Call me skeptic, call me sacrilegious. I just cannot seem to cognate with the accolade, applaud and commendation attributed to this purported 'contemporary cult classic' by popular mainstream audiences. Perhaps it's got something to do with my personal predilection and tendency to regard all things iconic of American (Western?) society as being culturally overrated.
One can be forgiven for entertaining the notion that the entire novel may in fact be devoid of tangible meaning, value and/or sentimental consideration. The work is essentially an elongated collection of random outbursts and adolescent reactions to emotive impetus - endogenous as well as exogenous. It was a troll's rant on paper, before commercialisation of the Internet, during the days when physical paper media thrived and presided over written expression.
1. Human beings are congenitally programmed as social entities - Take a person. Any person. Place said individual in isolation. Given time, he/she will tend towards objectification, ie. attributing imagined characteristics to surrounding artifacts. This would be imminently succeeded by personification, ie. the animation of those lifeless forms.
2. Belonging and being gregarious brings happiness. Think peer pressure. The striving endeavours effectuated by anxious human specimens to find acceptance as well as their individual (unique) personal niche within the web of social networks. Think of terms synonymous with 'community'. A pride of lions, a herd of cattle, a school of fish, gaggle of geese, parade of impala, college of graduates etc. These are all connotative of recognisable ideals which concur with warmth, safety, security, reliability and comfort.
3. Excessive and exhaustive attempts to congregate can trigger burnout and depression. Holden was mentally imbalanced on numerous occasions. He was an anxious, distressed, insecure and sensitive fellow unsure of himself and sexually confused at certain points in the novel. All this because he overburdened himself with social integration (despite vehement denial and claiming the opposite as being the truth) and thereupon dissolved his capacity to hold psychological equilibrium. His arguments, conjecture and contentious rhetoric were all based relative to wider societal trends and forces. It was a taxing exercise and needlessly tiring to bear witness upon.