Broken Looking Glass: Dissolved Community In “Alice In Wonderland”

“If everyone minded their business,’ said the Duchess in a hoarse growl. ” (Carroll, 62).

Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, a whimsical and imaginative tale of a place where there are no shared rules or common understandings, is both fanciful as well. Wonderland’s inhabitants can’t form a group, even though they share an area. Interpersonal relationships lack that mutuality Alice is used too. Individual trajectories are not likely to alter one other, even though they intersect. Richard Kelly says that everyone is isolated and alone in Wonderland (77). Alice’s “madness” is rooted in pathological individualism. Where personal freedom and interpersonal relationships are taken to extremes, Wonderland residents can be belligerent, self-righteous, and this is where Alice finds her roots. Ironically, Alice is actually more right than she realizes. She wonders if “shall fall right through this earth”. . . [To] The Antipathies” Carroll 21 Alice later observed, “It is really terrible. . . All the animals are arguing in the same way. It’s enough for one to go insane!” (Carroll 60). The creatures’ inability to provide support for Alice is just one manifestation of a more troubling phenomenon: their inability to create any social unit the protagonist can see. Carroll removes Wonderland’s residents from any obligation towards Alice or one another. The March Hare is found arbitrarily trying to “put the Dormouse inside a cup” (Carroll 75) at an informal tea party. This setting has long been considered a model for proper manners and etiquette.

Social cohesion is undermined when there are no rules and standards. This allows for a high degree personal independence but also causes Wonderland animals to interact “in confusion” (Carroll35). The Caucusrace is a good example of disorder when there aren’t shared rules. The creatures ran when they wanted and stopped when their hearts desired. “Carroll 35” Richard Kelly in “Dream Child” notes that “The Caucus Race may be read more as a metaphor of the entire story” (79). Individual creatures behave according t their own desires.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines community as “sharing participation, fellowship, and community”. The Wonderland creatures seem happy to indulge in the chaos of their individualism, in so far as this implies that they are able to participate in the organization of behavior. Individual freedom must be sacrificed in order to maintain community. The Wonderland creatures are unable to give up their personal freedom in exchange for justice and order. The King asks the cook to give evidence during the Knave of Heart trial. The trial’s chaos demonstrates Wonderland’s arbitrariness. Although the trial resembles legal proceedings with its courtroom and judge, jury, as well as witnesses, it is void of any “valid” evidence and the case never progresses.

Alice perceives anarchy as a result of a lack of shared rules and a dissolution in the logic that rules are based. The logic of causality states that rules can have positive or negative consequences, and following them will lead to positive outcomes. The theory of natural punishment and reward is a popular one in Wonderland. Alice is often freed from the predicaments that her recklessness has led to. . . Completely dissolves” (Mulderig 324). Actions are no longer able to produce effects and lose their causal potential. The cook did not stop at throwing all she could at the Duchess of Cambridge and her baby–the fireirons. . . [–]Plates and dishes . . Even when they struck her, the Duchess did not notice. . . It was not possible to know whether the blows did any harm [to the baby]” Carroll 61

Gerald P. Mulderig (critic) notes that Wonderland’s most remarkable fact is its existence. . . You are not responsible for your actions. . . You will feel a slight bump when you fall down the rabbit holes. . . “Executive threats are never made” (326-327). The cook has the freedom to do whatever she wants, as she is not disciplined or even noticed. Throwing things at other people is a common way to get negative feedback. However, the actions of the cook do not have this causality. Throwing objects is simply throwing them. There’s no causality to make it hurt others or punishable. Individuals are released from each other when their actions do not have an impact on others. In an “everybody knows[s]” world, there is also the possibility of freedom. . . (“Their own business”) (Carroll 62). The tyranny od causality is no longer in control; Alice discovers that individualism invalidates the logic, which leads her to consider Wonderland events arbitrary.

Arbitrariness is a problem in causal relationships, even when actions have consequences. Wonderland is a world where consequences can’t be fixed. Although the same act may result in the same effect, it is not guaranteed. Alice was averse to eating and drinking foods that would alter her body in an unpredicted way before she discovered the mushroom. Alice suddenly grows to ten inches in height after drinking from the “DRINK me” bottle (Carroll24). She grows quickly after drinking from the second bottle with the same label. Alice probably wouldn’t have given up on this chance to become trapped in the White Rabbits house if she had known. Because it is impossible to predict the effects of an action, possible consequences do not function as impediments or incentives.

Alice is now free from the past because of the destruction or causality. Kelly says that Wonderland’s language, characters, scenes, and events are in essence discrete. They can be confused if they are mixed together. Consequently, . . . Alice cannot look back at past experiences. . . ones” (80). Arbitrariness describes the relationship between present and past. Debunking causality means that the past is no longer a source for guidance and it can be used as a tool to help Alice act. Alice becomes free to live her life as she pleases and follows the principles of individualism in Wonderland. Alice has become “mad” without realizing it.

Wonderland’s “mad” individualism manifests itself on a linguistic scale. The creatures won’t give up their linguistic freedom to allow for mutual understanding. Because the words of participants seem to be in no relationship, dialogues can often look like two monologues being delivered at once. For instance, at the Mad Tea Party (Carroll 64), the Hatter says, “Your head wants to be cut.” Alice replies, “I didn’t know it wasn’t your table. . . It’s been laid for many more than three.” (Carroll, 68). It’s almost as if the Hatter had never heard Alice speak, because his response seems completely random. The Hatter is uninhibited verbally and can say whatever he wants, whenever he likes. Gordon Hirsch refers to the Hatter’s “inability or refusal” to communicate on communicational levels. . ..Regardless of the cause, the characters’ troubles in creating conversational worlds in which sentences and words have similar communicative meanings is striking and clear” (88).

Individualism is dominant in Wonderland language. This is because verbal exchanges do not follow traditional, shared protocols. However, it also means that language is often created freely according to private, personal processes. A group of people decides the meaning and pairings for words. This is called conventional language. Only two parties can understand each other if they are part of the same communication process. “Carroll understood the inherent arbitrariness of the relationship between the language sign and its referent before Ferdinand se Saussure was born to demonstrate that such principles are axiomatic to all languages systems” (Baum 70). However, in Wonderland, individuals assign subjective meanings and words to speech and words, instead of coming together to decide on arbitrary pairings. Individual expression is channeled through personalized language and not by pre-established linguistic conventions. This individualistic phenomena is best illustrated in the exchange preceding Caucus Race.

. . . “The Mouse.” ” . . . Edwin Morcar . . It was deemed advisable.

The Duck asked, “Found what?” “Found that,” replied the Mouse.

The Duck stated, “I am able to identify what ‘it” means when I find it.” . . (Carroll 34)

Carroll uses italics to emphasize the subjective nature of the Duck’s definition for “it” and adds qualifications specific only to Duck’s diet. The Duck and Mouse are both referring to the same word. However, their interpretations do not match. This exchange highlights the creatures’ “inability” to concentrate on shared ideas or feelings, which can lead to communication problems between people (Hirsch 87). In that different meanings are given to the same language, it becomes arbitrarily used. Every creature chooses to be free from the opinions of others.

Carroll enjoys puns because they are able to convey multiple meanings simultaneously. Alice can’t understand “The Mouse’s tail” (or tale) (37) because it is “sad”. Puns can also be used in traditional English, but they are usually followed by tacit understanding. Wonderland is a situation in which the listener doesn’t notice that puns are used and the speaker can’t understand the listener. Both speaker and listener are unable to comprehend the other’s language system.

Alice and Wonderland creatures speak different languages. Alice asks the duchess to tell her what she thinks. . . “Why does your cat smile so much?” (Carroll 61). She is then told: “It’s Cheshire Cat. . . Carroll 61. These creatures refer to a cat who grins like a Cheshire Cat, but Alice does not know the rest of their language. At the “mad tea party,” (Carroll, 68-76), Alice is unable to understand the Hatter and March Hare. Alice muses that the Hatter’s remark seemed void of any meaning to her, even though it was clearly English (Carroll 70).

Gordon Hirsch’s “Double Binds And Schizophrenogenic Communications: Readings in 3 Middle Chapters Of Alice in Wonderland” makes an interesting comparison between Wonderland interactions as well as “schizophrenic modes of thought, communication” (86). Both Wonderland and schizophrenic languages are fragmented and ambivalent. Wonderland’s language, contrary to language which is intended to bring people together or establish common ground, can have an anti-communal and paradoxically alienating effect. Alice is so disappointed by her visit, Alice storms away from the March Hares house in dismay.

Excessive individualism is a hallmark of these creatures. They fail to recognize the differences between other creatures. Wonderland, on the other hand, allows individual freedom as long as it does no harm to others. The creatures are unable to recognize or respect identities other than their own. Hirsch points out that the Mad Tea Party allowed for too much personal freedom.

. . . As the central feature of social life [19th-century English middle class life], the tea ceremony offers an opportunity for individuals to see their relationships as more than just their own. . . [Yet] it’s clear that Alice won’t be offered tea by anyone at Wonderland. No one will recognize her as a real person and communicate with her in a way that is mutually respectful. (100)

You could argue that Wonderland’s “madness”, while not a result of exaggerated individuality, is due to a complete lack of logic and reason. Even though actions may seem odd at first, they are actually quite logical and make sense in ways that Alice was not used to. “Carroll’s nonsense does not lack meaning, it is just non-sense. . . Despite the chaos in Alice’s words and actions, there is still order in the chaos” (Baum 67-9). Although it may seem arbitrary that the Dodo declares each participant a winner in the Caucus-Race is not in keeping with the original purpose of the race, it makes sense given the Dodo’s original intent. The race was proposed by the Dodo as a “more energetic remedy[y]” (Carroll34) to dry the animals that were soaked in Alice’s tears. The Dodo announces the race’s end only after participants “had been running for half an hours and were completely dry” (Carroll35).

Wonderland language functions similarly, although Alice may not be able to see it. The conversation at the Mad Tea Party, for example, seems illogical and a series of non-sequiturs. Surprisingly, though, there is some logic. The creatures tell Alice that there is no place at the table when she arrives. This statement means that if someone says there is no space, then it is true. Alice insists there is space, despite this logic being broken. The March Hare attempts to prove that this logic is broken by Alice suggesting that there is wine, but in reality there is none. Alice is angry. However, it was Alice who originally violated this logic (which may explain why this discussion comes to an end). It seems like the March Hare is acting arbitrarily or rudely, but he actually follows this logic. Kelly says that the systems of Wonderland animals may seem logic in the sense that they can be self-consistent. Alice is the one who expects abandonment, and then adheres to that logic as circumstances change.

The creatures attempt to expose Alice’s relative arbitrariness in Alice’s thinking by recognizing her fundamental inconsistency. Alice’s statement “You shouldn’t learn to make private remarks” doesn’t clarify that personal refers only to a specific person or private person. This distinction is made by the word “personal” but it isn’t. The creatures seize the definition of the Hatter and follow it.

It is possible to interpret the actions of individuals through shared customs, understandings and practices. “Aboveground conventions regarding etiquette in intercourse socially are meaningless here” (Rackin45). Alice sees only randomness as an outsider. Alice finds herself trapped in Wonderland, and her previous standards of self-identification are no longer applicable. Children’s ages change in Wonderland according to their size. Alice experiences Wonderland’s rapid growth and shrinkage. She feels overwhelmed by the feeling of arbitrariness that her accustomed boundaries and rules are being broken. She thinks, “But I’m grown-up now,” and wonders if she will ever get older. (Carroll 42). Alice feels a overwhelming sense of “madness” despite being free from the traditional rules. This is due to her inability to understand Wonderland rules. While Wonderland may make sense to its inhabitants on the surface, Victorian England might not be as understanding.

Alice is sane enough in her world but Alice is mad in Wonderland. “The concept of’mad’ seems relative in Carroll” (Kelly, 84). Individuals can only be arbitrary when their subjectivities are not the same as those of others. The Cheshire Cat reveals that “We are all mad here.” I’m mad. You’re mad” (65). Alice fits in perfectly in this land full of extraordinary individualists.