Nicholas Campion and Liz Greene’s Astrologies: Plurality and Diversity in the History of Astrology does not merely document the historical plurality of astrology—it advocates for it as a virtue. The book argues that astrology’s evolving, culturally adaptive nature is one of its greatest strengths, positioning pluralism as an essential feature rather than a challenge to be resolved. By drawing parallels with modern disciplines that embrace multiple frameworks, such as literary theory, philosophy, and alchemy, the authors suggest that astrology thrives precisely because it resists singular definitions.
This is a historically valid claim—astrology has undeniably manifested in different forms across civilizations, adapting to various cosmologies and epistemologies. However, what the book fails to address is the epistemological crisis that arises from this diversity: If astrology is merely a cultural construct, does it still retain any claim to objective validity?
This is the core issue—not whether pluralism exists, but whether it strengthens or weakens astrology’s credibility.
The book does not ask the most pressing question: Is this pluralism a strength or an intellectual crisis? Does it enrich astrology, or does it dilute its legitimacy? If every approach is equally valid, does astrology still function as a structured system of knowledge, or does it dissolve into an interpretative free-for-all where meaning is endlessly fluid and unfalsifiable?
In prioritizing cultural relativism and postmodern inclusivity, the book risks sacrificing what astrology must ultimately aim toward—a coherent, structured system that describes reality rather than merely reflecting cultural perspectives.
If astrology is to be taken seriously as a metaphysical and epistemological system, can it remain an assortment of conflicting approaches? If it claims to describe the relationship between time, consciousness, and celestial motion, can it afford to be infinitely flexible in its principles?
By examining the book’s key arguments and quoting critical sections, we will engage with its ideas while interrogating whether its framework preserves or undermines astrology as a legitimate and structured discipline.
1. The Reality of Astrological Pluralism and Its Epistemological Consequences
Campion and Greene introduce their position early on:
“The conference title, ‘Astrologies,’ was designed to reflect the growing scholarly realization that it is impossible to talk about astrology as a monolithic entity, unchanged since ancient times and the same from culture to culture. It is increasingly apparent that under the general rubric of astrology there are competing methodologies, a diversity of techniques, and a variety of underlying philosophies.”
This statement is factually accurate. Astrology has never been a single system—the methods of Babylonian omens, Hellenistic natal charts, Indian Jyotisha, Islamic astrology, Renaissance Christian adaptations, and modern psychological astrology differ significantly in their premises, techniques, and objectives. However, the crucial question that Campion and Greene do not explore is whether this pluralism is a strength or a fundamental weakness.
Unlike philosophy or literature, where interpretative pluralism enriches discourse, astrology purports to describe an objective relationship between celestial events and human experience. If different astrologers claim contradictory meanings for the same planetary configurations, astrology risks becoming a subjective interpretative tool rather than a system of structured knowledge.
The authors draw an analogy with other intellectual traditions:
“For example, Paul Walker speaks of ‘Platonisms’ in Arabic Philosophy, referring to specific concepts that were borrowed from Plato without direct reception of his works.”
This is an imprecise analogy. Philosophy, as a discipline, accommodates multiple frameworks because it is an inquiry into truth, not a structured method of interpreting external reality. Astrology, on the other hand, makes definite claims about causation (or synchronicity) between celestial and terrestrial phenomena. If these claims are to hold epistemological weight, they cannot be arbitrarily flexible.
Thus, our critique is not that Campion and Greene are wrong in describing pluralism, but that they fail to address the necessity of coherence if astrology is to function as a legitimate knowledge system.
2. The Absence of Methodological Standards: Subjectivity as a Crisis
One of the most pressing issues in astrology today is the lack of a standardized methodology. Modern astrology is largely intuitive and interpretative, which leads to a proliferation of contradictions.
The book does not critically engage with this issue but rather embraces astrology’s evolving nature as a feature, not a problem:
“There is a good deal of overlap between them, as it is impossible to explore a complex cultural expression such as astrology as though one could entirely separate philosophy and metaphysics from practice, history from historiography, or symbolism from social context.”
While this is historically and anthropologically valid, it does not address the practical consequence of astrology lacking agreed-upon standards.
Today, we see examples such as:
One astrologer claims Rahu is where the magic happens, while another treats Rahu as pure illusion and distortion.
Some astrologers give Pluto a central role, while others (especially traditional Jyotishis) ignore it entirely.
Retrograde planets are seen as afflicted by some and empowered by others.
If all of these views are equally valid, then none of them are valid—a field that allows infinite variation without constraints cannot function as a coherent system of knowledge.
Campion and Greene do not address this epistemological crisis.
This fragmentation is not an abstract issue—it has led to contradictory interpretations that create confusion for both practitioners and clients. One astrologer claims Saturn in the 7th house means delayed marriage, another insists it signifies deep karmic relationships, while yet another says it brings a responsible partner. One astrologer sees Venus retrograde as a romantic catastrophe, another as an opportunity for introspection, and another dismisses it as irrelevant. If astrology has no shared interpretative standard, can it still claim to be a structured system of knowledge? Or does it simply become an interpretative free-for-all, indistinguishable from storytelling?
Instead, they describe astrology’s diversity without questioning whether this diversity compromises astrology’s intellectual integrity.
3. The Challenge of Medical Astrology and the Need for Reproducibility
One of the clearest examples of why astrology must move beyond pluralism is medical astrology, which requires precision, diagnostic reliability, and a framework that aligns with empirical realities.
The book discusses astrology’s historical role in healing:
“Jay Johnston's illuminating investigation into the relationship between astrological practice and healing focuses on a particular current within contemporary astrologies, concerned with the healing of the body/psyche through the sympathetic connections between the individual's 'subtle bodies' and the heavenly bodies.”
While this perspective is interesting from an esoteric standpoint, it does not address the necessity of standardization for medical astrology to function in any meaningful way. If different astrologers assign different planetary rulerships to diseases and bodily functions, how can astrology be used for medical diagnosis?
Until astrology establishes a clear and reproducible framework, medical astrology will remain a speculative practice rather than a legitimate diagnostic tool.
4. The Risk of Reducing Astrology to Cultural Relativism
The book consistently justifies astrology’s diversity through historical contextualization:
“Since no astrology can be studied without its cultural context, such research requires not only an understanding of the particular astrology under examination, but also a sense of the history and development of the philosophical, religious, and social alignments in which the specific work or individual is embedded.”
This approach, while useful for historical analysis, raises a deep epistemological problem:
If astrology is purely a product of culture, then what makes it different from mythology or folklore?
If astrology has no universal metaphysical foundation, then does it describe reality or simply reflect cultural constructs?
The danger of this perspective is that it reduces astrology to an artifact of history rather than a system of knowledge.
5. Can There Be One Astrology?
Unlike religion, where multiple interpretations of divinity can coexist, astrology deals with the nature of time, consciousness, and celestial influence—concepts that cannot be endlessly pluralistic if astrology is to be epistemologically valid.
The authors never engage with the question of whether astrology must ultimately be unified:
“The question of whether astrology is a metaphysical truth or a cultural construction is one that scholars have yet to fully address.”
This is a significant omission. If astrology is merely a cultural construct, then it is not a metaphysical system but a symbolic language that varies arbitrarily.
Thus, our critique is not that Campion and Greene are wrong to document astrology’s diversity, but that they do not engage with the implications of this diversity for astrology’s intellectual legitimacy.
6. The Problem of No Accountability: How Pluralism Enables Distortion
One of the most dangerous consequences of an unstructured, pluralistic astrology is that it removes any form of accountability from astrologers. The more subtle a field is, the easier it becomes for errors to go unnoticed. This is not just an abstract philosophical concern—it has real-world implications for those who rely on astrology for guidance.
To illustrate this, we can compare astrology to other fields:
Carpentry → If a carpenter makes a mistake, the flaw is immediately visible—a crooked table, a misaligned frame. The material reality of wood does not allow deception.
Medicine → If a doctor makes a mistake, it takes a few days for the consequences to emerge—an infection, a complication, a worsening condition. The body exposes the error with time.
Psychoanalysis → If a psychoanalyst makes an interpretative error, it might take weeks, months, or even years before the consequences are realized—patients may internalize faulty narratives or make poor life decisions based on misinterpretation.
Astrology → If an astrologer makes a mistake, no one ever knows. There are no direct consequences, no feedback loop, no immediate verification. The astrologer can reinterpret, shift the meaning, blame the individual’s “karma,” or invoke a different planetary influence to justify their error.
This lack of accountability creates a system where anything can be justified, and where no astrologer ever has to take responsibility for incorrect analysis. Unlike a scientist who must refine hypotheses based on empirical feedback, an astrologer is not forced to confront error—because error itself is often untraceable.
In the absence of empirical scrutiny, astrology becomes a field where narratives are shaped in hindsight rather than verified in foresight. This is why pluralism, left unchecked, enables not just intellectual inconsistency but the possibility of manipulation.
How Pluralism Enables Manipulation
This problem is magnified in a field where multiple competing astrologies exist without any standardized framework. If an astrologer makes an incorrect prediction or diagnosis, they can:
Switch frameworks → If one system fails, they can retreat into another (e.g., "Western astrology didn’t show this, but Vedic astrology explains it!").
Reframe the interpretation → If an event didn’t happen as predicted, the meaning can be reinterpreted retroactively.
Invoke esoteric justifications → If an analysis is wrong, one can blame hidden karmic forces, past-life influences, or unseen planetary subtleties that “aren’t in the chart.”
This erodes astrology’s credibility and turns it into a non-falsifiable belief system, rather than a structured metaphysical science.
The Ethical Implications of Zero Consequences
When there is no responsibility, there is no integrity. The absence of clear consequences allows:
Astrologers to give irresponsible advice → Clients may make life-altering decisions based on astrology, yet there are no ethical guidelines to regulate practitioners.
A culture of intellectual dishonesty → If no one is ever held accountable, astrology becomes an arena of persuasive rhetoric rather than genuine inquiry.
The proliferation of charlatanism → Since no astrologer has to prove the validity of their interpretations, the field is overrun by speculation disguised as expertise.
This is precisely why astrology must move beyond pluralism and establish a structured, coherent framework—to ensure astrologers are responsible for what they say, and astrology itself is protected from becoming an arbitrary, self-justifying belief system.
Moving Beyond Descriptive Pluralism Toward Intellectual Coherence
Campion and Greene’s book does not merely document astrology’s plurality—it builds a case for why this plurality should be embraced as a strength. In doing so, it aligns itself with a postmodernist relativism that, while valuing inclusivity, ultimately undermines astrology’s potential as a legitimate epistemology. The authors suggest that astrology, like other cultural expressions, must be understood within its historical and social contexts, resisting the idea of a single, structured system. But in their pursuit of honoring cultural diversity, they fail to recognize that not all frameworks can be equally valid if astrology is to function as a coherent system of knowledge.
If astrology is to move beyond a collection of subjective narratives, it must:
Reject cultural relativism as a substitute for intellectual rigor → While historical context is important, astrology cannot remain indefinitely fluid without losing its claim to describing objective structures of time, consciousness, and causality.
Prioritize a unified methodological foundation → A system that allows for contradictory interpretations under the guise of diversity is not a science, nor even a structured metaphysical discipline—it is an open-ended language game with no internal consistency.
Recognize that pluralism without epistemological discipline leads to incoherence → Simply embracing multiple astrologies does not resolve astrology’s credibility crisis—it exacerbates it. Astrology must distinguish valid principles from culturally contingent symbolism that has no underlying metaphysical basis.
Without these measures, astrology remains a fragmented tradition rather than a structured field of knowledge.
To establish itself as a legitimate epistemology, astrology must also implement:
Accountability mechanisms → This includes structured training, professional oversight, and empirical case studies to ensure astrological claims meet intellectual and ethical standards.
Falsifiability criteria → A system where any interpretation can be retroactively justified is indistinguishable from superstition. Astrology must develop testable principles that differentiate verifiable knowledge from arbitrary assertion.
Limits on interpretative flexibility → Not every astrologer’s personal intuition should carry equal weight. Methods that do not produce verifiable results must be discarded in favor of those that do.
Campion and Greene’s commitment to cultural relativism over epistemological rigor leads them to sacrifice what astrology must ultimately aim toward—a system that is not just an object of historical study but a structured discipline capable of describing reality. Their reluctance to interrogate astrology’s internal contradictions leaves astrology in a precarious position: one where it can continue to exist as a cultural phenomenon, but never establish itself as a coherent science of time, psyche, and fate.
If astrology does not confront these problems, it risks being permanently relegated to the realm of belief rather than knowledge, intuition rather than structure, and entertainment rather than metaphysics. Without epistemological discipline, astrology may persist—but only as a relativistic artifact rather than a legitimate system for understanding reality.
Commentaires