Volume 1 no 1.
Martin Bauer[1] and John Durant[2]
Abstract.
Social
scientists have suggested several different hypotheses to account for the
prevalence of belief in astrology among certain sections of the public in modern
times. It has been proposed: (1) that as an elaborate and systematic belief
system, astrology is attractive to people with intermediate levels of scientific
knowledge [the superficial knowledge hypothesis]; (2) that belief in astrology
reflects a kind of ‘metaphysical unrest’ that is to be found amongst those
with a religious orientation but little or no integration into the structures of
organized religion, perhaps as a result of ‘social disintegration’
consequent upon the collapse of community or upon social mobility [the
metaphysical unrest hypothesis]; and (3) that belief in astrology is prevalent
amongst those with an ‘authoritarian character’ [authoritarian personality
hypothesis].
The paper tests these hypotheses against the results of British survey
data from 1988. The evidence appears to support variants of hypotheses (1) and
(2), but not hypothesis (3). It is proposed that serious interest or involvement
in astrology is not primarily the result of a lack of scientific knowledge or
understanding; rather, it is a compensatory activity with considerable
attractions to segments of the population whose social world is labile or
transitional; belief in astrology may be an indicator of the disintegration of
community and its concomitant uncertainties and anxieties. Paradoxical as it may
appear, astrology may be part and parcel of late modernity.
