162 Materiality and the Modern Cosmopolitan Novel
While Levov seems vaguely aware of the rioters’ grievances, his faith
in the na ï ve, abstract, tenets of quintessential “American values” con-
ditions his attitude, and he believes that the application of diligence
and optimism will allow the individual to “succeed” in life, regardless
of their background. He does not entirely dismiss the riots as mind-
less violence, unlike his father (“they burn down their houses—that’ll
show whitey! Don’t fix ’em up—burn ’em down. Oh, that’ll do won-
ders for a man’s black pride—a totally ruined city to live in!” [p. 164]).
However, Levov’s investment in the American dream, which is, of
course, highly compatible with the neoliberal free-market capitalist
practices that have brought him great wealth, forecloses his ability to
question its social viability. This does not appear to be because he
feels threatened by a challenge to the social order that has allowed
him to generate such wealth in the first place. Rather, the fact that
he and his father have worked hard in making a success of Newark
Maid has given him a personal, deep-seated belief that the system of
American free-market capitalism is able to work for all. His commit-
ment to the American Dream (with its own peculiarly good-natured,
inclusive, Johnny Appleseedesque bent) has given Levov first-hand
proof that anyone, from any background, can succeed in America if,
in his own words (at least as Zuckerman imagines), they are “inter-
ested in the right things” and know “the value of hard work” (p. 125).
So, although he registers the crude revolutionary rhetoric emanating
from his daughter and her political idol, Angela Davies, who holds
that “the United States is concerned solely with making the world
safe for business and keeping the have-nots from encroaching on the
haves,” Levov nonetheless retains an undisclosed belief that his father’s
grumblings about the pointlessness of the Newark riots are undeni-
ably valid (pp. 164–165). Mulling over the ostensible justifications
for the riots, he dismisses their purported ideological motivations and
declares that “in the idealistic slogans there was no reality, not a drop
of it” (p. 163). It is this fundamental belief that he is “in the right,” is
pursuing a life that benefits those around him—spreading the seed of
social progress—and is not (as his daughter contests) merely profit-
ing from an exploitative capitalistic system, that lies at the source of
Levov’s tragedy. It also entrenches the gulf between father and daugh-
ter, obfuscating the possibility of reconciliation.