>I’m not sure I’d call this “kawaii,” as that has a particular (and often cringey) connotation.
Kawaii is great within the culture it created it (and not cringey, in fact, cringey is a cringey neologism applied to everything these days).
But this is definitely not Kawaii - doesn't have any major kawaii characteristics as known. Cute in some way != kawaii (which might mean "cute" etymologically, but refers to a specific aesthetic).
Your description "middle school pamphlets aimed at teaching kids about sociology" is spot on (at least concerning the human-like figures and color tones).
It's the eternal debate: does the term mean what it originally meant, or does it mean what people commonly use it to mean? People will drift between meanings.
>People exclaim kawaii liberally —about as liberally as “oishi” for food delicious or just so-so.
There are four sets of people.
People who know 100% what kawaii is (e.g. because they're Japanese).
People who know 90% what kawaii is (because they're cultural freaks, or watch anime, or whatever)
People who have heard the term kawaii and associate with being "cute" in general.
People who don't even know what kawaii means, and don't use it.
Categories 1,2, and 3 are by far the larger in my experience (well, 1 is small except in Japan, 2 is small, 3 is small, 4 is huge). People in 1,3,4 added, category 3 is nearly insignificant, and doesn't define the term...
Kawaii is great within the culture it created it (and not cringey, in fact, cringey is a cringey neologism applied to everything these days).
But this is definitely not Kawaii - doesn't have any major kawaii characteristics as known. Cute in some way != kawaii (which might mean "cute" etymologically, but refers to a specific aesthetic).
Your description "middle school pamphlets aimed at teaching kids about sociology" is spot on (at least concerning the human-like figures and color tones).