Copyright
2004. All Rights Reserved
As we head
into the United States elections, any astrological prediction
about the outcome is not easily made. Often making
a precise prediction about a particular event is as much about
personal biases, intuitions, and a gleaning of information
from other sources than it is about a strict and accurate interpretation
of an astrological chart. However, as political events come
to the forefront of everyone’s minds this fall, this
allows for an invitation for astrology to illuminate larger
political patterns and cycles which would otherwise remain
in the dark.
The focus
of this article is to look, however briefly, at the evolution of
political history from the standpoint of astrological cycles and
dialectics. Dialectical theories suggest that progress and evolution
occurs from the overcoming and synthesis of opposite elements—an
idea that is at least implicit in much of astrology. From a dialectical
point of view, we will focus on two astrological cycles—the
Uranus-Pluto cycle and the Saturn-Pluto cycle—and how both,
taken as a whole, are instrumental in the political evolution of
cultures.
Dialectical Thinking:
A Brief Outline and History
Dialectical
thinking is a loose and broad methodology that emphasizes relationships
over and above discrete, isolated entities and that stresses development
and process versus stasis. Rather than focus upon divisions, dialectical
thinking highlights interconnectedness and interrelationships. Although
not a method of thinking that is often formalized in the hard sciences
or mathematics, it is a very powerful, intuitive, and time-tested
manner of perception.
Although
the philosopher G.W.F. Hegel may not have been the first thinker
to use dialectical thinking, he made this type of logic the basis
for an entire system of thought. As a starting point, Hegel made
an assumption that the world and all of existence is part of a unified
whole. That is, he believed that it is truth to view things as an
interrelated system than to view things as a fragmented, atomistic
world made of discrete parts. In this way, Hegel was one of the world’s
first and foremost holistic thinkers.
Moreover,
Hegel stressed relationship in his philosophy. It is through tension
of interrelated opposites that evolution and progress occurs. For
Hegel, a rich approximation of the truth takes into account how seemingly
opposing contradictions exist in relationship to each other. As opposed
to being a fixed, static opposition, polarities spur each other onward
to greater and greater syntheses; evolution cannot happen without
opposing forces.
Hegel’s
systematic accounting for all of reality fell out of favor in the
Western world in part due to its presumptions and presuppositions
about the absolute, metaphysical nature of reality. In a day and
age where increasing emphasis was placed on empirical techniques
and the rigors of the scientific method, Hegel’s abstruse musings
on the nature of it all and his emphasis on a spiritual absolute
was out of sync with the growing emphasis on materialism and science.
But Hegel’s system is airtight; any opposition to his own philosophy
could be seen as a necessary contradiction within his own system.
It is interesting to speculate that Hegel may have welcomed dissention
and unpopularity of his own system as proof of the fact that his
dialectic logic indeed works.
Although
the romantic, quasi-mystical flavor of Hegel’s system became
heavily criticized through time, his dialectical method was preserved.
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels revised and popularized Hegel’s
dialectic but divested it of its idealism and spiritual language
(even though, ironically, the writings of Marx and Engels became
somewhat of a religion and faith in the Soviet Union in years after
their publications). In other words, Marx and Engels kept the “baby” of
Hegel’s dialectic but threw out the “bathwater” of
his reflections on the absolute spiritual nature of reality and evolution.
Marx’s and Engels’s project was to turn socialism from
a sort of utopist vision to a science, claiming that a dialectic
of opposing economic factions led to an inevitable conclusion of
a socialist state. According to Marx and Engels, the history of civilization
is primarily the result of the struggle between the oppressors and
the oppressed. The polarization between the “haves” and “have
nots” creates the engine, so to speak, that drives societal
evolution continually onward. This dialectic, assumed the pair, led
to the unavoidability of socialism as a system that will emerge due
to the inherent strife set up through capitalism.
Although
not as obviously influenced by Hegel as Marx and Engels, psychologist
Carl Jung is somewhat indebted to Hegel’s dialectic as Jung’s
psychology contains some interesting parallels to Hegel’s philosophical
system. Jung saw an individual’s growth and evolution as thoroughly
oriented toward resolving fundamental polarities in his or her internal
and external relations. The dialectical tension between the ego and
the unconscious, the ego and others, the ego and one’s shadow,
Jung surmised, all coalesced to form the Self, a symbol of psychological
wholeness. Whereas Hegel concluded a theory of dialectics was correct
through philosophical reflection and speculation, Marx, Engels, and
Jung took a more formal approach in their methods—closer to
the objective, neutral ideal of a scientist—but arrived at
similar conclusions. All these thinkers took very different routes
to arrive at a similar conclusion: growth and evolution in a system
takes place through the tension created by opposing forces in relation
to each other.
Astrology and
Dialectical Thinking
Although
we don’t normally think of astrology in these terms, astrology
is thoroughly a dialectical system. Each symbol within astrology
is sympathetic, that is similar, or antithetical, or opposite, to
all other symbols (and in many cases some combination of the above).
Obviously, the most explicit example of this is when a planet opposes
another in the birth chart or by transit. When this occurs situations
are set in motion whereby a relationship of tension is created and
one identifies with one symbol at the exclusion with another. Ideally,
through dealing with the tension of an opposition, an individual
reconciles the duality and comes to a sort of compromise whereby
a disowned astrological symbol is integrated into consciousness.
With a greater degree of conscious recognition with the disowned
symbol, an individual will (again, ideally) identify with the functions
of the symbol and no longer polarize so tightly against it—it
is more owned internally and not constellated in the outer environment.
A higher integration is the result of working with the tension of
an opposition.
Although
an opposition aspect might be the most explicit example of how astrology
works dialectically, polarities exist through and through in astrology,
often in hidden ways. For instance, if an individual is born with
an astrological element, such as Fire, highly emphasized, the polarity
created in this situation is not as obvious as one seen in an opposition
aspect in the birth chart. Implicit in a birth chart that has highly
emphasized Fire is the fact that the other elements—Water,
Earth, and Air—are secondary, unconscious, and disowned. As
dialectic thinking suggests that all things exist in relationship,
the person with the emphasized Fire chart has to mediate and contend
with a world that is relatively balanced in elemental qualities.
The greater extent to which the individual identifies and creates
life situations reflective of Fire, the greater the tension created
with the unidentified elements. At some point in the individual’s
life, either through crises, tensions, or conscious awareness, he
or she will have to integrate the previously disowned elements for
a more functional life.
The importance
of the above example is to show that from the standpoint of dialectical
thinking, astrology is a holistic system—all symbols exist
in interrelationship to each other even if those relationships are
not explicitly defined. Moreover, not unlike the conclusions of Marx,
Hegel, and Jung, astrology suggests that through dialectical tension,
growth and evolution occur.
Astrology and
the Dialectics of Political Progress
Understanding
astrology as a type of dialectical system can prove very powerful
in terms of illuminating political evolution. Politics may be the
most obvious arena to observe dialectics in action because we are
naturally inclined to see the political process as the result of—and
encouraging—the tension of opposites. Current politics in the
United States is defined by partisanship, through the conflict and
clashing ideologies of differing political parties. As a politically
aware culture, we focus on this opposition; we are, in fact, defined
by this opposition, this partisanship.
What remains
a bit of a mystery is how, when and why momentum
swings and shifts in favor of one political ideology or faction over
another. Why does the political pendulum swing—often radically
so—in one direction or another? A simplified analysis would
suggest a linear, cause-and-effect type of answer to this problem:
economy or war causes mass consciousness to align with a particular
ideology over and against its opponent(s). However, a simple analysis
such as this doesn’t truly fit the historical record. History
is fraught with examples when social discord, political discontent,
and civil disobedience are not caused by economic distress or war.
One irrefutable example comes from the decade of the 1960’s,
a highly reactionary period in many parts of the world when greater
freedoms and liberties were demanded in a time of general insurrection
and societal turbulence. We cannot conclude that economic hardship
or war caused this time of civil unrest and the radical political
values at this time. In the United States alone, the decade that
preceded the 1960’s saw a time of great economic expansion,
an astronomical rise in prosperity and standards of living, and a
time of relative peace. How, then, would the decade that followed
this time of peace and prosperity be mired with such strife, discord,
disobedience, and the flavor of political chaos? Traditional answers
haven’t helped as historians have often looked back at this
period in confusion, bereft of answers. Turning to astrology can
illuminate patterns that are often hidden or in the dark.
We can
view the political spirit of the 1960’s as part of the manifestation
of a large astrological cycle: the Uranus-Pluto cycle. Although variable
in length, a typical Uranus-Pluto cycle takes roughly from one hundred
and ten to one hundred and forty years to complete. Explored in greater
depth later, the Uranus-Pluto cycle can be seen as the cycle that
advances socio-political structures, which takes us collectively
into new terrain, and which has the dual action of destroying old
political ideologies and structures while creating and informing
new ones.
The Uranus-Pluto
cycle remains in dialectical tension with the Saturn-Pluto cycle,
for they symbolize differing political motivations and ideologies,
and they express themselves in culture in highly contrasting ways.
As was noted above, dialectical thinking suggests that the polarization
of opposites is necessary to create growth and to stimulate progressive
evolution. Such is the case with the Uranus-Pluto cycle and the Saturn-Pluto
cycle; they exist in polarized tension, which, in turn, creates a
dynamic that drives political evolution ever onward. It is reductionistic
to assume that political evolution can be seen astrologically through
looking at simply two contrasting cycles—the situation is more
complex than that. However, by focusing in on these two very potent
and important cycles, a highly significant pattern emerges in the
evolution of political values.
The
Uranus-Pluto Cycle
The year
is 1848 and Europe erupts in political revolution. Suddenly and unpredictably,
nearly every capital city in continental Europe explodes in civil
disobedience and uprisings take hold in most major urban centers
throughout the continent. Mass movements of workers, university students,
and general citizens rise up to demand change. Just prior to the
outbreak of revolt, historian Alexis de Tocqueville, with fingers
on the pulse of agitation in the air, comments, “We are sleeping
on a volcano…Do you not see that the earth trembles anew? A
wind of revolution blows, the storm is on the horizon.” (1)
The year
is 1968 and cities the world over are overtaken by violence, uprisings,
and rebellion. Student revolts stun campuses from New York City to
Berkeley, youth movements rise sharply in Prague and Paris, rioters
clash with police in Detroit, Chicago, and Mexico City. It is an
unprecedented explosion of unrest, rage, and chaos the world over.
Bras and draft cards are burned, violence and chaos rule the streets,
and music provides the soundtrack to the revolution.
The parallel
between 1848 and 1968, besides being highly insurrectionary in character,
is that the revolutions took place under Uranus-Pluto conjunctions.
Commentators have noticed that both revolutions failed in a sense
to radically dethrone political and social structures, and yet, paradoxically,
the periods changed the world forever. Values, ideas, freedoms, and
behaviors were liberated at these times that were birthed with a
sense of exhilaration and crisis, and the resulting changes could
not be put back into the box, so to speak. Uranus-Pluto conjunctions
are the beginning of societal change, but the revolutions that are
enacted take arguably a full cycle to manifest the revolutionary
ideas and values as stable structures.
In order
to more fully understand the cultural expressions of the Uranus-Pluto
cycle, it is important to note the more obvious political manifestations
of the combination:
- The
formation of subcultures or movements generally critical of, or
in opposition to, the established and traditional political norms
of society.
- Politics
by force. The abnegation of civil law and order in favor of subversive,
violent, and rebellious techniques. Politics taken out of conventional
arenas and taken into the street. Protest.
- A rising
concerning for the expansion of freedoms and civil rights; awareness
of the oppressive nature of established political traditions.
- The
spirit of idealism. The resurrection of the belief of political
change and social activism.
- The
surprising emergence of new political parties and forces. The highly
visible breakthrough of political movements once hidden or underground.
The Saturn-Pluto Cycle
In order
to preserve and stabilize the reforms ushered in by the French Revolution,
a “Reign of Terror,” is initiated in 1793-1794. Assuming
threat from armies across Europe and suspicious that political traitors
run rampant in the newly found government, a number of high ranking
officials enact policies that would ensure the longevity of the French
government. Civil liberties are stripped. The strength of France’s
army and defense increase considerably. Maximillien Robespierre,
the leading official of the time, states, "Terror is nothing
other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible."
In order
to secure a nation under attack from terrorists in 2001, The Bush
administration of the United States creates several policies to stabilize
a potential crisis. Civil liberties are stripped. The strength of
the United States military increases. Threat is seen all around.
An “Axis of Evil” is presumed to menace the values and
integrity of the United States.
The Reign
of Terror and the current Terrorist attacks, though centuries apart,
occurred under potent Saturn-Pluto alignments: the first a square
(ninety degree aspect) and the latter an opposition. True to the
archetypal nature of the planets involved, Saturn-Pluto cycles are
not about pushing evolution forward, on the contrary, they are meant,
at best, to stabilize and mature socio-political structures, and,
at worst, to create near-totalitarian states to justify power and
to defend against possible threats and danger. Saturn-Pluto cycles
take us into the world of realpolitik, or policies and politics
based on the pragmatic concerns of the state: survival, preservation,
and power. Under this injunction, the state can, and often will,
justify radical abuses of power.
To better appreciate the cultural expressions of the Saturn-Pluto cycle, here
are the more significant characteristics of the cycle:
- Civil
liberties and freedoms are secondary values or are withdrawn for
the sake of national security and preservation.
- Control,
consolidation of power, and strong defenses are seen as necessary
in a world that is hostile, threatening, and aimed at the destruction
of the state.
- The
empowerment of conservative values and ethics. Change is seen as
threatening, dangerous, and subversive. “Turning back the
clock.”
- A strict
and oppressive code of ethics and morality. Order, discipline,
self-denial are often seen as necessary and virtuous.
- Survival,
protection, and defensiveness are strictly proportional to the
level of threat perceived in the outer environment.
The
Saturn-Pluto Cycle and Uranus-Pluto Cycle as a Tension of Opposites
From a
dialectical point of view, the Saturn-Pluto cycle and the Uranus-Pluto
cycle are reactionary to each other’s values and expressions.
It is through the drama of these two very different symbolic expressions
that change happens and evolution is spurred ever upward and onward.
We might even suggest that both archetypal expressions mutually implicate
the other; one cannot exist without the other. The change and revolutionary
impulse that is ushered in through the Uranus-Pluto cycle is thwarted,
restricted, beaten back, and consolidated by the Saturn-Pluto cycle.
Conversely, the conservative and oppressive nature of the Saturn-Pluto
cycle in some sense justifies the explosive, pent-up rebelliousness
and revolutionary character of the Uranus-Pluto cycle.
In order
to ground this specifically in our own times, the aforementioned
Uranus-Pluto conjunction of the 1960’s was a sudden, insurrectionary,
explosive emergence of rebellion against old structures and an initiation
of new freedoms, new tolerances, and new permissiveness. The subsequent
Saturn-Pluto cycles since the conjunction have, in their own way,
negated the revolutionary turn of the Uranus-Pluto conjunction. To
be more precise, since the Uranus-Pluto conjunction, an entire Saturn-Pluto
cycle has been completed. We might say that this entire Saturn-Pluto
cycle is like turning the screws ever tighter against the revolutionary
excitement and liberation of the 1960’s.
The
above diagram shows the dialectic between these two contrasting cycles.
Two full cycles of the Saturn-Pluto combination will occur before even
a half cycle of the Uranus-Pluto cycle completes itself. In other words,
the rigid, orthodox, and conservative pattern of the Saturn-Pluto cycle
needs to become firmly entrenched for the shattering, revolutionary,
insurrectionary quality of the Uranus-Pluto cycle to be fully acknowledged
and felt on a collective scale. The greater the entrenchment and restrictiveness
of the Saturn-Pluto cycle, the greater the rebelliousness nature of
the Uranus-Pluto cycle, and vice versa—they implicate each other.
The greatest
point of tension between these cycles is when they overlap. Specifically,
in our times, this would be, roughly, between 1964-1967, 2009-2011,
and 2043-2044. This is the time in these cycles when old and new,
tradition and experimentation, change and stasis, are at their peak
and reach their maximal point of polarization—the clash between
the opposites is strongest.
Conclusion:
“The
embers of a bonfire may appear to be dead until someone breathes
on them—then they burst into flames,” comments filmmaker
Alejandro Jodoworsky. We may think of this quote in terms of the
dialectical tension between the Uranus-Pluto and Saturn-Pluto cycles.
The revolutionary, liberating, and mass appeal toward new freedoms
that occurred in the 1960’s may appear to be dead, a vestige
of a bygone era that has little relevance in our times. However,
astrology confirms the intuition that things occur in cycles, and,
taking a cue from Jodoworsky, just when things appear to be lifeless,
someone or something resurrects the lifeless thing and, before you
know it, something is in full bloom again. This is not to imply that
as the next portion of the Uranus-Pluto cycle manifest in the next
decade that 1960’s values makes a storming return in the collective.
However, the archetypal themes and motifs will return.
From the
perspective of astrological cycles, we can gain appreciation of the
vast interplay of opposites and no longer be blind to the “how” and “when” these
cycles occur. The “why” maybe left for individual interpretation
and may be very private; however, astrology suggests that these cycles
are something that we all participate within and, regardless of one’s
interpretation, it is hard to believe that these cycles are arbitrary
and contingent, but have some greater purpose that we can only speculate
upon.
(1) Hobswam,
Eric “The Age of Capital” New York: Vintage, p.9
Free
Astrology For The Soul and Free Horoscopes:
AstrologyForTheSoul.com
|
