Love Signs,Anyone?
What draws so many of us,despite our better judgment,to scan the daily horoscopes?
What draws so many of us,despite our better judgment,to scan the daily horoscopes?
Whens your birthday? and What sign are you? are commonly considered questions on the level of Whats your favourite colour? I might disavow it around most people,and even pretend not to know what months make someone a Sagittarius or a Scorpio,but I do notice and file away. And Im mildly interested,even.
Like most people in our disenchanted world,I dont believe the stuff. We wouldnt seek out astrologers or consult almanacs for daily decisions,but if its in the paper,we might flick through and find the daily horoscope.
Though astrologers dont make the slightest attempt to establish the link between the skies and that annoying co-worker or the new crush in accounting,youre supposed to hang up your disbelief. You conspire in the fiction because its fun to read about yourself. Its the same impulse that makes people submit to quizzes that ask if youre a Jackie or a Marilyn,an explorer or a builder,an INTP or an ESFJ. Were all just variations on a few big themes 12,if the zodiac is to be believed.
The curmudgeonly sociologist Theodor Adorno devoted a long monograph to the regular horoscopes column in the Los Angeles Times,calling it mass-produced secondary superstition,part of the oppressive culture industry that lulls you into passivity and acceptance the way religion once did. The stars dazzle you into ignoring social conditions,absorb your anxieties,and foster dependence,even as you playfully acknowledge their irrationality.
Another person who takes astrology very,very seriously is atheist-provocateur Richard Dawkins. It is not a bit of a giggle,it is a wicked fraud and an aesthetic affront to the real wonder of astronomy,he says. Plus,he points out,only planets can go retrograde,constellations shift shape anyway,and everything jiggled around a lot since Ptolemy first codified the sky. So it sucks that self-respecting newspapers devote space to this drivel instead of an extra science column. Dawkins approvingly recounts a story of someone who,when asked what sign he was,said I am a do-not-disturb sign.
Since Im neither religious nor determinedly rational,Im like flypaper for random superstitions. I half-believe many impossible things before breakfast. Ive asked pointed questions of online oracles and tarot readers,take iChing and fortune cookies seriously. I even went to a psychic in New York,a blowsy woman in a housedress named Donna who made absolutely no attempt at mystique,and promised to find my soulmate for another 20. It was a depressing experience.
Then again,when youre in need or crisis of any sort,you turn to magical thinking. You search for the code behind those few innocuous sentences,you force-fit the words to your life. And sometimes,it makes stunning sense. Which is why,even if I know that a horoscope section is fudged and the predictions randomly shuffled,I can still find the meaning. My favourite astrologer for uplift and wit is Jonathan Cainer. When asked about astrologys 12 pigeonholes,he glibly says,If it is possible to generalise about American or middle-class people,why not about Geminis?
But then again,what we talk about when we talk about astrology is a calculated,commercialised insult to the art. Sun signs are just one little sidelight that have now taken over everything,because of a British wise guy called RH Naylor who was asked to write up a few thoughts for the infant Princess Margaret. The first astrology column traces its antiquity to 1930,when Naylor decided to simplify everything into a 12-part sun sign reading for The Sunday Express,London. After a couple of correct predictions on politics,and a flood of readers who hung upon his words,not having an astrology column became the radical act for most newspapers.
In this country,Linda Goodman is the woman who introduced houses and squares and oppositions into our lives. She sold more than 100 million copies in the past 40 years. Sprinkling her sun sign readings with gnomic epigrams from Peter Pan and Alice,her Sun Signs and Love Signs are probably the most psychological complexity many of her readers will ever contend with. And they were admittedly fun,at15. I was a bit bummed out about her lame assessment of Cancer,but then I discovered I was a Metal Monkey in the Chinese zodiac,which helped my self-image somewhat.
The stars may no longer be something to navigate by,but theyre still nice to look at.
amulya.gopalakrishnanexpressindia.com