the Western countries, while subversively
pointing at Communism and Far-Left ideologies in the Central-East European cultures.

Fascism
During the 1930s when Eugène Ionesco was studying at the University of Bucharest, a
political movement called fascism was gaining strength in parts of Europe, including
Germany, Italy, and Romania. Fascism promoted an authoritarian government, often led by a
dictator who controlled all aspects of a nation, including political, cultural, economic, and
religious elements. In addition, fascism stressed an extreme form of nationalism, which
involved unquestioning loyalty to the state.

The effect of Ionesco's experience with fascism can be seen throughout Rhinoceros. In this
work people begin to transform into rhinoceroses—brute beasts with thick skins. Despite the
horror of this transformation, more and more people allow themselves to change into these
animals. It is important to note that these transformations are based on choice. Unlike an
epidemic, where a person contracts a disease, a person's metamorphosis into a rhinoceros in
the play only happens if he or she is willing to let it happen. Because of an unquestioning
attitude, a lack of personal responsibility, and a need to fit in, people allow themselves to be
changed into mindless beasts. Ionesco in his life witnessed a similar process in nations ruled
by fascism.
Ionesco decided to convey the experience of conversation disintegrating into disjointed
fragments in a play called The Bald Soprano (1950). This work rejected the traditional
development of plot and characters and created a new type of comedy, which emphasized the
meaninglessness of people’s lives in a random universe.
Jean & Berenger
Ionesco intensifies the contrast between Jean and Berenger by showing each character's view
of himself. Jean is proud of his high moral character. He believes he is a person beyond
reproach and, as a result, cannot ever admit being wrong. Berenger, in contrast, often admits
his mistakes. The section where Jean and Berenger argue about the rhinoceros clearly shows
this. Jean insists an African rhinoceros has one horn and an Asiatic rhinoceros has two horns.
Berenger contradicts his friend, saying the reverse is true. In truth Berenger is correct. Even
so, Jean cannot admit even the possibility of being mistaken. Instead, he flies into a rage,
calling Berenger a fool. Even though Berenger is correct, he feels bad about losing his
temper. Berenger says, "I'm sorry I wasn't more accommodating." Berenger, therefore, is a
person who readily admits his fallibility, while Jean is a person who must maintain a
veneer of absolute strength that will be tested as the play moves along. Berenger’s
statement in Act 1, “I’ve got no horns. And I never will have” foreshadows his resistance to
transforming into a rhinoceros.

Throughout scene in Jean’s apartment, he displays a sense of affinity with the rhinoceroses.
In the beginning of their conversation, when Berenger calls the rhinos “wretched,” Jean
objects. He feels disgusted with humans and, as Berenger observes, he is in a “misanthropic
mood.” He defends Mr Boeuf’s metamorphosis, ticking off Berenger for presuming it was
against his will. The point to note is that Jean’s physical transformation is accompanied by a
change in his outlook as well. The more Jean reaffirms his strength, the more he turns into a
rhinoceros. Jean has always been very assured of his position and the position of others in
society. So, for Jean, conforming or belonging to whole is vital. He has no tolerance for being
different, unlike Berenger. The “everyman” and the “new man” figures in the play, is
exemplified by Berenger who is the only character who constantly questions his identity in
contrast and opposition to others. His existential ennui is evident in the statement that, “I feel
out of place in life, among people…as if I were carrying another man around my back. I can’t
seem used to myself.’ On the other hand, Jean is the foil to Berenger, a walking
compendium of popular science, fashion and culture. He is unable to entertain a
discussion, is overly concerned about appearances and popular opinion and is therefore a
conformist. His attitude is echoed in his statement “nothing could be more natural [than life]
and the proof is that people go own living.”

The emphasis on race in the play expresses a strong disdain for fascism's pretensions to
racial superiority. As the characters debate throughout the First Act and try to categorize the
Rhinos as of Asian or African variety based on the number of horns they possess; one can
sense the underlying current behind the debate has to do with more than usual classification
and categorization of the animals. The character who most closely imitates the course of
fascism is Jean. Jean’s statement, “… if anybody’s got horns, it’s you! You Asiatic Mongol”
is proof enough of his racist tendencies. This remark by Jean is highly racist and alludes to
the common stereotype about the Jews being the horned men.

 “I’m just as good as you are. I think … I may say I’m better.” – Jean, Act 1
 “I feel out of place in life … so I take to drink.” – Berenger, Act 1 – How not fitting
into society helps Berenger resist becoming a rhinoceros.
 “They’d better keep out of my way or I’ll run them down.” – Jean, Act 2, Scene 2 –
As Jean transforms into a rhinoceros, his attitude becomes more belligerent and
brutal. He comes to see people who oppose him as things to be destroyed rather than
as humans to converse with and perhaps learn from.
At the end of the play Berenger screams “Well in spite of everything, I swear to you I will
never give in, never!” For Berenger, the protagonist, remaining human, when everyone else
has transformed into Rhinoceroses becomes a responsibility that he is the sole taker of.

Logician – The Limits of Reason

Through the logician, Ionesco develops the theme of absurdity. The author does this by
emphasizing the limits and misuse of reason or logic. The logician tries to demonstrate the
value of logic by explaining to the old gentleman what a syllogism is. However, the logician
misuses the syllogism, thereby arriving at a nonsensical conclusion. The logician claims a cat
has four paws and that the gentleman's dogs each have four paws. Therefore, the gentleman's
dogs are cats. Such a conclusion is completely absurd, thereby showing how logic can be
used to create nonsensical lies.
The figure of the logician in the play reminds us of the many ways in which philosophy and
rational discourse betray humanist values of individual dignity and justice. Those who misuse
logic create rigged reasoning that, based on nothing, leads to idiotic and burlesque
conclusions. This logician restores the ethical dimension to logic when he uses it as an
instrument of rationality in an exchange with the old gentleman. Through various
conversations, Ionesco dismantles logic as the fulcrum of Western philosophical discourses
of Descartian origin. He is uncomfortable with the idea of equating logic to justice as stated
by Berenger and the reduction of everything to ‘method’ by the Logician. For, the destruction
caused by the World Wars or the atrocities of Adolph Hitler cannot be justified or explained
mathematically in the context of post-war Europe.

Conformity
How much easier it is to mimic a reaction than to have one of one's own, Ionesco seems to
suggest. Ionesco conveys the theme of conformity through the use of repetition of banal
phrases and platitudes that everyone seems to use one after the other. When townsfolk first
see a rhinoceros, most of them exclaim, "Oh, a rhinoceros!" Later, many of them say in
unison, "Well, of all things." When townsfolk see the housewife's dead cat, many of them
say, "Poor little thing!" By doing this the author emphasizes how people often respond to
specific events in a similar manner. Such a response is a type of conformity, because people
are responding as a mindless group rather than individually to whatever is happening. By
having townsfolk use the same expressions, Ionesco stresses how they are all conforming as
part of a system. Because of this, they tend to blend together and lose their individuality. At
times many of the townsfolk can be seen as acting like a machine that follows an interlinked
process.
Berenger is betrayed by the entire human race in what Emile Durkheim calls “collective
effervescence” – the intense energy that is produced when humans come together and
perform the same activity, repeat the same rituals or words and think the same thoughts. In
Act 3. Dudard is drawn to join the rhinoceroses because their pack has become the majority.
“It’s my duty to stick by them; I have to do my duty.” Instead of remaining an individual, he
feels a duty to conform as most others have done, namely turn into brute beasts. The fact that
these beasts are destroying civilization doesn’t really matter. He lacks the strength to be
different. Similarly Daisy’s statement, “They’re like gods,” shows how, when a group
becomes dominant, it can portray itself as being attractive, no matter how harsh it is. Because
everyone has become a rhinoceros, their brutal behaviour can be glorified as the ideal.
Looking and acting like a rhinoceros becomes the new norm to conform to. Anyone who
doesn’t conform appears ugly and weak. Berenger’s statement in the final scene reflects
Ionesco’s - “People who try to hang on to their individuality always come to a bad end.” Not
only does Ionesco promote resistance against fascism in this play, he equally attacks
ideologies of the Left, particularly in France, thus switching his attack from his Romanian to
his French peers. Ionesco deplored French intellectuals who embraced communism to the
point of endorsing Stalin in the name of their communitarian values. Botard, the most leftist
character in the group, expresses himself in the familiar jargon of those in Paris whom
Ionesco grew to despise.
Botard

The author presents Botard as representing supposed certitude. Botard is an ex-schoolteacher

with a strong leftist, populist ideology. He prides himself on his analytical ability and being
able to see things in a scientific manner. Because of this, he rejects any reports about
rhinoceroses as irrational nonsense. Even though Daisy and Berenger have actually seen the
rhinoceros, Botard insists they are mistaken and has no doubt about this viewpoint. In fact,
his defense of his position becomes absurd. Ionesco seems to be saying any rational
explanation of the absurd is in itself absurd. However, because of his rigid worldview,
Botard cannot deal with the absurd and stubbornly continues to uphold his rational position,
no matter how outlandish it may seem.
Ionesco attempts a subtle attack at French Intellectuals who embraced Communism to the
point where they started endorsing Stalin and his ideologies in their works in the name of
their communitarian values and their allegiance to Communism. Botard, for example,
expresses himself in solidarity with his French Communist counterparts. Botard is a young
and narrow-minded person who is sceptical and obstinate. He is convinced that the outbreak
of this epidemic of “Rhinoceritis" is just a right-wing conspiracy which was propagated by
the press and consumed and digested thoroughly by the masses. Botard ridicules the news by
suggesting that the journalists are liars as they have not added any details about the gender,
colour or breed of the cat, nor have they mentioned details about the rhinoceros; whether it
was Asiatic or African. Notice how Botard, like Jean, is concerned with trivialities like the
species of the rhino rather than the bizarre phenomenon itself. Botard’s last human words
were: “one must move with the times.” Leftist ideology has so deeply seeped and rooted itself
within the psyche and mind of Botard that he is unable to speak or think for himself, his
rationality and thought processes are rendered useless and he is left incapable of taking
actions on his own. Thus, Ionesco critiques all ideologies, sparing none.
Mob Mentality
The Rhinoceroses come to represent mob mentality. As more and more people become
rhinoceroses, they become a destructive mob. Ionesco was fully aware of the destructive
forces of fascist mobs. For example, in Germany in November 1938, Nazi mobs attacked
Jewish people and their property, which involved looting stores and destroying synagogues.
This incident came to be called Kristallnacht, which means “night of broken glass.” Like the
rhinoceroses destroying the fire station and looting shops, the Nazi mob destroyed anything
that got in its way. The collective consciousness of the characters is shown in their very
first interaction with rhinoceroses. The incapacity of individual responses is reflected in the
verbatim reactions of the Waitress, the Grocer and Jean who state “Oh, a rhinoceros!”
Through this mechanism, Ionesco examines the use of language and its function of
communication which has been denigrated to a mere robotic response to a common stimulus.
The insufficiency of communication in the textual framework of the play also filters down to
a conspicuous absence of the family unit and the categorization of Ionesco’s oeuvre as the
“theatre of non-communication” as pointed out by David Bradby.
Individualism Pitted against Dogma in Rhinoceros
“Rhinoceros is certainly an anti-Nazi play, yet it is also and mainly an attack on collective
hysteria … serious collective diseases passed off as ideologies.” – Preface to Rhinoceros.
Ionesco’s agenda is made clear by his remark that “… drama and ideology ought to move in
two parallel lines; drama should never be its slave.” Through various conversations, Ionesco
dismantles logic as the fulcrum of Western philosophical discourses of Descartian origin. He
is uncomfortable with the idea of equating logic to justice as stated by Berenger and the
reduction of everything to ‘method’ by the Logician. For, the destruction caused by the
World Wars or the atrocities of Adolph Hitler cannot be justified or explained mathematically
in the context of post-war Europe.

Education, a totalistic discourse preaches obedience as against independent thinking and

consequently turns people into pachyderms. For instance, in the metamorphosis of Mr. Boeuf,
B. Mangalam notes, “any kind of political activism is perceived to be dangerous to civilized
life… [the play] brushes aside history as an irrelevant particularity.” Through the figures of
Dudard (right-oriented conservative) and Botard (left-winged Marxist/communist)
Ionesco seeks to render all ideologies as “de-humanizing” and propagates Nietzsche’s
stance of “will-power” to re-establish the superiority the individual to counteract the
dominant discourses. However, Daisy’s worldview is escapist as she states that, “there are
many sides to reality. Choose one that’s best for you.” Through this Ionesco seems to be
parodying people who wish to continue normalcy in the midst of such atypical devastation.

Through this play Ionesco explores the meaning of survival in a post-war, contemporary
urban European landscape. Kenneth Tynan avers that the Rhinoceros is meant to symbolize
“communism unquestionably; but also, Nazism, Socialism, Calvinism or any other ‘ism’ that
appears to threaten one’s selfhood…his piece is a defense of individualism against
creeping totalitarianism…a concealed attack on reason as a guide to political conduct and
on the very notion that logic may be used as a means of social persuasion.” For Ionesco, “the
police are rhinoceroses. The judges are rhinoceroses…revolutions are doings of
rhinoceroses.” Berenger questions his understanding of the rhinoceroses by asking “are they
practice or are they theory?” Berenger is left alone in confronting his singularity, but the
sentiments of responsibility and guilt do not evade him. It is also a moment of vacillation for
him as he articulates it.

Ionesco maintains that “the aim of the play was to denounce, to expose how an ideology gets
transformed into idolatry.” He rejects all forms of ideological dogma and validates the
autonomy of art and the individual. To conclude, in the words of Leonard. C. Pronko, the
meaning of the play is clear as “Ionesco laments the lack of independence, of free thought
and individuality that inevitably results in totalitarianism of one kind or another.”

Historical/Political Context
The socio-political upheaval and destabilisation in Europe in the aftermath of WWII lead to
the spread of new ideologies and propagandas. The basic conflict of this time is not between
the one ideology and other but between the Self and the World. Ionesco aims to expose the
hegemonic forces of the Ideologies that consciously or subconsciously, transformed people
into mindless puppets.
The play is filled with metaphors for historical events of the twentieth century - ranging from
the Nazi occupation of France to the French persecution of Algerians. So while it appears as
comedy, the play's violence alludes to historically documented moments of violence which
were realized not just once but several times in the course of lonesco's lifetime. The play
intimates the perils associated with the mass contagion of fascist ideology not only in
Romania and France but also in Italy, Germany, and every other country seduced by fascism
in the 1930s. Rhinoceros has been read as a satire of totalitarianism, the police state, and
demagogy as well as a moral call to question the rise of these phenomena in the twentieth
century; however, a thorough exploration into the extent to which the play represents
lonesco's own struggles with his identity as a Romanian in the era of the Iron Guard has yet
to be treated in any meaningful way. In the years between 1925 and 1933, Ionesco saw many
of his close friends become increasingly fascinated by the radical nationalist political party,
the Iron Guard, with its mystical, anti-Western, and anti-Semitic rhetoric. In this intellectual
milieu and atmosphere of mass ideology in the 1930s, Ionesco's ambivalence as partly Jewish
turned into horror. Ionesco was astounded and disgusted to learn of the literary politics of
those he counted as friends and this, in his mind, constituted a betrayal. Ionesco's reasons for
leaving Romania in the 1930s when everyone he knew was embracing an ideology caustic to
his own future explain the terror of the process of "rhinocerization" in his play.
“The basic conflict of the time is not seen to lie between one value-system and another, one
ideology and another, but between the self and the world.” Ionesco’s play is a clear response
to the corrupt ideologies that propelled during WWII, and afterwards during the period of the
Cold War. “The banners are different but the fanaticism is the same.” Ionesco watched
the intellectual community succumb to ideological manipulation and as Althusser puts it,
ideological interpellation. This mindless allegiance among the masses evoking their utmost
devotion to any belief system without rational thought disturbed him profoundly.

When a person morphs himself into a rhinoceros, he happily relinquishes his personal beliefs,
hopes and aspirations in order to ascribe to a powerful collective. Each character within the
play represents a deliberate fixture on the absurdist portrait of a society run amok: the
protagonist, the best friend, the love interest, the coworkers, and the café personnel each and
every character is shown in a dilemma and how these characters when threaded together
resembles a portrait of a society which is flawed and is suffering.

Absurdity & Affirmation in Rhinoceros

Ionesco defines himself as staunchly anti-bourgeois, anti-authoritarian and agnostic. The
dialogues spoken by Jean and Berenger are largely echoed by the Logician and his friend the
Old Gentleman, setting up the two discrete conversations between the pairs taking place
simultaneously, with little common in the subjects under discussions. While the Logician
explains how syllogisms work to his friend, Jean and Berenger discuss the apathy he suffers
from. The two conversations converge, exposing the banality of conversation; the
repetitive phrases of encouragement become clichés that undercut the positive
Cartesian logical paradigm advanced by both the Logician and Jean, and then diverge
till they are brought to an abrupt conclusion with the reappearance of the rhinoceros, this time
causing the death of the housewife ‘s cat.
Within the realm of the theatre of the absurd, life is stripped down to its barest and all
moorings merely emphasize the inexplicability of life itself. The meaninglessness of the
human condition is presented as ontological. Life and death both take place within a void and
are interchangeable in an accidental, futile existence.
Berenger and Daisy speak of their love for one another in a shrinking space, using vocabulary
akin to that used in Mathew Arnold‘s -Dover Beach. Absurdity is exemplified by portraying
language as fast losing its basic communicative capability. This crisis in language dissipates
the affection between Daisy and Berenger. It is also concomitant with the pitting of this
weakening verbal human language against the increasingly attractive and versatile animal
language of the rhinoceros. This language. is first heard as the. trumpeting of the rhino early
in the text as it rushes down the street near the square. At first this trumpeting is
incomprehensible. In Act III, while Berenger finds the sounds of the rhinos increasingly
threatening, and they remain the last human man and woman on earth, Daisy suggests to
Berenger that they try to understand the way their [the rhinos‘] minds work, and learn their
language.

Jean is an obsessive conformist, quoting socially established concepts of duty and will power
in order to justify his actions and vehemently imposing a positive worldview upon himself
and Berenger. Similarly, Botard too uses terminology that invokes certain ideologies,
virtually quoting Marx when he calls religion the opiate of the people and insisting upon a
trade unionist intervention in ensuring the grant of insurance to Mr. Boeuf on turning into a
rhino. The latter observation not only mocks Botard, exposing his rhetoric as empty and
inane, but also furthers Ionesco‘s agenda of presenting on stage an anti-ideological theatre.

Another example of this rhinocerization of the Left exists in the characterization of Dudard.
"Dudard," as Ionesco once said in a private conversation, "is Sartre." Ionesco deplored
Sartre's intellectual bad faith as is shown in the latter 's failure to denounce Stalin and the
existence of gulags. While Jean was deeply insecure, Dudard appears at ease with his position
at work and by extension, with the world and with himself. His internalization of the
discourses of rationality, duty and patriarchy lends him an air of normality, contrary to
Berenger‘s existential angst. Even as he acknowledges the appeal of transforming into a
rhino, he is able to resist the lure of following everyone else. It is only when he is disquieted
by Daisy‘s decided choice of Berenger over himself that he exercises the option of joining the
community of rhinos, glibly, if somewhat cynically, applying conventional tropes and phrases
in order to justify his actions.
It seems easier for those who apply logic and are unaware of the absurdity of human life
to join the rhinos, whether owing to the lure of continuing conformism, or arriving at it
by a so called logical response or even in order to regain some warmth through kinship.
At the end, Berenger recognizes the utter futility of language itself since he is the only human
being remaining. He attempts to reiterate the existentialist notion of people as
interchangeable in his examination of their photographs. In a sense then, the resistance that he
puts up declaring himself to be the last man left, refusing to capitulate, renders him less a
hero Sisyphean than a slightly ironic figure. Ionesco, as Martin Esslin avers, mocks the
individualist who merely makes a virtue of necessity in insisting on his superiority as a
sensitive, artistic being.

That Rhinoceros can be read as an allegory for the Nazi Occupation of France, the Cold War
communist attitude of the Leftists in Paris, the French persecution of Algerians, and the
incursions of Romanian youth into fascism in the 1930s underscores the centrality of
Ionesco’s theme and his double identity as Romanian and French.