kendrick lamar’s super bowl performance, aside from his ongoing feud with drake, was celebrated by social media users, who claimed that it highlighted black identity, social justice, and systemic criticism. by performing alright, he expressed support for the black lives matter movement and symbolized resistance against systemic oppression. the stage design, costumes, and visuals referenced police violence and systemic racism. the use of the american flag and military themes served as a critique of the contradictions in america’s narrative of freedom. at the end of the performance, the repeated chant of “we gon’ be alright” reinforced a message of hope and resistance.
overall, this performance was not just a musical show; it was seen as a political act filled with messages of social justice. a large segment of the public, watching such bold statements and an impeccable performance on such a massive platform, expressed admiration and elevated lamar as a new heroic figure.
grand visuals, millions of viewers, and words that, for a moment, feel like they could change the world… but then what happens? nothing. this is where we find ourselves trapped: where criticism and resistance are confined within the system itself. cultural criticism—especially the messages delivered by black artists—must operate within predefined boundaries in the capitalist spectacle industry. kendrick lamar’s super bowl performance perfectly illustrates how these boundaries function.
when lamar took the stage, when alright played, the message was clear: black resistance, standing against systemic oppression, and hope. this song had become an anthem for the black lives matter movement. yet, no matter how powerful his performance seemed, it took place within an event organized by the very system he was criticizing. can we ignore the fact that a massive institution like the nfl allows such messages not out of genuine support for black lives matter but rather to manage its own image?
to understand how black art operates within the system, we need to take a step back and examine concepts that help us understand how cultural criticism is absorbed by the system. this is where felice blake’s concept of antiracist incorporation becomes relevant. the system absorbs black culture but neutralizes its political impact, making it safe. lamar’s critique was delivered within a multimillion-dollar event, carefully curated to be palatable to a mainstream audience. yes, it might seem powerful to address “black oppression” on an nfl stage, but how dangerous was this message? how transformative? and the real question is: would the system ever allow a message that could genuinely threaten its own existence?
let’s add blake’s critique to the equation. antiracist incorporation explains how black resistance is aesthetically and commercially repackaged by the very system it opposes, rendering it ineffective. this is exactly what happens: the system says, “look, we are open to criticism,” but ensures that the criticism remains within controlled spaces where it poses no real threat. in doing so, the sharp edges of critique are dulled, making it digestible for the audience, and ultimately, the system remains unchanged.
so, how does this happen? we can see it clearly in kendrick lamar’s performance. he takes the stage, delivers powerful messages, everyone says “wow,” and then everything continues as usual. because the super bowl stage is designed not for real transformation, but for a controlled protest. will the nfl take action against police violence? will it address the inequalities black communities face? of course not. but by allowing lamar to perform, it can at least say, “we are aware too.” just as blake argues, the system neutralizes opposition by making it visible on its own terms.
to grasp the bigger picture, we must ask: what happens when black culture is accepted only as an aesthetic? the exploitation of black culture by k-pop, the transformation of black aesthetics into a decorative element in western pop culture—just as blake’s analysis highlights—ultimately results in the emptying of black resistance. no matter how much lamar, as an artist, may resist this, his message remains trapped within these processes.
the real issue here is this: can the system absorb criticism before it becomes truly transformative? and if so, do critiques made within the system actually hold any power to change anything? or do these performances merely make audiences say, “yes, we should talk about this,” while ensuring the system remains intact?
perhaps real criticism should not be confined within the system but should break out of it, rejecting its rules altogether. maybe true transformation doesn’t lie in the safe critiques performed within massive events like the super bowl, but in uncontrolled, chaotic movements that disrupt the profit-driven structure of capitalism.
and perhaps the greatest paradox is this: the more visible criticism becomes, the more ineffective it becomes. because if the system allows it, then it probably already knows how to manage it. this is why we need to seriously ask: should criticism be a real threat, or should it remain just another aesthetic part of the system?
to understand lamar’s performance and, more broadly, how black cultural production is handled within the system, antonio gramsci’s concept of “interregnum” provides an important framework. interregnum describes a period in which the old order is collapsing, but the new one has not yet fully emerged. black struggle and cultural criticism seem trapped in precisely this kind of transition. on the one hand, the system allows criticism to exist within it, but on the other hand, it neutralizes that criticism before it can become transformative. the system does not accept critiques that are radical enough to truly challenge it—only those that operate within its boundaries.
this is where blake’s antiracist incorporation comes into play. the relationship between black lives matter and black music, especially considering how hip-hop has been consumed in recent years, illustrates how cultural resistance can be neutralized. hip-hop, once a tool for marginalized voices and political rebellion, now risks becoming a fully aestheticized product within the capitalist system. as blake argues, even if black cultural production begins as a form of resistance, the system can absorb it and dull its political sharpness.
the key point here is not whether the system is truly open to criticism, but rather what limits it places on the criticism it allows. the super bowl is one of those spaces where the system ensures that critique remains consumable. if a critique does not challenge the system’s operations, does it stand against the system, or has it become part of it? lamar’s message was powerful, but it existed within the framework defined by the system. and that’s precisely why, no matter how bold it appeared, the system already knew how to handle it.
also:
maybe none of this matters. maybe in a few years, kendrick lamar’s super bowl performance will just be a nostalgic moment, added to the “greatest halftime shows” lists alongside bruno mars and katy perry. maybe alright will be used in a startup commercial, playing in the background while a tech entrepreneur sips a soy latte in their minimalist office, as an inspiring video about “overcoming challenges” unfolds.
but maybe—just maybe—someone watching that performance, a kid sitting in front of their tv, felt that this message wasn’t enough. maybe they thought, “this isn’t enough. i want something real. i want more than just a song. i want change.”
because the system knows how to manage criticism, but once the fire is lit, it can never fully predict where it will spread. criticism can be incorporated, commodified, neutralized—but when people decide that what they are given is no longer enough, that’s when control is lost.
so, will kendrick’s performance be just another moment swallowed by the system? or is it the beginning of something the system cannot contain?
time will tell.
bibliography
blake, felice. “how does cultural criticism ‘work’ in the age of antiracist incorporation?” in antiracism inc.: why the way we talk about racial justice matters, edited by felice blake, paula ioanide, and alison reed, 199-228. brooklyn, ny: punctum books, 2019. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv11hptff.16
