Edited by Janani Mahadevan
“I’m fine with X being queer, I just don’t know why they need to make it the basis of their personality.” This is a sentence that so many of us— queer or not— have heard before, usually made by cis-het people. When you think of it, there are any number of people who could come to mind, famous or not. James Charles, Matt Bernstein, that one openly gay boy in the 11th grade who was ridiculed and picked on for no reason other than the fact that he was flamboyant or eccentric or effeminate— anyone who seems to have made ‘cringe’, ‘queer’ aesthetics so central to their identities.
There are several things that are wrong with this statement. Firstly, it denies the fact that trans identities require almost an overperformance of femininity, masculinity, or androgyny in order for people to take them seriously, be gendered correctly, and not be harassed for attempting to experience gender euphoria in a cis-normative world. This trial of either trying to simply fit in or doing the difficult work of overturning the idea of a gender binary is so often dismissed by calling it ‘disgusting’ or ‘cringe’, something that is all too apparent every time someone like Alok V Menon, for instance, posts a picture on Instagram of them existing within their own body in clothes that they feel comfortable in.
Secondly, the rejection of these kinds of ‘cringe’ queer aesthetics by cis-het people is mired in the twin ideas of homophobia and— since those spoken about are most often effeminate gay men— misogyny. There is something radically uncomfortable about a cis man who does not neatly fit into the categories of masculinity that are all too often dismissed as ‘natural’. There is something radically uncomfortable about a bold expression of femininity in itself as well. There is a reason that ‘throwing like a girl’ or ‘crying like a girl’ or being a girl is the most insulting idea conceivable to cisgender (usually heterosexual) men. The idea of femininity, whatever this might mean, has been so thoroughly degraded that to be ‘feminine’ without being ‘female’ is somehow the worst thing imaginable. In the face of this, a man who owns his own ‘feminine’ side through the use of makeup or mannerisms is dangerous to this very carefully constructed idea of masculinity as the epitome of perfection. Putting on makeup and ‘feminine’ clothing is a choice and it is a choice that appears radical and even dangerous to a masculinity that is constructed in fragility.
When we talk about queer aesthetics or identities of any kind, we have to talk about the idea of identity politics. There are so many things that could technically be considered heterosexual culture, that so many cis het men build their identities around, like football or action films. Not every cis-het man likes these things, of course, but then again not every gay man is rushing to paint his nails black. What becomes apparent though, with this example, is that it is okay for people of certain sexualities to construct their identities in a way that conforms to their sexuality, but if those who are marginalized do so, then it becomes the core of their identity in a way that does not happen for heterosexual people. If a cis het man plays fantasy football, then it’s a personality trait, but if a lesbian woman cuts her hair short and wears plaid then suddenly it becomes an overperformance of her sexual identity and a re-affirmation of stereotypes.
Also, does it matter how another person constructs their identity or aesthetic presentation? Sure, you might personally think something is ‘cringe’ (though you might want to think about why that is), but why should this be a claim to dismiss someone’s entire personhood? So often, especially with people using social media, some content creation is dismissed simply because someone calls it ‘cringe’. You could say that you don’t relate to the kind of content they put out or you think it’s not for you and just simply that you do not like it. Why does ‘cringe’ become a charge and an indictment all in one? What is so bad about something that it causes you to cringe and that this becomes a basis for the dismissal of the artist’s entire body of work?
Lastly, the charge of cringe also carries within it a classed dimension. With the democratisation of content creation, anyone can be a creator, irrespective of the kind of access, reach, and money they have. This leads to many queer, as well as lower class and Dalit, Bahujan, and Adivasi people being brought into the sphere of content creation and narrativisation where they may have been left out before. Simply dismissing their work by calling it ‘cringe’ is a refusal to accept the levels of privilege that layer your own ideas of ‘proper’ aesthetic presentation. Just because someone doesn’t wear the same kind of clothes that you wear, expresses themselves differently, or doesn’t speak English as well as you do doesn’t mean that what they have to say isn’t important and it does not make them ‘cringe’.
The idea of ‘cringe’ culture is layered through multiple levels of access and privilege. To dismiss something simply as cringe is a function of privilege politics, whether you like it or not. It is about who gets left at the margins of this debate and who is left out of mainstream recognition simply because they refuse to adhere to notions of aesthetic presentation and respectability politics. It cannot be as simple as to say something is cringe as something is not. We have to think more about this to make sure that the voices of the marginalised are not pushed further to the margins simply because some people find their presentation confusing or aesthetically displeasing. Perhaps, with this reckoning of why we think of aestheticism the way we do, we will come to a point where people are allowed and able to express themselves any way they wish to without fear of backlash. Maybe we will finally come to a point where comments on Alok V Menon’s posts are about how interesting, articulate, and intelligent they are, rather than about the aesthetic conceptions of their appearance.