Holden's Take on Phoniness + Reflection on Philanthropy

    One of Holden’s favorite, gravest insults he likes to throw around about society is its “phoniness.” It is easy to pass it off, as Holden seems to call everything and everyone a phony without thought. But, I think his complaint gets at a really core nuance in the way we proceed in society and how our actions are perceived by other people. The core discrepancy that doesn’t seem to bother any other characters but Holden is his idea of people’s intention.  

To Holden, the intention of people’s actions directly impacts their weight and their value. For example, he resents Ernie the pianist for being too “showy”. Holden describes, “He had a big damn mirror in front of the piano, with this big spotlight on him, so that everybody could watch his face while he played. You couldn’t see his fingers while he played–just his big old face” (pg 95). According to Holden’s logic, Ernie’s big ego and pleasure in the spotlight takes away from his authenticity as an artist. It doesn’t matter how skillful or talented his playing is, the fact that Ernie’s intention is to perform and soak in the crowd somehow ruins whatever beautiful music he produced. By similar rationale, we see Holden adore the drummer in the Christmas show, specifically for being the opposite of someone like Ernie. The drummer is low-key, humble, and no one else seems to really notice the drummer except for Holden and Allie. Because of this, Holden is led to believe the drummer’s intention is different from Ernie’s: the drummer enjoys producing music out of pure love for playing the drums and being there, rather than for clout or status or money or fame. These core differences in the two musicians' intentions differentiate Holden’s belief of their musical impact even more than their actual skill. 

Another situation brought up in the novel was the question of philanthropy. It seems that according to Holden, any form of personal social benefit from doing acts of charity directly conflicts with the authenticity and value of committing the good. He idolizes the nuns and insists on giving them money solely out of his notion that their intentions are pure. The fact that they are dressed similarly and modestly combined with how they are not going around collecting at the moment convinces Holden that giving them money would provide more value than giving money to someone who is “dressed-up” and asking for donations. 

I really relate to the point Holden makes about intention, and I don’t believe this is anything irrational or just an example of Holden being immature. It brings up a valid question of if our personal gain of doing charity work (having people perceive you to be more virtuous and impressive) somehow negates the actual good you committed. Does it matter if you are doing it out of the kindness of your heart, or if you want to look good in the eyes of other people? Are those two things necessarily exclusive? I think there are different types of personal gain from philanthropy: people perceiving you more positively, boosting your own ego by doing things that help other people, or simply finding joy out of giving other people joy. I actually don’t believe the value of your charity is impacted by your intentions, because the same amount of charity is being done. However, this usually isn’t the case; if your heart is genuinely set on something, you tend to do it to a further extent at a better quality than if your intent was superficial. 

There are countless examples of this phoniness that Holden would critique in our society today. I’ve felt similar Holden-level frustrations about the idea of resume-building, which I feel like sometimes encourages people to sign up for volunteering or pursue classes/opportunities that they aren’t truly interested in, but are willing to endure in order to make it a bullet point on the resume and look like a more impressive person (whether it be for college, a job, an internship). This can easily be extremely “phony” to people who share Holden’s ideology about intention, but It doesn’t seem as though our society punishes this type of “phoniness”: instead, these actions often are rewarded. Still, I don’t think the “phoniness” is as black and white as Holden makes it out to be, because the experience of going out and doing those things is still much better than deciding to do nothing, and sometimes the experience and knowledge gained from your genuine passion may be enough of a reward in itself.