Categories of Human Relationships
We conclude our analysis of the typical ideas and techniques of the column by mentioning a few of the most important categories of human relations as conceived by the column.
Family and Neighbors
The column's attitude towards the family is largely one of conventional, official optimism which does not admit that anything might be wrong with the addressee's closest ingroup. To be sure, there are tensions but it is assumed that basically everything is love and harmony. One might say that the true problems of the family are brought out only negatively, namely by an almost complete neglect of the internalized, affective aspects of family life – here everything is extroverted too, and the family is viewed either as a resource of help and comfort
... support comes from member of family to lighten present burdens.
(November 10, 1952, Leo)
or as a source of complaints and demands which one has to satisfy to a certain extent in order to have a tolerable life. Thus, certainly unconsciously, a picture of coldness is obtained due to the lack of anything like empathy with the others. The family is relegated to leisure time; in the bi-phasic organization of the column, it is mentioned almost exclusively with reference to P.M., in the same sphere in which the addressee is advised to fix his home or to go out.
In certain situations, the addressee is advised to give in to the family. Typical is the assumption that he might be inclined to spend beyond his means – possibly for pleasures such as alcohol and gambling. Since the wife is the one who, in the last analysis, has to manage with the budget, the addressee is being taught to talk over financial matters with her although she is rarely referred to as such but mainly in the more abstract term »the family,« perhaps in order not to make him feel henpecked. In this pattern, the family functions as the agent of social control of the addressee's instinctual urges. Following the same line, the caution of the wife, in talking over business matters, is sometimes supposed to prevent the husband from rebelling in his professional life and thus to endanger his job. Such bits of common sense are never stated in so many words, but in rather abstract terms allowing for various interpretations. Thus, the talking over of finances with the family might also serve the opposite purpose, namely of controlling the purse strings against the wife's inclination towards heavy spending. Here the wife, as »consumer« is regarded as more irrational than the husband as »provider.« Such apparent inconsistencies express fairly well the complexities of actual life situations. Anyway, the prevailing idea is that the family still is the only »team« knitted together by so strong common interests that one can rely on each other with little reservations and somehow make joint plans in order to cope successfully with a threatening and potentially hostile world. The family is constructed as a kind of protective organization built exclusively on the principle of give and take rather than as a spontaneous form of living together. This may well reflect certain structural changes in the modern family.35
Therefore, the addressee has to »calculate« very carefully his relationships with his family. He has to pay for the help and solidarity he expects. There is the ever-present threat of nagging and it is this point where the column tends to emphasize the »giving in,« by a cautious soft-pedalled behavior and continuous consideration of what might invite the family's wrath. In this respect the family often appears as a kind of a threatening archaic clan whose verdicts prevail over the dependent subject. Behind the idea of nagging there is the correct expectation that the division between the spheres of production and consumption, of work and leisure, never runs smoothly. The fact that life itself tends to become increasingly a mere appendix to the business that should serve life needs involves an absurdity with which even the supposedly well-adjusted cannot possibly get away without conflict. The wife's nagging is, without her being aware of it, a protest against a situation often aggravated because the man who has to »control himself« during working hours and to repress his aggressions is prone to let them loose against those who are close to him, but have less power than himself. The worldly wisdom of the column is quite aware of all this as well as of the fact that in such conflicts women are usually more naive than men and that the appeal to the latter's »reason« might help soften inevitable clashes.
Tense situation at home, unless you dissolve easily with a smile, effects relations with everyone else as well; forget hurt feelings; work to increase savings.
(November 14, 1952, Cancer)
... be very considerate at home where tension mounts if you display nervousness ...
(November 19, 1952, Taurus)
Use happy feeling early generated to charm loved ones into contentment.
(November 19, 1952, Leo)
Settle any arguments at home early; then make domicile more attractive for all there; later, discussing family finances, property matters brings better understanding.
Unsatisfactory family, property matter brings you big chance to show your ability to handle personal relations diplomatically, conscientiously. In P.M. plan budget.
(November 21, 1952, Cancer)
Make sure you are most understanding with members of family who are most distraught.
(November 22, 1952, Scorpio)
Their inevitability, the social reasons of which have been pointed out, is blamed upon the abstract time element, as though at some particular afternoon or evening trouble were brewing at home and that the addressee has to exercise particular self-control if he is to avoid a major quarrel. This, of course, reflects also the irrationality of the motives frequently leading to family flare-ups that occur in the wake of entirely insignificant events.
Apart from this appeasement policy, the addressee is encouraged to »take the family out« or to have a »wonderful time« with them by inviting friends, an advice often tendered on holidays when the addressee is likely to do something of the sort anyway. This advice reminds one of the vicarious attempts at institutionalizing pleasure and human closeness, somehow after the fashion of Valentine's Day, Mother's Day and Father's Day. Since it is felt, rightly or wrongly, that the warmth and closeness of the family is on the decline but since the family is retained for both realistic and ideological reasons, the emotional element of warmth and togetherness is rationalistically promoted just as a further means of smoothing out things and keeping the partners together while the actual basis for their common joie de vivre seems to have gone. The strange situation in which people have to be pushed in order to do what is supposedly natural – the idea that one has to send flowers to one's wife not because one feels an urge to do so, but because one is afraid of the scene she makes if one forgets the flowers – is mirrored by the empty and meaningless nature of the family activities which the columnist sets in motion. He seems to accept thoroughly the idea of »having a wonderful time« by going together to the movies or to a night club.
It might be asked how the column's family policy can be reconciled with our basic assumption that the real addressee is a middle-aged or elderly woman. To this it might be answered that the column, after it has set out to build up the image of a male addressee, has somehow to stick to its guns and to follow up this idea with a fair amount of consistency. No fully satisfactory explanation, however, seems available.
In connection with the family, the role of neighbors in the column should be mentioned. They certainly may be expected to be more important in the life of lower-middle-class people than in that of the fictitious successful businessman. It should not be forgotten however, that the column appears in an extremely large city in which social figures, such as the »neighbor,« characteristic of primary communities where everyone knows everyone else, are certainly atypical. While the notion of the neighbor may be a simple carry-over from the olden days of the fortune teller who thinks in such terms, it fulfills at the same time the timely function of conjuring up a picture of village-like traditionalism, non-commercial mutual interests and possibly even biblical memories of the neighbor who is like yourself, which all helps to reconcile socially and often also psychologically isolated persons with their lot. At the same time, it cannot be ruled out entirely that, as a heritage of the pioneering period in the semirural parts of Greater Los Angeles, the neighbor still somehow survives and that there is a positive tradition of neighborly contact and readiness to help each other in the Western United States.
Friends, Experts, Higher-ups
By far more important than the neighbors, in fact one of the most frequently mentioned topics of the column are the »friends.« Their continuous invocation is most conspicuous and calls for tentative explanation even if one assumes that the term »friend« has come to be vastly diluted and is often used as a mere synonym for acquaintance.
More than anything else, the role of the friend in the column may be a carry-over of the crystal-gazer. Astrology's basic assumption of »friendly« and »hostile« conjunctions seems to conjure up human messengers of those powers. But this leaves open why so much is made of the friends while little or nothing is made of the foes. It might be remembered here that one of the most important facets of superstition – direct threat, terrorizing people by some unknown danger and thus inducing them to obey blindly – occurs in the material selected very rarely. One has the feeling that the friend-foe dichotomy, which by itself would fit very well into the bi-phasic approach and into a paranoid way of thinking has been subjected to some special censorship and that only the friends have been allowed to survive.
The most important function of the friends in the column may be similar to an image often to be found in fortune-telling by cards where someone unexpected turns up and exercises the greatest influence. The friends come from outside, perhaps on account of the columnist's underlying construct that the addressee is unconsciously antagonistic to the family that is generally treated, on an overt level, in stubbornly optimistic terms. They suddenly appear and heap benefits upon the addressee, either by giving him sound advice leading to an increase of his income
Vital friend gladly shows you how to enlarge joint venture with limited partner so that better results are produced to mutual advantage; show appreciation by trying suggestions.
(November 12, 1952, Pisces)
Contact optimistic friends who can aid your advance ...
(November 22, 1956, Aries)
or by forthright donations
... a good friend bestows unique benefit.
(November 10, 1952, Virgo)
Making definite, concrete plan with partners, in public work, brings influential friends, support, so success easily obtained.
(November 10, 1952, Cancer)
or by appointments to influential jobs
Purposeful friend, eager to see you succeed, brings opportunity for you to attain cherished goal ...
(November 17, 1952, Capricorn)
Faithful friends look on you with much favor, seeking to find the answer to your present perplexities, which come from expanding your consciousness to higher ambitions now.
(November 18, 1952, Aquarius)
... later enjoying congenial amusement with serious comrade clears path for successful association.
(November 19, 1952, Cancer)
... get together with attractive friends who are anxious to aid your advance forward.
(November 19, 1952, Pisces)
The general assumption is an extreme expression of dependency needs: the addressee is invariably advised to follow his friends and is made to understand that they are stronger than he, know better than he, but will take care of him.
Recent, highly active friend believes in you, shows your partner how to utilize your talents to greater degree, more constructive and effective use.
(November 26, 1952, Gemini)
Careful, precise friends and potent partners combine to make your life more successful. Let them confer favors without interfering with their sensible course of action.
A generous companion, eager for your advancement, asks good friends to study new ways to forward your scientific, educational and spiritual aims.
(January 3, 1953, Aquarius)
Others have the power to make your life a success or failure according to the way you handle and impress them with your financial, practical abilities.
(January 7, 1953, Aquarius)
At the same time, potential anxieties and hostilities associated with dependence are removed: the image of those on whom the addressee depends is unequivocally positive. This is the easier, the more they are outsiders: the less he knows their shortcomings. The parasitic aspect of dependency is brought out by the continuous reference to benefits to be expected from them. An attempt is made to transform narcissistic losses into the gain of getting rid of the burden of autonomous responsibility and, possibly, adding some masochistic gratifications.
Viewed from this angle, reference to the friends again comes close to the »identification with the aggressor.« In fact it may be said that frequently the friends are but rather thin cloaks for the »higher-ups,« just as the family is a »screen« for the wife. The rationality of business relations is transfigured into love relationships in which the same ones one has to fear are those who mean one's best and whom therefore one has to love – an obvious transference from the Oedipal situation. Sociologically, it feeds on the awareness that everyone is replaceable in the economic process. The addressee is expected to feel that he is allowed to fulfill his social function as a kind of irrational benefaction given to the undeserving son by an ever-loving father. The directive given to the underling by his superior is interpreted as though it were given merely in order to help the underling in his failures and weaknesses – an infantile personalization of objectified relationships.
... consult with influential friend about your progress.
(November 22, 1952, Cancer)
... influential friend gives good pointer for securing wish, goal.
(December 1, 1952, Cancer)
Powerful friend really goes out of way to give you big shove forward, by explaining how he became successful, which can also apply to your choicest hopes. Be attentive.
(December 8, 1952, Cancer)
Powerful person unites in confidential arrangement to aid your advance forward toward practical ambitions.
(December 26, 1952, Gemini)
Prominent friends, realizing your most out-giving talents, abilities present interesting arrangement for bringing them to attention of all able to bring you success. Cooperate.
Much conversation with an official or associate, especially at a social function or sporting event, reveals your talents so that real support is quickly given.
(January 3, 1953, Gemini)
Executive, or responsible higher-up, if contacted by you will show right way to increase and expand present outlets.
(January 3, 1953, Capricorn)
An influential associate, in mood to forward your basic needs, shows how you can utilize each hour of the day to best advantage.
(January 5, 1953, Cancer)
A prominent person, more practical than you, willingly gives you good counsel, so listen attentively and follow this improved plan of action.
(January 10, 1953, Aries)
A powerful man readily gives you a bright new course of action if you evidence interest. Show your gratitude by following it carefully.
(January 10, 1953, Taurus)
Here again, the column tends to reinforce guilt feelings, compulsive patterns and various other unconscious motivations instead of working against them. It tends to make the socially dependent even more dependent psychologically. But all this does not exhaust the implications of the column's idea of the friend. The very vagueness of the term allows for its psychological utilization in various directions. One of them is the personalization of society at large. The column is incessantly concerned with the addressee's compliance with social norms. Their impact can be mitigated again if they do not appear on an objective but personal level somewhat reminiscent of the role of the raisonneur in the older comedy. Thus disinterested friends convey to the addressee what has to be done and what is best for him. They are like him, possibly involving the imagery of himself as well as of siblings on an unconscious level. It seems quite possible that this function of the friend in the implicit ideology of the column is related to significant changes in the pattern of authoritarianism which no longer invests real father figures with authority but replaces them by collectivities. The image of the friend invokes a collective authority consisting of all those who are like himself, but who know better since they are not beset by the same worries. There is something like the idea of the »Big Brother« as the ultimate authority of totalitarian states, as developed in Orwell's 1984, involved in the concept of the friends of the astrological column. Erik H. Erikson has developed the idea in psychoanalytic terms.
The friends do not enforce anything, but they reveal to the addressee, as it were, that he, in his very isolation, is nevertheless one of them, that he is not isolated at all and that the irrational benefactions they offer him are those offered by the social process itself. This picture of the messenger of society is of course easily fused with that of the higher-up who, inasmuch as he appeals to duty, is almost invariably a representative of superego demands.
... influential man shows right way to adopt in daily living.
(November 23, 1952, Aries)
As to the friends as projections of the addressee himself, it stands out that in most cases, they represent his supposedly well-understood self-interest in a chemically pure form. It is as though his dialogue with himself when it comes to conflicts would be projected in such a way that he himself is permitted to speak like a child while his »adult« part, his ego, »speaks« to him reassuringly rather than threateningly as a friend inasmuch as it represents rationality against the momentary urges for pleasure. Yet at the same time, the friends also function in a way for the sake of his id by supposedly fulfilling desires which we may assume he would not dare fulfill himself. It is as though they were telling him, the child: »If you do what we tell you, if you only will be good, we will give you anything you want to have.«
Two characteristics of the »friends« may be mentioned in this connection. First, they are often though not always introduced in the plural, which may perhaps be interpreted as sign of their representing either siblings or society at large. Lack of individualization, the notion that everybody can replace everybody else, is also conspicuous. Secondly, the image of the friend is sometimes substituted by that of the stranger or »interesting foreigner,« particularly when irrational promises and unexpected gains are concerned. While, on a more overt level, this may reflect the boredom of normal everyday life and resentment of the closed circle of people whom the addressee knows, the figure of the stranger, strongly affect-laden, may play a magical role and may help somehow to overcome suspicion of irrational promises by making their source as irrational as the promises themselves are. Incidentally, only the positive aspect of the stranger is emphasized while the negative one, like all hostility, is entirely repressed by the column. In depth-psychological reasoning one might assume that the kind of person talked to by the column is very in-groupish and does not permit himself any »exogamic« wishes. The mysterious stranger takes care of such repressed urges. It is remarkable, however, that no traces of xenophobia, quite common in astrological magazines, appear in the column. This may best be explained by its »moderation.« Only the family background device suggests leanings of this kind. Finally the friend as a stranger may be symbolic of the very fact that an estranged society speaks, as it were, to the addressee.
All these implications lead towards the expectation of some ambivalence toward the friends. It is given vent by the column rather subtly. There is a continuous distinction between »old« and »new« friends and the positive accent is surprisingly enough regularly on the new ones.
You really want to tell off, force issue with one able to take away your present prestige; instead discuss with unusual associate best way to placate.
(November 10, 1952, Capricorn)
Good friend, in distress, looks to you for answer to present obligations; making new acquaintances takes you out of doldrums, brings surprise outlet for your talents.
(November 10, 1952, Pisces)
... make new acquaintances tonight.
(November 18, 1952, Sagittarius)
... make new acquaintances; listen to understand their methods of attaining success.
(November 19, 1952, Taurus)
Early get out in world, make new friends of those different in background ...
(November 19, 1952, Sagittarius)
... contact recent acquaintances for best use.
(November 20, 1952, Taurus)
Your creative expressions please recent acquaintances who give you opportunity for added avenues, unknown before ...
(November 20, 1952, Virgo)
They to whom one is not yet accustomed, have something of the stranger and foreigner with whom they are sometimes directly identified. At least they are exciting and somehow promise pleasure; in a setup of standardization and threatening sameness, the idea of the unusual per se, is positively cathected. But above all, they fit within the present. Conversely, the old friends are at least occasionally presented as a burden, as people who are demanding and who somehow draw unwarranted claims from a relationship that actually belongs to the past.
Forget working angles with close companions; get out in the world ...
(November 13, 1952, Capricorn)
Old desires, old acquaintances seem for the moment pretty unsatisfactory ...
(November 14, 1952, Sagittarius)
Ridding life of sinister acquaintance makes more assets obtainable ...
Harassed friends try to pull you down to their level; ambitions seem long way off ...
(November 21, 1952, Sagittarius)
They might be tolerable as »pals« in good days, but the addressee should never take them too seriously, should not allow himself to be involved too deeply with them and is sometimes warned of them outright. Here we might get a glimpse into a strong appeal of the column as well as of the atmosphere of which it is expressive: the rejection of the past. Anything that is no longer »there,« that is no longer a fact is treated as absolutely nonexistent, in the words of Mephistopheles, »as good as if it had never been there,« and to be concerned with the past means only to be distracted from the tasks of the day. In spite of conventional morality and decency, the idea of loyalty is basically rejected by the column: what does not prove useful right here and now is to be abandoned. By applying this method to the »old friends«, the hostile phase of the relationship to the friends is rationalized and channelized in a way suitable to the column's over-all pattern of streamlined adjustment. Good are the friends who help you or at least band with you in order to reach some positive goal; the others are really relics of the past, exploit situations which are no longer valid, are therefore moralistically punished and left alone. Such traits reveal something of the cold undercurrent of the slick ideology promoted by the column.36
Sometimes the column refers the addressee to the advice of the »expert.« The »expert« is a kind of in-between the higher-up (or society-at-large) and the closeness of the friend. While he is evaluated on the grounds of his objective merits as the man with the know-how, he is at the same time represented as being above vested interests, solely motivated by his objective knowledge of the matter itself and thus his advice is sugar-coated. The idea of the expert itself has gradually obtained a quasi-magical connotation, of which the column is well aware. Through universal division of labor and extreme specialization he is not solely someone who has gathered special knowledge of some matter, but knowledge which other people, the non-experts, cannot master and in which they nevertheless have to trust implicitly since expertness is supposed to be based exclusively on rational processes. Thus the expert has gradually grown into the magus of the rationalized world whose authority has to be accepted unquestioningly without violating the taboo set upon blind authority. Since the column has continuously to reckon with the conflict between irrational authoritarian wants and needs and a rationalistic cultural veneer, the figure of the expert serves it very well.
Unnecessary to try to carry all burdens alone; consult with experts, more experienced than self ...
(November 12, 1952, Gemini)
Behind-scenes huddle with personal expert with finances shows way to increase your assets.
(November 17, 1952, Sagittarius)
Get off with expert who is able to advise best methods to handle tense family problems requiring new approach ...
(November 20, 1952, Aquarius)
... be economical in expenditures, co-operative with tax-experts.
(November 22, 1952, Libra)
The key figures in all personal relations as viewed by the column are the higher-ups, the bosses, both in their capacity in business life and in their psychological role of father substitutes; it is a safe guess that a very high percentage of all references to humans contained in the column, even if veiled by some of the categories so far discussed, actually refers to the higher-ups. Thus, during a sample period from November 10 to November 22 the categories of human beings mentioned by the column can be broken down as follows:
Category Number of times mentioned
Strangers 1
Neighbor 2
Family 35
Friend 53 overlapping
Higher-Up 48 overlapping
Of course, they are treated more ambivalently and bi-phasically than the »friends.« On the one hand, they are a continuous threat mainly because they want some »accounting«; one has obligations towards them often beyond one's capacity, and has to obey them. But they are also blamed on a personal level for being pompous, pretentious and whatnot. Both threats, however, are mitigated, the objective one by reference either to the moral right or to the better insight of the higher-ups, their whims and irrationalities by the implication that they too have their worries, their inner problems which call for understanding, or, that they are simply ridiculous inasmuch as they are pompous or inflated personalities. Thus conflicts appear as though they need not be taken too seriously.
... harassed higher-up who needs your perseverance to complete tough assignment ...
(November 14, 1952, Capricorn)
Annoyance over drudgeries eased by aiding worried associate with harder problems ...
(November 16, 1952, Gemini)
Often the friend's power is invoked as mitigating intermediary, softening up the higher-ups or taking the strain out of the relation.
... painstaking friend cooperates with associates to bring your wish.
(November 11, 1952, Scorpio)
... good friend willingly gives pointers best way you can secure personal ambitions.
(November 17, 1952, Aquarius)
The attitude toward the higher-ups recommended to the addressee is practically without exception that of giving in and respecting the hierarchical order. One of the favorite suggestions is to placate the higher-ups, the way a child would act towards his parents when they are »cross.« The emphasis is less on the fulfillment of duties per se as it is on a shrewd and flexible psychological attitude. The higher-ups must be »treated« skillfully, if one wants to keep in their good graces. In a genuinely hierarchical fashion, the relationship is depicted as that of the court favorite who wants to ingratiate himself with the princeling rather than to do his work satisfactorily.
... keep steadfast in impressing higher-up with your innate abilities.
(November 10, 1952, Aquarius)
... increase prestige by aiding officials, executives to make their jobs more successful.
(November 13, 1952, Aquarius)
At times the ungrumbling attitude towards superiors takes the paradoxical aspect of bribery. The weaker is supposed to invite the stronger, to take him out and to indulge in similar ventures in order to, as it is put euphemistically, achieve a satisfactory human relationship.37
... invite powerful persons into your home.
(December 13, 1952, Leo)
... bring into open your appreciation of higher-ups.
(December 24, 1952, Taurus)
Attend a distinguished party or gathering; entertain influential individuals if time permits.
(January 13, 1953, Capricorn)
Invite influential higher-ups to party and impress with your abilities.
(January 18, 1953, Libra)
It is as though the notion of neo-feudalism which lurks in the back of the columnist's mind, would carry with itself the association of the serfs paying tribute to the master – an idea equally retrogressive socially and psychologically. Of course, the rationalization is always the egalitarian one that the higher-up and the addressee are socially on an equal footing and that the latter can invite his boss without any hesitation. The hint that such service will be appreciated is rarely absent.
This idea is in accordance with the other pole of the bi-phasic approach to the higher-up. If the friends are often mere cloaks of the superiors, the higher-ups are frequently presented as friends somewhat reminiscent of a stern and demanding father who would use the intervals of his tyranny in order to assure his kids that he is their best friend and oppresses them only for their own sake. This goes together with a glorification of the image of the higher-up whose position of success is supposed to be the result of his innate qualities, as though those who have the office had also the brain: Wem Gott ein Amt gibt, dem gibt er auch den Verstand (On whom God bestows an office, he also bestows intelligence). Thus hierarchical relationships are mirrored by the column in an apologetic and fetishistic manner.
Friends, partners, opponents will listen with reason to any intelligent plan you submit, for they are open-minded, willing to replace hard-headed attitude with joint arrangement.
(December 2, 1952, Aries)
Executive, official very exact about every detail irks your lofty aims but shows right way for you to attain worldly honor, popularity, credit ...
Meticulous executive, higher-up shows how routines can be expanded wisely.
(December 8, 1952, Sagittarius)
A »dressing down« by executive, official or government is fine for it shows you how you are now faring financially.
(January 10, 1953, Aquarius)
Often simple prestige terms such as »important personality« are employed in order to add a halo to the higher-ups' more favorable position.
... influential executive.
(November 10, 1952, Scorpio)
... influential executive.
(November 26, 1952, Aries)
... prominent persons ...
(December 22, 1952, Libra)
... prominent person ...
(December 24, 1952, Capricorn)
... driving, important person ...
(January 22, 1952, Gemini)
The more generalized attitude to be derived from the dependent, shrewdly meek attitude towards the higher-ups is one of general reconciliation, particularly of placating opponents, of »playing up« to them. The columnist figures that to a degree everybody fails to live up to his duties and lays himself open to some kind of scolding either by an insatiable superior or by a nagging wife. Whenever the reader runs into such difficulties, he should, according to the column, not allow things to come to a head, but rather to seek a way out of it by taking a conciliatory attitude, talking in a friendly manner and winning over opponents who might finally be his best friends. The idea of talking plays an important role in this respect. This is a final corroboration of the weight of orality within the psychological concept of the column. The addressee is encouraged to speak, speaking itself being a hybrid between a passive giving-in attitude and the aggressive impulses to »speak up against somebody.« This advice is the more promising since the oppressed really want to speak in the depth of their heart but have to repress this wish. An attempt is being made to put this urge into the service of realism and conformity.
The net result of the practice furthered by the column is that conflicts should either be altogether avoided or settled by clever meekness – in fact, by a behavior reminiscent of that of the woman who wants to get the better of the man on whom she depends. By contrast, there are no concrete references to autonomous and independent behavior.