|
I recently read two marvelous articles written by Ivan Kelly,
a professor in the Department of Educational Psychology at
the University of Saskatchewan, appearing in Psychological
Reports, a respected journal in the field of professional
psychology. (1) In them, Kelly quite astutely, I believe,
dismantles modern astrology with the assurance of a seasoned
academician. He notes a wide variety of claims made by astrologers
and, to my mind, convincingly raises arguments that are perhaps
unassailable by those practicing and believing in astrology
as a discipline that literally and accurately describes and
predicts human personality. I submit that it would be folly
to attempt a point-by-point rebuttal to his arguments. He
has us; the jig is up for an astrology conceived as an empirical
discipline. I urge every astrologer and believer in astrology
to read and contemplate what Kelly has to say about this ancient
discipline. What follows is a rhetorical response to Kelly's
position.
For many years now, I have promoted the notion that astrology
is more closely related to myth and religion than to scientific
method, more in line with drama and poetry than with postulate
and theorem, more fictive than empirical. (2) Kelly titles
his 1998 article, "Why Astrology Doesn't Work" and, by this,
he means that astrology does not supply "new, relevant information
about people that could not be obtained from competing theories"
(p. 528). Additionally, he asserts that astrology's claims
have not stood up to empirical testing. As I know enough about
research to say that I have no expertise in it, I can neither
fully agree nor disagree with Kelly’s claims, though I suspect
that he is right. Noting that "works" is an ambiguous term,
he writes that astrology works in "the sense that clients
are satisfied with astrological readings just as clients of
palm readers, phrenologists, or aura readers are satisfied"
(p. 528). I might add, just as clients of physicians, psychotherapists,
and hair stylists are satisfied. Kelly admits early in his
article that his arguments bear little relevance to the acceptance
of astrology by others. He believes that astrologers are unable,
unwilling, or unlikely to be able to think critically about
their discipline in which they've invested so much time and
energy.
The Value of Myth
Astrology works, not because of its factual validity (the
literal truth of things) but because of its functional validity
(its usefulness in providing a satisfying aesthetic). The
pertinent question is: does it work within the client's experience?
Does it have the capacity to add value, depth, richness, and/or
meaning to our lives? Astrology works in the fashion of great
drama, lyric, narrative, or religious experience. Who among
us has not been deeply moved by dramatic presentation, enriched
by poetry, caught up in musical ecstasy, entranced by art,
or enchanted by ritual? To suggest that these experiences
have little value because they are not amenable to empirical
testing or because they don't demonstrate a literal truth
is simply specious. The late psychologist, Rollo May, writing
about science's failure to realize that astrology has a different
basis from that of science, notes that astrology "is a myth
and requires the language of myth. It has both the shortcomings
and the positive effects of myths." The word "myth" is used
by May not to denote falsehood (perhaps the popular understanding),
but rather to speak of that category of human experience in
which value, significance, and meaning reside. He further
writes that myths are "essential to the process of keeping
our souls alive and bringing us new meaning in a difficult
and often meaningless world."(3)
Professor of philosophy and critic of astrology, Robert Carroll,
comments about my own position in his online book, The Skeptic's
Dictionary, saying that my message "seems to be very simple
and straightforward: If you can find satisfied customers,
you have a valid myth."(4) I believe this is correct in the
sense that whether one is talking about astrology, the notions
of democracy, the tenets of Christianity, or theories of self,
cosmology, or evolution, if an individual or group is persuaded
of the rightness of a position, either through research, rhetoric,
or experience, the system to which they adhere works.
In an era of specializations within specialties and hierarchies
of experts, it's difficult for people to value their subjectivity
against the overwhelming press of the objective protocols
of a culture's science. We typically turn to experts for solutions
and have been taught to distrust our own experience. I suspect
that one of the hallmarks of a transition into an Aquarian-Age
dynamic is an increasing decentralization of power and authority
such that the masses become their own experts. We see glimpses
of this already in the movement toward well-informed patients,
self-care, and the whole field of alternative medicine. It
is a turn toward becoming one's own authority in one's own
life. Often it seems that experts frown upon this notion,
but the power of our own subjectivity can be a mighty thing.
Ivan Kelly quotes astrologer Maritha Pottenger (as cited in
Kelly, 1998, p. 543):
"To change my mind [about astrology] would require an ironclad,
irrefutable proof that materialism is a completely correct
description of reality, followed by a proof that physical
science has fully described all forces and interactions possible
in that material reality and that none of these forces could
let planetary motions affect individuals on Earth."
This, as Kelly states, sets up an argument that can neither
be confirmed nor refuted; however, I believe the crucial aspect
of Pottenger's statement is that she is saying that all of
her subjective experience of the validity of astrology simply
cannot be invalidated, any more than the reader can be convinced
that he or she is not presently reading this page. Hers is
a statement of faith, not conducive to empirical validation.
Similarly, I daily experience the sun rise and set, though
science tells me that it is not actually occurring. My sensations
of 60 degrees Fahrenheit outdoors in January and in July are
entirely different experiences, though an empiricist will
tell me that it is still 60 degrees outside. Though I can
accept my experience of these as illusory because I have been
taught to believe the empirical facts, no one is likely to
convince me that I did not experience what I experienced.
Are we fooling ourselves with this aesthetic understanding
of astrology and of the sunset? Empirically, yes, but in terms
of our experience being aesthetically satisfying, no. We do
not believe the magician "really" saws the woman in half or
makes the elephant disappear, but we situate ourselves "as
if" what is happening is true. We derive great pleasure within
the elegance of the mystery. It may be incumbent upon us to
develop what the poet John Keats termed "Negative Capability,"
that gift of being "capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries,
doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason."(5)
Mystery, Magic, and the Truth
Astrology is a form of imagination, an imaginal poetics that
is better placed in the humanities than the sciences. We do
not argue the truth of art and literature but rather indicate
that they are vehicles for conveying, suggesting, or disclosing
truth, and so it is with astrology. In the same fashion that
portraiture painting reveals, evokes, or presents a particular
view of its subject, likewise the drawing up of a natal chart
allows the astrologer to construct a rough draft of the person,
which becomes increasingly refined through dialogue with the
client.
Kelly's assertion that astrology does not provide new, relevant
information about a person that could not be obtained via
competing theories seems insufficient. Kelly may be suggesting
that various psychological models and methods provide more
accurate representations of human personality. If this is
the case, however, surely he would not denounce portraiture
painting and replace it with photography because it provides
more accurate reflections of the physical facts. Nothing could
be more absurd. No, despite several centuries of scientific
discrediting, we seem to need astrology, myth, and magic.
Some veiled part of the soul yearns for mystery, for the abracadabra
of life.
First, astrology evokes the fantasy (6) of belongingness
and connection. It provides a framework for imagining a profound
intimacy between ourselves and our world in ways that mainstream
psychology does not address. Astrology functions within a
larger meta-story in which every human being is an integral
part of a living cosmos. This organismic view allows for the
possibility of communication between the living whole and
its parts in a way that a lifeless clockwork universe cannot.
Second, astrological clients tend to be imagined in less pathological
ways than in traditional clinical perspectives. The use of
astrological symbolism provides glimpses into the complexities
of human personality and considers a wide range of human expression
as acceptable. Psychopathology is less a label than an excessive
or inhibited aspect of natural functioning. Third, as all
people are constellated from a finite pool of elements uniquely
configured in the birth chart, a person can preserve a sense
of individuality without feeling alienated from the larger
human community. Fourth, astrology suggests that a client's
situation is not simply the result of random and chaotic processes.
The whole of the astrological perspective reflects a world
that is orderly and potentially understandable. This can help
return to a client a sense of control in life, a sense that
their own developmental process includes the apparent chaos
as a part of their larger life pattern. Because life may feel
out of our control does not mean that it is out of control.
Larger guiding factors may occasionally wreak havoc with the
ego's plans, challenging us to maintain a certain fluidity
and adaptability to life's ever turning circumstances. This
flexibility is necessary for the survival of the fittest,
as those who best adapt to fit into the changing environment
tend to thrive.
Where are we left then? Perhaps science has moved beyond
its identity as a methodology and become a grand ideology
seducing us to accept that if some belief, event, thing, or
system does not meet its criteria for truth, then whatever
anomaly may be under its examination has little or no real
value or relevance to living. How have matters gotten to the
point where the champions of reason find it necessary to attack
astrology? My sense is that, in some manner, they too feel
under attack by what they perceive as a cultural turn toward
irrationality. There appears to be a serious concern among
many scientists that science itself may be facing an impending
dissolution.(7) It is not hard to understand then that, in
the face of this fear, the devotees of the ideology of science
would contract, close in, circle the wagons, and shoot at
anything that does not fit neatly into their camp. Science
suffers a kind of xenophobia, denouncing that which does not
live within its own province.
Astrology as an Imaginal Discipline
Without a doubt, astrologers have contributed to these harangues
against them by dressing astrology up as science, often making
provocative claims that give the appearance of being empirically
testable by standard research protocols, but which, in reality,
would not stand up to verification. Astrology must drop its
pretensions to be an empirical discipline. I encourage astrologers
to abandon hope of empirical validity and move their discipline
where it belongs, into the realm of the imaginal. We don't
evaluate poetry by the criteria of proper contract writing
nor describe a Beethoven sonata in terms of sonic disturbances
in a gaseous medium. These are the wrong tools for the job.
As long as astrology portrays itself as scientific, it will
be judged scientifically. A discipline does not have to be
scientific in order to carry value. For many astrologers,
it seems that it is the aesthetics of the practice that keep
them involved in the discipline. Kelly (1998) states, "And
so it is throughout astrology: Lectures, conferences, and
entire books are judged not by empirical evidence but by the
beauty and insight of the symbolism" (p. 532). I sense he
lodges this as a shortcoming rather than a celebrative declaration,
but this is a wonderful statement of recognition of the aesthetic
value of astrology. In our culture, we have lost the fantasy
of the healing power of beauty and tend toward engaging only
the medical fantasy of healing. Astrology is simply a way
of imagining the world differently, an alternative model for
understanding human reality. Practiced imaginatively, its
subject matter is soul-making. As such, it can stand without
shame alongside archetypal psychology in its rejection of
scientific, experimental, and research-oriented approaches
to its subject.(8)
As a culture, we have been so indoctrinated into the view
that science is the last resort, the ultimate authority, the
final arbiter of human experience, that to stand aside from
it, to be in the margins and work, is seen as folly. When
we wish to dismiss or demean an area of human experience,
we call it unscientific or pseudo science, believing then
that no one should take the subject seriously any more. How
naïve do we have to be to accept that? I imagine the conflict
as one of different archetypal groundings. Empiricism may
reside within Saturn's perspective, maintaining a highly disciplined,
formally structured, tightly controlled, reality-principled
approach to the world. Astrology, as a discipline of the imaginal,
speaks in Neptune's voice, in hints and whispers, nuanced
meanings, vague allusions, poetic metaphor, all expressing
a Romantic understanding of the world. There is room for both
and, in fact, more; all of the archetypal gods have a place
in human experience.
There are deep mysteries to our existence that science is
not likely to effectively plumb, nor should it necessarily
do so. It is not the be-all and end-all of human inquiry.
In the end, we find ourselves not so much in the continued
traditions of Kepler, Newton, and Galileo, which lead lockstep
down the road to rationalism, empiricism, and positivism,
but rather we dance along the footpaths of Ficino, Paracelsus,
Goethe, Blake, and Emerson, and, standing with Keats, declare,
"I am certain of nothing but of the holiness of the Heart’s
affections and the truth of Imagination – What the imagination
seizes as Beauty must be truth – whether it existed before
or not – for I have the same Idea of all our Passions as of
Love they are all in their sublime, creative of essential
Beauty."(9) What better and nobler a task for astrologers
than spiraling beauty back into the world!
I believe that we go to astrologers, seeking not the facts
of our existence but rather the truth of it. Like beachcombers
walking the morning shores at low tide, we seek a revelation
from the larger mystery out of which we all originate, yearning
to bring to the foreground of our lives a hint of a greater
order to sustain us, if only for a brief moment, in the ground
of our being. My position in this article has been a series
of faith statements not likely amenable to empirical review.
People tend to think that they know why they believe what
they believe, but I'm not sure that is the case. They may
offer such reasons as, "research indicates the truth of the
matter" or "science has proven this is so." I do not know
why I believe what I believe, as it comes from the heart and
not the head. After 25 years of experiencing astrology, my
faith in it rivals the empiricist's faith in reason. I can
offer words like elegance, beauty, mystery, but, in the end,
I can only borrow from Martin Luther by saying, "Here I stand,
I can do no other."
References and Notes
1. I. W. Kelly, "Modern Astrology: A Critique," Psychological
Reports, 81, 1997, pp. 1035-1066; Kelly, "Why Astrology Doesn’t
Work," Psychological Reports, 82, 1998, pp. 527-546. This
journal should be available in any university library.
2. B. W. Kochunas, Cosmic Symbolism in the Era of Modernity,
unpublished master’s thesis, Miami University, Oxford, OH,
1985; Kochunas, "Reimagining Astrology," The Astrotherapy
Newsletter, Vol. 2, No. 2, April 1989, (available from the
Association for Astrological Psychology, 360 Quietwood Dr.,
San Raphael, CA 94903); Kochunas, "Returning Soul to Astrology,"
The Mountain Astrologer, Aug./Sept. 1996, pp. 18, 20-22; J.
R. Lewis, "Kochunas, Bradley Wayne," in The Astrology Encyclopedia,
Detroit, MI: Visible Ink Press, 1994, p. 319.
3. Rollo May, The Cry for Myth, New York, NY: Bantam Doubleday
Dell Publishing Group, Inc., 1991, pp. 22, 20.
4. R. T. Carroll, "Astrotherapy," in The Skeptic’s Dictionary,
1994-1999 [Online]. Available at web site: http://www.skepdic.com/astrotherapy.html
5. J. Keats, Selected letters of John Keats (R. Pack, ed.),
New York, NY: New American Library, 1974, p. 55.
6. The use of the word "fantasy" denotes those constructions
of understanding that we engage to make sense of our world.
The "facts" of a situation are simply the shared fantasy that
we have agreed upon to be real.
7. T. Schick, Jr., "The End of Science?" The Skeptical Inquirer,
1997/199. Available: Online. 8. C. Boer and P.Kugler, "Archetypal
Psychology Is Mythical Realism "Spring, 1977, p. 142. 9. Keats,
Selected letters, p. 52.
© 1999 Brad Kochunas - all rights reserved
Thanks to him for his permission to publish it here.
Brad Kochunas is a licensed clinical counselor
who has used astrology in his work with clients over the last
15 years. He is also an adjunct instructor in the Department
of Religion and Philosophy, Wilmington College. His articles
have appeared in The Mountain Astrologer, Kosmos, The Astrological
Journal, The International Astrologer, Counseling and Values,
The Astrotherapy Newsletter, and The Counseling Connection
and also by Mandala. He
welcomes your feedback and can be reached at SoulPsych@aol.com
or Box 2212, Middletown, OH 45044.
|
Je
gids astrologie 
Je bent hier