The attempt to divide art and politics is a bourgeois which says good poetry, art, cannot be political, but since everything is … political, even an artist or work that claims not to have any politics is making a political statement by that act.

-Amiri Baraka

i say this all the time, but obviously i think it bears repeating: EVERYTHING IS POLITICAL.

As usual, i am one of the last to be aware of news circling around the milieu of popular culture, and much of the time i don’t make much comment on things. However, when it comes to the antics of Pharrell Williams, my short response will always be, “No one should be surprised; we been knew this.” The longer response (which of course is the one i normally give) will always reiterate the pitfalls of Williams’ class alliances, and the limitations of racial solidarity without a class analysis.

In a society particularly dictated by capitalism (where corporations heavily dictate policy decisions), we are conditioned to relegate ‘politics’ with having to do primarily with voting or policy. Because of this, an ‘apolitical’ position is consistently conflated with having a ‘nonpolitical’ position. If everything is political, therefore nothing is devoid of politics.

Even as one might ‘choose’ to not engage with politics; the reality is, most humans do not possess the privilege of escaping it.

An ‘apolitical’ or even ‘nonpolitical’ position (in a capitalist society in particular) can easily and consistently be debunked. Where and how one chooses to spend their money is a political decision. What one chooses to eat (or not to eat) is a political decision. What one wears is a political decision. All these decisions you make undoubtedly affect human and non-human environments. Is what you are wearing manufactured locally and ethically, or was it produced by child or prison labor, or a sweatshop? Is what you’ve chosen to eat rooted or not rooted in animal exploitation? Is the device you’re using refurbished, or brand new, and headed for planned obsolescence? Is the house you live in (that is, if you live in one) based on perceptions or realities of safety concerns?

Politics is directly tied to class: Both in relation to economic positioning and access, but also the social hierarchies that have been determined by those who control said political narratives. One example (out of many) is one we see in many a general conversation, where someone who is European, heterosexual, cisgender or male (sometimes a combination of all of these things) is considered to be the default to a point where they don’t require qualifiers in a conversation; whereas someone who is not one (or all) of those things tends to be prefaced with at least one.

When people are discussing ‘apoliticism’ (when again, they mean ‘non-political’) they are not factoring in the conditionality of constructed hierarchies. They are not accounting for how said hierarchies can shift in accordance to who the system wants to extract from, and how they intend to do it. There are plenty of books which discuss said conditionalities, such as The History Of White People by Nell Irvin Painter, and How The Irish Became White by Noel Ignatiev. There’s also books like The Invention of Women: Making an African Sense of Western Gender Discourses by Oyèrónkẹ́ Oyěwùmí, which confirm the validity to the claims of race and gender being social constructs, not based in any solid universal truths.

Bearing all of this in mind, Pharrell Williams could be said to have consistently exceeded these contradictions.

In the latest example of a countless string of… contradictions, is his recent appearance at the 5th Annual Black Ambition Demo Day, located in Miami, Florida. Given that Williams is the founder of a nonprofit called Black Ambition (in which the mission is to “(work) to close the opportunity and wealth gap through entrepreneurship,”), the following comments are proof that Williams has chosen willful ignorance regarding constructed hierarchies: “Do you want someone to support your startup because you’re Black or because you’re the best? So I think now for me, it’s about us having the best ambition, and that’s the reason why you should support these businesses. Yes, they happen to be Black and Brown, but it should be based on the thesis that they’re the best, not because of a shade of skin color.”

On politics, he says, “As we look at what’s going on, the current political climate; I’m just saying to… I don’t wanna turn anybody off, but I hate politics. Like, despise them. It’s a magic trick. It’s not real. I don’t believe in either side. ‘Cause I think when you pick a side, you are inadvertently supporting division. Yeah, it’s not a popular point of view, but I gotta say, when I think about it, the wells are drying up… Now that diversity’s off the table; now that equity’s off the table, now inclusion’s off the table. So that makes me ask myself, okay, so how do we survive?”

Getting to the short response first: While there are those who are incredibly enamored with civics (for example); i personally cannot think of anyone who likes (or even loves) politics, in the way i am discussing it here. No one likes being politicized, which is what i am truly getting at, and what many miss when discussing politics. As the saying goes, you can attempt to avoid politics, but it will always follow you. As many who were not aware are now discovering, traditionally marginalized people in particular are politicized the moment they are in public spaces.

For Williams to say that he doesn’t believe “in either side” is again, limiting politics to a particular party, or a policy, despite the connection to politics being rooted in ideological principles. An ideology is a set of beliefs which guide thoughts and actions. If you are willfully choosing to not take a position, you have thereby chosen to take the ideological position in line with those who control sociopolitical hierarchical narratives.

In terms of the “current political climate” though; you can ‘believe’ or ‘not believe’ whatever you want (just like how some don’t ‘believe’ that bisexual, trans or nonbinary people exist); however, the realities of the ultra-violent response to the increasing death of capitalism and empire (aka fascism) surpasses any belief.

It is logical that Williams’ point of view is “not a popular” one, for the very reason Black Ambition was founded. Income inequalities (based on racial hierarchies) exist. But also, gender inequality exists, ableism exists, ageism exists, language inequities exist, educational inequities exist. If you do not live in a society in which equality or equity are embedded in its very core, one’s individual success story is not going to determine success for the rest of society. Asking people if they “want someone to support your startup because you’re Black or because you’re the best?” is incredibly condescending and individualistic, especially since there are people who lost their jobs due to businesses not being able to follow tech trends or upkeep costs during the most recent pandemic lockdown. The National Bureau of Economic Research also did a report regarding African-owned businesses that were affected during the lockdown; according to the report, there was a 41% decline.

Capitalism is able to thrive because of its design to ensure only a handful of people hoard the majority of the world’s wealth and resources. Given that nothing on earth is infinite (maybe except tardigrades), the idea that anyone and everyone has the potential to amass a great amount of wealth if we work hard enough is a fallacy, when CEOs consistently exploit labor (and keep wages low) in order to ensure their net worth stays abysmally high. It is a fallacy when the stock market is volatile, and corporations base their campaigns on sociopolitical trends or pressures (in order to maintain profits), or more specifically, when corporations have a direct hand in influencing policy (via the soft power of military recruitment through Hollywood, or surveillance via social media, etc.).

The class interests of anyone who mentions the ‘divisiveness’ of publicly stating an ideological position is quite clear. Anyone who avoids ‘picking a side’ because they deem it as “inadvertently supporting division” (particularly in the face of countless human rights violations) has told you who they are. It is also disingenuous that anyone would say this, given that people ideologically ‘pick sides’ every single day of their life.

Pharrell Williams is not immune to this. In a 2024 interview with The Hollywood Reporter, he says, “I don’t do politics. In fact, I get annoyed sometimes when I see celebrities trying to tell you [who to vote for]. There are celebrities that I respect that have an opinion, but not all of them. I’m one of them people [who says], “What the heck? Shut up. Nobody asked you.” When people get out there and get self-righteous and they roll up their sleeves and shit, and they are out there walking around with a placard: “Shut up!” So, no, I would rather stay out of the way, and obviously, I’m going to vote how I’m going to vote. I care about my people and I care about the country, but I feel there’s a lot of work that needs to be done, and I’m really about the action.”

He believes himself to be “much more of a federal employee. I believe in merited civil service.” He expounds on this by saying:”Well, there are federal employees appointed by the president, right? You come in because you are loyal to a party or your leader. Then there are federal employees, this is what they do, come rain or shine, whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican in office, you show up to work every day, you serve your country. I’m more of a humanitarian. I like people trying to help people. Not sure I’ll ever vote far right. I won’t do that. 

But I don’t really do politics. Some policies I lean into; I think education is important. We have a nonprofit called YELLOW [whose mission is equity through education], and then there’s another 501(c)(3) that helps Black and Brown entrepreneurs called Black Ambition — those are the things I lean into. I’m not an activist, but I believe in action. But I do believe in activists, and you need everybody.” 

How exactly does one “do” politics, when politics are inescapable? It is very clear that like many, Pharrell Williams is ideologically inconsistent and at times, indecisive. If one does not take a clear/decisive position, one will definitely be made for them.

He of course, follows in the steps of another ideologically inconsistent (and currently incarcerated) celebrity, Sean Combs. Williams’ participated in Combs’ Vote Or Die campaign in 2004, which was targeted specifically towards marginalized communities. In 2012, he designed clothes for the Runway To Win campaign for Barack Obama. In 2016 he endorsed Hillary Clinton for president- for gender essentialist reasons, despite Clinton’s neoliberal, imperialist record: “It’s time for a woman to be in there; Women think about things in a holistic way, it’s not so individual.”

In 2018, Trump received a cease-and-desist letter from Williams’ camp, to stop “Happy” from being played directly after a mass shooting at Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. As late as 2022, Williams endorsed Aaron Rouse for Virginia State Senator, adding “Virginia! Let your voice be heard, VOTE NOW,” on social media. Even more recently (in 2024), he and his wife participated in a State Visit At Elysee Palace in France, which doubled as a fashion show and was hosted by the Macrons. In February of 2025, he participated in an Artificial Intelligence Summit in France alongside JD Vance, who spoke against “excessive regulation” of AI. While UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned against overuse of unsustainable AI data centers, Williams opined that “We wouldn’t use AI to help us write a song,” and that it “wouldn’t replace creativity…You know, there was a whole thing around the year 2000 as well, but we’re fine, we survived that.” Given that outright or assisted AI songs are increasingly on digital music charts, we cannot be so sure. It is also crucial to note the connection between the building of AI data centers and their environmental, medical and economic toll on African communities.

If Pharrell Williams is emphatic in not ‘picking a side’, he certainly has not been doing a convincing job.

In one of the biggest pronouncements of “picking a side,” on the 1st of November 2018, Williams performed at the Western Region Gala of the so called Friends of The Israel Defense Forces, or the FIDF, contributing to raising $60 million for the event.

We don’t think you fight fire with fire best ; we think you fight fire with water best. We’re going to fight racism not with racism, but we’re going to fight with solidarity. We say we’re not going to fight capitalism with black capitalism, but we’re going to fight it with socialism.

-Fred Hampton

“If diversity, equity and inclusion ever comes back in style, cool. But in the mean time, I’m gonna focus on being the best because I can bank on that. Because that’s what’s gonna get you to the position.”

Pharrell Williams has told us who he was, long ago. His comments at the Black Ambition Demo Day should be of no surprise to anyone.

His statement about Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs being akin to a trend, or “in style” is massively flippant or cavalier off the top; however, i don’t see it as being a purposefully dense one. Despite how flippant and disingenuous he may be, his class alliances are informing his perspectives; so there’s something in him that sincerely believes in what he’s saying- even if a little bit. Given that he contributed to developing a nonprofit which addresses the inequities which prompted DEI programs in the first place; he is highly aware that again, businesses plan and react according to sociopolitical trends. Capitalism has no moral compass, so the moment it didn’t have to adhere to federal procedure in ensuring diversity, larger businesses in general did not actively resist any anti-DEI executive orders. Because he recognizes how fickle trends can be, Williams resorted to the centrist position of meritocracy being the optimal factor of success.

His idealism does not match the reality of the immense saturation of say, creative fields. No matter how many people think what i do is positive; i accept that someone whose work is much more reactionary and flowery is going to do much better than any blog or piece of music i do, in terms of how many people see, hear and engage. Also as the saying goes, ‘It’s who you know.’

And as we’ve seen over time (and currently), nothing regarding human rights in the U.S. is institutionalized, given that it’s either been gutted, removed, or threatened to be removed. If any group of people have to be dependent on this government to bestow any sense of ‘freedom’, then is it freedom? As ancestor Assata Shakur said, “Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them.”

In the same Hollywood Reporter interview he was asked, “What words can you offer to someone who’s working at McDonald’s and wants to make it but can’t see the possibilities?”; part of his response was, “If you could figure out a way that you can do a job connected to something that you love, you’ll love showing up every day. You’ll come to work early on Monday and you’ll leave late on Friday. If you can also find a way to service humanity while you’re doing that — well, now you have a dream job that you would do literally for free, but you get paid for it. You’re a part of a bigger team, and you’re doing something that is contributing to the community or your city or your state or the world. That’s the key.” 

Because according to him, it is “Very simple.”

In an Ebony Magazine 2014 interview discussing the murder of Michael Brown by the state in Ferguson, Missouri that same year, it is as simple as ignoring the system that determines what crime is for the majority of those who are exploited, while those who commit the exploitation tend to generally be absolved. While he recognized there was no need for Darren Wilson to murder him; Williams added the on-brand position of, “Whatever happened in his life for him to arrive at a place where that behavior is okay. Why aren’t we talking about that?” it is very easy to admonish an individual for (allegedly) stealing an item in a store, and fighting the shop keeper. It is extremely easy to call for ‘personal responsibility’ while individualizing violence and criminal behavior, but one can be somehow oblivious to larger structures of the criminality of capitalism, which include labor exploitation, gender-based violence, colonialism and imperialism; and its outright theft of land and resources through coercive and violent means.

Being even more on brand, he followed up that he agreed with the moral posturing of Bill Cosby’s infamous thinly veiled right wing Poundcake speech- a speech that was given in 2004, on the 50th anniversary of the Brown v. Board Of Education decision. In the continuation of this trajectory, he emphasized the philosophy of being a “New Black”: In an interview with Oprah Winfrey (which you have to search a little bit deeper for, in terms of any references to this interview, as it appears to have been wiped clean), Williams says, “The ‘New Black’ doesn’t blame other races for our issues. The new Black dreams and realizes that it’s not a pigmentation; it’s a mentality. And it’s either going to work for you, or it’s going to work against you. And you’ve got to pick the side you’re going to be on.”

Well, at least he is aware that he must pick a side… unlike POLITICS.

When incendiary UK interviewer Krishnan Guru-Murthye asks him about the concept of the ‘New Black’ (in a clip which can be easily found), Williams responds (in his best Thomas Sowell impression), “My experience and being Black is that, like, I love what I do; I love who I am, and I make no excuses for what i look like, and what that means to me… I use my mind for my opportunities. i’m not looking for anyone’s help because of my skin color. i don’t see, you know, my skin color as some affliction, or something that holds me back in the world. I am proud of my skin color, and at the end of the day, anything that I do, I celebrate who I am, and I celebrate what my mom and dad made. And that is, a new way of looking at my life. But can I speak for a whole entire culture? No. I can’t.”

Given that Pharrell Williams is about two to three years older than I am; I am sure he is quite aware of what systemic racism is, even if he feels he has not been the recipient of it. Again, he contributed to creating a non-profit which aimed to address economic inequities based on said systemic injustices. I am also certain that, given the amount of expendable income he has, he’s had many an opportunity to travel enough times around the world to see that it is not only Africans who are dark in hue. This elementary interpretation of how he feels others perceive racism (solely based on skin color) is disingenuous. To insinuate that someone automatically views their hue as an “affliction” because they are addressing or have been the recipient of systemic racism is disingenuous. He claims he’s only speaking for himself, but his language was highly coded.

OJ Simpson wasn’t ‘Black’ either (according to him), but when he stopped towing the line in the way that was required of him, he was again, immediately coded as ‘Black’.

As it’s been said by many, how we identify informs largely how we interact with the world. To identify as a ‘New Black’ is a conscious expunging of addressing the collective struggles African people have experienced, whether continental or diaspora. It is a concerted focus on not reckoning with the work that still needs to be done, that our ancestors have left us to do. It is a mental cessation of the reality that the table a few of us have been ‘allowed’ to be at, was intentionally not meant for all of us. To be a ‘New Black’ you have to relinquish any significant or meaningful alliances with the masses, and perform class collaboration with the architects of exploitation.

The majority of us are not awarded the privilege of ‘transcending our race’ because again, the moment we step outside into the public, we are politicized.

What is also disingenuous about Williams’ statements is that he in particular should understand that ‘Blackness’ is not a monolith. I, like he, involved myself in things like punk rock and skateboarding: subcultures that were not traditionally seen as ‘Black’, as shortsighted as that sentiment continues to be. As a punk kid, i interacted with and navigated in the world not seeing myself as the victim he claims we should not see ourselves as. At the same time, despite me not wanting to ‘transcend my race’ i didn’t have a choice in doing so even if i wanted to, since i was made aware of it by others, pretty much every day of my life- just like he is guaranteed to be made aware of it. My experiences or interests didn’t lead me to a desire to disassociate from my people, physically, politically or ideologically; it made me want to work harder to recognize intersections of injustice, and work harder toward dismantling it all.

Post DEI (formerly known as ‘Affirmative Action’) comments fallout, Williams aimed to clarify his statements with media producer Van Lathan Jr.: “Number one, he feels like the context of where he was and what he was talking about is not being considered. Pharrell was doing a talk for a Black Ambition Initiative that he has. The intent of this initiative is to invest into Black and Brown entrepreneurship. Lots and lots of money; over $85 million to invest into DEI programs, diversity inclusion programs, and make sure that the people behind these programs get exactly what they need.

What he meant to say, and was trying to say, Pharrell told me, is that politics, which he was specifically talking about- right versus left politics. Not the overall example of what it means to be politically knowledgeable or engaged. He’s talking about how right versus left politics, and how right versus left politics typically leave people behind. It’s divisive, because it doesn’t get at the heart of an issue. It is a fight for political power. That is something that he doesn’t wanna be a part of. Well, what he wants to be a part of is empowering people to go out and live their dreams, and execute the things that they are talented in. That is one part of it. The other part of it in terms of him talking about being the best is; what he was saying is that the only thing you are going to fall back on is if in fact DEI is dismantled is how great you are, and that greatness is going to be the thing that you are going to have to invest into, in terms of yourself , if in fact there is no DEI. Which is why he has the organization that he has, is because he wants to give everybody the opportunity to be the best.”

It should be no surprise that Williams’ attempt at an explanation is not only (still) disingenuous, but also paternalistic. He continues to hold a principle that politics is solely or primarily defined under the guise of electoral politics, but also that access to money and hard work would resolve systemic injustices. He also, like many, conflates ‘left’ with ‘democrat’ or ‘liberal’. Not many folks on the left would casually hang out with warmongers and imperialists, which the most prominent of both democrat and republican politicians are. In regard to the sentiment of “right versus left politics typically leav(ing) people behind,” that is actually statistically incorrect, as there were a number of studies which took data from soft power-based World Bank, indicating that countries which model themselves more on either socialism or social democracies fare far better in terms of quality of life.

In terms of politics being “divisive,” division tends to be normalized when modes of learning are more reactionary, as opposed to responsive. When you are engaging with people who have a lack of political education and ideological assuredness- political education doesn’t always comprise of university level books either- you are going to end up with what i gather Williams is alluding to. The concept that fighting for political power is inherently negative is again, due to a dearth of political education. What were Denmark Vessey, Carlotta Lucumi and Harriet Tubman doing, if they were not fighting for political power? What were Kwame Ture, Langston Hughes or Nina Simone doing? What were George Padmore, Leila Khaled or Anna Mae Aquash doing?

As far as i am concerned, if Pharrell Williams does not want to be a part of that, he is disrespecting all of the revolutionary elders and ancestors whose shoulders he is choosing not to stand on. This is easy to see, as his focus is on individual achievement, despite saying he wants to ‘help’ people. Finally, his attempts at clarification are disingenuous since he’s literally acknowledging the necessity for equity programs because again… he recognizes that systemic inequities exist. The solution he is offering as an alternative to the potential or actual gutting of any government programs is not sustainable, because not everyone will have access to grants. Nor does he have an infinite amount of cash to dole out. The only solution would be organizing and working to have a society where no one will ultimately need grants, because everyone’s basic material needs are provided for, and people will actually be able to have space for creativity, as opposed to constantly selling their labor. For someone who emphatically is not dependent on anyone, he neglects to acknowledge there are those who are dependent on the grants he (or anyone else) has chosen to distribute.

I hate war, and I hate having to struggle. I honestly do because I wish I had been born into a world where it was unnecessary. This context of struggle and being a warrior and being a struggler has been forced on me by oppression. Otherwise I would be a sculptor, or a gardener, carpenter - You know, I would be free to be so much more… I guess part of me or a part of who I am, a part of what I do is being a warrior - a reluctant warrior, a reluctant struggler. But I do it, because I’m committed to life.

-Assata Shakur

In closing, to round out what Williams is saying, he actually does have a point, regarding politics being a magic trick. The architects of the hierarchies we live under have us believing these things are true. The ‘magic’ trick is in that these architects make things appear and disappear (be they laws or rights), based on what degree they desire to control the social order.

Given that sociopolitical/class hierarchies are illusory (as anything that is a social construct is not based in any natural/universal truth), they can also be changed, as societies shift into something more humanistic and egalitarian.