Catch-22 (Dilemma)

2006-10-13T18:43:05Z

Twisted86: +{{unreferenced}}

{{unreferenced|article}}
'''Catch-22''' is a term, popularized by [[Joseph Heller]]'s novel ''[[Catch-22]]'', describing a general situation in which an individual has to accomplish two actions which are mutually dependent on the other action being completed first. A familiar example of this circumstance occurs in the context of job searching. In moving from school to a [[career]], one may encounter a Catch-22 where one cannot get a [[employment|job]] without [[work experience]], but one cannot gain experience without a job.

Catch-22 situations are sometimes called [[Virtuous circle and vicious circle|vicious circles]] or [[the chicken or the egg]] problems.

== Original use ==
This common use of the term represents a problem slightly different from the prime example in Heller's novel. In that novel, the Catch-22 is a [[no-win situation]], much like the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario described further down.

The prototypical Catch-22, as formulated by [[Joseph Heller|Heller]], considers the case of a [[United States Army Air Corps|U.S. Army Air Forces]] [[bombardier (air force)|bombardier]] who wishes to be excused from combat flight duty. In order to be excused from such duty, he must submit an official medical diagnosis from his squadron's [[flight surgeon]], demonstrating that he is unfit because he is [[insanity|insane]]. However, according to Army regulations, any [[sanity|sane]] person would naturally not want to fly combat missions because they are so dangerous. By requesting permission not to fly combat missions, on the grounds of insanity, the bombardier demonstrates that he is in fact sane and therefore is fit to fly. Conversely, any flyer who wished to fly on combat runs implicitly demonstrated that he was insane and was unfit to fly and ought to be excused, and to be excused this person would only need to submit a request. Naturally, such flyers never submitted such requests. Of course, if they did, the "catch" would assert itself, short-circuiting any such attempt to escape from combat duty.

This seemingly irrational situation does have a rational basis: sanity is a prerequisite to discovering one is insane. If one submits a request to stop flying because one is "insane", it shows enough sanity to recognize one is insane. In other words, one has to be sane to recognize one's own insanity.

If terms of pure logic, Catch-22 can be expressed as: "C requires (therefore) A and B; If A then not B; If B then not A," In this example, in order to leave, you must be both insane and request to leave. If you're insane, then you can't request to leave. If you request to leave, then you're not insane. Therefore, you can never leave.

However, in Heller's text, a meaning for Catch-22 exists beyond that of an unsolvable logical [[dilemma]]. Although the rule is stated and restated in multiple ways, usually in the "damned if you do and damned if you don't" form, in the final chapters it is restated simply as "anything can be done to you that you can not prevent," the logical conclusion being eventual destruction or assimilation ...unless one breaks out of the system entirely. The solution for Heller is, to borrow a Prussian expression, ''die flucht nach vorne antreten'' ("to take flight (flee) forward") decisively freeing oneself from a situation in which it is not possible to withdraw. In the case of Heller’s hero Yossarian, this was done by deserting and fleeing to Sweden.

== Damned if you do, damned if you don't ==
'''Damned if you do, damned if you don't''' is another kind of Catch-22 situation, in which one is placed into an unfavorable situation no matter what choice one makes. It is representative of an impossible-to-escape, unwinnable situation. As such, it is closer to the original meaning of Catch-22.

An example of this is the [[Kobayashi Maru]] exam in the ''[[Star Trek]]'' universe. In it, a [[cadet]] assumes a command position on a starship that intercepts an [[SOS]] message from another allied ship in enemy territory. If they choose to ignore it, the ship is eventually attacked by enemy forces and destroyed with no survivors. However, if they choose to enter enemy territory to try to rescue the other ship, they find that the SOS was a decoy for an enemy trap, and they are attacked by a superior enemy force and destroyed.

One theatrical example is Valjean's dilemma in ''[[Les Miserables]]''. Jean Valjean, an ex-convict who, six years ago broke his parole and ran away, swore to become an honest man. Over the years, he became a respected factory owner who provides jobs for a number of workers who would otherwise starve, and just agreed to adopt the daughter of his dying ex-employee Fantine. But Inspector Javert, the police officer still searching for him after six years, has captured someone he thinks is Valjean: an innocent man with a strong resemblance to the ex-con. Upon hearing this, Valjean must decide whether he should confess to his real identity and save this innocent man, but in so doing lose all the good he has done over the years, or if he should stay quiet and protect himself, but break his oath to become an honest man.

A real-life example of this is the situation faced by the [[Italian Football Federation]] (FIGC) in 2006 when it was forced to deal with [[2006 Serie A scandal|a major match-fixing scandal]] in [[Serie A]], the top level of [[football (soccer)|football]] in that country. Four of the country's most successful clubs were allegedly linked to the scandal. FIGC has the power to [[promotion and relegation|relegate]] any clubs found to have fixed matches. Due to the high profile of the clubs involved, relegating these clubs would cost the league tens of millions of euros, if not more. However, any punishment short of relegation would have caused the league to lose a great deal of credibility. Three of the four formally accused clubs were relegated. Upon appeal, all sanctions were softened, and Milan were even allowed back in [[UEFA Champions League|Europe's premier competition]]. Final appeals are pending.

== Deadlock ==
In computer science, a '''[[deadlock]]''' is a condition whereby two [[Process (computing)|processes]] are waiting for a particular resource which the other has and will release only after receiving the resource it is waiting for. Thus, the only way the resource will become available for one of the processes is if the other releases it — which neither will do, until it receives the resource that the other has.

For example, suppose Process A has a block of [[Memory (computers)|memory]], and needs to access a [[Floppy disk|disk drive]]. Meanwhile, Process B has control of the disk drive, and needs to put its information in memory — specifically, it needs the block of memory Process A controls. Process A will hold onto its block of memory and wait for the disk drive to become available, while Process B will hold onto the disk drive and wait for the memory to become available. Both processes are dependent on the other, thus they will wait for each other forever.

Thus, this situation is a ''vicious circle'' (as mentioned earlier) and is a good example of a ''Catch-22''. This type of situation has also been referred to as a ''deadly embrace''. A deadlock is, of course, an undesirable state in a computing system.

== See also ==
*[[Deadlock]]
*[[Hobson's choice]]
*[[Morton's Fork]]
*[[Circular logic]]
*[[Double bind]] (a type of formalized catch-22 which is found in psychology and psychotherapy)
*[[Reductio ad absurdum]]
*[[Lesser of two evils principle (politics)|Lesser of two evils principle]]
*[[No-win situation]]
*[[Zugzwang]]
[[Category:English idioms]]
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Neologisms]]

Wikipedia - Benutzerbeiträge [de]

Catch-22 (Dilemma)