Table of contentsIntroductionComparative analysisConclusion IntroductionThe political context of any novel is crucial to understanding the relationships between the characters, the exploration of significant themes, and how the reader derives their own meaning from the text. Furthermore, they create a set of conditions in which authors can explore the importance of different societal circumstances on characters and, by extension, on the human condition. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why violent video games should not be banned"? Get an original essay The two novels analyzed, The Trial by Franz Kafka and Catch 22 by Josef Heller, both involve insightful discussions about the injustices present in within totalitarian societies. - and more precisely, how states govern and control individuals. By contrasting and comparing the narratives of injustice, where the protagonists of both novels interact with powerful officials as a means of protecting themselves, this essay will examine what both authors achieve from their imagined contexts. The importance of these texts to readers stems from the cynical truths that the novel reveals about totalitarian governance, such as its general incompetence, ineffectiveness, or internal contradictions about situations. Through the comparison of the books, this essay will identify how the current systems of control influence and distort justice and also indoctrinate people, consequently causing a series of terrible events arising from a dysfunctional and complex bureaucracy without limits. Comparative Analysis Kafka's depiction of the state is vague, generic and inaccurate with respect to any geographical specificity, although it takes place in the early 20th century, during Kafka's life, making it arguably the reflection of the Czech Republic in the process of industrialization. The novel depicts a monolithic authority that arouses paranoia among the population due to its opaque inner workings. There are many angles from which to interpret the novel. For this investigation, the most relevant points of interest will be a legalistic view and political and sociological interpretations. With this in mind, comparing it to Catch 22, with similar perspectives on the state, which reflect how real-world institutions work. The protagonist, Josef, experiences the injustice and oppression of this system, from the early stages of the novel, when two officers arrest him and prosecute him, the nature of his crime being unclear. not revealed. He becomes even more desperate when he appears before numerous sleazy judges when his numerous attempts to obtain an official conviction fail, leading to the famous and oppressive world of the "Kafkaesque". Joseph Heller's novel Catch 22 is a satirical account of the incompetent wartime bureaucracy of the United States, with the protagonist serving as part of the 256th Squadron of the United States Air Force during World War II. He is afraid due to the number of near-deadly situations he and his comrades encounter during brutal flight missions, as well as the inhumane character qualities that commanders reward. “This lawyer and his colleagues are, however, only small lawyers; the big lawyers, of whom I have only heard of but never seen, stand comparatively higher above the small lawyers than the latter above the despised crooks. "This confrontation creates conflicting situations, as we can see in the character of K, where K's urgency offinding protection from the court results in the hiring of incompetent and “mean” lawyers, provided for the majority of the population. K's middle-class status prevents him from accessing lawyers of higher rank and prestige, which could potentially improve his situation. This results in K denouncing the “corrupt” and “senseless” procedures that form the backbone of a judicial institution that only aims to prosecute “criminals.” K meets a businessman who has hired five “small lawyers” and is negotiating with a sixth, but he justifies himself by the fact that he “must not neglect anything that could be useful to [him]”, this which highlights the true gravity of the despair of those unjustly prosecuted. In the scene, the sympathetic closeness we get with the businessman is the same that K receives. The scene highlights to the reader the ineffectiveness of hiring low-status lawyers, but more importantly, how it does not allow any individual to overcome the system's goal of prosecuting individuals it considers to be criminals. criminals. Essentially, the reality is that there is a small-scale, self-perpetuating bureaucracy that stops change and continues to reproduce itself. When K approaches the court, he is completely unwilling to change, just like we see with Yossarian, where the war continues to drag on and nothing changes. The reason is the bureaucracy that underpins the court: when K looks for a lawyer who can navigate the maze of the legal system, the lawyer cannot help him because he is incompetent. It seems to K that the court is against him and does not want him to appeal at all. Because the legal system is difficult to circumvent, K seeks help, as a rational response to an impenetrable system. In fact, lawyers only exist because the legal system is not intuitive, in this sense the work of confrontation with the court exists because its difficulty requires the interpretation of the system as a profession. the inability of the system to prevent him from appealing, almost as if the lawyers in the lower bureaucracy were just extensions of the system. The only people in the lower bureaucracy capable of bringing about change are powerful and capable lawyers who are really only within the reach of wealthy individuals. This makes it clear that, simply due to the nature of his place within a rigid societal framework, he cannot maneuver the system. However, the fact that rich and powerful people can escape crime does not mean that the system is changing, it appeals to the wealthy population who do not need to change the system because it already serves their best interest. This is important to identify because the root causes of a problem are rarely visible or apparent. It is also clear that everyone involved in this issue at the time has a rational mind, which would not condemn the malice of the system, but rather condemn the effectiveness and, therefore, be amoral. The random trial process is similar to Senator Joseph Raymond McCarthys hearings in the 1950s, the outcome of which resulted in a national witch hunt against anyone associated with the Communist Party. Catch 22 paragraph 1 Although Catch 22 is a satire on the bureaucratic idiocy of World War II, this is important because the book's artistic intentions are to expose real-world tragedy as the result of bureaucracies. There are certain truths in the author's constructed reality that make the reader question how the characters survive within their society and why the system fails them, morally. THECatch 22 characters view their government as downright absurd, due to increased media coverage. and prioritize and dedicate every action to a means of winning the war. This larger social motive contrasts with Yossarian's basic individual instinct: to avoid death. This is very different from K's goal, which is to escape the state apparatus, get his job back, and return to a normal life. At the same time, Yossarian questions why the war even happened, as the state provides very little justification or explanation for the purposes for which the soldiers actually serve. Without any coherent understanding of the situation, Yossarian takes the violence personally as hostile armed forces "shot cannons at him every time he flew into the air" to bomb them. Furthermore, during a court martial, the bureaucracy executes the assembly of soldiers with very little incentive and a general lack of consideration for the state of mind of the soldiers. For example, when Dunbar claims there is "no patriotism" and Yossarian responds "no matriotism either." This makes Yossarian and his comrades seem completely apathetic about the broader justifications for the war. From the reader's point of view, most tragedies arise from an absurd and inscrutable bureaucratic logic, reflecting more a disillusionment and ridicule of state incompetence rather than a fear of state power - even if empowered officials within the state continue to make malicious decisions that result in the deaths of people. The Trial sees an opaque and irrational regime shrouded in a layer of secrecy, yet brutally effective and equally malevolent. In both cases, the law functions as a means of imposing and regulating certain behaviors. It manages good and bad actions through a "just" punitive system as a means to an end, which focuses only on a primary objective, such as winning the war, without considering secondary objectives, such as minimizing soldiers' losses. Americans. Both novels explore these issues from the perspective of non-beneficiaries of the system. Yossarian's role at the lowest rank in the military also provides critical insight into the system's distortion of justice that conflicts with its integrity, while K's role as a convict explores the blatantly unjust tactics and unconventional methods used to judge him. As an inquiry, it is important to draw a comparison between these two bureaucracies in order to expose the different areas of moral concern within them, one being a legal bureaucracy and the other a military bureaucracy. Catch 22 illustrates to the reader how the interactions reflect the unbalanced power dynamics between the characters due to an unprincipled system. The heart of K's tragedy lies in the fact that the hierarchical structure of the courts is infinite in size, but also has opaque and "faceless" leaders, which explains why the institutions can undoubtedly incite paranoia in d other individuals, without any direct responsibility. Chapter 2How worthwhile is it to achieve a main goal at the cost of a great loss? The state has a clearly defined goal: to prioritize everything in its power to win the war. The system is used as a method of efficiency because it restricts the actions of an individual to work for the state. The efficiency of the system is accompanied by the employment of extreme measures to guarantee the advantage of the state in situations. In the trial, confidentiality makes it easier to convict people. , not only that, but it ensures that theactions of the court may be hidden by secrecy. Additionally, K's dignity is stripped away by inefficient red tape within the bureaucracy which disguises itself as something virtuous but actually restricts individuals by keeping them in check, leading him in court to "raise a debate public on a public wrong", to which he arrives at a valuable answer, quite simply because the tacit dangers of speaking against the logic of the system can lead you to "cut the ground under your own feelings and fall", while the system remains intact, or even “no longer resolved”. "It is clear that the "law" of trial creates a highly irrational system, because justice within the court does not guarantee fairness where it is due, and its stagnation makes the damage it causes eternal, because the Framework officials are only concerned with fulfilling their duty which we often see people in power follow blindly, because the common misconception is that individuals are placed in a framework based on talent, experience and expertise. , when in reality, they are selected based on their political astuteness which is judged quantitatively. Similarly, in Catch 22, the more "loyalty oaths" a man signs, the more he proves his loyalty to the state. .inhuman because what judges the righteousness of an individual is the value of quantitative information, which meets a singular objective but also pays the price of important moral considerations at stake. In the military ranks of Catch 22, the absurdity arises from the irrationality that accumulates after the clash of two rational objectives, such as Cathcart's ambition to become a great war general leading him to abuse his power by "increasing the number of missions required” to return. at home, and the squadrons aim for survival and self-esteem. Essentially, the system is only hampered by analyzing quantitative statistics that do not address social issues like inciting paranoia and suspicion. Hungry Joe becomes disillusioned with Cathcart's rule when the "number of missions required before returning home" increases as soon as he reaches the required amount just to restore his power and command "overflowing with pride and joy", while Hungry Joe “rewrote his letters at home. », revealing the injustice of the inconsistency of systems. Question: “Is it worth achieving a primary goal at the cost of an inexplicable loss?” » In both cases, the oppressed become alienated after being deceived by the absurd system, which imposes on them the challenge of accepting their society for what it is owed. to its mysterious nature, isolating them in anxiety for fear of being defeated by an inconceivable omnipotent evil. Yet, despite the seemingly malicious intentions of the state, every member who works for the system is rational and turns a blind eye to moral ambiguity in order to maintain the simplicity of their duties. The system is therefore amoral, simply because its nature is not complicit in immoral judgments, but in judgments that serve the purpose of the role. This is why, in a way, the state can be characterized as an entity, in that its extensive power is possible through a set of characters. This causes K to often question and confront officials in the novel as there is never any fault to blame except almost everyone - including individuals who try to help him, such as his lawyer. A bureaucracy is programmed to perform a simple task, loss is calculated by things that are quantifiable, lives lost in war and criminals prosecuted, but as losses such as alienation, paranoia and the creation of fear exist , this often results in a loss of dignity. Malicious irrationality This is globalif we consider Heller's paradox of the repetition of irrational decision-making, which primarily prioritizes saving the rich and consolidating power over the masses. Signature 22 of the novel serves as a premise for how the mechanisms of bureaucracy enforce rules that make things obligatory. “Orr would be crazy to do more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to do them. If he flew them, he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to, he was of sound mind and he had to. Yossarian was very deeply moved by the absolute simplicity of this Catch-22 clause and blew a respectful whistle. "The emphasis on rational thinking of fighter pilots, while under the impression that they will subject themselves to dangerous and life-threatening situations, carries over into most scenarios in which Yossarian feels out of control The malicious irrationality lies in the unjust law of Kafka's fictional reality, when K "admits that he does not know the law" and at the same time "insists on his innocence", during a conversation with the police officers who. arrest him at his home, the police officers attest to the fact that to assert one's innocence one must coherently understand the limits of what is not permitted Yet we sympathize with K. as a character and are convinced that. the “crime” he “committed” lacks legitimacy and truth, therefore, there is an absolute law that is not justifiable. This is part of the theme of absurdity, to understand this, firstly, absurdity is the quality or state of being unreasonable or ridiculous, in this context the way in which administrative decisions are put into practice in the respective novels falls under absurdity. To add to this, the protagonists of the novel and the majority of the characters are victims of bureaucracy, thus the perspective from which the novel is told characterizes the government of the state from the point of view of the oppressed individuals, which is essential because it not only means the insight is an honest reflection of civilian experience, but additionally, the integrity of the main characters is not predisposed to corruption and abuse of power. The bureaucracy is a singular one, with communication passing through letters and notes from its members who think alike. It is homogeneous because, as previously stated, rank members are not chosen based on their competence or effectiveness, but rather based on their political acumen. At the same time, his motivations can be understood by the purpose of his existence to serve as a means to an end. Therefore, the enemy is never focused on him because he is not an antagonist. The problem is that it's not really rational because it doesn't do it. We don't really care, but you can never really know if it's rational or not, because it lacks human characteristics (absence of motivations and incentives). This appears irrational to the observer because the relationship between K and the state becomes dependent on the process of the court system and whether or not our personal judgment of the court seems irrational or rational. This brings us to a sub-question, because it does not mean that there is someone here directly responsible for K's misfortune and illogical and unfair decision-making, because it is possible for rational humans to come together and create irrational systems. army officer, is a key example of a man who blindly succumbed to obeying the framework of bureaucratic ranks and doing whatever was necessary to achieve a single.