The Underlying Psychology

In contrast to the magazines, an astrological columnist like Carroll Righter faces a more vaguely defined, but presumably larger number of people with divergent interests and worries who are attracted by the column and often seek some advice. The latter has to be of such a nature that it gives per se some vicarious aid and comfort to the readers who can hardly be expected to be really helped by the columnist. He knows neither the persons he addresses nor the specific nature of the wishes and complaints of any of them.⁸ Yet his position of authority forces him to talk as if he knew and as if the constellations of the stars provided him with satisfactory, sufficient and unequivocal answers. He can neither afford to disappoint his readers by not committing himself at all nor to compromise his magical authority on which his sales value rests by blatantly false statements. He has to face the squaring of the circle. What he says must sound as though he had concrete knowledge of what problems beset each of his prospective followers born under some sign at a specific time. Yet he must always remain noncommittal enough so that he cannot be easily discredited.

While being compelled to take some chances, he tries to reduce the danger of failure to a minimum. This explains the usage of some rather rigid stereotypes of style. E.g., he frequently employs expressions such as »Follow up that intuition of yours,« or »Display that keen mind of yours.« The word »that« seems to imply that the columnist, on the basis of astrological inspiration, knows exactly what the individual addressee who happens to read the column is like or was like at some particular time. Yet the apparently specific references are always so general that they can be made to fit all the time: everyone has some hunch or idea on any given day or may in retrospect flatter himself by thinking that he had one, and everyone, particularly the semi-erudite, would gladly accept being characterized as the owner of a keen mind. Thus, the paradox of the column is solved by the makeshift of pseudo-individualization.⁹

But such nice little tricks alone do not dispense with the columnist's fundamental difficulty. He generally has to rely on his knowledge of the most frequently recurring problems prescribed by the setup of modern life and of characterological patterns he had frequent occasion to observe. He figures out a number of typical situations in which a large percentage of his followers might at any time find themselves. He must especially concentrate on apparently ferreting out those problems, which the reader cannot solve by his own power and force him to look for outside help, and must not even shrink from questions which are difficult to solve rationally at all so that an irrational source of advice is sought, for it is presumably precisely from such situations that people turn to the column. This leads quite logically to the fact that the astrologist's advice reflects a number of more or less insoluble situations of the present phase, impasses which threaten each individual and stimulate each individual's hopes for some effective interference from above. Even within the framework of ubiquitous problems, however, a certain latitude of expression has to be maintained so that even truly unrealistic predictions and advice can still be reconciled to the reader's life situation and are not too easily discarded. In this respect the astrologist relies on a habit equally well-known to serious psychiatrists and to popular psychologists. People who have any affinity at all to occultism are usually prepared to react to the information they are craving in such a way as to make it fit their own system at almost any cost. Thus, he even might expose himself on a factual level unpunished so long as he figures out adequately those particular needs and wishes of his readers which are so strong that they are not likely to be shattered by confrontation with reality, provided only such confrontation is really on a purely intellectual level and does not subject the readers to dire consequences in their practical life. In fact, great care is taken by the columnist to avoid this while lavishing gratifications in the realm of the imaginary.

In order to fulfill such exacting tasks, the columnist really has to be what is called in American slang, a »homespun philosopher.« It is perhaps this requirement which makes for the striking similarity between the column and its psychological counterparts. In this popular psychology, though shaped as it is primarily in terms of mass appeal, the knowledge of the phenomena as such, is often pertinent and the descriptions adequate. But their dynamic interpretation is either completely absent or faked: most of the time vulgar, pre-Freudian ego-psychology cloaked in what Theodor Reik has called the social workers' lingo of »Psychoanalese.«¹⁰ This attitude of popular psychological writings is not merely due to a lack of erudition. Since the columnist, even if he were equipped with a complete knowledge of Freud, cannot hope to change psychodynamically any of those to whom he speaks, he has to keep within the external zones of the personality. What really distinguishes »world[ly]-wise« institutions such as the column from real psychology is not so much observations and possibly not even the columnist's underlying interpretations, but the direction in which he moves and manipulates his reader's psychology. He continuously strengthens defenses rather than shatters them. He plays on the unconscious rather than attempting its elucidation beyond the most superficial phraseology.

He caters above all to narcissism as one of the strongest and most easily approached defenses. Often his references to his readers' outstanding qualities and chances seem so silly that it is hard to imagine that anyone will swallow them, but the columnist is well aware of the fact that vanity is nourished by so powerful instinctual sources that he who plays up to it gets away with almost anything.

Complementary to the narcissistic gratifications aimed at by the column is a more or less veiled suggestion of anxiety. The idea that the reader is somehow threatened must be maintained because only if some mild terror is exercised, he will seek help – analogous to advertising of drugs against body odor. Threat and relief are somehow intertwined in a way that can be spotted in various kinds of mental disorders. The kind of popular psychology on which the column relies takes it frequently for granted that most persons feel threatened, either in reality or at least psychologically, and that the column reaches them only if it establishes an intelligence with the reader in the zone of threat. Yet the threat must always be mild in order not to really shock the reader who would give up looking into a column which caused direct discomfort. Thus one of the most widely spread realistic threats, that of being fired, appears only in a diluted form, e.g., as conflicts with higher-ups, being »dressed down,« and similar unpleasantnesses. The term »firing« is not used a single time.

A favorite threat, however, is that of traffic accidents. Here again one finds how various facets of the approach are blended: the danger of traffic accidents is ever-present in the congested Los Angeles area. But it is singled out as if some specific prophetic knowledge were behind it, a claim that cannot easily be refuted due to the ubiquity of the threat itself. At the same time, a threat like that of a traffic accident does not hurt the readers' narcissism on account of the complete externalization of the threat. It has hardly any humiliating implications, public opinion does not brand the traffic sinner as a criminal. Finally, reference to this threat displays one of the most prominent features of the column: supposedly irrational and magical forebodings are translated into the advice of being sensible. The stars are invoked in order to reinforce the harmless, beneficial but trivial admonition: »Drive carefully!«

Only very rarely examples turn up of more sinister threats such as that one has to be particularly careful in everything on one particular day unless one would incur serious risks.

Ridding life of sinister acquaintance makes more assets obtainable.

(November 19, 1952, Scorpio)

In such moments the authoritarian whip cracks down, but it does so merely as a reminder in order to keep the readers at bay, and is never carried so far as to seriously distract from the gratifications they otherwise get from the column or to make them feel uncomfortable for more than the present moment. To get rid of an acquaintance seems, after all, not too great a sacrifice or too heavy a task.

The gains the reader obtains in this particular area consist, apart from the potentiality of deep underlying gratifications to destructive urges provided by the threat itself, in the promise of help and mitigation, granted by a superhuman agency. While the subject has to follow closely what this agency indicates, he does not really have to act on his own behalf as an autonomous human being, but can content himself with relying on fate. He has to avoid things rather than to do them. He is somewhat relieved of his responsibility.

This indicates the most important construct of the column – that of readers who are or feel themselves to be basically dependent, who find themselves incessantly in situations which they cannot cope with by their own powers and who are beset psychologically by what has come to be known as ego weakness, but is often expressive of weakness in reality. The columnist figures quite reasonably that only the persons thus characterized are likely to rely on him unquestioningly and therefore calculates his every word in order to fit with the specific needs of the dependent – including those narcissistic defenses which help them to compensate for their feelings of weakness. This again is in harmony with that kind of popular psychology whose favorite term is »inferiority complex.« The columnist is quite familiar with certain forms of reaction likely to be encountered among the readers, carefully refrains from elucidating them and thus changing them, but utilizes them in order to fixate the reader to the »message« and thus to the column as an institution. By systematic pursuit of this procedure he tends to spread the pattern of dependence and to transform more and more people into dependent ones with whom he establishes what might properly be called a situation of secondary transference.

The problem of the relation of certain neurotic traits to reality which is here implied involves grave methodological problems which can only be mentioned. Some revisionists such as Fromm and particularly Horney have oversimplified the matter by reducing neurotic traits such as the one here under consideration, dependence, to social realities such as »our modern competitive society.« Since characterological patterns are likely to be established much earlier than a child makes the specific experience of a highly differentiated social system, the etiology postulated by these writers seems to be doubtful and indicative of a relapse into pre-Freudian, rationalistic psychology. At the same time, however, it is equally dubious to sever psychodynamics altogether from its »social stage.« Suffice it to say here that neurotic syndromes and irrational susceptibilities of every kind are present within a large number of people at any time, but that some of them are worked upon specifically during certain periods and that modern mass media tend particularly to fortify reaction formations and defenses concomitant with actual social dependence. The link between the compulsive elements of the column and the underlying idea of the subject's dependence may very well be that compulsive systems are employed as defenses against »realistic« dependence without ever involving any behavior that might change the basic situation of dependence.

It should be noted that the threat-help pattern of the column is closely related to divices more generally spread through contemporary mass culture. Herta Herzog has pointed out in her study »On Borrowed Experience«¹¹ that the women's daytime serials or soap operas generally follow the formula »getting into trouble and out again,« a device which incidentally seems also to be valid for jazz which constantly employs and resolves some kind of »jam.« This formula is equally applicable to the astrological column. While there are continuous hints of conflict and unpleasantness, it implies that whoever is aware of these situations will somehow be taken care of.

There is a soothing overtone to the whole column: it seems to reassure the reader incessantly that »everything will be fine,« overcoming his apprehensions by establishing some magical confidence in the good turn of events.

... just keep your aims high, your goals clearly before you; then all's well.

(November 21, Pisces)

Remainder of day splendid in practically all ways.

(December 6, Leo)

... unless you realize that in the afternoon all tension will dissolve into happy feeling.

(December 31, Aries)

Within this general pattern of the happy ending, however, there is a specific difference of function between the column and other mass communications. Soap operas, television shows and above all movies are characterized by heroes, persons who positively or negatively solve their own problems. They stand vicariously for the spectator. By identifying himself with the hero, he believes to participate in the very power that is denied him in as much as he conceives himself as weak and dependent. While the column also works with identifications, they are organized differently. There are no heroic figures in the column, and only general hints of charismatic persons such as the mysterious creative and powerful people from outside who occasionally crop up and tender the reader invaluable aid. By and large, people are taken for what they are. True, their social status is, as will be demonstrated later, vicariously raised by the column, but their problems are not hidden behind an imagery of ruggedness or irresistibility – in this respect, the column seems more realistic than the supposedly artistic mass media.

For the column, the hero is replaced by either the heavenly signs or, more likely, by the omniscient columnist himself. Since the course of events is referred to as something pre-established, people will not have the feeling, still present in hero worship, that by identification with the hero, they may have to be heroic themselves. Their problems will be solved either automatically or with the help of others, particularly of those mysterious friends whose image recurs throughout the column, provided one only proves confident in the stars. Impersonal power thus replaces the personalized one of the heroes and is transferred to his more powerful superiors. It is as if the column would try to make up by its identification with the reader's actual psychological and reality situation of dependence for the unrealistic element of the dogmatic reference to the stars. The column indulges in a symbolic expression and psychological fortification of the pressure that is being continuously exercised upon people. They are simply to have confidence in that which is anyway. Fate, while being exalted as a metaphysical power, actually denotes the interdependence of anonymous social forces through which the people addressed by the column will somehow »muddle through.« The semi-irrationality of »everything will be fine« is based on the fact that modern American society in spite of all its conflicts and difficulties succeeds in reproducing the life of those whom it embraces. There is some dim awareness that the concept of the forgotten man is outdated. The column feeds on this awareness by teaching the readers not to be afraid of being weak. They are reassured that all their problems will solve themselves even if they feel that they themselves are unable to solve them. They are made to understand – and in a way rightly so – that the very same powers by which they are threatened, the anonymous totality of the social process, are also those which will somehow take care of them. Thus they are trained to identify themselves with the existent in abstracto rather than with heroic persons, to concede their own impotence, and are thereby allowed as a compensation to go on living without too much worrying. This promise, of course, is contingent upon their being »good boys« (or girls) who behave according to given standards, but who also allow themselves, for therapeutic reasons, as it were, that range of pleasure which they need in order not to collapse under the requirements of reality, or under the impact of their own urges.

It goes without saying that this is a remedy ultimately as problematic as the remedy offered by the movies though it may not be so obviously spurious. Life actually does not automatically take care of people. But it does to a certain extent and where it doesn't, insecurity and threats make people susceptible to unfounded promises. They do not only play a role in the individual's psychological household, but also fulfill the function of a conservative ideology, generally justifying the status quo. An order of existence which expresses the promise to take care of everyone, must be substantially good. Thus the column promotes social conformity in a deeper and more comprehensive sense than merely by inducing conformist behavior from case to case. It creates an atmosphere of social contentment.

This explains an outstanding peculiarity of the individual advice tendered by the column. It implies that all problems due to objective circumstances such as, above all, economic difficulties, can be solved in terms of private individual behavior or by psychological insight, particularly into oneself, but also into others.

This is indicative of a function popular psychology is nowadays assuming to an ever-increasing extent. While psychology, when really carried through, is a medium of insight into oneself, criticism of oneself and concomitantly insight and criticism of others, it can also play the role a social drug. In particular, objective difficulties which doubtlessly always have their subjective aspects and are partly rooted in the subjects, are presented as though they were completely due to the individual.¹² This alleviates any critical attitude, even that towards oneself, since the individual is provided with the narcissistic gratification that he is really all-important while at the same time being kept under control. While the world is not so bad, he is given to understand that somehow problems arise within his behavior and action alone. Finding the right approach to himself is regarded as a sufficient condition for relieving all difficulties, thus partly making up for the feeling of weakness from which the whole approach starts. The pat formula »everything depends on man« is not only a half truth, but really serves to cloak everything that materializes over the heads of people.

The column contains all the elements of reality and somehow catches the actual state of affairs but nevertheless constructs a distorted picture. On the one hand, the objective forces beyond the range of individual psychology and individual behavior are exempt from critique by being endowed with metaphysical dignity. On the other hand, one has nothing to fear from them if one only follows objective configurations through a process of adaptation. Thus the danger seems to lie exclusively within the power of the powerless individual whose superego is continuously appealed to.

Urge to tell off official would alienate helpful partner, so keep calm despite irritation: later material benefits will follow making more cooperative deal at home.

(November 10, Aries)

Sulking over disappointing act of influential executive merely puts you deeper in disfavor ...

(November 10, Scorpio)

Get away from that concern that seems to have no solution ...

(November 10, Sagittarius)

Your own A.M. fretfulness and lack of vision alone makes the morning unsatisfactory.

(November 11, Libra)

The constant appeal of the column to find fault with oneself rather than with given conditions, a subtle but highly objectionable modification of an element of modern depth-psychology, is only one aspect of the ideal of social conformity, promoted throughout the column and expressed by the implicit, but ubiquitous rule that one has to adjust oneself continuously to commands of the stars at a given time. While the problems of the individual spotted by the column denote, no matter how diluted and weak, areas in which everything is not well and in which the official optimism promulgated by the column meets some difficulties, the description of these problems and particularly the subsequent advice fulfill the function of re-establishing the established order, of enforcing conformity and keeping securely within the existent. Our asserting that the irrationality of the fate that dictates everything and of the stars that offer advice is really but a screen for society which both threatens the individual and grants it its livelihood, is borne out by the messages derived from the irrational source. They are indeed nothing but messages from the social status quo in the way it is conceived by the column. The over-all rule of the column is to enforce the requirements society makes on each individual so that it might »function.« The more irrational the requirements, the more they call for irrational justifications. Problems arising out of social conditions and antagonisms are reconciled by the column with social conventionality, and in this aim, threat and help converge. The column consists of an incessant battery of appeals to be »reasonable.« If the »unreasonable,« i.e., instinctual urges, are admitted at all, it is only for the sake of reasonableness, namely in order to make the individual function better according to the rules of conformity.

It has been noted in the discussion of the astrological magazines that their basic irrationality never leads to any renunciations of the normal, rational way of everyday behavior. This attitude, which, in the magazines, is complementary to sometimes wild fantasies, is the exclusive medium of the column. It strikes an unquestioning common-sense attitude, stresses accepted values and takes it for granted that this is a »competitive world« – whatever this may mean today – and that the only thing that really counts is success. Anything approaching the irresponsible is shunned, no connotation of the crank is tolerated. Here again the column is in harmony with the culture industry as a whole. The customary reference to »dream factory,« nowadays employed by the representatives of the movie industry themselves, contains only a half truth – it pertains only to the overt »dream content.« The message of the dream, however, the »latent dream idea« as promoted by motion pictures and television reverses that of actual dreams. It is an appeal to agencies of psychological control rather than an attempt to unfetter the unconscious. The idea of the successful, conforming, well-adjusted »average« citizen lurks even behind the fanciest technicolor fairy tale. Astrology is no exception to that rule. It does not teach its followers anything to which they are not accustomed by their daily experience; it only reinforces what they have been taught anyway consciously and unconsciously. The stars seem to be in complete agreement with the established ways of life and with the habits and institutions circumscribed by our age. The adage »be yourself« assumes an ironical meaning. The socially manipulated stimuli constantly aim at reproducing that frame of mind which is spontaneously engendered by the status quo itself. This attitude which would appear, if viewed merely rationalistically, as a »waste of effort,« is actually in line with psychological findings. Freud has stated repeatedly and emphatically that the effectiveness of psychological defenses is always of a precarious nature. If the satisfaction of instinctual urges is denied or postponed, they are rarely kept under reliable control, but are most of the time ready to break through if they find a chance. This readiness to break through is enhanced by the problematic nature of the rationality that recommends postponement of immediate wish-fulfillment for the sake of later permanent and complete gratifications. One is taught to give up immediate pleasures for the sake of a future which only too often fails to compensate for the pleasures one has renounced. Thus rationality does not always seem as rational as it claims to be. Hence the interest of hammering over and over again into people's heads ideas to which they are already conditioned but in which they can never fully believe. Hence also their readiness to embrace irrational panaceas in a world in which they have lost faith in the effectiveness of their own reason and in the rationality of the total setup.