Cringe as a Public Evaluative Affect
Negotiating Authority–Public Relationships in the Platform Society
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51480/1899-5101.19.2(43).1051Keywords:
cringe, public affect, platform society, authority-public relationships, Serbian student protestsAbstract
This article examines how cringe operates as a low-intensity public evaluative affect through which political authority is publicly negotiated within the platform society. Drawing on affect theory, platform society theory, and a topological understanding of political power, it conceptualises cringe as a collectively organised affect through which authority–public relationships become publicly recognised and evaluated. Empirically, the article analyses platform communication surrounding the Serbian student protest movement between December 2024 and December 2025 through an interpretive qualitative analysis of content on Instagram and X. The analysis focuses on three performative episodes – Ćacilend, Barricades, and Blockades – that reveal a dominant authority–public relationship, its public contestation, and an alternative configuration grounded in collective participation. The findings show that cringe registers moments of topological misalignment in which dominant authority–public relationships lose cultural credibility while alternative configurations of authority–public relationships become publicly recognisable.
References
Abbott, A. (1995). Things of boundaries. Social Research, 62(4), 857–882.
Ahmed, S. (2004). The cultural politics of emotion. Edinburgh University Press.
Ahmed, S. (2010). The promise of happiness. Duke University Press.
Ahmed, S. (2014). The cultural politics of emotion (2nd ed.). Edinburgh University Press.
Allen, J. (2016). Topologies of power: Beyond territory and networks. Routledge.
BBC News na srpskom. (2025, March 21). Šesnaesta žrtva pada nadstrešnice u Novom Sadu: Preminuo tinejdžer.
Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2011). Digital media and the personalization of collective action. Information, Communication & Society, 14(6), 770–799.
Bickerton, C., & Accetti, C. I. (2021). Technopopulism: The new logic of democratic politics. Oxford University Press.
boyd, d. (2010). Social network sites as networked publics. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites (pp. 39–58). Routledge.
boyd, d, (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press.
Bucher, T. (2018). If… then: Algorithmic power and politics. Oxford University Press.
Chen, Y., Fu, R., Zhou, X., & Lu, J. (2025). Not relying on emotions: Organizations using algorithms are considered less warm. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 47(4), 217–230.
Clough, P. T., & Halley, J. (Eds.). (2007). The affective turn: Theorizing the social. Duke University Press.
Cossarini, P., & Vallespín, F. (2019). Populism and passions: Democratic legitimacy after austerity. Routledge.
Cvejić, B. (2025, March 10). What are the citizens’ assemblies to which students are invited and how do they function?. Vreme.
Cvetkovich, A. (2012). Depression: A public feeling. Duke University Press.
Dahl, M. (2018). Cringeworthy: A theory of awkwardness. Penguin.
Demertzis, N. (2006). Emotions and politics: The affect dimension in political tension. Palgrave Macmillan.
Demertzis, N. (2013). Emotions in politics: The affect dimension in political tension. Palgrave Macmillan.
Duncan, P. (2017). Joke work: Comic labor and the aesthetics of the awkward. Comedy Studies, 8(1), 36–56
Faculty of Dramatic Arts in Belgrade. (2024, November 23). Saopštenje Fakulteta dramskih umetnosti.
Freedom House. (2024). Nations in Transit 2024: Serbia. https://freedomhouse.org/country/serbia/nations-transit/2024
Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In T. Gillespie, P. J. Boczkowski, & K. A. Foot (Eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society (pp. 167–194). MIT Press.
Gilovich, T., Medvec, V. H., & Savitsky, K. (2000). The spotlight effect in social judgment: An egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one’s own actions and appearance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 211–222.
Gregg, M., & Seigworth, G. J. (Eds.). (2010). The affect theory reader. Duke University Press.
Highfield, T. (2016). Social media and everyday politics. Polity Press.
Ito, M. (2008). Introduction. In K. Varnelis (Ed.), Networked publics (pp. 1–14). MIT Press.
Janković, J. (2025, September 19). Mreže u rukama Gen Z: Objave studenata u Srbiji daleko posećenije od naloga zvaničnika i partija. Radio Slobodna Evropa.
Jerkov, A., Bešlin, M., & Radeljić, B. (2025). The depoliticization of protest: Understanding the 2024/2025 Serbian students’ uprising. Cogent Social Sciences, 11(1), 1–26.
Jessop, B., Brenner, N., & Jones, M. (2008). Theorizing sociospatial relations. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 26(3), 389–401.
Jović, D. (2019). Racionalnost, emocije i afektivna revolucija: Zašto su emocije zanemarene u politikološkim istraživanjima u Srbiji? Srpska politička misao, (1), 133–154.
Krach, S., Cohrs, J. C., de Echeverría Loebell, N. C., Kircher, T., Sommer, J., Jansen, A., & Paulus, F. M. (2011). Your flaws are my pain: Linking empathy to vicarious embarrassment. PLoS ONE, 6(4), e18675.
Krstić, A. (2022). Pogled odozgo: vizuelno predstavljanje građana Srbije na Instagram profilu predsednika Aleksandra Vučića. Političke perspektive, 12(1), 7–33.
Lamont, M., & Molnár, V. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 167–195.
Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge University Press.
Loader, B. D., Vromen, A., & Xenos, M. A. (2014). The networked young citizen: Social media, political participation, and civic engagement. Information, Communication & Society, 17(2), 143–150.
Lončar, J., & Spasojević, D. (2024). Izborni proces u Srbiji: Između starog i novog kompetitivnog autoritarizma. Politički život, 26, 9–22.
Lury, C., Parisi, L., & Terranova, T. (2012). Introduction: The becoming topological of culture. Theory, Culture & Society, 29(4–5), 3–35.
Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. University of Chicago Press.
Massey, D. (2005). For space. Sage.
Milner, R. M. (2016). The world made meme: Public conversations and participatory media. MIT Press.
Moffitt, B. (2016). The global rise of populism: Performance, political style, and representation. Stanford University Press.
Ngai, S. (2005). Ugly feelings. Harvard University Press.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2013). Political emotions: Why love matters for justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford University Press.
Radovanović, S. (2025, November 22). Sve o protestu studenata FDU-a u Beogradu: Na današnji dan smo pretučeni i poniženi, ali složniji i jači protiv nepravde. Nova.rs.
Rosanvallon, P. (2008). Counter-democracy: Politics in an age of distrust. Cambridge University Press.
Schwanebeck, W. (2021). Introduction to painful laughter: Media and politics in the age of cringe. Humanities, 10(4), 123.
Serrano‑Puche, J. (2015). Emotions and digital technologies: Mapping the field of research in media studies (Media@LSE Working Paper No. 33). London School of Economics and Political Science.
Shugars, S., & Ha, L. (2025). Platform affordances and political affect. Social Media + Society, 11(2).
Spasojević, D. (2024). Antipolitika. Akademska knjiga.
Van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & de Waal, M. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press.
Varnelis, K. (Ed.). (2008). Networked publics. MIT Press.
Vasović, M. (2024, November 1). Serbian railway station roof collapse in Novi Sad leaves 14 dead. Reuters.
Wahl‑Jorgensen, K. (2019). Emotions, media and politics. Polity Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Polish Communication Association
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
