In his short story “The Devil is a Busy Man,” David Foster Wallace argues that Americans are obsessed with maintaining a facade of sincerity; Ironically, this desire to appear sincere is the tragic root of the country's widespread insincerity. The narrator worries about the perception of "the good thing [they did] for someone" and laments: "A lack of anonymity on my part would destroy the ultimate value of the kind act", arguing that the expectation of recognition – wanting someone to recognize a generous act – “empties” the gesture of all value (3070). The narrator doesn't care about being a good person, but rather about being seen as a good person. It's not that the narrator really wants to remain anonymous - throughout the story he tries to resist the temptation to consciously reveal his identity - it's that his desire to receive "affection and 'approval' is balanced by his fear of appearing awkward. and selfish (3070). To this end, Wallace demonstrates that America is all about keeping up appearances. Even though the narrator freely admits that internally he wishes to be recognized for his kind act, he would be reluctant to let others know. This suggests that hiding one's inner desires is a basic American instinct. This instinct, in turn, is a defense mechanism used to protect against shame or embarrassment. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay The act of charity also has a surprisingly profound effect on the benefactor. The narrator hoped to maintain a mirage of anonymity in his charity. Here, the narrator could depersonalize the act and appease the recipient in order to feel equally participating and worthy in the charitable work. However, Foster Wallace writes that the call was in part "to let him know that I was the person responsible for this generous gesture" (3071). If the personal identity of the benefactor remains theoretically anonymous, the appeal firmly asserts his individuality and destroys the barrier of separation between the patron and the recipient. Foster Wallace uses repetition to highlight the pattern of human contact in the postmodern era that he describes here. He writes that the appeal was made to the benefactor “by insinuation, by euphemism” (3071). According to Foster Wallace, the narrator's call to establish his humanity but mask his personal identity is an understatement. Although his identity remains anonymous, his identity is clear. This depiction reflects a postmodern trend in human interaction that “insinuates” or “euphemizes” a bolder, perhaps harsher, but also more realistic truth. The “insinuation”, which is repeated towards the end of the passage, shows that the narrator suggests, through the appeal, a presentation of himself which is colored by his act of charity. Wallace sees the anonymous call as further implicating the character. of the boss. The narrator states that the appeal insinuates that he "was so 'kind' – that is, in other words, 'modest,' 'selfless,' or 'untempted by the desire for their gratitude.' » (30711). Denying his identity in the appeal, the benefactor actually leaves room for broad implications about his status as a person in society. He is probably rich, charitable and caring for others. These words, when combined, imply that the narrator is representative of a larger group of American elites who view the poor as essentially lesser donees who are not even worthy of knowing origins or identity personal of their boss. The narrator's modesty, he suggests, actually reflects a more distant reality of interaction.