قبولش کن و به ما بپیوند: کاربست نظریۀ گروه‌اندیشی در نمایشنامۀ کرگدن نوشتۀ اوژن یونسکو

Introduction: This study applies Irving Janis’s theory of groupthink to Eugène Ionesco’s play Rhinoceros to examine how the play dramatizes the psychological mechanisms of collective conformity and the gradual disappearance of critical thought. It asks to what extent the sequences of “rhinocerization” enacted on stage correspond to canonical groupthink components, such as illusion of invulnerability, collective rationalization, belief in the inherent morality of the group, self-censorship, illusion of unanimity, direct pressure on dissenters, and mindguards, and how these mechanisms are instantiated in dialogue, stage action, and dramaturgical structure. By reading Ionesco through a social-psychological lens, the study reframes the play as a case study of cognitive and linguistic processes that enable mass complicity rather than merely an allegory of fascism or existential absurdity.
Background of the Study: Although Rhinoceros has been widely read for its allegorical resonance with totalitarianism and for its existential themes, scholarship has underexplored systematic psychological accounts of the play’s group dynamics. Previous criticism has privileged historical, ideological, and existential readings, while recent interdisciplinary work has pointed toward social identity, conformity, and performative aspects of mass subjectivity. Building on Janis (1982) and subsequent developments in group influence research (e.g., McCauley; Turner & Pratkanis; Tetlock et al.), this study situates Ionesco’s dramatic devices within an articulated model of groupthink. This framing addresses a gap in the literature by treating the play not just as political allegory but as an aesthetic experiment that stages the cognitive stages of communal self-deception.
Methodology: The research is qualitative, interpretive, and text-centered. The primary text is Ionesco’s Rhinoceros, supplemented by authoritative Persian and English translations to ensure fidelity to linguistic and performative nuances. The analysis proceeded in two phases. First, key scenes, dialogues, and stage directions were identified and segmented for close reading. Second, these segments were coded against Janis’s groupthink taxonomy to track the emergence and interaction of groupthink symptoms across the play’s three acts. The study cross-referenced theoretical sources in social psychology and comparative literary criticism to validate interpretive claims. Attention was paid to how linguistic shifts, rhetorical strategies, character arcs, and mise-en-scène function as aesthetic equivalents of social-psychological processes. Limitations of applying a model derived from small decision-making groups to mass phenomena are acknowledged and addressed through an adapted, metaphorical deployment of the theory.
Conclusion: The analysis demonstrates that Rhinoceros stages a coherent sequence of groupthink mechanisms: initial minimization of threat (illusion of invulnerability), collective rationalizations and rewritings of the past, moral inversion that legitimizes the group’s behavior, progressive self-censorship and manufactured unanimity, social pressure to conform, and the emergence of mindguards who control dissent. Characters such as Bérenger, Jean, Dudard, and Daisy exemplify different nodes in this process, Bérenger as the last human resisting absorption, others as vectors of assimilation. The study’s contribution is twofold: it extends literary interpretation by providing a systematic, psychologically informed account of the play’s dynamics, and it suggests a methodological template for applying social-psychological models to dramatic texts. By showing how theatrical form can model cognitive failure in collective contexts, the study argues that Ionesco’s Rhinoceros remains a timely exploration of how language, staging, and affective pressures can dismantle critical thought and normalize injustice. Moreover, the findings inform contemporary performance practice and pedagogy: directors and dramaturgs can employ the groupthink model to make cognitive pressures visible on stage, and scholars can apply the approach to other modern dramas. Future research could pair textual analysis with reception studies to observe how audiences enact or resist staged groupthink. In sum, this study shows that social-psychological models provide a productive hermeneutic for dramatic texts and affirms Rhinoceros as a lasting examination of the processes by which communities systematically normalize violence and silence dissent.