Assessing Masculinity in The Catcher in the Rye
By the time children reach the end of their first year of life, they have learned to identify their own gender. As the products of a society where even blankets and blocks come color-coded depending upon the anatomy of the infant to whom they belong, this is no surprise. This mode of understanding and performing gender was even stricter in the Cold War era. As the U.S. emerged from the Second World War, conformity and patriotism were conflated so that one’s dedication to capitalism and democracy were inherent in one’s compliance with societal expectations of both class and gender. From this stringent social setting emerged a character who called into question the validity of these gender prescriptions, in particular the guidelines for masculinity. When J.D. Salinger’s famous novel, The Catcher in the Rye, was published in 1951, it was certainly not the first or only book to criticize the “rat race,” but it stands out for its unique focus on the adolescent Holden Caulfield who defies principles of both class and gender. Salinger expertly manipulates Holden’s streaming monologue and keen observations to simultaneously present a critique of gender norms and a model for masculinity that is bereft of brutishness, but exists within the rules just enough to maintain a level of acceptability to audiences who adhere to the very norms under scrutiny. Holden Caulfield’s assessment of his gender role is authoritative because he intelligent and, importantly, because he does not completely abandon the modes of masculinity.
Holden Caulfield’s assessment of gender is in many ways bound up in his assessment of the adult world. That gender norms are an extension of rules for conformity stipulated by adults is logical given the time period in which the book was published. The belief that national security was dependent upon the citizenry’s adherence to traditional values was pervasive. As such, Holden often reveals his gender critique through his reflection on the ways in which the adult characters perform traditional gender roles, though he also roundly and more overtly condemns the hyper-gendered performances of his peers. From the novel’s perspective, a traditionally masculine man represents the gray suited, conformist provider. He has a family in which he is the primary earner, participates in the middle or upper class job market, works toward the acquisition of money, goods, and/or sex, and is generally emotionally detached. Traditionally feminine females participate in the idolized middle or upper class by pursuing an education, but not necessarily with career ambitions (none is ever mentioned), home-making and child-rearing, and adhere to beauty standards.
Using these models, Holden indicates his frustrations on the first page of The Catcher in the Rye, stating, “my parents would have about two hemorrhages apiece if I told anything pretty personal about them…especially my father…they’re touchy as hell” (1). In this brief passage, a number of things are evident. First, Holden’s parents demonstrate their adherence to the rigid conformity of the middle class through their “touchiness” about having any personal information aired which could contradict the happy appearance of their family. Second, Holden’s father is particularly “touchy” about having any family background made public, which is the first indication of his fulfillment of traditional masculinity. He is private and stoic. And finally, Holden’s flippant speech is evidence that he thinks his parents’ anxiety about sharing personal information is worthy of mocking. That he seems to take heed of their wishes indicates that on some level, he is respectful, while the mockery sets him apart from his parents’ class and gender standards.
A bit later in the novel, Salinger presents a more robust adult male character whom Holden rebukes. “Old Ossenburger” is a Pencey Prep success story and a model of success for the time period in which Salinger wrote the book as well (16). Ossenburger runs a mass-production undertaking business where Holden judges, “he probably just shoves [bodies] in a sack and dumps them in the river” (16). Holden’s contempt for Ossenburger is directed at the man’s arrogance. He speaks from the pulpit at the Pencey chapel, he talks about praying while driving his extravagant car, and Holden observes that he has little reverence for either faith or the dead. He is also enormously successful, having taken the mass-production model of business and applied it to an ordinarily carefully handled trade. He is undoubtedly a good provider and “a suit”- by all social measures a good man, but it is exactly this that leads Holden to disliking him. Ossenburger, for his masculine business precision, has taken the sincerity and humanity out of a spiritual process (burying the dead) and Holden is not only unimpressed, but also offended succinctly expressing his views on materialism, he says “goddamn money” (113). In rejecting Ossenburger, Holden is rejecting consumerism, mass-production, and the gender script that Ossenburger represents.
Even more telling are the interactions Salinger writes between Holden and his cohort. He constantly criticizes his male peers with regard to their demonstrations of masculinity. One of the few young men Holden actually likes is the gentle, deceased, James Castle. He explains his perspective upon meeting an acquaintance’s date at a bar one evening, who “was one of those guys who think they’re being a pansy if they don’t break about forty of your fingers when they shake hands with you” (87). Salinger reveals Holden’s defiance of the masculine script by blatantly ridiculing this Navy seaman for apparently needing to constantly prove his own strength. The sarcasm in Holden’s assessment of the handshake – that it might “break about forty of your fingers”- points out the absurdity of turning a simple greeting into a proving ground. Holden is obviously uninterested in participating in this sort of proof, and his logic prevails by virtue of the hyperbolic description of the unnecessarily strong handshake and that, in turn shows that Holden is at once a different and better sort of boy.
James Castle is another example of the gender-script defiant yardstick against which Holden measures his peers. In a telling scene, Holden describes his affinity for James, “he was a skinny little weak-looking guy…one of these very quiet guys” (170). Castle’s meekness earns Holden’s reverence though the two do not know each other well. In a harsh indictment of brutal masculinity, Holden reveals that Stabile, a boy Castle insulted “and about six other dirty bastards” go to Castle’s room to force him to take back the insult (170). What they do to Castle is “too repulsive” for Holden to discuss, but he does disclose that the boys beat him and that rather than renege on the insult and to avoid further violence, James Castle jumps out the window to his death. His attackers are expelled but not prosecuted, a fact that upsets Holden. James Castle, with his fairly effeminate characteristics, is held up as one of the few people Holden encounters who is worthy of respect, in large part because he does not adhere to masculinity standards. James Stabile and the other attackers are models for the very worst of masculinity- senseless brutality- that actually proves the validity of Castle’s deadly assessment that Stabile is conceited. This is an overt condemnation of the social prescriptions that would deem it acceptable, even encourage to some degree, men to resort to violence (dare we say manslaughter in this instance?) to deal with a very minor problem. The attackers’ proof of their masculine strength is the very thing that proves their lack of humanity. Conversely, James Castle, and by extension, Holden’s defiance of this masculinity demonstrate their superiority.
His confrontations with sexuality are dually revealing; they uncover both his contempt for men who treat sex like a conquest and his concurrent self-deprecation for not having conquered. Early on in the novel, Salinger introduces Stradlater, Holden’s roommate who is a prototypical male. When Stradlater is getting ready for a date with a young woman whose name he cannot even remember, not only do we see him as insensitive and out purely for sexual conquest, we see Holden as distinct from this masculine frame. Holden is averse to Stradlater’s casual treatment of Jane because he cares for her and also because Stradlater’s lack of respect for her is an affront to Holden’s own views on sex and masculinity. His violent physical outburst at Stradlater is the first, and one of the only, incarnations of traditional masculinity that we see Holden exhibit, but notably, it is in defense of a woman who is being insulted. By extension, his attack on Stradlater is an act of defense not only of Jane, but also of his own interpretation of the right way to perform masculinity which encompasses having respect for women.
Holden explains that it is his respect for women’s sexual wishes that has prevented him from losing his virginity. His virgin status is not for lack of desire, but because “most of the time when you’re coming pretty close to doing it with a girl…she keeps telling you stop. The trouble with me is, I stop” (92). In a pitiful assessment of the social expectations that dictate both gender and sexual mores, Holden interprets his unwillingness to rape as a personal problem. He goes on to say, “most guys don’t” (92). In this way, Holden has internalized at least some of the social messages about masculinity, but he nonetheless refuses to act on them and is more willing to have a problem than to violate the bodily integrity of another person.
Lack of sexual experience leads to Holden to become anxious about his masculinity. “I kept waiting to turn into a flit or something,” he says expressing period views that sexuality and masculinity were inextricably linked as well as his obvious concerns about his own masculinity for still being a virgin (143). His views on sex are a complete departure from those of his counterparts like Stradlater, as indicated when he attempts to have a conversation before (and as it turns out, instead of) sex with Sunny, the prostitute he hires while staying at the hotel. As he explains to his friend Luce, “I can never get really sexy with a girl…I don’t like a lot. If I don’t, I sort of lose my goddamn desire for her and all” (148). Holden’s explanation of his sentiments regarding sex sound distinctly feminine. Readers can laud him for his lack of a sense of conquest, though he reveals his own unease with how un-masculine this trait is in the next breath, “boy, it really screws up my sex life something awful” (148).
It is Holden’s desire to have heterosexual sex that makes him acceptable to a community that holds fast to traditional gender identities. He does not fall terribly far outside the bounds of what is acceptably masculine behavior. The fact that he wants to achieve at least some of the markers of masculinity, be it without the crassness or force employed by other men, demonstrate that he fulfills traditional masculine expectations just enough to be able to demand to be taken seriously. Because he exists within these confines, he avoids coming across as preaching or whining. His homophobia, for example, sets him within the confines of traditional masculinity which by extension establishes him as someone to be taken more seriously than a character who might completely defy those standards. Whereas, if Holden were homosexual, his attitude and assessments of masculinity would fit within the social schema that conflates femininity and male homosexuality, which would in turn lessen the impact of Holden’s lack of conformity. By virtue of adhering to the most basic tenet of traditional masculinity, Holden’s deviance places him as an individualist, thereby exemplifying a very American ideal.
Salinger manages to make his anti-social protagonist marginally socially acceptable by writing a character that adheres in this very essential way to the traditional markers of masculinity. Interestingly, Holden Caulfield otherwise defies these standards. He has no reverence for physical strength, brute force, or showing off. Similarly, he finds the notion of becoming an adult male that occupies a middle class station in life as a conformist provider to be oppressive. Competition does not appeal to him. Equity and respect, however, are extremely appealing to Holden and his sarcasm, intelligence, and embodiment of Christian morals lend credence to his assessments of the world around him. Holden calls into question the virtues of traditional masculinity and provides a model for a comparably better sort of boy. Interestingly, this model is made authoritative by still maintaining some key features of both manliness and American individualism. Indeed, by deviating from masculine gender performance standards in some ways, Holden manages to call into question societal pressures to participate in gender norms and the conformist “rat race” which makes him, in Cold War America, a new sort of rugged individualist.
Holden Caulfield’s assessment of gender is in many ways bound up in his assessment of the adult world. That gender norms are an extension of rules for conformity stipulated by adults is logical given the time period in which the book was published. The belief that national security was dependent upon the citizenry’s adherence to traditional values was pervasive. As such, Holden often reveals his gender critique through his reflection on the ways in which the adult characters perform traditional gender roles, though he also roundly and more overtly condemns the hyper-gendered performances of his peers. From the novel’s perspective, a traditionally masculine man represents the gray suited, conformist provider. He has a family in which he is the primary earner, participates in the middle or upper class job market, works toward the acquisition of money, goods, and/or sex, and is generally emotionally detached. Traditionally feminine females participate in the idolized middle or upper class by pursuing an education, but not necessarily with career ambitions (none is ever mentioned), home-making and child-rearing, and adhere to beauty standards.
Using these models, Holden indicates his frustrations on the first page of The Catcher in the Rye, stating, “my parents would have about two hemorrhages apiece if I told anything pretty personal about them…especially my father…they’re touchy as hell” (1). In this brief passage, a number of things are evident. First, Holden’s parents demonstrate their adherence to the rigid conformity of the middle class through their “touchiness” about having any personal information aired which could contradict the happy appearance of their family. Second, Holden’s father is particularly “touchy” about having any family background made public, which is the first indication of his fulfillment of traditional masculinity. He is private and stoic. And finally, Holden’s flippant speech is evidence that he thinks his parents’ anxiety about sharing personal information is worthy of mocking. That he seems to take heed of their wishes indicates that on some level, he is respectful, while the mockery sets him apart from his parents’ class and gender standards.
A bit later in the novel, Salinger presents a more robust adult male character whom Holden rebukes. “Old Ossenburger” is a Pencey Prep success story and a model of success for the time period in which Salinger wrote the book as well (16). Ossenburger runs a mass-production undertaking business where Holden judges, “he probably just shoves [bodies] in a sack and dumps them in the river” (16). Holden’s contempt for Ossenburger is directed at the man’s arrogance. He speaks from the pulpit at the Pencey chapel, he talks about praying while driving his extravagant car, and Holden observes that he has little reverence for either faith or the dead. He is also enormously successful, having taken the mass-production model of business and applied it to an ordinarily carefully handled trade. He is undoubtedly a good provider and “a suit”- by all social measures a good man, but it is exactly this that leads Holden to disliking him. Ossenburger, for his masculine business precision, has taken the sincerity and humanity out of a spiritual process (burying the dead) and Holden is not only unimpressed, but also offended succinctly expressing his views on materialism, he says “goddamn money” (113). In rejecting Ossenburger, Holden is rejecting consumerism, mass-production, and the gender script that Ossenburger represents.
Even more telling are the interactions Salinger writes between Holden and his cohort. He constantly criticizes his male peers with regard to their demonstrations of masculinity. One of the few young men Holden actually likes is the gentle, deceased, James Castle. He explains his perspective upon meeting an acquaintance’s date at a bar one evening, who “was one of those guys who think they’re being a pansy if they don’t break about forty of your fingers when they shake hands with you” (87). Salinger reveals Holden’s defiance of the masculine script by blatantly ridiculing this Navy seaman for apparently needing to constantly prove his own strength. The sarcasm in Holden’s assessment of the handshake – that it might “break about forty of your fingers”- points out the absurdity of turning a simple greeting into a proving ground. Holden is obviously uninterested in participating in this sort of proof, and his logic prevails by virtue of the hyperbolic description of the unnecessarily strong handshake and that, in turn shows that Holden is at once a different and better sort of boy.
James Castle is another example of the gender-script defiant yardstick against which Holden measures his peers. In a telling scene, Holden describes his affinity for James, “he was a skinny little weak-looking guy…one of these very quiet guys” (170). Castle’s meekness earns Holden’s reverence though the two do not know each other well. In a harsh indictment of brutal masculinity, Holden reveals that Stabile, a boy Castle insulted “and about six other dirty bastards” go to Castle’s room to force him to take back the insult (170). What they do to Castle is “too repulsive” for Holden to discuss, but he does disclose that the boys beat him and that rather than renege on the insult and to avoid further violence, James Castle jumps out the window to his death. His attackers are expelled but not prosecuted, a fact that upsets Holden. James Castle, with his fairly effeminate characteristics, is held up as one of the few people Holden encounters who is worthy of respect, in large part because he does not adhere to masculinity standards. James Stabile and the other attackers are models for the very worst of masculinity- senseless brutality- that actually proves the validity of Castle’s deadly assessment that Stabile is conceited. This is an overt condemnation of the social prescriptions that would deem it acceptable, even encourage to some degree, men to resort to violence (dare we say manslaughter in this instance?) to deal with a very minor problem. The attackers’ proof of their masculine strength is the very thing that proves their lack of humanity. Conversely, James Castle, and by extension, Holden’s defiance of this masculinity demonstrate their superiority.
His confrontations with sexuality are dually revealing; they uncover both his contempt for men who treat sex like a conquest and his concurrent self-deprecation for not having conquered. Early on in the novel, Salinger introduces Stradlater, Holden’s roommate who is a prototypical male. When Stradlater is getting ready for a date with a young woman whose name he cannot even remember, not only do we see him as insensitive and out purely for sexual conquest, we see Holden as distinct from this masculine frame. Holden is averse to Stradlater’s casual treatment of Jane because he cares for her and also because Stradlater’s lack of respect for her is an affront to Holden’s own views on sex and masculinity. His violent physical outburst at Stradlater is the first, and one of the only, incarnations of traditional masculinity that we see Holden exhibit, but notably, it is in defense of a woman who is being insulted. By extension, his attack on Stradlater is an act of defense not only of Jane, but also of his own interpretation of the right way to perform masculinity which encompasses having respect for women.
Holden explains that it is his respect for women’s sexual wishes that has prevented him from losing his virginity. His virgin status is not for lack of desire, but because “most of the time when you’re coming pretty close to doing it with a girl…she keeps telling you stop. The trouble with me is, I stop” (92). In a pitiful assessment of the social expectations that dictate both gender and sexual mores, Holden interprets his unwillingness to rape as a personal problem. He goes on to say, “most guys don’t” (92). In this way, Holden has internalized at least some of the social messages about masculinity, but he nonetheless refuses to act on them and is more willing to have a problem than to violate the bodily integrity of another person.
Lack of sexual experience leads to Holden to become anxious about his masculinity. “I kept waiting to turn into a flit or something,” he says expressing period views that sexuality and masculinity were inextricably linked as well as his obvious concerns about his own masculinity for still being a virgin (143). His views on sex are a complete departure from those of his counterparts like Stradlater, as indicated when he attempts to have a conversation before (and as it turns out, instead of) sex with Sunny, the prostitute he hires while staying at the hotel. As he explains to his friend Luce, “I can never get really sexy with a girl…I don’t like a lot. If I don’t, I sort of lose my goddamn desire for her and all” (148). Holden’s explanation of his sentiments regarding sex sound distinctly feminine. Readers can laud him for his lack of a sense of conquest, though he reveals his own unease with how un-masculine this trait is in the next breath, “boy, it really screws up my sex life something awful” (148).
It is Holden’s desire to have heterosexual sex that makes him acceptable to a community that holds fast to traditional gender identities. He does not fall terribly far outside the bounds of what is acceptably masculine behavior. The fact that he wants to achieve at least some of the markers of masculinity, be it without the crassness or force employed by other men, demonstrate that he fulfills traditional masculine expectations just enough to be able to demand to be taken seriously. Because he exists within these confines, he avoids coming across as preaching or whining. His homophobia, for example, sets him within the confines of traditional masculinity which by extension establishes him as someone to be taken more seriously than a character who might completely defy those standards. Whereas, if Holden were homosexual, his attitude and assessments of masculinity would fit within the social schema that conflates femininity and male homosexuality, which would in turn lessen the impact of Holden’s lack of conformity. By virtue of adhering to the most basic tenet of traditional masculinity, Holden’s deviance places him as an individualist, thereby exemplifying a very American ideal.
Salinger manages to make his anti-social protagonist marginally socially acceptable by writing a character that adheres in this very essential way to the traditional markers of masculinity. Interestingly, Holden Caulfield otherwise defies these standards. He has no reverence for physical strength, brute force, or showing off. Similarly, he finds the notion of becoming an adult male that occupies a middle class station in life as a conformist provider to be oppressive. Competition does not appeal to him. Equity and respect, however, are extremely appealing to Holden and his sarcasm, intelligence, and embodiment of Christian morals lend credence to his assessments of the world around him. Holden calls into question the virtues of traditional masculinity and provides a model for a comparably better sort of boy. Interestingly, this model is made authoritative by still maintaining some key features of both manliness and American individualism. Indeed, by deviating from masculine gender performance standards in some ways, Holden manages to call into question societal pressures to participate in gender norms and the conformist “rat race” which makes him, in Cold War America, a new sort of rugged individualist.