Joseph Heller’s Catch-22 tells the story of Captain John Yossarian and the 256th Squadron, a group of U. S. bombardiers based on the Mediterranean island of Pianosa. The novel is set during World War II but, unlike the majority of war novels, it does not focus on the relations between sides or the war itself, rather it describes the interactions within this particular group. Its chapters, which are structured in the form of small stories, speak to the experiences, ambitions and personalities of the many colourful characters (Generals, Corporals, Mission Aviators, Doctors, and others) who are involved in the war.
Catch-22 examines the illogical nature of war and the contrast between rhetoric and reality. Heller demonstrates the futility of conflict through highlighting the absurdity of the bureaucratic system intended to guide it. These themes are embodied by the Army leadership and Milo Minderbinder’s syndicate, but exposed and crystallized by the candour of Yossarian. Rather than devoting their focus to fighting the war or working towards peace, the leadership of the Army is constantly preoccupied with its own bureaucracy.
Their excessive ego, competitiveness, and obsession with power and position prevents them from both fulfilling their role within the war and being productive as a bureaucracy. The conflicts and contests which occur within the Army’s leadership overshadow the conflict of the war itself. Obsessed with their stature, the leaders allow ego-based ambitions to inform their decision-making. A very explicit example of this occurs when one General considers lowering the number of missions his men are required to fly after constantly having raised the quota each time the bombardiers neared it.
He decides against this, however, as “he then remembered that forcing his men to fly more missions than everyone else was the most tangible achievement he had going for him” (Heller 214). Such competitiveness, which manifests itself through outdoing one-another in military parades, incessantly pursuing promotion within the ranks, and even launching campaigns to work against each other (like that against Major Major), results in the undermining of the entire bureaucratic system.
The absurdity and futility of the bureaucracy is most embodied in its central policy- Catch-22″which specified that a concern for one’s own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind” meaning that, “if [a man] flew [missions] he was crazy and didn’t have to; but if he didn’t want to he was sane and had to” (46).
This rule not only governs the war, and more specifically its participants, by eliminating their ability to choose to leave, but establishes this inescapable circular logic within the broader decision-making process of the bureaucracy, therefore, setting a precedent for inaction and futility. The concept of Catch-22 becomes reflected structurally within the interactions and dialogue occurring among the leadership. A sense of redundancy and futility is created through a constant use of repetition and circular logic not only within each conversation, but in the reoccurrence or resurfacing of conversations throughout the novel.
For example: “‘They’re crazy. ‘ “Then why don’t you ground them? ‘ ‘Why don’t they ask me to ground them? ‘ ‘Because they’re crazy that’s why” (45). The absurdity of these dialogues and the futility of their outcomes only escalates. In fact, when the leaders do reach a resolution (which is a rarity), upon putting the plan into action, what is implemented is consistently the opposite of what was discussed. This divide between rhetoric and reality resulting in counter-productivity, extends to many incidents which take place in the war, but also to the oxymoronic nature of the war itself which involves bombing “to create peace”.
While the Army leadership’s ambition-related power struggles, transparency issues and its basis on the political ideology of Catch-22 undermine its efficiency and integrity as a system of governance, these qualities are shared with Milo Minderbinder’s capitalist syndicate system, making the two very congruent in terms of partnership. As a representation of the capitalist system and its interactions with governance, the plot of Milo Minderbinder’s syndicate most clearly embodies the themes of futility and absurdity.
Milo’s syndicate begins as a small trading business to supply the squadron- mainly those in command, with goods beyond their traditional rations. The character of Milo Minderbinder, as his name begins to suggest, is fairly absurd to begin with, he bewilders everyone by managing to buy goods and sell them at a lower price whilst still turning a profit. Over the course of Catch-22, the absurdity of Milo’s syndicate as well as the complexity of his transactions continually grow until he has attained grand transnational status.
Milo is not only given authority and resources in Pianosa, but receives titles, land, and treatment similar to that of a supreme leader in the foreign territories with which he trades. All of this is very hyperbolic on Heller’s part, but seems to imply two ideas or connections: that the treatment Milo’s syndicate receives is comparable to the status that corporations develop among consumers, and that Milo’s treatment could be parallel to personalities relevant to the time period of the novel such as Hitler and the Nazis.
The latter possibility is explored and absurdity heightens when Milo begins taking contracts with the Germans, in order to “[realize] a fantastic profit from both halves of his project for doing nothing more than signing his name twice” (255). He effectively begins fighting on both sides of the war, which is quite simply the epitome of futility. After making a bad deal which renders the syndicate on the verge of collapse, Milo takes a contract to bomb his own outfit, which traverses what many would consider a moral ‘line’.
As he attends the funeral of a fellow soldier killed during his raid, the situation of his loyalties is confirmed when as opposed to recognizing his wrongdoing , Milo says “I can’t watch it… I can’t sit here and watch while those mess halls let my syndicate die” (264). Due to Milo’s entanglement with the Army leadership, established by catering to their desires through the syndicate, he does not fall for his actions. Milo is always emphatic that his syndicate furthers the common good because “everyone has a share”, but the reality is those who benefit are the Generals, high-level commanders, and Milo (232).
He uses this idea to manipulate others, most notably the Army leadership, but also his fellow soldiers such as his friend Yossarian. Although considered “crazy” by the others in his squadron, Yossarian is one of the only individuals capable of separating truth from rhetoric and therefore, of understanding the futility and absurdity of the situation. This is evident throughout the novel when he expresses concern that the enemy is “trying to kill [him]”; a fellow soldier Clevinger tells him “No one’s trying to kill you” to which Yossarian asks “Then why are they shooting at me? (16).
Literally and in reality, ‘they’ are trying to kill Yossarian as he is an enemy being shot at, however, in war, one’s individuality and humanity is often not considered, according to rhetoric, war occurs between parties or sides. Yossarian’s unwillingness to die in the war also suggests his belief in its futility. Yossarian recognizes that men will die in the war as “a matter of necessity” but that, “which men would die… was a matter of circumstance, and [he] was willing to be a victim of anything but circumstance” (68).
When the men have been assigned to bomb Bologna, a mission with a reputation for high casualties, they are petrified, especially Yossarian who is trying at all costs to avoid death. He controls circumstance and avoids flying to Bologna by moving the ribbon representing the bomb line on the Generals’ map, effectively fooling his commanders into thinking it has already been captured.
The absurdity of this instance makes it clear that those in control are detached from he reality of war which is also the reality of their men. During one of his later hospital stays, Yossarian is assigned to a psychologist who, ironically, seems to be the one who is ‘crazy’, not Yossarian. He tells Yossarian that his problems are rooted in the fact that “[he has] been unable to adjust to the idea of war” and he wouldn’t be surprised if Yossarian were manicdepressive on the grounds of his antagonistic reactions, such as the fact that “misery depresses [him)” (302, 303).
This labelling of Yossarian as ‘crazy’ throughout the text is one of the most distinctive examples of absurdity. Through the juxtaposition of Yossarian with figures of authority, both in the form of his military superiors and Milo Minderbinder, it becomes clear to the reader, as well as to Yossarian himself, that in actuality it is these systems of bureaucracy and capitalism which are ‘crazy’, futile, and corrupt.
