Author : Ibrohim Muhammad Dhiyaulhaq
Rhinoceros
Rhinoceros is a play written by Romanian – French playwright, Eugene Ionesco and was first performed in 1959. Rhinoceros is considered to be one of the absurd dramas by many scholars, but some of them do not consider this play as an absurd drama because it is quite narrow in terms of its interpretation, while usually in absurd drama, the play can contain many interpretations from various point of view and from many backgrounds. The play addresses the themes of conformity, culture, fascism, responsibility, rationality, mass movements, mob mentality, philosophy, and morality. It is often seen as a response and critique to the abrupt rise of fascism and Nazism during the events leading up to World War II.
The play itself consists of only three acts with only one setting, the quiet provincial French town, a characteristic unique to an absurd play. The first act starts at a coffee shop, where two friends get together: the humble, shy, and kind-hearted drunkard Bérenger, and the eloquent, intelligent, and proud Jean. They’ve gathered to talk about an unidentified but crucial issue. Instead of discussing it, Jean chastises Bérenger for his drunkenness and tardiness, and then a rhinoceros charges across the square, raising a ruckus. A second rhinoceros shows up during the next conversation and crushes a woman’s pet. Outraged by this, the locals organized to protest that the rhinoceroses’ existence was unacceptable after getting into a furious debate over whether they spotted two separate rhinoceroses or the same one twice, or whether they were Asian or African rhinoceros, Bérenger and Jean part ways, with Jean leaving in a huff.
Then started the second act, Bérenger is running late to the neighborhood newspaper office. Bérenger is in love with Daisy, the receptionist, and she fills in for him by discreetly giving him a time sheet. A fight has broken out at work between the violent, volatile Botard and the sensible, sensitive Dudard. The latter does not think it is possible for a rhinoceros to show up in France. The employee’s wife, Mrs. Boeuf, claims that her husband is ill and that a rhinoceros followed her all the way to the office. Botard dismisses the “rhinoceritis” movement with contempt, claiming that the locals are too wise to be convinced by meaningless platitudes. The office’s staircase is destroyed by an arriving rhinoceros, locking all of the employees within. Mrs. Bœuf recognizes the altered rhinoceros as her husband. She ignores the danger and jumps down the stairway onto her husband’s back to join him. Daisy has called the firefighter. The office workers use a window to get out of there.
Bérenger pays Jean a visit to express his sorry for their fight the day before. He discovers Jean in bed, ill. They debate again, first on the morality of such a transition and then on whether or not humans can actually change into rhinoceroses. Jean first opposes it before becoming more understanding. Jean starts to change bit by bit. In closing, Jean declares that they are entitled to existence on par with humans and concludes by declaring, “Humanism is dead, those who follow it are just old sentimentalists”. Once he’s fully transformed, he chases Bérenger out of the apartment.
The third act. At home, Bérenger is experiencing a bad dream. He is afraid of becoming Jean sooner. After taking a sip of brandy, he goes to bed. When Dudard pays him a visit, they almost exactly converse like they did with Jean before. This time, however, Bérenger rejects the notion that he will change, but Dudard accepts the transition. Daisy shows up carrying a love basket. Bérenger and Dudard are both after her. Daisy says that Botard has also evolved. A lot of the villagers, firefighters included, have started to change. Dudard departs, eager to observe directly. Bérenger tries to halt him. Dudard transforms into his own rhinoceros. Bérenger mourns Dudard’s passing. Daisy informs Berenger that it is not their place to meddle in the affairs of others. Bérenger promises to stand up for her. He holds himself and Daisy accountable for contributing to Jean’s and Papillon’s changes through indifference. Daisy eases his guilt.
The phone rings, but the only sound coming from the other end is a rhino trumpeting. They try to get assistance via the radio, but the rhinos have also taken control of that. Bérenger declares his love for Daisy. It appears that she feels the same way. They try living a normal life amidst the animals. They should try to repopulate the human race, Bérenger urges. Daisy starts to distance herself from him, implying that Bérenger is incapable of comprehending love. She has come to believe that rhinoceroses are truly passionate. Without thinking, Bérenger slaps Daisy and then instantly retracts. “In a matter of minutes, we have completed 25 years of marriage,” proclaims Bérenger. They argue again despite their attempts at reconciliation. Daisy disappears to join the animals while Bérenger studies himself in a mirror, searching for signs of a transformation. Completely alone now, Bérenger feels bad about what he did to Daisy. He starts to question his own existence when he is by himself. He shouts, “I’m not capitulating!” as he regains his resolve to battle the creatures after failing in his attempt to transform into a rhinoceros.
Dehumanization
According to an article written by Maiese (2024) titled “Dehumanization”, Dehumanization is a psychological phenomenon in which opponents believe one another to be less morally deserving and so less than human. The perfect example of this is the genocide that is happening right now in the Gaza Strip, Palestine by the Israel Occupation Force (IOF) which kills even babies and called it inevitable. Long-term disagreement fractures bonds between parties and makes it harder for them to acknowledge their common humanity. Conflicting parties frequently experience strong feelings of alienation and animosity as a result of these circumstances. The psychological gap between groups will grow the more intense the confrontation. This may eventually lead to moral exclusion. Those excluded are typically viewed as inferior, evil, or criminal (Opotow, 2000). Nonetheless, Opotow (1999) also said that for those who became objects of dehumanization “the concepts of deserving basic needs and fair treatment do not apply and can seem irrelevant”.
For those who are seen as being outside the bounds of morality and justice. Any violence that comes to these people appears justified, if not morally so. People who are not considered part of one’s moral community are usually seen as psychologically remote, disposable, and deserving of treatment that would not be appropriate for those who are. Ideology, skin tone, and mental ability are typical exclusionary factors. People that we believe to pose a threat to our beliefs or well-being are usually dehumanized (Deutsch, 2000). To psychologically justify escalating violence or the violation of fundamental human rights, it is necessary to classify one’s opponent as sub-human. Moral exclusion weakens the prohibitions against abusing or injuring particular racial or ethnic groups. In extreme circumstances, dehumanization justifies—even necessitates—breaking socially acceptable standards of behavior toward one’s fellow humans.
In actuality, dehumanization is just a milder version of the process of creating an “enemy image” of the rival. Feelings of dread, distrust, and rage influence how the parties view one another during a protracted fight. Parties start to perceive their opponent negatively and acquire adversarial attitudes and beliefs. They could start to see the other as a dangerous, warlike creature, a morally reprehensible foe, or an evil enemy. An urge for group identity and a need to balance the unique qualities and virtues of one’s own group against the vices of the “outside” group might give rise to such images (Stein, 1996). Images of the evil ruler appear occasionally. Rubin & Pruitt (1994) also said that Ordinary group members are thought to be impartial or even harmless, but their leaders are considered to be barbaric hideous monsters (Rubin, 1994).
Typically, “enemy images” are in black and white. It is believed that an opponent’s negative deeds reveal their underlying evil essence, characteristics, or motivations. Both one’s opponent’s ideals and motivations and one’s own shortcomings are typically written off, rejected, or disregarded. It gets harder to understand or sympathize with one’s opponent. It becomes doubtful that meaningful contact will occur, and finding common ground becomes difficult. “Enemy image”, once established, is hard to change and assist in prolonging and escalating the fight. Since the opponent is now seen as a “diabolical enemy,” the fight is presented as a struggle between good and evil. After framing the dispute in this manner, the parties take increasingly hard-line positions. Sometimes parties start to feel that they must either ensure their own win or risk defeat, which leads to the development of zero-sum thinking.
In certain situations, more militant leadership takes over, and new objectives to punish or destroy the adversary emerge. Psychologists claim that the process of “projection,” in which individuals “project” their own flaws onto their opponents, accentuates the “enemy images”. This implies that individuals or organizations with a tendency for aggression or selfishness are more inclined to blame their opponents for such characteristics rather than themselves. This enhances one’s sense of self and strengthens group dynamics, but it also intensifies the dispute and facilitates the dehumanization of the opposing side.
Deindividuation facilitates dehumanization as well. This is the psychological process whereby a person is seen as a member of a category or group rather than as an individual (Maiese, 2024). People who are deindividuated are perceived as less fully human than those who are individuated, and as such, they are less shielded from assault by social standards. Then, it is simpler to defend controversial decisions or harsh measures used against opponents.
Arguments
Looking at both Eugene Ionesco’s Rhinoceros and the concept of dehumanization, it is arguable to say that Rhinoceros is a drama that can be viewed from a dehumanization perspective. The case of people turning into rhinoceros in the play written by Eugene Ionesco is more similar to Franz Kafka’s “Metamorphosis” where people turn into something not human, either by their own will or not, or either if they still have their sanity left in them or not, it is a transformation where both the subject and the people around them can perceive it, the subject themselves can ascertain that they have become inhuman, and it can be proven biologically which means it is not an illusion or only one’s perception.
Because if we are talking about dehumanization, a play like The Hairy Ape by Eugene O’Neil is more fitting to the theme, as we can see throughout the play of The Hairy Ape how other people perceive Yank and his shipmates as anything other than human, even though he is a human whose form is human and also thinking and talking like any other human beings. And to make it more tragic but more apparent as a prove that he is a human being like us, he dies by the hand of a gorilla, a real ape, which should make us think that if he is an ape, he would have the same strength as the gorilla to break free or at least hold on from its hug, but that kind of thinking is often times proven to be too late for us to realize that as a wrongdoing as we might be responsible for the other’s downfall or demise. That is how dangerous dehumanization is and why people should not harbor any feeling of dehumanization toward another human being whether they are from different races, nationalities, religions, etc.
To be more precise, the transformation we can see in Eugene Ionesco’s Rhinoceros is often time or all of the morphing in front of Berenger and we as the audience, are of the characters’ own discretion. First, we have Mrs. Bœuf who willingly threw herself to a rhinoceros she thought was her husband, even though we don’t know how Mr. Bœuf turned into a rhinoceros, his wife chose to ignore all rationality and preferred to be by her husband’s wife.
In the second case, we have Jean, Berenger’s drinking buddy. When Berenger knows of Jean’s condition, immediately pays him a visit to apologize. Though then both of them were again caught in quite a heated argument and when their argument reaches the latest news of people turning into rhinoceros, that Berenger had seen himself happen to Mrs. Bœuf, Jean considers the transformation into rhinoceros is not a bad thing, he said “You always see the black side of everything. It obviously gave him great pleasure to turn into a rhinoceros. There’s nothing extraordinary in that” (Ionesco, 1960: 66). The people gradually grow to accept this transition to be something normal as well. It follows that the distinction between normalcy and abnormality is hazy. They are unable to distinguish between the rhinoceroses’ horns, indicating that they have lost their individual characteristics and are now all the same. Those who oppose this kind of totalization find themselves alone. The other characters have transformed and appear content, gradually tempting them to join the rhinoceroses.
Then in the third case, we have Daisy, probably the last person to turn into a rhinoceros in that little town. She was also affected by the feeling of alienation where all the people she knows, besides Berenger, have turned into rhinoceros, and they did not seem to be in distress, she even hears the rhinoceroses’ melodies as harmonious and happy as she quoted “Those are the real people. 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” (Ionesco, 1960: 103). Meanwhile, Berenger has a different opinion, saying “I feel out of place in life, among people, and so I take to drink. That calms me down and relaxes me so I can forget” (Ionesco, 1960: 17). Therefore, he rejects Daisy’s perspective that makes him feels lonely and alienated as alienation is also another theme this play tries to bring to attention as it also reflects Eugene Ionesco’s “horror of mass civilization” (Strem, 1962: 158) according to Atasoy (2021). Daisy and Berenger’s different opinions and constant arguments become the last push for Daisy to join the other as she throws herself out of the window while Berenger not paying attention and she becomes a rhinoceros.
Conclusion
Throughout the play, we do not see a case where a person or a group of people call others or consider others as rhinoceros while they are still human in form. That is why I think this play is not a case of dehumanization, although people in this drama change from human to non-human, the transformation or metamorphosis is a more accurate way to describe this play. The nearest probable theme to dehumanization depicted in this play is anti-humanism as it changes humans into irreversible “mutation” that is an insensitive, careless creature, and a paradox in which humans no longer appreciate mankind’s eternal value according to Cap-Bun (2011), which she also says that is beyond the time the play was written.
Citations
Atasoy, Emrah. “Eugène Ionesco’nun Gergedanlar Oyununda Gergedanlaşma.” Turkish Academic Research Review, Feb. 2021, doi:10.30622/tarr.840078.
Cap-Bun, Marina. “Human Condition Between the Fantastic and the Absurd in Eugene Ionesco’s Rhinoceros.” Analele Universităţii Ovidius Din Constanţa. Seria Filologie, no. 2, Jan. 2011, pp. 71–82, www.ceeol.com/content-files/document-134287.pdf.
Maiese, Michelle. “Dehumanization.” Beyond Intractability, 12 Jan. 2024, www.beyondintractability.org/essay/dehumanization. Accessed 30 May 2024.
Ionesco, Eugène. Rhinoceros. 1960, books.google.ie/books?id=a5zxAAAAMAAJ&q=rhinoceros,+Eugene+Ionesco&dq=rhinoceros,+Eugene+Ionesco&hl=&cd=1&source=gbs_api.
Kafka, Franz. The Metamorphosis. Bantam Classics, 1972, books.google.ie/books?id=Cv6ypZqW0VwC&q=the+metamorphosis&dq=the+metamorphosis&hl=&cd=5&source=gbs_api.
O’Neill, Eugene. The Hairy Ape. 1923, books.google.ie/books?id=erck0AEACAAJ&dq=the+hairy+ape&hl=&cd=6&source=gbs_api.
Opotow, Susan. Drawing the line: Social categorization, moral exclusion, and the scope of justice. Jan. 1995, psycnet.apa.org/record/1995-98007-011.
Rubin, Jeffrey Z., et al. Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement, 2nd ed. Jan. 1994, psycnet.apa.org/record/1993-98838-000.
