Bhave 1

Name: Vineet Bhave

UID: 221028
Stream: TYBA
Course: AENG0503
12 September 2024

‘The Self and Conformity in Eugene Ionesco’s Rhinoceros’

The Theatre of the Absurd is known to dabble in themes such as self-identity,

existentialism and isolation. Eugene Ionesco’s plays, too, show several of these traits. We will

be analysing one such play, Rhinoceros. Originally in French, we will be referring to an

English translation penned by Derek Prouse. The play is as absurdist in nature as they come

and yet, it is much more than just an absurd play commenting on philosophy. We will be

looking at the self as a concept in isolation as well as comparing it to identities of both the

self and the group, conformism, resilience and human nature. It is amusing to wonder how a

play about people turning into rhinoceroses may be studied as a literature of the self but

several aspects of this play relate directly to our central premise. Berenger’s character, who

finds himself alone near the end of the play, both physically and ideologically, resisting

against the general opinion is evident of the identity that he has carved out for himself. The

relationships that are shown in the play between people and even between the rhinoceroses

and the people show a disconnect that must be studied with relation to the self. The fascist

ideologies and the conformism prevalent in society also presents a side of group

consciousness and a loss of individuality which is deeply connected to the self and the

analysis of the self. Aligning everything with Rhinoceros, the objective of this essay is now

made clear: to understand an example of the self through the characters of the play; to analyse

the effects of isolation on the self and; to comprehend how the self may be understood as part
Bhave 2

of a group consciousness involving conformism and resistance. An absurdist play has its

unique ways of adding another layer of explanation to Ionesco’s understanding of the self.

Berenger is not the character archetype of a hero who can be idealised. His

introduction reveals him to be a drunkard, weak, sloppy and shabby. He is widely regarded to

be lost in his own world. While these characteristics may be unnatural for a protagonist, he is

led to be individualistic because of them. Berenger also reveals a tinge of being self-aware, a

knowledge of the futility of the world which also leads him to drinking and his sadness.

‘Then as soon as I take a drink, the lead slips away and I recognise myself, I become me

again (Ionesco 18). While these lines uttered by Berenger may seem as an excuse for him to

drink, it also shows us how the act of drinking and the following consequences lead Berenger

to become a better chiselled ‘self’ of him than he usually is. This shows us how, prior to

drinking, Berenger feels the need to hide much of his ‘self’ from others. ‘This is confirmed

by Ionesco at a conference in Bucharest in 1965, on the occasion of the presentation of

Rhinoceros, where he stated that each individual, once he becomes an adult, puts on a

socialbradley mask to hide his lack of individual identity. (Bradley 148)

‘No one has ever seen the self. It has no visible shape, nor does it occupy measurable

space. It is an abstraction, like other abstractions equally elusive: the individual, the mind, the

society’ (Howe 56). Here, we can construe the self as such a part of the identity, personal to

the owner, hidden from others. Berenger wishes to be true to his individuality, and feels better

accepting his ‘inner self’. ‘It is this desire to be true to his own human nature that prevents

Berenger from becoming a rhinoceros, for to betray himself is to betray the others, just as to

betray the others would be to betray himself’ (Bradley 262). Here we understand how not just

having an identity but also being loyal to it is the crux of finding one’s self.

This human nature and this attachment to individuality saves Berenger but his fate is

not as idyllic either. Ionesco uses Berenger as a porte-parole to say that ‘People who try to
Bhave 3

hang on to their individuality always come to a bad end’ (107). This shows us how inherently

absurd the play has become, where neither side can be held to be right or wrong, their choices

made out of their free will and the onus is pushed onto the reader to make the judgement, if

one even has to be made. As Ionesco cleverly puts it in a conversation between Berenger and

Daisy,

Berenger: We’re the ones who are doing right Daisy, I assure you.

Daisy: That’s very presumptuous of you!

Berenger: You know perfectly well I’m right.

Daisy: There’s no such thing as absolute right. It’s the world that’s right - not you or me

(103).

To understand an example of the ‘self’ through this play, one must also look at the

character of Jean. His statements and characteristics are unique but his conformism is

prominent through several circumstances. ‘The superior man is the one who fulfils his duty’

is such a conformist statement that Jean’s character falls open at this utterance itself (Ionesco

7). Jean considers the duty of a man as defining of his identity and self. When his duty is

something external, it can be changed and so it does. We will later also note how Jean’s

change of identity relates to conformism.

We can also differ between the self and identity. ‘Plato (~370 BCE [1871]), for

example, saw the self as an eternal soul trapped for a while in a physical body’ (Edwardes 6).

We learn how if the physical body is considered as separate from the self, the transformation

of humans into rhinoceroses is only a corporeal transformation, but it affects society as a

whole as it is considered as a transformation of the self. Gregor’s transformation in The

Metamorphosis may also be considered as a transformation of the body and not the self. This

helps us identify the self as its separate entity and analyse it so.
Bhave 4

This now brings us to our main argument for the essay which will be to analyse how

the cultural context of the play also vitalizes the importance of the self. The self is affected by

all external stimuli, such as appearance, social class, culture, country and many more. To

analyse any piece of literature; it is of great significance to note the social, cultural and

political period in which it was written. The play was written in 1959, right after the two

World Wars had ended and the presence of the Iron Guard was felt in Romania. Ionesco has

written this play ‘as a response to and criticism of the upsurge of Communism, Fascism and

Nazism during the political events preceding and after the World War II’ (Gianchandani 333).

The relation between fascism and the self can be seen from the core of its ideology

itself. The word ‘Fascism’ is derived from the Latin word ‘Fasces’ which means a bundle of

sticks. Instantly, the ideology of conformity strikes out and becomes apparent in the play

having learnt this origin of the word. ‘The play illustrates Ionesco's convictions that man

loses his identity when he is absorbed in a mass, and this faceless, dehumanised mass can be

shaped at will by a dictator or leader into a monstrous form’ (Bradley 248). It can be

understood how Ionesco uses the animal of the Rhinoceros to show this dehumanisation and

group consciousness that comes to life during the reign of a dictator and forced ideologies. As

Jean talks about his ‘duty’ and his obligation to fulfil it to become the superior man; we can

understand how the moment the ‘duty’ changes, Jean’s self identity will change as well

(Ionesco 7). He conforms to the new form of rule seeing that as the only method to continue

his self, his identity.

However, one does not conform solely to follow a new regime, regardless of what he

thinks about it, rather ‘Conformity refers to the act of changing one’s behaviour to match the

responses of others’ (Cialdini and Goldstein 606). Everyone except Berenger in the play,

matches each other’s reactions and responses. This is also equally evident through their

premier reactions having seen the rhinoceroses.

Bhave 5

‘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 and expression

which in this context has been denigrated to a mere robotic response to a common stimulus’

(Gianchandani 333). In this way, through this absurdist style of writing, the characteristics of

conformism and non-individualistic thinking step out. The striking feature is that at first,

Berenger refuses to even acknowledge the presence of the rhinoceros as something unusual.

He even tries to justify their existence ‘Oh, excuse me… perhaps the rhinoceros escaped from

the zoo’ and ‘In that case maybe it has been hiding in the surrounding swamps’ (Ionesco 14).

Berenger is tethered to reality, however illogically it may seem. He does not readily give in to

the existence of the Rhinoceros, their ideologies, their personhood or their cause. He is

adamant on staying human for as long as possible.

However, by the end of the play it seems that Berenger too loses his tether on reality,

finding it difficult to know what is real and what is not. In this way, in writing the self or

defining it, isolation poses a difficulty. It is difficult to know what self remains if left in

isolation. ‘At the end of the play, when he is totally isolated, he begins to doubt if he is a man,

or whether it is not he who is the monster. He no longer even understands his own language.

This need for the recognition of others attracts men into groups, even though they detest one

another’ (Bradley 219).

We understand how a group consciousness is as important as a self consciousness.

While the others may have conformed and left their own self identity to identify with a larger

group, Berenger is left alone, and without a group identity, on some level his own falls short.

This duality of the self and the group identity being both dependent on each other and having

the ability to destroy each other is interesting. Bradley comments about individual identity in

the sense that ‘Berenger’s final monologue with the Killer illustrates Ionesco’s own
Bhave 6

recognition that, without the basis of individual identity to give existence shape and meaning,

all traditional justifications of life based upon humanism, Christianity, science, selfrespect, or

any creed or belief are worthless’ (87). Individual identity gives shape and meaning to

existence but a group identity provides nourishment and support for that individual identity.

As stated by Bradley, this ‘justification of life’ was already tested by existentialism

which also forms an important part of the narrative (87). It can also be drawn out that this

whole question, the identity of Berenger and every other character, their relation to each other

and themselves can only be pinpointed under the world of existentialism. This philosophical

reality, and perspective of looking at the world is what can act as a catalyst for this play’s

premise and the character’s reactions as well.

Rhinoceros as a piece of literature is difficult to comprehend and piece together.

However, the play is deviously simple, while written convulsively. ‘It is a manifestation of

existentialism in its presentation of the struggle of an authentic individual against the

collective’ (Kaur 3). The authentic individual being Berenger and the collective being the

Rhinoceros. However, for the purpose of considering the play despite its cultural context, one

can realise the symbiosis between the self and the group. We have understood the self as both

in relation to an individual and the group. Berenger fights to retain his individuality and

refuses to transform into a rhinoceros like the others. While the others who have already

chosen their fate may have lost their identities but retain their sanity by being a part of a

group. What ends up being the deciding factor is conformism that is present as the motive.

Without which, the self would have been left with a choice, and had the agency to balance its

identity. We must conclude that a group identity formed through conformism is a destructive

identity, a self that is redundant in itself and causes other authentic identities to doubt

themselves.
Bhave 7

Works Cited:

Bradley, Ellyn Isabelle. “The search for individual identity in the works of eugene lonesco.”

Durham E-Theses, 1985, etheses.dur.ac.uk/7138/1/7138_4320.PDF.

Cialdini, Robert B., and Noah J. Goldstein. SOCIAL INFLUENCE: Compliance and

Conformity.

www2.psych.ubc.ca/~schaller/Psyc591Readings/CialdiniGoldstein2004.pdf.

Edwardes, Martin P. J. “What Is a Self?” The Origins of Self: An Anthropological

Perspective, UCL Press, 2019, pp. 1–28. JSTOR,

https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv13xprvd.6. Accessed 12 Sept. 2024.

Gianchandani, Sanjhee. “Individualism Pitted Against Dogma in Eugene Ionesco’s

Rhinoceros.” The Criterion, vol. 6, no. 4, Aug. 2015,

www.the-criterion.com/V6/n4/049.pdf.

HOWE, IRVING. “The Self in Literature.” Salmagundi, no. 90/91, 1991, pp. 56–77. JSTOR,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40548259. Accessed 12 Sept. 2024.

Ionesco, Eugene. Rhinoceros And Other Plays. 1959,

www.kkoworld.com/kitablar/ejen-ionesko-kergedan-eng.pdf.

Kaur, Harwinder. “Authenticity VS Conformity: An Existential Study of Eugene Ionesco’s

Rhinoceros.” Academic Deliberations, Sept. 2016,

www.rhinoresourcecenter.com/pdf_files/148/1487483187.pdf.