Astrology must not be abusive. It is time we nip this in the bud.
Astrologers should not use any aspect of astrology to harm the people they serve, communicate with, or teach.
We need to stop minimizing this phenomenon. Astrologers can make damning assessments through essential dignity, house placements, geometric aspects, and other interpretive techniques. Astrology is, by definition, an interpretive and judgment-making practice: we analyze patterns and make delineations. But practitioners need to be more mindful about the sweeping, hierarchical, and sometimes harsh conclusions we draw from those patterns.
These conclusions do not simply disappear when a consultation ends. They can leave a residue. I have repeatedly encountered people carrying a lingering sense of shame about supposedly “weak” placements in their charts. What a waste of time. And what an unnecessary burden to place on another human being.
When dignity is used to allocate “goodness,” I cringe.
This has been referenced before. Consider, for example, the chart of Jeffrey Dahmer.
The point is not to use one person's chart as proof of anything, but to ask what we are actually doing when we assign moral or human value to planetary conditions. We should be extremely cautious about turning technical astrological categories into judgments about the worth or character of a person.
There is another issue here that deserves much more attention: we do not all use the same zodiac.
Millions of people practice astrology through another zodiac, in which a planet we have called “weak” may be exalted, or a planet we have called dignified may occupy an entirely different sign. If Jupiter is exalted in tropical Cancer, how can it simultaneously be considered in detriment in Gemini in the sidereal zodiac? What exactly are we claiming when two functional systems produce different assessments?
The existence and continued practice of multiple astrological zodiacs should complicate our certainty. We need to be talking about this.
And if dignity provides power, what kind of power are we talking about?
I am also concerned about the ways practitioners use astrology against themselves.
I see an overreliance on judgmental terminology — terms that are often used hierarchically to assign value, power, and praise: exaltation, dignity, strength. And on the other side: fall, detriment, exile. We should be more conscientious about what happens when these words become internalized as descriptions of the self. Words and concepts can cause real damage.
Why are astrologers and students of astrology playing this game with themselves and with one another? Why the impulse to measure and assess in order to determine superiority or inferiority? Where does that impulse come from?
These are important questions. Do we grapple with them enough? What is the actual impact—and cost—of repeatedly assessing ourselves and others through hierarchical systems of value?
I think students of astrology must wrestle much more seriously with their potential to do harm.
Can astrology be used to distinguish between better and worse luck? Perhaps. And if it can, is there something constructive that can come from thinking about luck, fate, and circumstance? Quite possibly.
Some people certainly are born with more luck. I am not saying that this is necessarily correlated with the chart. But some human beings are born into families where they are deeply wanted, appreciated, protected, and securely attached. That can affect virtually every aspect of their development and brain function. These people may go on to do very well in the world—and sometimes take a great deal of personal credit for achievements that were also made possible by circumstances they did not choose.
We ought to spend more time thinking about luck, fate, circumstance, and harm. We should also be asking what it means to live in a culture that often mistakes advantage for personal merit and struggles with humility. Robert Sapolsky's work is relevant here.
And what about context?
Reality. History. Poverty. Trauma. Systemic oppression. Family structure. Culture. Access to resources. Where does astrology come in here? And what does an unreliable system of dignity have to do with any of it?
Astrology can become another tool for oppressin —or applauding—someone who already lives with a set of circumstances that profoundly affects them.
If a person's internal system is oriented in a particular direction, an astrologer can easily reinforce what is already there, for better or worse. This is why we have to consider the actual person sitting in front of us, as well as the audience receiving our words.
Too often I hear from clients about practitioners who are profoundly insensitive. What they say lingers.
If you do not genuinely care about helping people, serving people, and being an uplifting presence, and if you are unwilling to develop a trauma-informed approach, you really have no business consulting with human beings.
I think there should be an almost paralyzing sensitivity around the responsibility to do no harm.
I hope that, in the near future, we see more thoughtful conversations about the very real possibility of using astrology to cause harm, whether intentionally or inadvertently. There is no need to stop practicing or studying astrology. But it is time to raise the bar on the kinds of freakishly simplified judgments we make, repeat, and participate in.
We can be more rigorous without being cruel.
We can interpret without humiliating.
We can acknowledge difficulty without turning it into fear-mongering predictions or shame.
And we can be much more intentional about how we choose to contribute to another person's understanding of themselves.
That seems like a worthwhile standard for astrology. And the only kind I’m interested in participating in.
