548
PARTISAN REVIEW
Is the disregard for its historical context a conscious decision? The analysis of
the main character (his inconsequence, therefore weakness) seems even more
satisfying than the traditional "humanistic" approach (what saves him is
"humanity" i.e., weakness, thoughtlessness?) Surely this interpretation is far
more optimistic, however, leaving out the bitterness and tragedy (for, after all,
there is no victor). A brave, provoking attempt.
The paper is one-sided. In fact, becoming rhinoceros is not, according to the
internal logic of the text, an improvement. But the originality and brilliancy of
the paper is beyond any question.
Some valid points on the subject of Berenger's about-face and his hypocrisy in
defending the "civilization" he cannot believe in, but she gravely misreads
"rhinoceritis" by interpreting it as "progress" of a liberating nature; also, she
ignores the way language in the play functions as a rationalizing suprastructure,
and accepts the characters' statements at face value.
Awful. However, her assertion that the actions of a society rely completely upon
the balance Rhinoceroses/Berengers at any given time for any given
cause/extreme was clear.
This paper is a somewhat irresponsible piece of proto-fascist propaganda.
It
fails to provide a means of entering the text by neglecting:
I.
the distinction
between collective (in a non-coercive way) political/historical change and vio–
lent conformist suppressions of otherness, and
2.
the actual psychological
impact of the concrete historical situation that Ionesco is allegorizing.
We could have even discussed some of the theses of the students of
1996.
A Polish female student focused on "the rhinocerization of lan–
guage" in Ionesco's play ("The Intransparency of Language in
Rhinoc–
eros"),
analyzing language as a "dramatic object," revealing its own
absurdity and gradual loss of meaning, its capacity to convey ideas and
sentiments, in the absence of an appropriate idiom. A crisis of human
relationships, which are finally automated by cliches and redundancy.
What the thesis of seven years earlier brought, however, was the
shock of turning the interpretation "inside out." Was this turn in
Ionesco's spirit? "The right to stupidity?" How "stupid" was yester–
day's stupidity? And today's? I would have liked to have taken up the
question with the father of the absurd drama . The fundamental right to
candor, doubt, challenge, failure? Forms of freedom, that is, of individ–
uality? I suppose Ionesco would have had a lot to say.
