FIVE MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT ASTROLOGY
Busting Stereotypes and Exposing Cliches
©2009 Antero Alli
Many cliches, stereotypes, and rumors about Astrology have been perpetrated in newspapers, Television, films, books, academic and scientific circles, and multimedia sources creating a smokescreen of misunderstanding and ridicule when it comes to Astrology. Here now, for your amusement and edification, are my top five misconceptions about Astrology:
1) NEWSPAPER and MAGAZINE COLUMNS
Published as entertainment, most astrology columnists present astrology in the most cliched stereotyped ways. By emphasizing the SUN SIGN, millions of people have been led to mistakenly identify with their Sun Sign alone encouraging prejudices against and for other Sun Signs resulting in a mass hallucination of misplaced identity. No wonder hardnosed, Atheist skeptics like Richard Dawkins (author, "The Selfish Gene" and other books) find it so easy to debunk astrology and astrologers. Exceptions to this Astrology Column problem include the syndications of ROB BREZSNY's "Free Will Astrology" and ERIC FRANCIS' "Planet Waves". In his weekly column, Rob's poetic treatment of astrology stimulates the imagination, allowing readers space to think for themselves. In Eric's column, an astute political bias broadens the reader's view beyond their own ego towards the collective shifts engaging us all.
2) SCIENCE AND SKEPTICS
To their discredit, too many astrologers insist that Astrology is a Science. So, when scientifically-minded, astrology-bunking skeptics ask for empirical proof, a conflict of interests arise. Astrology is so often discredited as a science because it is not really a science. It has been mislabeled as a science by well-meaning, misinformed astrologers seeking academic or scientific validation. Or maybe deeper-seated unconscious approval from absent fathers. Many centuries ago, when astrology was married to astronomy, it was called a science. But a lot has happened since the Age of Reason when Astrology was cast aside, along with the Tarot, Kabbalah and other "occult sciences", as scientifically unsound and dismissed as "pseudo-science".
Skepticism is not the problem. The most accurate and seasoned astrologers show a keen skeptical eye and a strong capacity for critical thinking. The problem is in the ungrounded assumption that astrology requires belief in order to work. Astrology is not a religion unless we make it one. Personally, astrology does not require my belief for it to work. I don't believe in astrology; I use it because it works. And it seems to work best as a language, not a belief system or a religion or a science.
3) FORTUNE-TELLING
Many people firmly believe that astrology can predict the future. This regretful assumption easily classifies astrology as fortune-telling and furthers its dismissal. Though I personally rely on astrological techniques for interpreting TRANSITS -- which track the current and future trajectories of planetary orbits -- I am careful to frame my interpretations as tendencies rather than absolutes. I also do not believe that transits, or the planetary orbits, cause our life changes. We are not puppets to the planets. Instead, I choose to interpret planetary orbits as a measure of the timing of change, not the causes. Though my interpretations can carry anywhere from 70-90% accuracy rate, I view all my perceptions as gambles until hostory reveals what actually happened. Take it from Joseph Campbell who once said, "The best way to predict the future is to create it."
4) TV and FILM MEDIA
Scripts written and produced in the entertainment industry often feature astrologers as unreliable characters. "The astrologer" is depicted as a kook or someone linked with supernatural powers which, in business of entertainment commerce, usually translates to terror or horror. It's very rare that any supernatural or psychic phenomena is depicted in films or TV as a natural, positive, or even ordinary function of the human psyche. Other times, The Astrologer is portrayed as a harmless, whimsical nobody easily dismissed or victimized. Astrologers as characters in Hollywood stories never seem to win.
5) ASTROLOGY BOOKS
The sad truth is that too many astrology books are poorly written. There's this pervasive problem of redundancy (over-writing) and writing styles stultified by a need to "prove" astrology, as if to earn status points from skeptical mainstream readers. Many astrology books are also written with little or no imagination or humor, resulting in a dreary reading experience on a topic innately rich with colorful mythological and archetypal correlations. Worse of all are those astrology books that present their theories and interpretations as dogmas or absolute beliefs (and why I felt compelled to write my own astrology book, Astrologik). Exceptions to all of these dismal symptoms include the wiser astrology writings of Stephen Arroyo, Steven Forrest, Martin Schulman, Dane Rudhyar, Robert Hand and some from Liz Greene and Jeffrey Wolf Green.
Though there are other sources of confusion, these look like the chief culprits to me of the most misinformed assumptions about astrology. Perhaps if we can grow more aware of these bad ideas, we can bypass them in lieu of more critical thinking and a more imaginative, poetic interpretation of the ancient mythologies astrological symbols represent. Besides, lIfe is too short to become victims of dismal over-literalist thinking and its dreary endgame of imagination lobotomy.
ANTERO ALLI