This is a paper I wrote last semester for my Script Analysis class. I chose to write about the play Rhinoceros by Eugene Ionesco.
Rhinoceritis leads to the Trampling of Individual Thought
Rhinoceros is a parable about the transformation society undergoes when its individual members choose to fall in line with an authoritarian uniformity. Eugene Ionesco chose to use rhinoceroses as the end result of transformation as a way of conveying the idea that one rhino by itself is a mild hazard, but the more there are the more dangerous they become until they have trampled everything that stands in their way. In Rhinoceros Ionesco wanted us to see that it was neither a prudent nor a logical choice for the characters (Berenger excluded) to sacrifice their individuality for the sake of mass conformity with fascism. It was evident that Ionesco wanted us to see the fallacy of that sacrifice because we know of his own experiences with friends and colleagues who succumbed to fascism, as well as noting his constant references throughout the play to syllogisms, logic, and the Logician.
Eugene Ionesco witnessed a mass exodus away from individual thinking during the rise of the Iron Guard in the 1920’s and 30’s. According to Anne Quinney, “Ionesco saw many of his close friends become increasingly fascinated by the radical nationalist political party,” which he considered a betrayal as he was partly Jewish and the Iron Guard was fiercely anti-Semitic. For a while Eugene went to meetings with a dozen or so other individuals who talk about their opinions and views opposing the fascist dictatorship that was working its way into power. Every so often one member would be discussing the issues he took with the government but would also chime in that he might agree with them philosophically in one area of thinking. In Ms. Quinney’s article “Excess and Identity: The Franco-Romanian Ionesco Combats Rhinoceritis” she goes on to say that Ionesco once lamented “that kind of comment was a symptom. Three weeks later, that person would become a Nazi. Toward the end, it was only three or four of us who resisted.” Berenger represented Ionesco in this play as he similarly dealt with the steady transformation of friends and colleagues such as Jean, the Logician, and Daisy into rampaging, one-minded animals. As the fictional version of Ionesco, Berenger was described in the book Ionesco and Genet: Playwrights of Silence as one who “would resist the hovering presence of despair and continue to fight against the dark pressures which threaten every hope.” Therefore, based on an accurate syllogism as described by the Logician, 1) Berenger represents Ionesco, 2) Berenger resisted despair and continued fighting for hope, 3) therefore, Ionesco fought for hope. This fight resulted in the writing of Rhinoceros.
Throughout the entirety of Rhinoceros the majority of primary characters made statements intending them to be logical when in fact they made no real sense. The constant use of false logic by individuals who eventually succumbed to rhinoceritis was not only ironic but well intended by the playwright to make his point. Take the Logician, for example. The Logician actually brought up and discussed the very nature of a syllogism in the first act. He correctly explained that it “consists of a main proposition, a secondary one, and a conclusion” (pg. 13). On page 20 he admitted logic was a beautiful thing, but under the stipulation, “as long as it is not abused.” Chief abusers of logic in this play were the Logician himself, Dudard, Jean, Botard, and even Daisy, all of whom eventually conformed to rhinoceritis. The play mirrored history well in that rhinoceritis, or fascism, took a while to build momentum. At first there were only a few nazis and it was fairly easy to see the hideousness, or tough skin and pale green complexion, of that ideology. Yet, once the movement began gaining steam it became commonplace for individuals to look past the ugliness and to determine, as Daisy put it, that “They look happy. They’re content to be what they are. They don’t look insane. They look very natural. They were right to do what they did.” (Italics mine). Daisy attempted to be logical in her defense of the country’s rhinocerization but it was a fallacy. G. Richard Danner wrote that, “To be human here is to be free to use faulty rhetoric as an instrument of intellectual anarchy.” Daisy used faulty rhetoric when she rationalized that looking happy and appearing natural minus seeming insane equaled having done the right thing. Ionesco knew that that was a flawed argument. His choice to make logic a very real theme in this play was both intentional and ironic because of the apparent absence of logic amongst those who made the radical decision to sacrifice their individuality.
There are those who would disagree that being a fascist does not require a sacrifice of individuality. Benito Mussolini himself argued that individuality was, in fact, better because of fascism in an essay that he wrote in 1935: “The individual in the Fascist State is not annulled but rather multiplied, just in the same way that a soldier in a regiment is not diminished but rather increased by the number of his comrades. The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....” The power to choose which liberties are useless, non-essential and no longer necessary to the people belongs solely to the Fascist State Mussolini dreamed about. Because the State held this power, they had the right at any time to take away your freedoms if they deemed them ‘harmful’. Dudard stated (pg. 80) “You leave the authorities to act as they think best!” The Rhinoceritis was already setting in. Incidentally, Mussolini indicts fascism by contradicting himself. Merriam-Webster defines the word ‘annul’ as ‘to reduce to nothing’. How can the individual be stripped of their freedoms and not be reduced to nothing? Sacrifice of the things that make us unique is absolutely necessary to function as a fascist. Berenger, and other characters also, seemed to have a difficult time telling which rhinoceros was which. Berenger determined he saw the Logician as a rhinoceros because of the hat he was wearing on his horn and not at all because of whom he was or how he conducted himself. Rhinoceritis may have resulted in multiplied comrades but these comrades were a sea of indistinguishable people.
It would be reasonable to assume that some people have jumped on the fascist bandwagon simply to not be left behind. It could not possibly be illogical to move with the times, and at the time of Ionesco’s experiences in Romania the fascist Iron Guard was in power. Botard even echoes this sentiment claiming “…we must keep up with the times!” (Pg.89) It is stated in the book Ionesco and Genet that “The truth is that all impulses, except Berenger’s, quickly surrender to the spineless moving along with the times. Botard, like Jean, lacks the inner strength to resist whatever prevailing breeze of convention may blow.” Botard was ripe for fascism as he never resisted those who prevailed. The problem with this is that if we do not resist at all we will become thoughtless creatures who do as we are told for the sake of keeping up with the times.. Ionesco himself went as far as saying, “Keeping up with the times is the same as staying behind them: you need to keep one step ahead of them.” Keeping one step ahead of the times would look more like creative thinking about the circumstances and everyone tapping into their own unique abilities to serve society. William S. Haney explains, “Berenger exhibits willpower in the face of strong opposition from his friends and colleagues [which] indicates that he has committed himself to a significant cause.” Berenger is keeping one step ahead of the times, at all times. Though he briefly considers succumbing near the end of Act III, he displays his resolve with his final line, “I’m not capitulating!”
“When the first beasts start raising dust, the scene is not visibly affected. Significance is slow in evolving out of the nonsense,” (pg. 78) according to Four Playwrights and a Postscript. Momentum takes awhile to build. Rome was not built in a day and Nazism did not pop up overnight. At first, in the play, there was only one rhinoceros causing a ruckus. Eventually a second one began roaming town. As time wore on, ideas caught on, though not necessarily logical ones. The mass conformity to fascist thinking did not spread like wildfire. It took time, years in fact. We must be responsible as rational human beings to think logically about what we are supporting. We must not become spineless and content with a ‘sufficient margin of liberty’ but our thoughts and actions should be logical and not willing to sacrifice our individuality. Are we willing to capitulate? Or will we stand firm against a fundamentally flawed ideology when we see our colleagues succumb to Rhinoceritis?
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ionesco, Eugène. Rhinoceros. New York: Grove, 1960. Print.
Grossvogel, David I. Four Playwrights and a Postscript: Brecht, Ionesco, Beckett, Genet. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1975. Print.
Jacobsen, Josephine, and William Randolph Mueller. Ionesco and Genêt; Playwrights of Silence. New York: Hill and Wang, 1968. Print.
Bonnefoy, Claude. Conversations with Eugène Ionesco. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971. Print.
Anne, Quinney. "Excess and Identity: The Franco-Romanian Ionesco Combats Rhinoceritis." 2007. Web. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/south_central_review/v024/24.3quinney.html
Danner, G. Richard. "Bérenger's Dubious Defense of Humanity in Rhinocéros." JSTOR. The French Review, Web. http://www.jstor.org/stable/390561
Haney, William S., II. "Eugene Ionesco's Rhinoceros: Defiance vs. Conformism." Web. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-179571032.html
Mussolini, Benito. "The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism." Web. http://paperweight.cooper.edu/humanities/core/hss3/Mussolini_Doctrines.html
