A Study on Cringe
In this article, Gitanjali examines the term 'cringe' and how discourse arises from it.
Cringe is defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as “to recoil in distaste; to shrink in fear or servility; to behave in an excessively humble or servile way.” In the context of this article, the definition used is “so embarrassing, awkward, etc. as to cause one to cringe” as we will be focusing on the content posted on social media that brings about a negative reaction among the masses.
This phenomenon is commonly found in X wherein people carry out “discourse bait” to garner attention.
explains this concept in her piece ‘The Discourse Age.’ In essence, the main key player is called a ‘troll’, described as someone who has “crafted their online persona in a way that inspires collective rage with every post.”McLamb provides a checklist of how to gain traction for discourse:
“There are a few primary ways to get traction on your discourse response: emphatic agreement or disagreement, implications that the original poster is ableist/sexist/racist, and, of course, the dunk. When done well, dunking on another person who has already subjected themselves to main-characterdom can seem to finish off the discourse train in one, satisfying swoop. Usually, it’s done by some combination of amateur psychoanalysis and clever syntax. It’s something that distances you enough from the real meat of the argument, lest you commit the original sin of caring too much, and gives dissenters of the original post comfort that ‘liking’ the response will turn it into the dominant narrative.”
The provocation for responses creates a never-ending cycle that feeds into one’s need to be politically correct which can be exhausting for even the most seasoned chronically online users of the platform. Despite being aware of the cycle, the rage that is generated by pushing on people’s buttons creates more attention. This also goes against the meaning of discourse in the first place which is rooted in conversation and discussion. By having quote tweet over quote tweet going viral, people’s minds start to shift based on the latest opinion on the matter.
A study by Simona Tirocchi found that based on the five focus groups with Italian university students aged 20 to 23, found that there was a continuity over what they deemed important. These values spread through the media that they share which involves “acceptance of disability, environmental concern and sustainability, personal growth, and enjoyment.” Further, the search for authenticity and truth in media is seen through an increase in fact-checking. Subsequently, a lower sense of trust towards traditional sources of media due to the implications of biases that exist within those realms.
This study helps us understand why discourse bait works every single time – since our values are shared, as McLamb suggests, we are swayed by the use of complicated words and syntax and thus we feel the need to follow (and believe) people who say something is wrong. The fear of being ‘canceled’ leads to an increase in self-censoring amongst Gen Z.
An Ipsos report from February 2023 found that Gen Z tend to change their opinions more often on various topics ranging from mundane to more serious and political (though this could be because of how young the population is). In this case, they asked people how often they change their mind on what supermarket they shop from to the political party they will be voting for at a General Election. It was evident that Gen Z had the highest changeability in comparison to previous generations.
Self-censorship is found to be more prevalent in women which can be deduced as a result of social norms and beliefs that are ascribed to women. With social media becoming a place where words are twisted and blown out of proportion for temporary virality, women tend to become a target for trolls. This is evident in the example that McLamb provided of the used journal (as seen below). After going viral, Twitter user @/boywaif, quote-tweeted stating that the tweet has implications of “commodification” and “performed introspection in the digital age.” It is later revealed to be a hypocritical statement considering that the user has also posted images of their journal, which led to more “meta-dunks.”
A more recent example began with the tweet below, which was later quote-tweeted with multiple viral tweets. In this case, many agreed with the original post, stating that “the popularisation of out of place therapy speak online has done significant damage” as a response to others who have stated that their friends have issues of their own to deal with. In essence, the tweet became a topic of discussion with no middle ground in sight, as it goes on the app. Discourse bait is more likely to happen when it comes to tweets by women as the topic at hand becomes reduced to it being ‘cringey’, as seen especially in the journal debacle.
The Barbie (2023) discourse on Twitter varied from overwhelmingly positive to overwhelming negative within a span of a few months. As in a tweet by user @/evergreenqveen, it is clear that a shift in opinion is something that is expected.
How criticism occurs has to change. In a tweet by @/ronantyche, she rightly explains that a piece that wants to be taken seriously (as implied by its nominations in prestigious award shows), should be allowed to be criticized and taken at face value – in this case, being “something fun and silly for the girls.”
Ultimately, discourse bait feeds off of people’s fear of isolation in one’s opinions. Everyone wants to be socially accepted and trolls using this knowledge to prey on one’s insecurities causes the cycle of reactionary discourse to continue. An article written by Refinery 29 elaborates that being cringe is to resist. Hence, do your research, touch some grass, and form your ideas as to be cringe is to be free.