As we head into the United States elections, any astrological prediction about the outcome is not easily made. Often making a precise prediction about a particular event is as much about personal biases, intuitions, and a gleaning of information from other sources than it is about a strict and accurate interpretation of an astrological chart. However, as political events come to the forefront of everyone’s minds this fall, this allows for an invitation for astrology to illuminate larger political patterns and cycles which would otherwise remain in the dark.

The focus of this article is to look, however briefly, at the evolution of political history from the standpoint of astrological cycles and dialectics. Dialectical theories suggest that progress and evolution occurs from the overcoming and synthesis of opposite elements—an idea that is at least implicit in much of astrology. From a dialectical point of view, we will focus on two astrological cycles—the Uranus-Pluto cycle and the Saturn-Pluto cycle—and how both, taken as a whole, are instrumental in the political evolution of cultures.

Dialectical Thinking:
A Brief Outline and History

Dialectical thinking is a loose and broad methodology that emphasizes relationships over and above discrete, isolated entities and that stresses development and process versus stasis. Rather than focus upon divisions, dialectical thinking highlights interconnectedness and interrelationships. Although not a method of thinking that is often formalized in the hard sciences or mathematics, it is a very powerful, intuitive, and time-tested manner of perception.

Although the philosopher G.W.F. Hegel may not have been the first thinker to use dialectical thinking, he made this type of logic the basis for an entire system of thought. As a starting point, Hegel made an assumption that the world and all of existence is part of a unified whole. That is, he believed that it is truth to view things as an interrelated system than to view things as a fragmented, atomistic world made of discrete parts. In this way, Hegel was one of the world’s first and foremost holistic thinkers.

Moreover, Hegel stressed relationship in his philosophy. It is through tension of interrelated opposites that evolution and progress occurs. For Hegel, a rich approximation of the truth takes into account how seemingly opposing contradictions exist in relationship to each other. As opposed to being a fixed, static opposition, polarities spur each other onward to greater and greater syntheses; evolution cannot happen without opposing forces.

Hegel’s systematic accounting for all of reality fell out of favor in the Western world in part due to its presumptions and presuppositions about the absolute, metaphysical nature of reality. In a day and age where increasing emphasis was placed on empirical techniques and the rigors of the scientific method, Hegel’s abstruse musings on the nature of it all and his emphasis on a spiritual absolute was out of sync with the growing emphasis on materialism and science. But Hegel’s system is airtight; any opposition to his own philosophy could be seen as a necessary contradiction within his own system. It is interesting to speculate that Hegel may have welcomed dissention and unpopularity of his own system as proof of the fact that his dialectic logic indeed works.

Although the romantic, quasi-mystical flavor of Hegel’s system became heavily criticized through time, his dialectical method was preserved. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels revised and popularized Hegel’s dialectic but divested it of its idealism and spiritual language (even though, ironically, the writings of Marx and Engels became somewhat of a religion and faith in the Soviet Union in years after their publications). In other words, Marx and Engels kept the “baby” of Hegel’s dialectic but threw out the “bathwater” of his reflections on the absolute spiritual nature of reality and evolution. Marx’s and Engels’s project was to turn socialism from a sort of utopist vision to a science, claiming that a dialectic of opposing economic factions led to an inevitable conclusion of a socialist state. According to Marx and Engels, the history of civilization is primarily the result of the struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed. The polarization between the “haves” and “have nots” creates the engine, so to speak, that drives societal evolution continually onward. This dialectic, assumed the pair, led to the unavoidability of socialism as a system that will emerge due to the inherent strife set up through capitalism.

Although not as obviously influenced by Hegel as Marx and Engels, psychologist Carl Jung is somewhat indebted to Hegel’s dialectic as Jung’s psychology contains some interesting parallels to Hegel’s philosophical system. Jung saw an individual’s growth and evolution as thoroughly oriented toward resolving fundamental polarities in his or her internal and external relations. The dialectical tension between the ego and the unconscious, the ego and others, the ego and one’s shadow, Jung surmised, all coalesced to form the Self, a symbol of psychological wholeness. Whereas Hegel concluded a theory of dialectics was correct through philosophical reflection and speculation, Marx, Engels, and Jung took a more formal approach in their methods—closer to the objective, neutral ideal of a scientist—but arrived at similar conclusions. All these thinkers took very different routes to arrive at a similar conclusion: growth and evolution in a system takes place through the tension created by opposing forces in relation to each other.

Astrology and Dialectical Thinking

Although we don’t normally think of astrology in these terms, astrology is thoroughly a dialectical system. Each symbol within astrology is sympathetic, that is similar, or antithetical, or opposite, to all other symbols (and in many cases some combination of the above). Obviously, the most explicit example of this is when a planet opposes another in the birth chart or by transit. When this occurs situations are set in motion whereby a relationship of tension is created and one identifies with one symbol at the exclusion with another. Ideally, through dealing with the tension of an opposition, an individual reconciles the duality and comes to a sort of compromise whereby a disowned astrological symbol is integrated into consciousness. With a greater degree of conscious recognition with the disowned symbol, an individual will (again, ideally) identify with the functions of the symbol and no longer polarize so tightly against it—it is more owned internally and not constellated in the outer environment. A higher integration is the result of working with the tension of an opposition.

Although an opposition aspect might be the most explicit example of how astrology works dialectically, polarities exist through and through in astrology, often in hidden ways. For instance, if an individual is born with an astrological element, such as Fire, highly emphasized, the polarity created in this situation is not as obvious as one seen in an opposition aspect in the birth chart. Implicit in a birth chart that has highly emphasized Fire is the fact that the other elements—Water, Earth, and Air—are secondary, unconscious, and disowned. As dialectic thinking suggests that all things exist in relationship, the person with the emphasized Fire chart has to mediate and contend with a world that is relatively balanced in elemental qualities. The greater extent to which the individual identifies and creates life situations reflective of Fire, the greater the tension created with the unidentified elements. At some point in the individual’s life, either through crises, tensions, or conscious awareness, he or she will have to integrate the previously disowned elements for a more functional life.

The importance of the above example is to show that from the standpoint of dialectical thinking, astrology is a holistic system—all symbols exist in interrelationship to each other even if those relationships are not explicitly defined. Moreover, not unlike the conclusions of Marx, Hegel, and Jung, astrology suggests that through dialectical tension, growth and evolution occur.

Astrology and the Dialectics of Political Progress

Understanding astrology as a type of dialectical system can prove very powerful in terms of illuminating political evolution. Politics may be the most obvious arena to observe dialectics in action because we are naturally inclined to see the political process as the result of—and encouraging—the tension of opposites. Current politics in the United States is defined by partisanship, through the conflict and clashing ideologies of differing political parties. As a politically aware culture, we focus on this opposition; we are, in fact, defined by this opposition, this partisanship.

What remains a bit of a mystery is how, when and why momentum swings and shifts in favor of one political ideology or faction over another. Why does the political pendulum swing—often radically so—in one direction or another? A simplified analysis would suggest a linear, cause-and-effect type of answer to this problem: economy or war causes mass consciousness to align with a particular ideology over and against its opponent(s). However, a simple analysis such as this doesn’t truly fit the historical record. History is fraught with examples when social discord, political discontent, and civil disobedience are not caused by economic distress or war. One irrefutable example comes from the decade of the 1960’s, a highly reactionary period in many parts of the world when greater freedoms and liberties were demanded in a time of general insurrection and societal turbulence. We cannot conclude that economic hardship or war caused this time of civil unrest and the radical political values at this time. In the United States alone, the decade that preceded the 1960’s saw a time of great economic expansion, an astronomical rise in prosperity and standards of living, and a time of relative peace. How, then, would the decade that followed this time of peace and prosperity be mired with such strife, discord, disobedience, and the flavor of political chaos? Traditional answers haven’t helped as historians have often looked back at this period in confusion, bereft of answers. Turning to astrology can illuminate patterns that are often hidden or in the dark.

We can view the political spirit of the 1960’s as part of the manifestation of a large astrological cycle: the Uranus-Pluto cycle. Although variable in length, a typical Uranus-Pluto cycle takes roughly from one hundred and ten to one hundred and forty years to complete. Explored in greater depth later, the Uranus-Pluto cycle can be seen as the cycle that advances socio-political structures, which takes us collectively into new terrain, and which has the dual action of destroying old political ideologies and structures while creating and informing new ones.

The Uranus-Pluto cycle remains in dialectical tension with the Saturn-Pluto cycle, for they symbolize differing political motivations and ideologies, and they express themselves in culture in highly contrasting ways. As was noted above, dialectical thinking suggests that the polarization of opposites is necessary to create growth and to stimulate progressive evolution. Such is the case with the Uranus-Pluto cycle and the Saturn-Pluto cycle; they exist in polarized tension, which, in turn, creates a dynamic that drives political evolution ever onward. It is reductionistic to assume that political evolution can be seen astrologically through looking at simply two contrasting cycles—the situation is more complex than that. However, by focusing in on these two very potent and important cycles, a highly significant pattern emerges in the evolution of political values.

The Uranus-Pluto Cycle

The year is 1848 and Europe erupts in political revolution. Suddenly and unpredictably, nearly every capital city in continental Europe explodes in civil disobedience and uprisings take hold in most major urban centers throughout the continent. Mass movements of workers, university students, and general citizens rise up to demand change. Just prior to the outbreak of revolt, historian Alexis de Tocqueville, with fingers on the pulse of agitation in the air, comments, “We are sleeping on a volcano…Do you not see that the earth trembles anew? A wind of revolution blows, the storm is on the horizon.” (1)

The year is 1968 and cities the world over are overtaken by violence, uprisings, and rebellion. Student revolts stun campuses from New York City to Berkeley, youth movements rise sharply in Prague and Paris, rioters clash with police in Detroit, Chicago, and Mexico City. It is an unprecedented explosion of unrest, rage, and chaos the world over. Bras and draft cards are burned, violence and chaos rule the streets, and music provides the soundtrack to the revolution.

The parallel between 1848 and 1968, besides being highly insurrectionary in character, is that the revolutions took place under Uranus-Pluto conjunctions. Commentators have noticed that both revolutions failed in a sense to radically dethrone political and social structures, and yet, paradoxically, the periods changed the world forever. Values, ideas, freedoms, and behaviors were liberated at these times that were birthed with a sense of exhilaration and crisis, and the resulting changes could not be put back into the box, so to speak. Uranus-Pluto conjunctions are the beginning of societal change, but the revolutions that are enacted take arguably a full cycle to manifest the revolutionary ideas and values as stable structures.

In order to more fully understand the cultural expressions of the Uranus-Pluto cycle, it is important to note the more obvious political manifestations of the combination:

• The formation of subcultures or movements generally critical of, or in opposition to, the established and traditional political norms of society.
• Politics by force. The abnegation of civil law and order in favor of subversive, violent, and rebellious techniques. Politics taken out of conventional arenas and taken into the street. Protest.
• A rising concerning for the expansion of freedoms and civil rights; awareness of the oppressive nature of established political traditions.
• The spirit of idealism. The resurrection of the belief of political change and social activism.
• The surprising emergence of new political parties and forces. The highly visible breakthrough of political movements once hidden or underground.

The Saturn-Pluto Cycle

In order to preserve and stabilize the reforms ushered in by the French Revolution, a “Reign of Terror,” is initiated in 1793-1794. Assuming threat from armies across Europe and suspicious that political traitors run rampant in the newly found government, a number of high ranking officials enact policies that would ensure the longevity of the French government. Civil liberties are stripped. The strength of France’s army and defense increase considerably. Maximillien Robespierre, the leading official of the time, states, "Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible."

In order to secure a nation under attack from terrorists in 2001, The Bush administration of the United States creates several policies to stabilize a potential crisis. Civil liberties are stripped. The strength of the United States military increases. Threat is seen all around. An “Axis of Evil” is presumed to menace the values and integrity of the United States.

The Reign of Terror and the current Terrorist attacks, though centuries apart, occurred under potent Saturn-Pluto alignments: the first a square (ninety degree aspect) and the latter an opposition. True to the archetypal nature of the planets involved, Saturn-Pluto cycles are not about pushing evolution forward, on the contrary, they are meant, at best, to stabilize and mature socio-political structures, and, at worst, to create near-totalitarian states to justify power and to defend against possible threats and danger. Saturn-Pluto cycles take us into the world of realpolitik, or policies and politics based on the pragmatic concerns of the state: survival, preservation, and power. Under this injunction, the state can, and often will, justify radical abuses of power.

To better appreciate the cultural expressions of the Saturn-Pluto cycle, here are the more significant characteristics of the cycle:

• Civil liberties and freedoms are secondary values or are withdrawn for the sake of national security and preservation.
• Control, consolidation of power, and strong defenses are seen as necessary in a world that is hostile, threatening, and aimed at the destruction of the state.
• The empowerment of conservative values and ethics. Change is seen as threatening, dangerous, and subversive. “Turning back the clock.”
• A strict and oppressive code of ethics and morality. Order, discipline, self-denial are often seen as necessary and virtuous.
• Survival, protection, and defensiveness are strictly proportional to the level of threat perceived in the outer environment.

The Saturn-Pluto Cycle and Uranus-Pluto Cycle as a Tension of Opposites

From a dialectical point of view, the Saturn-Pluto cycle and the Uranus-Pluto cycle are reactionary to each other’s values and expressions. It is through the drama of these two very different symbolic expressions that change happens and evolution is spurred ever upward and onward. We might even suggest that both archetypal expressions mutually implicate the other; one cannot exist without the other. The change and revolutionary impulse that is ushered in through the Uranus-Pluto cycle is thwarted, restricted, beaten back, and consolidated by the Saturn-Pluto cycle. Conversely, the conservative and oppressive nature of the Saturn-Pluto cycle in some sense justifies the explosive, pent-up rebelliousness and revolutionary character of the Uranus-Pluto cycle.

In order to ground this specifically in our own times, the aforementioned Uranus-Pluto conjunction of the 1960’s was a sudden, insurrectionary, explosive emergence of rebellion against old structures and an initiation of new freedoms, new tolerances, and new permissiveness. The subsequent Saturn-Pluto cycles since the conjunction have, in their own way, negated the revolutionary turn of the Uranus-Pluto conjunction. To be more precise, since the Uranus-Pluto conjunction, an entire Saturn-Pluto cycle has been completed. We might say that this entire Saturn-Pluto cycle is like turning the screws ever tighter against the revolutionary excitement and liberation of the 1960’s.

The above diagram shows the dialectic between these two contrasting cycles. Two full cycles of the Saturn-Pluto combination will occur before even a half cycle of the Uranus-Pluto cycle completes itself. In other words, the rigid, orthodox, and conservative pattern of the Saturn-Pluto cycle needs to become firmly entrenched for the shattering, revolutionary, insurrectionary quality of the Uranus-Pluto cycle to be fully acknowledged and felt on a collective scale. The greater the entrenchment and restrictiveness of the Saturn-Pluto cycle, the greater the rebelliousness nature of the Uranus-Pluto cycle, and vice versa—they implicate each other.

The greatest point of tension between these cycles is when they overlap. Specifically, in our times, this would be, roughly, between 1964-1967, 2009-2011, and 2043-2044. This is the time in these cycles when old and new, tradition and experimentation, change and stasis, are at their peak and reach their maximal point of polarization—the clash between the opposites is strongest.

Conclusion:

“The embers of a bonfire may appear to be dead until someone breathes on them—then they burst into flames,” comments filmmaker Alejandro Jodoworsky. We may think of this quote in terms of the dialectical tension between the Uranus-Pluto and Saturn-Pluto cycles. The revolutionary, liberating, and mass appeal toward new freedoms that occurred in the 1960’s may appear to be dead, a vestige of a bygone era that has little relevance in our times. However, astrology confirms the intuition that things occur in cycles, and, taking a cue from Jodoworsky, just when things appear to be lifeless, someone or something resurrects the lifeless thing and, before you know it, something is in full bloom again. This is not to imply that as the next portion of the Uranus-Pluto cycle manifest in the next decade that 1960’s values makes a storming return in the collective. However, the archetypal themes and motifs will return.

From the perspective of astrological cycles, we can gain appreciation of the vast interplay of opposites and no longer be blind to the “how” and “when” these cycles occur. The “why” maybe left for individual interpretation and may be very private; however, astrology suggests that these cycles are something that we all participate within and, regardless of one’s interpretation, it is hard to believe that these cycles are arbitrary and contingent, but have some greater purpose that we can only speculate upon.

(1) Hobswam, Eric “The Age of Capital” New York: Vintage, p.9