Astrological Education in the 21st Century

Soapbox warning

What's the use of having your own website if you can't have a rant now and again. I do try to keep everything on the site balanced and I hope this piece will also stay within my editorial policy.

There have been several events and conversations which have taken place over the last few days which have prompted this piece; those involved will probably know who they are.

There has been a well established push towards astrologers being qualified in some form. I don't object to this on the whole but there are people who don't do exams. I have Saturn in the third house opposite a packed ninth house and will sign up for any course or exam given the opportunity. Earlier in my astrological career I was more pro-exam than I am now. What I am holding out on is the importance of solid training. As long as an astrologer knows and understands the techniques that they use in terms of their function and limitation then an exam will not add anything to their practice.

Recently, a whole new set of courses and exams have become available to us: we can now take degrees in astrology, and postgraduate ones to boot. Now, given the placements I have which I described earlier, I'm going to be on one of them at the first opportunity but that doesn't mean that everyone should.

Higher education has its place but it is not the natural conclusion to everyone's astrological training. The higher degrees in Cultural Astronomy and Astrology do not teach astrology and nor should they. Their function is to examine astrology rather than do it and it is for this reason that these degrees do not need to be the concern of most astrologers as most astrologers don't concern themselves with these ideas.

Much effort has been expended over the last five years to get the Sophia Project off the ground. The first set of graduates have been produced by Bath Spa University College; the University of Kent at Canterbury's MA in Mysticism and the Religious Experience is well established and has astrology as a part of the curriculum. There are future projects which are still in the planning stages and we can confidently say that Astrology has re-entered the Higher Education sector in the UK. The wound which was opened at the end of the eighteenth century may be beginning to heal.

But the proportion of a subject covered by institutions within the Higher Education sector or HE - and I'm taking about any subject here - is a small one. This emphasis on HE is following the general shift in emphasis seen across the rest of the education sector. Subjects which should be vocational are now presented within the Universities. They are following the funding, we don't have to.

Patrick Curry has proposed splitting astrology into three areas. High Astrology would rightfully be found within HE and would have been there in past centuries. Dealing with philosophy, contemplation and the like, it would not have a directly practical application. Middle Astrology is what the vast majority of us do. We use astrology to help ourselves, our friends and our clients. In fact, Astrology for the Real World. Low Astrology would be sign sign and almanac level. These distinctions are not judgmental but they do distinguish between the concern the different levels deal with. Low Astrology kept astrology alive through the Enlightenment so you shouldn't look down your nose at it.

My point is, is that since the Sophia Project has captured our imagination High Astrology is where we think the action is. All this new development is very exciting but we shouldn't loose perspective on what we actually want to do. What training do we actually need?

Over the last week I've heard accusations that these new HE institutions are a new clique. This is both true and untrue. Academic elites are by definition cliques. You have to earn the right to entry; not everyone is right for Higher Education. On the other hand those individuals involved have not pulled up the drawbridge leaving the rest of the Astrological community to gaze adoringly upwards at these ivory towers. They are very much still involved and I would refute this claim of elitism. They are working for the future of Astrology just as they ever were.

The other, and more insidious, opinion which I have seen growing is that you aren't really that good an astrologer if you don't have an MA or PhD. This is hog wash. There are some very talented students on the current MA programmes and their work on the various MA programmes will enhance their astrology, and astrology for everyone; but there are also some fine astrologers who really don't fancy it and who research and write under their own remit and who also enhance their own astrology, and astrology for everyone.

When I try to explain my wish to go to Bath Spa to non astrologers they have some difficulty seeing why I want to send myself half way across the country once or twice a week to go back to school. They see I have a growing client list, that I lecture and write and want to know why I need another bit of paper. Sometimes I can see their point. Could this be that Astrology has Saturn in the third? Are we still continually searching for external approval since our expulsion from the Universities?

One of the first things we learn when we learn astrology is the wide variety of experiences there are and how diverse people can do. Why should astrological training we any different?

Prescribing the exact means which will qualify an astrology is bound to fail. We've just got to a point where we can accept and respect the variety of astrologies we have and forcing people to a particular path is a seriously retrograde step.

The analogy which comes to mind is that of midwives and doctors: the educated, scientific men versus the craft-oriented, wise women. Lets not go there, don't we know better than that?