If James Baldwin maintained a “ubiquity in the imagination of Black Lives Matter,” as William J. Maxwell and others have observed, then what are we to make of his words and image in a moment that Cedric Johnson and others have argued must be understood as “After Black Lives Matter”? 

The failure or defeat of this particular form of politics has led to calls for its critical examination, suggesting the need for a similar critical reflection on the aesthetics that were attendant on this movement. Queries that we may usefully explore together include:

• Was the turn to Baldwin part of an attempt to reimagine forgotten conflicts, or simply a form of revivalism overburdened by nostalgia?
• Did the movement betray its proverbial father, or was its faith in such a de-contextualized avatar ultimately misplaced?
• Do we perhaps need to break free of (some version of) Baldwin in addition to breaking free of those politics that keep us bound to society’s exploitations?
• How might we best contextualize this recent, continuing history and its political and aesthetic forms?
• What unexplored methods of comparison might be most useful to this problem and its moment?
• What kind of relationship to the literature and struggle, the art and politics of the past is necessary for those of the present? 

We welcome a variety of critical approaches to this nexus of problems. Baldwin and his work should play a significant role in, but need not be central to, the argument presented. 

Please submit abstracts of 250 words or less. All contributions will be considered for publication in James Baldwin Review.