Critique of the 'How Woke Is Your Writing' Test

Overall, A for effort. The author clearly put a lot of thought and effort into the test and it was fun to take. It was like one of the trashy magazine tests for girls ‘How girly are you?’ but more philosophical and geared to mature humans. Very cool in concept and I give the author props for putting it together. I expect his minds page will get a lot of traction from it.

I took the test mainly because I had heard the analyzation was provocative. I have a few criticisms of it mainly based on the fact that the answers or questions were often too imprecise/subjective to be able to provide an answer that I agreed with (email me if you care for details on the specific questions. Or don't, whatever), which meant I defaulted either to answers I disagreed with least or to answers I understood the least.

Considering the questions/answers were often too imprecise for me to understand, reducing it to esoterica that I had to attempt to interpret, it should come as no surprise that when I went through the analyzation for each question, by and large, I not only disagreed with the author’s assessment of the too-clearly delineated definitions of pre-modernist/modernist/postmodernist, but also the categorical nature of the definitions presented.

The Dangers of Reductionism

Obviously any test that attempts to reduce authors to a mere four types of approach to writing, when clearly people are going to be blends of both (see terrible photo below that might better render the simplicity of the concept), will be bound to have its failure. But essentially, I had difficulty understanding the author’s (of the test) intent in using the words ‘Modernism’ versus ‘Post-modernism’, etc. Taken in different ways, they mean different things - whether that be in literature, furniture, philosophy, or sociology.

As a universal rule, we use the rather new term of ‘woke’ to refer to a specific communist inspired cultural narrative that marries politics with identity - a concept not far different from (pre-Modernist? Though how far back are we talking?) Christianity’s zero sum cultural game. “Either you are for Me or you are against Me.”

However, I took issue with the preference for “pre-modernist” formalistic legalism on the one end of the spectrum in juxtaposition to woke on the other. The diametric opposite of woke, or rather the way to overcome the woke narrative, isn’t to seek after the “pre-modernist” way. It’s to achieve rational neutrality (more on that later).

The idea of pre-modernist formalism and legalistic rigorism for the sake of preserving morality, i.e. truth (which is what the author of the test seems to claim is the entire purpose behind pre-modernism - a claim I disagree with, IMO that’s a very superficial understanding of it), can only be accomplished within the context of pre-established artistic norms (sticking to forms in order to preach) is incorrectly accounted for in this test. 

Definition of Terms

What exactly is meant by pre-modernist? Because in literature, it refers to anything from the 1800s onwards. By this test’s metrics, pre-modernists were puritanical, but in terms of literature, such a term could include everything before modern literature. How far back are going? Immediately prior to modern literature?

And then there is "Modernist" in terms that I understand it (to mean the heresy of Modernism - a specifically condemned heresy worth looking up as it pertains directly to the sociological and cultural war brought about by communism and socialism.) And then there is the philosophical/cultural treatment of the words relative to how humans function in the world today (woke/post modernist).

The Christian man of the middle ages (pre-Modernist? Or no?) believed in objective morality, but were perfectly fine with expanding the envelop on existing artistic forms to accommodate subjective relativism in goods (which might seem a redundant concept, but the concept of "everything" proposed in the test, without delineating between subjective and objective goods apparently requires the clarification).

In other words, any art form is allowed (true freedom, relativity and thus choice in subjective goods) as long as its purpose (function) is objectively good (seeks after objective truth).

Art and the Human Condition

It's the puritanical legalism of the post-renaissance man that demanded adherence to forms, improperly identifying form = function = truth, instead of form < function < truth. Ultimately this leads to two things - pedantic, preachy writing that few enjoy reading (or what the author calls pre-modernist, reducing entertainment value and therefore reducing the ability to transmit the very messaging it intends to share) and woke junk (which also reduces entertainment and messaging for the same reasons) - and the spectrum in between (See seesaw below).

Medieval man's rationality and ability to parse between the objective nature of objective goods and the relative good of subjective goods is precisely what allowed for the intellectual growth and artistic development that ultimately produced some of the greatest artistic endeavors to come out of the West: the Book of Kells, Michaelangelo, DaVinci, Mozart, the list goes on.

The shame in this test (and I’m not saying that the author is unique in this interpretation) is the identification of moral and righteous living with puritanical enforcement of legalistic forms in artistic endeavor. Naturally that would produce a pendulum swing in the other direction as people seek the truth, recognizing their aversion for what is, in fact, a perversion of truth, but seeking blindly for a solution.

One could almost argue, in fact, that the straitjacketing of artistic forms in such a fashion directly produced the woke narrative, much like the license taken by the abuse of the indulgences and morally decrepit clerics directly produced an environment that was favorable to Martin Luther’s success. Even if woke ideology were not by design, which in many ways it is, social/cultural extremes will produce opposing narratives.

Moderation in all things. This has always been the Christian praxis and the departure from it invariably reduces humanity to its least achievable and its most vulnerable state as a society.

In terms of authorship and moral truths, authors shouldn’t seek to be “pre-Modernist,” but to be “all things to all men.” That is not to say that subjectivism wins overall or should, but that for those things that are morally neutral, we are best left to determine the means and the ends, artistic or otherwise. For those things that are not, we must color within the lines that God has established.

Authorship in a World Without Christ

We live in a society that has almost uniformly turned its back on Christ. Determining how woke one’s writing is, how effective it is at communicating objective truth and morals, has less to do with where one is on a philosophical spectrum, or how closely a person aligns themselves to following established forms and norms, than it has to do with whether or not one recognizes Christ as King. #DeusVult