Absurdity In Catch 22

On the topic of Catch-22, its author Joseph Heller posed the question “What does a sane man do in an insane society?” (BBC). In many ways we cannot fully empathize with this question nor with the novel’s main character Yossarian until we have experienced the extent of the futility and absurdity of Catch-22, but even more so, until having been overcome by its complexity. Both ideologically and in terms of its structure, Catch-22 is an incredibly complex piece of literature. Yet simultaneously, the themes at its core are fairly simplistic— something Yossarian recognizes when he says “he was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22” (46).
Much like a Russian doll, wherein each layer reveals another version of the

original piece, the many layers of complexity within Catch-22— the bureaucracy, the syndicate, Yossarian and his alleged insanity, the structure of the prose, etc.— in and of themselves embody the concept of Catch-22. It is due to how seamlessly this idea is woven in to every aspect of the text, supported by the sort of double-edged satire which simultaneously achieves hilarity and poignance, that the feelings of futility and absurdity can be so strongly evoked. In turn, it also is through experiencing these feelings that we may better understand the idea of Catch-22 as well as its extensive, perhaps never-ending, applications to our modern world.
The novel Catch-22 very effectively captures the many challenges within society, economics, politics and governance, but is clearly centred upon and, amazingly, manages to articulate one of the most salient challenges which encompasses all fields, that is how one should respond to a situation in which neither outcome is without negative consequence— a Catch-22. A term which was born of and constructed by Joseph Heller’s work.
The Collins English Dictionary defines “Catch-22” as “a situation in which a person is frustrated by a paradoxical rule or set of circumstances that preclude any attempt to escape from them” (BBC). Yossarian’s frustration (and arguably our frustration) stems from the fact that we ourselves can seem helpless and our efforts futile when caught in such a logical dilemma where there is not only no apparent way to wither resolve the situation or address the mechanism causing it. Yossarian knew “Catch-22 did not exist, he was positive of that, but it made no difference. What did matter was that everyone thought it existed, and that much worse, for there was no object or text to ridicule or refute, to accuse, to criticize, attack, amend, hate, revile, spit at, rip to shred, trample upon, or burn up” (409). War and conflict, like Catch-22, is ideological. Traditionally we have “trampled upon” and “burned up” things in response to conflicting interests or values, but it is illogical to believe that engaging militarily or with force would accomplish anything aside from increasing arms trade or other economic opportunity and contributing to complexity. My impression is that Joseph Heller’s most resounding message is: war is futile and absurd because quite simply, you cannot kill an idea.