In his short story “The Devil is a Busy Man,” David Foster Wallace states that Americans are obsessed with maintaining a façade of sincerity; ironically, this desire to appear sincere is the tragic root of the country's widespread insincerity. The narrator worries about the perceived “nice thing [they did] for someone” and laments, “The lack of anonymity on my part would destroy the ultimate value of the kind act,” arguing that the expectation of recognition – wanting that someone recognizing a generous act: "empties" the gesture of all value (3070). The narrator is not interested in being a good person, but rather in being perceived as a good person. It's not that the narrator truly wishes 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 counterbalanced by the fear of appearing awkward. and selfish (3070). To this end, Wallace demonstrates that America is more interested in keeping up appearances. Although the narrator freely admits that, internally, he wants to be recognized for his kind deed, 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 oneself from shame or embarrassment. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayThe 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 so as to feel equally participatory and dignified in the charity. However, Foster Wallace writes that the call was in part “to let him know that I was the individual responsible for the generous gesture” (3071). While the personal identity of the benefactor remains theoretically anonymous, the call firmly establishes his individuality and destroys the barricade of separation between client and beneficiary. Foster Wallace uses repetition to highlight the pattern of human contact in the postmodern era that he describes here. He writes that the call made the benefactor “insinuatingly, euphemistic” (3071). According to Foster Wallace, the narrator's appeal to establish his humanity but disguise his personal identity is euphemistic. Although his identity remains anonymous, his identity is clear. This portrayal reflects a postmodern trend in human interaction that “insinuates” or “euphemizes” a bolder, perhaps harsher, but also more realistic truth. The “innuendo,” which is repeated again towards the end of the passage, shows that the narrator is suggesting, through the call, a presentation of himself that is colored by his act of charity. Wallace sees the anonymous call as a further implication of the patron's character. The narrator states that the call insinuates that he “was so 'kind' – meaning, in other words, 'modest,' 'unselfish,' or 'not tempted by the desire of gratitude'” (30711). By withholding his own individuality in the calling, the benefactor actually leaves room for vast implications regarding his status as a person in society. He is probably rich, charitable and cares about others. These words, when combined, imply that the narrator is representative of a larger group of elite Americans who view the poor essentially as minor donees who are not even worthy of knowing the origins or personal identity of their patron. The narrator's modesty, he implies, actually reflects a more distant reality.