Category: Catch 22

Joseph Heller writes this book in 1961, and this book is talking about a bunch of soldier in world war two who don’t really want to be involved in this war, and so the story began with a soldier whose name is Yossarian. He is an air force on the island of Pianosa, which is near the Italian coast. Yossarian and all his friends in the army live under the nightmare of their officer and all the violence around them. This all happen because the officer thinks the entire army are the resources for the country to take over other countries. The squadron got throw into the war without fully training, and the officer keeps higher the time that the squadron required to fly before they can go home so that no one in this squadron can go home, and the officer don’t need to hire new people. But no one in this army except Yossarian realizes that there is a war going on around them.

This book is formed by stories that happen on Yossarian life in world war two, so almost the whole book is written under his point of view. Yossarian think world war two directly to him, but his mind didn’t get influenced by other people’s or his officer’s idea, Yossarian is angry that why other people always put his life in danger and think that the whole world is going to hunt him down. Even though he thinks the whole world is putting his life in danger but he still has a strong mind that he wants to keep his life going. In the book Yossarian spends a lot of time in the hospital, pretending that he has some liver problem so that he can stay in the hospital and not going to the war. Yossarian always think about Snowden who is a soldier too, and Snowden dies in Yossarian’s arm in one mission, and the death of Snowden destroy the hope in Yossarian’s life and destroy his willingness to fight for his country. Yossarian born and live in a chaotic period of time, he saw his friends die in the battlefield, and some of his friends even disappeared without reason, the most tragic one is his squadron got bombed by their general. The colonels put the army under his control on the most dangerous mission just to benefit themselves.

Catch 22 is military laws that have been defined in a lot of different ways in the book. Yossarian finds out that he probably can get out of the army by doctor say he has a mental problem. Yossarian always finding ways to get out of the army, he starts to say that he has a mental problem, by saying he has a mental problem he shows that he is calm and know what he is doing. Since all the soldier starts to say he or she has a mental problem to avoid going on to a mission. Catch 22 is a low that is illegal to read. The irony part of catch 22 is the place where catch 22 be written is illegal in the law of catch 22. It is defined as the law that the enemy can do anything but others can’t stop him from doing it. In short catch 22 is a law that using a lot of weird logic to catches the innocent people to serves for the little number of people who make this law. Catch 22 is almost in the whole book and the story of the character, in the story its full of the weird logic and hoe it catch the people who don’t even know what is going on, for example a very power officer Milo Minderbinder to make a lot of money by making business in the companies that he already own.

As Yossarian trying to keep himself alive, a lot of different stories happen around him. One of his friend who’s name is Nately fall in love with a prostitute who is from Rome. The prostitute continually ignores him, and the fact that her little sister continually interrupts their romantic dating. Finally, the prostitute accepts his love and fall in love with Nately, but tragic happen right after this, Nately got to kill at the first mission that the got to accept. After Yossarian bring this news back to that prostitute, she was so mad and sad that she blames on Yossarian for the Nately’s dead. After that every the prostitute see Yossarian she try to stab him with the knife. Another story follows by the rise of an officer whose name is Milo Minderbinder and have a lot of relationship with the black market. Milo runs a company call syndicate, in which that he uses the army airplane and pilots to transport the food all around Europe, this brings a lot of money for Milo. Although he says that all the people in syndicate can have a share of his money but his promise has been proving wrong, he didn’t share any money with the people he works with. Even though he didn’t share his money but this company still keep making a lot of money, and all the communities in Europe respect and thankful for what he has done.

Catch 22 going to the end by Yossarian got trouble by the death of his friend Nately, because of that Yossarian start to refuses to go on to any mission that the officer give him. As he walking on the street of Rome he sees a lot of awful things like disease, rape, and murder. The police arrested him because he is in Rome without the pass, his officer Colonel Catheter and Colonel Korn, offer him some choice. He can either face the military court or be sent home with an honorable discharge, there is one condition that he has to follow, in order to let him go home, he has to prove Catheter and Korn stats and support their policy that all the people in the army need to fly eighty mission in order to go back home. Although the condition is very good for him, he realizes that if he accepts the condition then more people in the army will suffer because of him, so he choose another way out, he runs away from the army and go to neutral Sweden, he turns his back on the army and the law of catch 22, now he can choose his own life, and live the life that he wants to.

Now I’m going to introduce the main character of this book Yossarian, he is a captain of the air force, and he job is to lead the solider to fly bombardier. He hate the war and the army, he really want to live and not die in the war, because of that he fine out a lot of people is trying to kill him. And he hates the army system so he tries to run away from that.

Next I’m going to introduce a close friend with Yossarian, whose name is Nately, he is a nineteen years old kind boy who is from a rich family. He fall in love with the prostitute, but sadly he die in the one of the mission. Hungry Joe a very funny character he is a psychopath, before he join the army he Is a photographer for the magazine, and after that he got into taking naked woman’s picture. And he always have some horrible nightmares in the night before he go out on mission next day.

All and All I think this book is very interesting, it have some funny parts but it also talks about the deeper parts of the military life. In this book we knows more about how officer make their own benefit and how they give the solider under them pressure, so I think this book is pretty good and hope more and more people can read it.

Joseph Heller’s novel “Catch 22” is a story that follows Yossarian, a bombardier stationed on the island Pianosa, by the Italian coast in the Mediterranean. His goal being to finally be discharged from combat. While following Yossarain’s plight we are shown details through Heller’s different literary devices. Usage of symbolism, tone, and writing style are prominent features in his text, which enables him to mimic human interaction while critiquing society. His writing style, however, is what sets his story apart. His ability to connect symbols and remind readers of different exaggerations create the backbone of the book. He does this in order to maintain relevancy between jokes and points that Yossarian makes. A recurring motif being the phrase Catch 22, “‘what?’ Yossarian froze in his tracks with fear and alarm and felt his whole body begin to tingle. ‘What did you say?’ ‘Catch 22” the old woman repeated”(407). By maintaining the usage of different phrases he allows the text to better reflect emotions that the characters feel.

What makes the book so enjoyable is Hellers unique writing style that looks to include crude humor. The quick lines that are incorporated and jokes that are shot back and forth between characters exemplify this, “The one I picked out for you was married for a short time to an elderly schoolteacher who slept with her only on Sundays, so she’s really almost as good as new” (234). Usage of these jokes while farcical is the reason why Heller relies on the heavy use of repetition. Without this, many of the jokes in the book would fall short.

Heller frequently repeats literary gadgets – catchphrases, words, references to events, and important scenes as well. Frequently referring to these events allows Heller to emphasize the paradoxical nature of Yossarian’s situation. His inability to be discharged being a prominent element that is recycled ”And what happens to the men after Stubbs does ground them?’ Doc Daneeka retorted with a sneer. ‘They go right back on combat status” (174). By utilizing this repetition we learn something deeper about the protagonist’s situation – its consequences on his mentality and those around him.

These repeated events while a key part of Heller’s storytelling process, also act as touchstones throughout the book that readers may refer to. Having points that allude towards references lets Heller expand his book and focus on characterization. Analyzing each character through Yossarian’s eyes enables us to see Heller’s influence on how everyone in the book develops. This development being overshadowed by the theme that Heller establishes, the inevitability of death.

The title of the book “Catch 22” is developed into a phrase that symbolizes “a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape.” Heller by utilizing repetition, cements the term as something that represents Yossarians repeated failure in solving his predicament. Yossarian’s one goal—to stay alive or die trying—is ultimately based his belief that he must eventually fail.

The book I am researching is ‘Catch-22’ by Joseph Heller. It is a book set in WW2 and focuses on the terrifying aspects of the war and how the soldiers had no power or control over anything they did or even whether they lived or died. The main character is Captain John Yossarian, a bomber that is stationed on a small island outside Italy called Pianosa. A lot of the book sees Yossarian try to escape the army as he is stuck in a ‘catch-22’ that means he cannot leave or be discharged.

A catch-22 is a ‘paradoxical loop that a person cannot escape because of contradictory rules’. An example of this in real life is finding a job. How can someone gain experience to get a job if they are constantly turned away for not having any?

There are many themes that run throughout this book. For example, the loss of religious faith or the impotence of language. The main theme that I will be focusing on is the absolute power of bureaucracy and their abuse of that power. This theme is the most influential one in the book and it gives the reader a sense of what WW2 was like and how the soldiers were governed by their superiors who had no concern for their safety. Along with this theme, I will also be focusing on the catch-22 motif that runs throughout the book. This motif links to the theme of bureaucracy because Yossarian and all his co-pilots are caught in a catch-22 by the bureaucrats. As well as this, this motif is one of the most important features of the book as it is the title and also the most well-known thing about it.

Bureaucracy is ‘a system of government in which most of the important decisions are taken by state officials rather than by elected representatives’ and the bureaucrats are the officials of that government.

In this piece of writing I want to show how Joseph Heller criticises bureaucracy and the government using catch-22s and other clever techniques. He also shows the effect that bureaucracy has on the characters within the book which reflect the negative impact the power of bureaucracy has in society. I will do this by giving examples of these techniques with explanations that help to prove my point.

Main Body

Throughout this book Heller shows the power of the bureaucracy and presents it as unfair and selfish, abusing their power for their own gain and having no care for the well-being or lives of their soldiers. He uses this to criticise and ridicule governments and bureaucracies in our society for having the same qualities, others have described the book as a satire on war and bureaucracy. He specifically focuses on how the American government abused its power during WW2, repeatedly putting their soldiers in danger for no good reason.

The bureaucrats are controlling and have little care for their soldiers

“Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn’t, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn’t have to; but if he didn’t want to he was sane and had to.”

This catch-22 has been put in place by the bureaucrats in order to stop the soldiers being able to be discharged. If they were crazy they could be discharged but if they said they were crazy, that meant they were not. The repetitive use of this motif throughout this book allows the reader to be put in Yossarians position. He is trapped, surrounded on all sides by people who want to kill him and people who want to send him to his death. The use of this motif also highlights the extent to which the soldiers are controlled and manipulated by the bureaucrats. This shows how the bureaucrats will do everything in their power to stop people from being discharged. It presents the bureaucrats within this book as being selfish and having complete disregard for any of the soldiers’ lives and reflects what Joseph Heller thinks bureaucracies and governments are like in our society.

The bureaucrats abuse their power for their own gain

“That’s the catch. Even if the colonel were disobeying a Twenty-Seventh Air Force order by making you fly more missions, you’d still have to fly them, or you’d be guilty of disobeying an order of his.”

This is one of the biggest catch-22s in the whole book. Colonel Cathcart wants to be promoted so he keeps ordering his men to fly more missions before they can be discharged. This catch-22 Is the biggest thing that keeps this soldiers from escaping because every time Yossarian comes close to the required amount of missions, the colonel raises it again. The use of this motif shows the absolute disregard the bureaucrats have for the lives of their soldiers, they will put their lives in danger over and over again just because they want to be promoted. This also makes us feel sympathy for the soldiers because of the utter futility of attempting to escape the system the honest way.

The bureaucrats are unfair, people gain power and ranks not because of merit but because of luck or money.

“General Dreedle stepped up to pin a medal on him for his heroism over Ferrara”

This is the main character in the book, John Yossarian receiving a medal for his so called ‘heroics’ in one of his missions. However, the use of the abstract noun, ‘heroism’ is ironic because all he actually did was make a mistake that caused one of his comrades to be killed. Here he learns the true nature of the bureaucrats. He begins by having confidence in his actions however his actions cause other people to die and he quickly loses the confidence. When he is awarded this medal, it shows Yossarian and the readers how unjust the bureaucrats are and makes him decide that he must find any way possible to leave the army. It also shows how the bureaucrats have absolute power. You could be the bravest and most heroic soldier in the army, but the bureaucrats decide that the officer who caused people to die gets the awards for bravery and honour. This is shown again in the book when a soldier called Major Major is promoted simply because of his name. These are the messages Heller was trying to get across about the unfairness of bureaucracy.

Heller criticises real world governments because of their manipulation and abuse of their power

“‘The important thing is to keep pledging,’ he explained to his cohorts. ’It doesn’t matter whether they mean it or not. That’s why they make little kids pledge allegiance even before they know what ‘pledge’ and ‘allegiance’ mean.’ ‘

Here, Captain Black shows his jingoism (extreme patriotism) by forcing officers to sign ‘loyalty oaths’ and claims that the more loyalty oaths an officer signs, the more ‘patriotic’ the officer was presumed to be. Heller suggests that the loyalty oaths are meaningless when he says that the officers later became forced to sign these oaths in order to be served food and granted other basic human rights. Heller’s authorial intention here is to criticise the pointlessness of American patriotism and gives the example of the pledge of allegiance, in which many young students do not even understand what they are saying. Heller is also criticising the American government for brainwashing their soldiers into accepting every order without question, allowing the people in charge to have complete power over them.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Joseph Heller uses the motif of catch-22 and different characters such as Captain Black and Colonel Cathcart to criticise modern bureaucracies and governments for their abuse of power, especially during WW2. He presents the bureaucracy in catch-22 as having no concern for anyone but themselves, this is supposed to be a reflection of bureaucracies and governments in society. He also uses the theme of the absolute power of bureaucracy to give the reader a sense of what life was like in WW2 and how soldiers had no control over their lives.

Joseph Heller’s Catch 22 and Julian Morrow’s The Checkout both criticise oppressive social and political institutions. Whilst Heller highlights the poor bureaucracy of the American Army and condemns the oppressive social construct, Morrow elevates the oppressed, and promotes rebellion against tyrannical corporations and companies. Nonetheless, both texts are testament of scathing social commentary, promoting change and rejection of social constraints.

Thus discrediting and ridicule certain aspects of our society, thus compelling the readers to reflect on the flaws and tendencies of human beings, and the need to challenge immoral organisations.

Exemplifying as a Juvenalian satire, Catch 22 points a targeted attack on the military institutions by exposing the problematic personal integrity of the superiors and their absurd reasoning of a Catch 22. Through the implementation of satirical techniques, namely subversion, irony, burlesque and exaggeration, Heller effectively lampoons the superiors for their ineptitude in managing the army due to the extent they are blinded by greed and hypocrisy, this is exemplified by the repetitive acts of superiors of subverting moral and professional expectations. Through Captain Black’s ‘patriotic’ Loyalty Oath Crusade, which stems from his hatred towards Major Major’s swift promotion in ranks, Heller creates the tension underlying power and personal morality, whilst highlighting the viciousness of infighting that the leaders exert, in the pursuit of fame and profit.Through Colonel Cathcart’s ‘bravery in volunteering’ the men for continuous flight missions while insisting that it is his job to ‘ ‘, Heller exposes the nonchalance leaders hold at the cost of risking other people’s lives. Through Milo’s brazen readiness to cooperate with Germans, Heller exposes Milo’s hypocritic suggestion that it is his ‘contractual obligation’ to protect (the Germans’) rights as shareholders’ and ‘what’s good for the enterprise is good for the army’.

Whilst these immoral acts ultimately result in the suppression of values, the superiors justify their acts as ‘process of a rational mind’ for the concern of one’s own safety, and all for the ultimate goal’. Hence, Heller uses the subversion of heroism to shed light on the distortion of justice; superiors, who behave negligently and harmfully, are encouraged, whilst those who protest against them are labelled ‘unpatriotic’, exposing the audience ….

Consequently, Heller uses this sarcastic revelation to highlight the cynicism that proliferates when individuals display sycophancy and cling to oppressive values. Individuals turn to social conformity to gain identities.

Doc Daneeka, who refuses to ground Yossarian in fear of displeasing Colonel Cathcart and getting transferred to the Pacific Ocean, insists that Yossarian should ‘smile and make the best of it’ and ‘a little grease is what makes the world go round’. Through the characterisation of Doc Daneeka, Heller points out the evasive and cynical mindset that individuals possess after they realise the necessity of conformity.

Gus and Wes’ display of ‘stoic surprise’ in Doc Daneeka’ social death further demonstrates individuals’ tendency in falling in line with the masses and the absurdity of them not speaking up against blatant paradoxes. Hence, Heller paints a bleak picture on the progression of the post-war society, a society where the decay of moral engenders the distortion of justice; a society where people become ‘superficially satisfied’ with the justification of a ‘Catch 22’, conforms, and refuse to confront the absurd and restrictive expectations imposed upon them.

Heller further highlights the results of the superiors’ paradoxical justification through portraying the dehumanisation of soldiers. Heller’s extensive use of strong motifs emphasise the physical and emotional burdens that are placed on soldiers as a result of the oppressive social construct. The novel resonates Yossarian’s ironic experience in trying to find morphine ,which is stolen by Milo, while in a life and death situation. Dunbar receives a threat to be placed on Bologna when he protests that General Peckham’s obsession with bomb pattern reveals the depth of immorality as he is willing to kill many innocent civilians to arrange it. Colonel Cathcart’s greed for fame, and the chaplain’s objection due to the letters being insincere.

Heller uses these key moments to accentuate the helplessness soldiers feel towards social conformity to dictated truths, thus compelling the audience to reflect critically on the paradoxical explanations of the army’s superiors and inducing their role to counteract social confomirty to dictated truths.

In caricaturing the sexual characteristics of women: the ‘nubile breasts’, and the employment of Gallows humour in these women’s cruel treatments and deaths, Heller exposes the misogyny that is prevalent, condemning them for objectifying women as ‘instruments of pleasure’ , with the antithesis emphasising the extent to which they are willinging of blurring the boundary between love and lust and using ‘seeking mental comfort’ as an excuse to get away with their cynical justification.

All of these serve to explicitly satirise the bureaucrat’s oppressive ruling, and the resulting resulting oppresion which inflicts emotional burdens and give them the right to use ‘Catch 22’ to justify their wrongdoings. Thus, Heller calls into question the reliability of the institutions, inducing the readers’ empathetic immersion in the characters’ struggles and their lack of initiative in challenging the oppressive values.

Strengthens Heller’s stance on defying the oppressive ruling. Heller’s critique of these oppressive values is amplified through the application of a condescending tone. Heller’s abhorrence of social conformity and cynicism is ecnapsulated after the destruction of Rome. Prompts readers to challenge and confront the social construct through using characters’ existentialist change.

The novel has a distinct portrayal of the juxtaposition between philosophical values of cynicism and optimism. Whilst some individuals decide to conform with the absurdity of Catch 22 and ‘make the best of it’, others challenge this idea, acting as a major catalyst in highlighting the importance of standing up against oppressive construct to achieve autonomy and individualism.

Orr, successfully resolves the catch-22 conundrum by frequently practicing crash-landing and oaring and fishing. While Yossarian remains a symbol of impotence in the face of authority and duty,

Thus, Orr is the embodiment of rebelliousness holding many qualities that demonstrate when trying to challenge and evade the ironies and injustices of the authority. Heller could be seen to be expressing his through the construction of this character.

This idea of change is further demonstrated through the chaplain’s progression from struggling to maintain faith in God due to it not been valued on its own terms to rejection of conforming to the absurd reasoning of Catch 22, Heller highlights the Chaplain’s sternness and persistence in believing in religion and its ability to give soldiers spiritual support, reiterating that whilst individuals might suffer, resilience in the face of adversity will toughen them up, thus further amplifying the readers’ connection with the victims suffering from absurd logic and prompting them to challenge against it.

It is through the close examination of these characters that the audience are able to gain insight into the necessity of transcending the stereotypical views of other individuals’ tendency to ‘adapt and conform’. ‘Mas was matter, that was Snowden’s secret’ > inevitability of death.

Heller critiques the inherently flawed through the destruction of Rome and deaths of Yossarian’s friends. Positioning the audience to disagree with this assertion through comic hyperbole, Heller positions the audience while ensuring the responder questions the pragmatism of the justification of oppressive values and the cynicism of social conformity,

By doing so, Heller provides a medium to the audience to question and scrutinise….. whilst providing a critique on individuals’malleability and our inclination to adhere to such regimes, as portrayed through their undivided faith towards social conformity. Yossarian decides to cross stereotypical boundaries and overcome the expectations of the other soldiers even if it means defying authority and risking his own life.

Elucidates the importance of resilience and speaking up despite the catch. The incorporation of strengthen the authors’ perspectives on …, which places a lasting impact on the audience’s (concepts, views, perspectives , etc, thus inducing the readers’ critical reflection on their actions.

In contrast, whist Julian Morrow’s The Checkout distinguishes the cause and effect chain between oppressive social construct and impacts on consumers’ rights, Morrow elevates the oppressed and prompt the audience to challenge unjust acts. Uses situations that audience could connect to (able to relate to and resonate) to engage them and expose them to the absurdity of the unethical practices of large corporations and companies.

Consequences that stems from problematic personal integrity, namely burdens on others, the lasting impact on society if individual’s corruption acts go uncontested, and the need to defy organisations in the face of adversity .

Whilst Joseph Heller’s Catch 22 condemns the US Air Force’s tyrannical ruling by exposing the superiors’ absurd justification of their actions and the resulting proliferation of cynicism among soldiers, Julian Morrow’s The Checkout elevates the oppressed consumers in the context of modern society, and promotes direct rebellion against the oppressive companies and corporations. Nonetheless, both works are testaments to the power of scathing social commentary which discredit and ridicule oppressive values. Thus, both works reunite in their ways of inducing the audience’ critical reflection on the necessity of challenging oppressive constraints.

Influenced by an underlying sense of distrust that characterised the post WW2 period, composers seek to explore the impacts that oppressive political construct inflict on soldiers. Such is true of Joseph Heller’s Catch 22, a Juvenalian satire which points a targeted attack on the problematic personal integrity of the air force’s superiors and their absurd justification of their actions. Through the implementation of satirical techniques, namely subversion, irony, burlesque and exaggeration, Heller effectively lampoons the superiors for their ineptitude in managing the army due to the extent they are blinded by greed and hypocrisy. This is exemplified by the repetitive acts of superiors of subverting moral and professional expectations. Through Captain Black’s ‘patriotic’ Loyalty Oath Crusade, which stems from his hatred towards Major Major’s swift promotion in ranks, Heller creates the tension underlying power and personal morality, whilst highlighting the viciousness of infighting that the leaders exert, in the pursuit of fame and profit.Through Colonel Cathcart’s ‘bravery in volunteering’ the men for continuous flight missions while insisting that it is his job to give ‘spiritual support’ by ‘staying back and praying for the soldiers’, Heller exposes the nonchalance leaders hold while risking others lives. Through Milo’s brazen readiness to cooperate with Germans, Heller exposes Milo’s hypocritical suggestion that it is his ‘contractual obligation’ to protect (the Germans’) rights as shareholders’ and ‘what’s good for the enterprise is good for the army’.

Whilst these immoral acts ultimately result in the suppression of values, the superiors justify their acts as ‘process of a rational mind’ for the concern of (oneself) and for the ‘ultimate goal’. Hence, Heller uses the subversion of heroism and irony to shed light on the distortion of justice, capturing the hypocrisy in the superiors’ aggressive enforcement of ‘catch 22’ as ‘patriotism’; superiors, who behave negligently and harmfully, are encouraged and praised, whilst those who protest against the immoral acts are labelled ‘unpatriotic’.

Consequently, Heller uses this sarcastic revelation to expose the audience to the cynicism that proliferates when individuals display sycophancy and cling to these oppressive values; Individuals start to turn to social conformity to gain identities; Doc Daneeka, who refuses to ground Yossarian in fear of displeasing Colonel Cathcart and getting transferred to the Pacific Ocean, insists that Yossarian should ‘smile and make the best of it’ and ‘a little grease is what makes the world go round’. Through the characterisation of Doc Daneeka, Heller points out the evasive and cynical mindset that individuals possess after they realise the necessity of conformity. Gus and Wes’ s ‘stoic surprise’ in Doc Daneeka’s social death further demonstrates the absurdity of individuals’ tendency to comply with blatant paradoxes. Hence, Heller paints a bleak picture on the progression of the post-war society: a society where the decay of moral engenders the distortion of justice; a society where people are pleased with the justification of a ‘catch 22’, conform, and refuse to confront the absurd and restrictive expectations imposed upon them.

Heller further highlights the results of the superiors’ paradoxical justification through portraying the dehumanisation of soldiers. Heller’s extensive use of strong motifs emphasise the physical and emotional burdens that are placed on soldiers as a result of the oppressive political construct. This is evident in Yossarian’s constant recount of Snowden’s death, Hungry Joe’s constant suffering from shellshock, and the appearance of The Soldier in White in the hospital. Heller uses these key moments to accentuate the helplessness soldiers feel towards social conformity to dictated truths, thus compelling the audience to reflect critically on the paradoxical explanations of the army’s superiors and inducing their urge to counteract social conformity to the oppressive values.

In caricaturing the sexual characteristics of women: the ‘nubile breasts’,’the squashy thighs’ ‘the voluptuous flesh’ and the employment of Gallows humour in these women’s cruel treatments and deaths, Heller exposes the misogyny that is prevalent, condemning the soldiers for objectifying women as ‘instruments of pleasure’, whilst emphasising the extent to which they are willinging of blurring the boundary between love and lust and using ‘seeking mental comfort’ as a ‘catch 22’ to get away with their cynical justification.

All of these serve to explicitly satirise the superiors’ oppressive ruling: the prioritisation of the fulfillment of the leaders over the experience of victims of war, also the resulting cynicism that begins to proliferate among individuals. Thus, Heller calls into question the reliability of the superiors, inducing the readers’ empathetic immersion in the characters’ struggles and their reflection on the soldiers’ lack of initiative in challenging the oppressive values.

Influenced by a climate of anxiety due to the irrational justification of the oppressors, Heller further seeks to capture individuals’ struggles to retain personal identity whilst enduring the expectation of social conformity. This is evident in the novel’s distinct portrayal of the juxtaposition between the philosophical values of cynicism and optimism.

Whilst Yossarian remains a symbol of impotence in the face of ‘duty’, Orr and Chaplain Tappman successfully resolve the catch 22 conundrum. Through the chaplain’s progression from struggling to maintain faith in God to the rejection of social conformity and Orr’s constant practices in crash-landing and eventual escape to Sweden, Orr and Chaplain Tappman act as the embodiment of persistence and willingness of risking one’s life to retain one’s unique values. Hence, Heller uses the juxtaposition between these two characters and others to reinforce the necessity of challenging oppressive construct, and the success of achieving autonomy and individualism if an individual persistently retains his values.

Heller’s assertion against social conformity and cynicism is further encapsulated through the destruction of Rome. It is through the old woman’s explanation of a ‘catch 22’ makes the soldiers chase the girls away that Yossarian further sees the ‘sanctimonious, ruthless sense of right and dedication’ of the oppressive superiors. It is through seeing’ a boy with a pale, sickly face’that Yossarian is reminded of ‘the (crippled), the hungry…the dumb and passive, that he is reminded of the fragility of human. It is through the repetitive questioning of ‘How many happy endings (are) unhappy ending? How many honest men were liars … how many sainted men were corrupt?’ that Yossarian truly realises the destruction that catch 22 wreaks beyond the battlefront. Hence, Heller intensifies the feeling of loss of individuality and values that result from the absurd logic of ‘catch 22’, whilst prompting the audience to question the pragmatism of the justification of oppressive values and the cynicism of social conformity.

The necessity of this engagement in defying the oppressors is effectively urged through Yossarian’s final revisit of Snowden’s death. Each repetition in ‘I am cold’, ‘There, there’ accentuates the inevitability of death and the purpose of life being to retain one’s unique identity, the ‘spirit’, for ‘the spirit gone’, man is garbage’. Hence, Heller empowers the characters to resist the denial of autonomy they are coerced to accept. Therefore, the audience alongside Yossarian, are encouraged to see value in themselves and defy these dictations. This central way of thinking which asserts a value in the human spirit instead of arbitrary expectations has therefore, been revealed when Yossarian resolves to retain his values and flee to Sweden, even if it means defying authority and risking his own life.

As the tendency towards social conformity is tied to these struggles of retaining one’s unique identity, Heller points a satirical attack on the oppressors’ absurd political construct, whilst elucidating the necessity of preserving individuals’ values and inducing the audience’s critical reflection on the progression of society if the oppressive superiors are left unchallenged. Julian Morrow extends this by elevating the oppressed and encourages the audience to directly voice their complaints and confront the oppressors in The Checkout.

Exemplifying as a satirical comedy, in the current climate of frequently-observed misconduct in the Australian workplace, Julian Morrow’s The Checkout exposes the audience to the unethical conduct that oppressive companies adopt to gain profit and the resulting breach of consumer rights, thus positioning the audience to question and challenge the actions of these companies.

Morrow effectively informs the audience through the power of the presenters to relate to and engage with the audience using satirical techniques.

This is evident in the scene where presenters expose health product companies’ immoral acts. Morrow highlights the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA)’s inadequacy in dealing with companies’ ethical conduct. Whilst it is stated that applicants for selling a product must ‘hold evidence to support indications made about it’, presenter Craig exposes the ‘loopholes’ that companies exploit, a major one being ‘Claims can be made based on evidence of traditional use’, as long as the ‘indications must not imply efficacy’. The paradoxical justification about the product therefore, reveals the evasive mindsets that companies can take ie. to change the term ‘scientifically researched’ to ‘traditionally used’, in order to gain profit, whilst exposing the leniency of the TGA in dealing with these acts.

This attitude of distrust towards oppressive companies is amplified through Morrow’s frequent use of parody. A slogan used by Craig: ‘Government-approved is good, celebrity-proved is better’ makes an intertextual reference to the famous line of Orwell’s Animal Farm, which not only produces comic relief, but also plays on many consumers’ belief that celebrities are to be trusted based on their fame. However, Morrow highlights how companies have been capitalising on the fame of celebrities unethically as an advertising campaign; In order to evade the TGA’s regulations, companies often use the terms ‘Official clinical study’ and ‘independently tested’ to sound convincing. But Morrow uses irony in the fact that the testing institutes are funded by the companies, with the testers paid by the companies, to expose the immoral acts of these companies, thus prompting the audience to question the reliability and legitimacy of their advertisements.

Morrow explores individual’s response to a state of powerlessness by reflecting a pervasive climate of anxiety amidst an age of unreliable advertising practices. This is done effectively through parody in Kirsten’s encounter with the toaster salesperson. The salesperson’s hurried tone and steady bombardment of the toaster’s incentives ‘four loaves of multigrain toast’,’great for crumpets’ establishes him as knowledgeable and ‘trustworthy’, thus compelling the consumer to purchase the toaster, only to miss important information such as ‘locked to us as the bread provider’. The laconic responses from Kirsten highlights the powerful effect of the salesperson’s assertive manner and ‘persuasive’ languages. However, Morrow uses the contrast in reality: Kirsten’s frustration at the toaster being a ‘typical Vodatoast’, to emphasise the salesperson’s brazen readiness to compromise the trust that the consumers invest in him, thus highlighting the extent oppressive companies are blinded by profit to use misleading advertising strategies that breaches consumer rights.

Consequently, Morrow also satirises oppressive companies for their defensive behaviour that they adopt in an effort to obscure their unethical conduct. This is evident in the reporters’ real life confrontations with the large corporations. By integrating the context of Coles and woolworths using their intellectual property to get away with undercutting brands, Craig challenges their actions by inventing brands ‘Cules’ and ‘Woolworthless’ in the companies’ territories to sell ‘undercutted’ brands. His use of condescending tone and rhetorical questions towards the companies’ managers eg. ‘You are not going to use your market market to clamp down on competition, are you?’ emphasises an ironic effect when they deem Craig’s advertising ‘unethical’. The laconic responses and blank facial expressions of the companies’ managers further contrast with the Craig’s assertiveness, which are indicative of the guilt that they feel towards their own unjust advertising campaign.

To enhance this pervasive atmosphere of distrust towards the oppressive companies, the implementation of exaggeration and parody through the ‘rational consumer’ scene, which features a conversation between Craig and Dr. Harrison, further targets oppressive companies for the psychological impacts their unethical conduct inflict on the consumers. Throughout the conversation, Dr. Harrison constantly expounds on ‘cognitive effects of deceptive advertising’, the prospect theory ‘risk seeking in choices involving sure losses’, and ‘mood states influence affect consumer behaviour’, urging that Craig should make rational choices in a society where misleading advertising is common. Whilst the exaggeration and humour infused engages the audience, Craig’s frequent reliance on the professor’ suggestions and ‘annoyance’ towards psychological theories effectively reflect the doubtful mind that consumers have, thus accentuating the sense of insecurity that consumers feel due to the frequent, misleading advertising behaviours of oppressive companies.

Furthermore, with the inclusion of the channel ‘Fu Tube’, which shares stories of citizens encountering cases of companies behaving unethically, Morrow accentuates the helplessness that the consumers feel, and highlights how they could use social media to voice their complaints and challenge the oppressors.

Thus, The Checkout challenges the inherently flawed mindset of the large corporations as they gain fame and profit whilst breaching consumers’ rights and compromising consumers’ trust. Likewise, Heller’s Catch 22 exposes the oppressive ruling of the superiors, critiques individuals’ malleability and inclination to adhere and showcases the necessity to confront the oppressors, even if it means defying oppositions. Hence, both texts are united in the authors’ perspectives on challenging the oppressors as their characters ultimately amplify the audience’s questioning of the reliability of the oppressors and induce their reflection on the potential for change and achieving justice if individuals decide to challenge the oppressive acts.

The moment we laugh at something for the first time is the moment we change its truth value, undermining its solemnity, its accuracy, its authority, and become free to discard it. This is the effect Joseph Heller and Stanley Kubrick intended to evoke in their respective satires. Heller and Kubrick’s protagonists live in a world where individuals are subjected to the capricious authority of an impersonal and preeminent bureaucracy, and have no free agency of their own. In Catch-22, Heller’s protagonist, Yossarian, realizes the logic and reason of those in a bureaucracy is arbitrary through his encounters with his ambitious and impersonal superior officers, and decides he wants nothing to do with it. In Dr. Strangelove, the bureaucracy is portrayed by General Ripper, who commands a massive nuclear strike to set off the Soviet Doomsday Device and create a nuclear holocaust if it succeeds. The individual struggling against the bureaucracy is the protagonist, Mandrake, who challenges Ripper’s authority and works to avert the impending nuclear disaster. While both works use satirical techniques and a background of war to make clear the absurd nature of bureaucratic systems, the protagonists have their own methods to attempt to regain their free rein. Yossarian in Catch-22, seeks to avoid the war to to unshackle himself from bureaucracy, while Mandrake, in Dr Strangelove attempts to overthrow it.

In Catch-22, Heller uses satirical techniques on multiple occasions to reveal the absurd nature of war and the bureaucratic systems that control it. Heller’s satire frequently appears in his descriptions of the officers to comprise of the bureaucracy and their actions. Mudd, generally referred to as “the dead man in Yossarian’s tent” (Heller 21) was a squadron member who was killed in action before he could be processed as an official member of the squadron, thus being listed as never having arrived. As a result, no one has the authority to move any of the dead soldier’s belongings. This annoyed Yossarian so much that he had gone to the orderly room several times to complain to Sergeant Towser, but was rejected because Towser refused to admit that Mudd existed because he was never listed. The Glorious Loyalty Oath Crusade was a campaign started by Captain Black as an act of revenge against Major Major for stealing his promotion. Heller writes: “The Glorious Loyalty Oath Crusade was a glorious pain in the ass, since it complicated their task of organizing crews for each combat mission Men were tied up all over the squadron signing, pledging, the missions took hours to get under way” (Heller 124). This oath forces all men to swear elaborate oaths of loyalty before doing just basic things like eating meals. He then refuses to let Major Major sign the oath in hopes of making him appear disloyal. The satire is evident because the policies in itself are self-defeating as they are meant to help the war effort by ensuring loyalty, but as a result hurt it by complicating the task of organizing crews for missions. In Dr Strangelove, Kubrick uses satirical techniques through General D. Ripper to portray the absurdity of the bureaucratic systems. As Ripper tells Mandrake about Plan R, an emergency war plan, Kubrick uses a low-angle close up to emphasize the phallic cigar coming from his mouth. This is later satirized when Ripper whips a phallic gun out of a golf bag to defend against approaching troops. This highlights Ripper’s absurdity and insanity which then reflects the absurdity of bureaucratic systems.

In Dr Strangelove, individuals are subjected to the authority of impersonal and arbitrary bureaucrats whose ignorance of the realities of war causes them to be incapable of understanding the result of their decisions. This is reflected through General Ripper and General Turgidson’s decisions to advocate nuclear war. Turgidson relies heavily on the Big Board, a computerized screen in the war room that provides him with a simplified view of the war to gauge progress. For Turgidson, war is no more than a game to him, and the subjected soldiers are simply just numbers. His failure to recognize the true horrors of the war becomes clear when he becomes willing to sacrifice millions of people, as he is incapable of viewing these people as humans, and sees them as just numbers. Similarly, in Catch-22, the lives of the men in Yossarian’s squadron are dictated by the decisions of an impersonal and arbitrary bureaucracy, and not of their own. The men are forced to risk their lives even though they know their missions are pointless, as they are forced to keep flying combat missions even after they learn that the Allies have already essentially won the war. The bureaucrats are insensible to any attempts the men make to reason with them as they defy logic at every turn. It is stated in the novel: “Major Major never sees anyone in his office while he’s in his office” (Heller 112), meaning that he will only admit people into his office when he is not in it himself, which is absurd in itself. Major Major, in fact, was only given his role as Major simply because his name was already Major, and the bureaucratic system thought a man of this name must be promoted to Major. In another instance, the chaplain is taken into a cellar and accused of a crime, but the men interrogating him are not sure what the crime is, and they hope to find out by interrogating him.

Mandrake seems to do the exact opposite to what Yossarian does to fight against the bureaucratic system. Paranoid Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper of Burpelson Air Force Base, believing that fluoridation of the American water supply is a Soviet plot to poison the U.S. populace, is able to deploy through a back door mechanism a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union without the knowledge of his superiors. It is revealed that the U.S.S.R has a doomsday device that will go off in the event of being hit by nuclear.

Pioneering talent in Hollywood is not hard to spot and with veterans in the acting and filmmaking industry, it’s not hard to find space and capital to make your own movies. Producers and filmmakers take storytelling from various sources in art, entertainment, and even social media. There’s an abundance of moving and compelling stories out there and when some have been translated onto screen straight from a book, the expectations are set to the maximum.

Acting veteran and award-winner George Clooney did just that with his wide platform as a celebrity and as a cinephile in general. The 57-year-old actor has always had quite the eye for quality entertainment, and has come a long way from portraying a rather questionable Batman to his Academy Award-winning role in Syriana back in 2006; indeed, the veteran actor has since found his rhythm in the vast world of film acting and filmmaking. Clooney is no noob to directing as well, with The Monuments Men, Suburbicon, and The Ides of March gaining quite the attention in the last few years. Thus, his directorial debut in television, with a limited series adaptation of Catch 22 on Hulu, is being highly anticipated by fans.

Not Exactly Love at First Sight

Catch 22 is a novel by Joseph Heller published back in 1962, one of those novels studied in literature class that George Clooney himself was forced to read in High School. In fact, according to Deadline, when first asked if he wanted to make the limited series for Hulu, his initial response was “No” and he said, “It seemed ridiculous. I didn’t want to get into the middle of all that.” However, fast forward to April 2019 and Hollywood’s most celebrated actor debuted his directorial skills with Hulu’s Catch-22 feature series and is rather excited to join the small screen business.

He tells Deadline, “I don’t care about the medium, I care about the quality of work, and television is doing some amazing things.” The limited series is eight episodes long and has Clooney producing it himself, along with his producing partner, Grant Heslov. Executive producer and co-writer of the series Luke Davis compares the premise of the novel and the series adaptation as poignantly relevant in a time where global anxiety is triggered by elements of “war, insanity, capitalism, and bureaucracy.”

Along with Clooney, the series is graced by Girls actor Christopher Abbott, who snagged the role of Yossarian, an anti-hero character that stands in the gray area of right and wrong. Abbott’s character is known to be a bombardier with a frantic obsession every time he is sent on a mission, with a goal to just “come down alive,” according to Rolling Stone. The show will launch on May 17 exclusively on the Hulu streaming service and is a project that wasn’t exactly “love at first sight” when Clooney and producing partner, Heslov first heard about the pitch. However, the two fell in love with Luke Davies and David Michod’s script which did a great job nailing the book’s notorious nonlinear narrative, according to Variety.

Clooney’s Catch 22 with Christopher Abbott

33-year-old actor Christopher Abbott is Clooney’s new muse for his directorial pursuit of Catch 22 and although The Sinner actor isn’t widely recognized, Clooney handpicked him after watching a couple of episodes from his acting creds on Girls. According to Variety, Abbott has been acting for almost 10 years already and has talent captured by the camera that highly resonates with Clooney’s take on his career trajectory. Clooney is in awe of the actor and even compares him to a young Sam Rockwell who Clooney directed in “Confessions of a Dangerous Mind” years ago.

Clooney wasn’t shy of sharing with Variety his admiration for the young actor, “I’ve recognized a lot of things in Chris that I think is more mature than I had when I was his age, but the one thing where I see real similarity is in the way he can take this in stride and sort of be the captain of the ship. It was a big ship, and he had to be the captain of it. And he did it easily.” Clooney says about Abbott.

Aside from directing and producing, as the multi-hyphenate that he is known to be, Clooney will also be starring in the series as Scheisskopf, “an aggressively crazy” character as described by a renowned TV critic. The Money Monster actor tells Deadline about the sense of responsibility he feels he has to take on every time he plays a character in a military costume. Clooney says that the costume doesn’t only help get him into character, but also adds a sense of animation in his attempt to bring a fictional wayward to life.

Although several filmmakers and TV networks have tried their luck in adapting Heller’s 1962 novel, with Mike Nichols’s successful film adaptation in 1970, many still believe Catch-22 is a story that is rather “unfilmable.’ It certainly poses a challenge for Clooney, despite initially rejecting the impending pressure of recreating a classical piece; but maybe, just maybe, the real catch lies in the brevity of the series, something film fans will have to consider when the pilot airs come May 17th.

Through the examination of a World War II society, Joseph Heller’s Catch-22 challenges the responders to consider the role of individuality, in comparison to modern-day societal structures, conveying that human experiences are the focus of ‘good fiction. As a bombardier in World War II, Heller’s personal experiences motivate him to express the idea that individualism cannot exist in a power-driven society. The constant attempts at self-preservation and lack of selflessness in the novel forces the reader to reconsider the role of societal structures in shaping human experiences during the Second World War. Catch 22 is a fractured narrative that employs absurdism and character-based vignettes to explore how a basic human instinct; self-preservation is developed in an atmosphere of brutality. My reading of “Catch 22” was drawn to individualist ideas of the struggle between the individual and society, leading me to question whether society can ever truly let the individual take full control. Essentially, the representation of human experiences in Catch-22 has led me to believe, that even though humans are inherently selfish and self-preserving, the societal structures they create prevent anyone from gaining complete power.

In response to their rudimentary impulse, humans always outweigh their needs when compared to the needs of others. Heller uses of Milo Minderbender’s chocolate-covered cotton to highlight this notion, as symbolically, the chocolate-covered cotton depicts the extent Milo is willing to go to rid his financial liabilities. Sacrificing the health of the squadron and scamming the government are the morally questionable consequences of this action, however, Milo attempts to justify this by paraphrasing Calvin Coolidge’s 1925 speech, in which the U.S president said: “The chief business of American people is business”. It is universally expected for humans to be self-serving and the author delves into this concept and questions the power of our self-serving characteristics when it comes to our impact on others. The absolute disregard of human life and suffering is further seen, through the purpose of Pianosa’s bombing missions, as Colonel Korn reveals “(Colonel Cathcart) is hardly concerned anymore whether bombs hit the target or not”, as “it is important for the bombs to explode close together and make a neat aerial photograph.“ The dehumanization of war has reduced to the bureaucracy willing to risk destroying innocent lives for the sake of looking good. It is through these symbols Heller asks us to consider humans’ self-centered nature, and also forces us to recognize the destructive capabilities of humans that fracture our societal structures. Reflecting on the ideas Heller presents, it is clear to me now that people who seek power are responding to their darker instincts that promote immorality and violence.

As a primitive instinct, self-preservation is instilled within all humans, however, it is further cultivated when one is placed in a conflicted environment. In order to examine this notion, Heller employs the character of Milo Minderbender, an unsuspecting mess officer who grows to be the operator of a worldwide syndicate. The establishment of his syndicate begins with fresh eggs and leads to leaking war information to the Germans, causing the deaths of many. The development of this idea is evident through the progression of the novel, as the syndicate is a representation of Milo’s selfishness that intensifies as the “profits” grow. The existence of the syndicate is absolutely ridiculous and this absurdity provides Heller with the opportunity to explore its symbolism of it and confronts the readers with the way greed is exacerbated in a setting of war. The deal for discharge that is made between Colonel Korn and Yossarian also contributes to the author’s argument, as for being their “pal” and “saying nice things” Yossarian is willing to betray the airmen. Though Yossarian struggles with his personal integrity during the process of making a decision, he ultimately accepts it due to his desire to escape and his severe dislike of the harsh atmosphere, which replicates the one of World War II. Heller, through this exploration, led me to believe that when placed in a volatile environment one’s selfishness, causes catastrophic results.

Though humans are inherently self-serving, we naturally form a social hierarchy that empowers and disempowers some, while preventing anyone from gaining complete control. This concept is explored through the characterization of the main character, Yossarian, as the character only wishes to be free from war and struggles due to the tight power structures, which place him at the bottom. His constant attempts at avoiding war, through faking illnesses such as appendicitis, allows the author to focus on the extent of control that an individual can hold within a tyrannical society. Throughout the novel, Yossarian’s attempts demonstrate that humans desire control, and at a deeper level explore the inherent desire for humans to acquire power. Doc Daneeka a wartime surgeon in Catch 22, plays an important role in furthering Heller’s argument, being one of the most self-obsessed characters in the novel, the Doc has a paralyzing fear of death, as he deals with death almost every day and in those wounded soldiers sees “a dreadful portent of his own decay”, the fear acts as a source of the Doc’s need for control. Doc Daneeka goes through stages of hypochondria and grasps at any form of control, which eventually leads to his downfall, as he is trapped in the clutches of a dominating World War II society. Heller utilizes this opportunity to investigate the level of self-preservation one can achieve without being sucked back into the power-hungry society that favors immorality and chaos. It is my understanding that, while it is important for humans to acknowledge their survival instincts, ultimately their selfish nature maximizes control and social hierarchies eventually prevail.

My interpretation of Joseph Heller’s Catch-22 has led me to believe that all good fiction is a depiction of human experiences. Heller successfully achieves this in his book by challenging readers with his examination of individualist ideas and their place in society. The idea that self-preservation is an instinct that is imparted to all humans, that thrives in a war-inflicted atmosphere to a point where it is restricted by our controlling society and thus denied ultimate power, is an underlying theme throughout the novel. It is through this representation, Heller asks us what it means to be an individual and to what extent are we in control of our lives.

Many literary works have a sense of supreme authority or identity loss in them, which is precisely why this makes them akin to colonialist literature, even when at first glance the books seem to have nothing to do with (post) colonialist literary theory. In Catch 22, we see these elements and more of Postcolonialism through representations of oppressors, non-oppressors (or the immoral “other”), a role of language that supports this power dynamic between the two, and an evident identity loss for the characters oppressed by institutional authority. All these (post)colonialist concepts contribute to the idea that our Yossarian is nothing more than an entangled fly in the almighty and often paradoxical web of institutionalized bureaucracy and authority which is Catch-22.

Upon (re)reading Catch-22 through the (post)colonialist lens, we firstly see clear distinctions between the visible oppressor, defined as “good, logical and just”, and the contrasted oppressed, defined as the obedient, efficient and disposable. We observe the contrast when Yossarian is in the army in his younger years, he is in an environment that severely limits people’s authenticity and individuality, going even further for those who completely lose that and end up having the status of a mere “unknown soldier”, having even worse fates. Yossarian, through the machinery of war, becomes nothing more than a rat in a bucket of paradoxical bureaucracy, who, if he will not act, will surely die for his country’s “cause”. Authoritarian figures such as Colonel Cathcart are those who can decide his fate, but decides not to, why? It is because he uses his soldiers for making him look impressive in the eyes of the other authoritarian figures, which speaks to the defined “soldiers” that are being used as means, not as ends, furtherly reemphasizing the unimportance of the soldier as an individual and the utility of an army of puppets.

Secondly, we see language having a role in supporting the oppressive power dynamic.

We often use language to tell people a certain something that we would like them to know, it is the way we communicate. In Catch 22, this fundamental premise is skewed through ubiquitous miscommunication, unleashing unrelenting confusion for both the world of the book and the reader.

Colonel Cathcart is keen to impress his superiors, and he shows this by using language to his advantage while he sends out letters of grief to the family and relatives of deceased soldiers in the later parts of the book, expressing in excess how well he knew these individuals when he really did not. Alas, through the means of formal euphemisms and suppression, we eventually lose what actually happened, and the communication becomes miscommunication. Chaplain hates this “formal communication” and sees it as any sane outsider would, namely that language has no internal value, and that its prime function is to be bent to the rule of authority, which is again illustrated in Cathcart’s personal use of the language to bend it to his will, he is nevertheless the supreme being.

Lastly, the colonialist concept of a struggle to keep personal identity within an often complex and abstract system runs throughout Catch-22. We observe that Catch-22 presents a conflict between the individual liberty of Yossarian, and “that” institution from which he wants to escape from so dearly. In the army base hospital, the “soldier in white” is present, lying on a bed wrapped in bandages, an unmistakable personification of identity loss within the almighty system, for what is genuinely left of the man that once was underneath all that gauze? Yossarian, a keen example of someone who would seem most pessimistic about individual identity, actually does regain his in the end. He rejects Colonel Korn’s offer to return home, contradictory to his earlier presented will to return home. Although it would be the most logical choice, He chooses not to, because he then would be losing himself to the institutional and bureaucratic loophole which he suffered from during the entire book. If he instead wants to regain himself, he must declare individuality and flee.

All in all, it is clear that Catch-22 belongs to the list of literary works having clear signs of oppressive (post)colonialism, and it is through that lens that we have thoroughly examined the book, and discovered elements of power dynamics between oppressors and non-oppressors, how language gives power to those oppressors, and finally, how the identity is lost in the sea of conformed soldiers that primarily make up the book Catch-22. Many symbolistic elements make up Catch-22, I am sure that if I reread the book, I would discover even more elements that attribute to postcolonialist literary theory.

Alas, we have just truly begun.

“No human….at work” -Ania Loomba, (Indian scholar) Colonialism/Postcolonialism

Many literary works have a sense of “greater authority” or “identity loss” in them, and it is exactly this that makes them akin to colonialist literature, even when at first glance, the books seem to do nothing with postcolonialist literary theory.

In Catch 22, we see this element of Postcolonialist theory through representations of oppressors, non-oppressors and the immoral “other”, a role of language that supports this power dynamic, and identity loss from within the characters.

It is through the lens of post-colonialist theory, that we will analyze Catch-22, and discover why these elements attribute to postcolonialism.

Firstly, we see representations of the oppressor as the norm for “good” and the non-oppressor as exotic or immoral ‘other’.

When Yossarian is in the army, we see that he is in an environment that strips people of their individuality and authenticity, and for those who completely lose that, and end up having the status of an “unknown soldier”, their fates are even worse.1

Yossarian, through the machinery of war, becomes nothing more than a rat in a bucket of paradoxical bureaucracy, who, if he will not act, will surely die for his country.

Authority figures such as Colonel Cathcart are those who can decide his fate, but he decides not to.

Why? Because he uses his soldiers for making him impressive in the eyes of the other colonels, which speaks to the “inferior soldiers” that are being used as means, not as ends.

Secondly, there is an interest in the role of language supporting that power is present.

While the main intent of the language is to communicate, Heller creates a world in which language loses its function as a means for communication in favour of an overly-present miscommunication.

During the final stages of the war, instead of providing comfort, language becomes not that what it is intended for, and its power is knocked down on its knees by the paradoxical military bureaucracy.

Within the very beginning of Catch-22, language is given to the reader as a sort of boredom activity for Yossarian while he “heals” in the hospital.

He “censors” bits of text by randomly erasing words that contain too much information “Death to all modifiers!”, he said one day.

The more words Yossarian deletes, the less language stays true to its original function – namely to give the only line of communication that soldiers have with their loved ones.

Alas, how outrageous his behavior might seem, one learns later that it is the military bureaucracy that has the true power over language in the book.

Lastly, the keeping of personal identity runs throughout Catch-22.

The novel presents a conflict between our individual and “that” institution.

Yossarian confronts that authority. In the base hospital, the soldier in white represents a loss of identity within the almighty system.

No one knows the identity of that soldier, or whether there even is a soldier inside all that gauze and plaster casing. Yossarian, who would seem most skeptical about identity, in fact, does take a stand in the end. He rejects Colonel Korn’s offer to freedom even though it offers Yossarian a trip to his home.

Although it may seem best for him and for the authorities, Yossarian cannot accept Korn’s deal because it would be unloyal for the rest of the squadron. He would be losing himself to the bureaucratic loophole. To regain himself, he must declare a separate peace and flee.