In Dreaming Blackness, I had two major goals. First, I hoped to elucidate how changes in the American racial landscape have impacted African American support for black nationalism. To this end, I used a mixed methodological approach that included both statistical and qualitative analysis and allowed me to make claims based on a national cross section of African Americans and on more intimate discussions in smaller groups. Second, I wanted to ground my arguments in a robust discussion of African American political thought. This would ensure that my hypotheses and findings were resonant with a longitudinal understanding of how black nationalist ideology is characterized. Robert Gooding-Williams, with some caveats, suggests that I have accomplished these goals. I now address his two areas of concern related to evolving definitions of black nationalism and possible alternative interpretations, and I conclude by addressing our differing impressions of the future viability of this ideological option.

Gooding-Williams wonders whether I adequately address the temporal changes in meaning of several aspects of black nationalism. He uses the multiple meanings of self-determination as an example. I attend to the evolution of black nationalism using two narrative techniques. First, I assert that individual support for any or all of the four defining principles I offer does not necessarily suggest endorsement or rejection of black nationalist ideology. Previous scholars suggest that self-determination has been an enduring response to racial hostility regardless of ideology. Second, while discussing each defining principle, I highlight when these principles have veered from their original intent. Again the meaning of self-determination is expositive. In several places in the manuscript there is a discussion of how the notion of self-determination can include mass migration, an independent black nation, or control of community institutions and cultural products. This discussion also highlights the fact that even enduring proposals such as mass migration have been reshaped on the basis of African Americans' increased interactions with activists and scholars throughout the diaspora.

Gooding-Williams argues that there are “equal and more plausible explanations” than my interpretations of quotations from the focus group data. Although to say that there are more plausible explanations would require a closer analysis of the discussion transcripts and the manner in which these quotations are grounded in an ongoing dialogue, there is room for alternative interpretations. As we complicate meanings and issue positions in the study of politics there is always the chance that individuals can simultaneously offer multiple intentions within the same argument. While I focus on what I see as the most important and relevant understanding, given my reading of the data and the scope of the project, I do not rule out the possibility of other readings. I would suggest, however, that multiple explanations do not render the entire thesis false. Gooding-Williams notes this as well, and his critique bolsters my plea for more regular and systematic data collection of African American preferences.

In the final pages of Dreaming Blackness, I suggest that “the door remains open for resurgence in support for Black Nationalism as long as discrimination and equality persists.” Gooding-William disagrees. In the months since the completion of this book, I have come to believe that I should have more clearly referenced racial discrimination and inequality. Black nationalism is race-centered and so, without a common racial narrative (historically around racial injustice), it will remain dormant. I am actually more inclined to believe in the possibility of a nationalist resurgence now. Since President Obama's inauguration, the level of racialized rhetoric and hostility has grown exponentially. In this climate, blacks are more likely to see the world in starkly racial terms and gravitate toward the race-based appeals of black nationalists.