S.G.

Couvalis’s work on the philosophy of drama elucidates how Ionesco shows the rise of fascism not by
providing historical analysis but by an analogy, “by making us feel that the world has gone crazy.” This is
possibly because in his youth spent in Romania between 1925-1933, he witnessed first-hand the rise of
Romania's extreme right wing Iron Guard and the growing fanaticism among Romanian intellectuals (Matei
Calinescu). Anne Quinney in “Excess and Identity: The Franco-Romanian Ionesco Combats Rhinoceritis”
argues that the cultural and political milieu of Romania in the 1930s forms the foundation for Rhinoceros. He
saw around him “men metamorphosed into beasts, rhinoceroses...you would run into an old friend and all of a
sudden, under your very eyes, he would begin to change.” He was witness to the aggressive racism and
cowardice of people who conformed to political tyranny and dominant ideology.

Apart from the historical context, the play can also be viewed in the philosophical context of the absurd. While
talking about Kafka, Ionesco defined the absurd as “that which has no purpose, or goal, or definition”.
Absurdist drama highlights the essential ridiculousness of everyday life which passes unnoticed. Including the
inexplicable metamorphosis of humans into rhinoceroses, the absurdity of the play lies in an attempt to break
the confines between “reality” and “beyond-reality”, which makes the reality against which it protests “ridiculous
by contrast.” (George E. Wellwarth).

The “complex and multidimensional” nature of reality, according to Ionesco, cannot be portrayed through
language as it is too straightforward, so the real content of the play lies in its action. Language can be
discarded and although the characters talk, there is no communication as language becomes mechanical. The
logician in the play uses an absurd syllogism which says that all cats die and since Socrates is dead, he is also
a cat. It represents the failure of normal communication which structures the society. Another interesting
reading by John M. Valentine talks about philosophical kitsch in the play, which tries to establish monism in the
place of plurality and posits essentialist stereotypes in a way that we become lost between idealized
categories. Berenger, the quintessential anti-hero dangles between two such idealized categories- confirming
and “capitulating”, or “being” and “non-being”.

The larger philosophical narrative of the play is that human nature is inferior and can be easily metamorphosed
into a monistic worldview. The absurdity lies in Berenger being the individual hero standing against history. He
seems to be following Albert Camus’ lines, “the only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so
absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.” This rebellion causes his movement from apathy
and listlessness to a sense of meaning. Esslin also argues that Berenger's final position of defiance stems
from “the tragedy of the individual who cannot join the happy throng of less sensitive people, the artist's
feelings as an outcast”. Thus, it highlights the absurdity in both rebellion and conformity. Berenger's final stand
can be seen as absurd, reminiscent of Sisyphus’ act of eternally rolling the rock. However, B. Mangalam states
that Berenger's defiance is only a “verbal gesture” arising out of his inability to do anything else. Therefore,
Rhinoceros depicts the true absurdity of the human predicament and human choices.