Abstract
This study investigates how individuals navigate what I term the “irrationality problem,” i.e. the associated concepts in astrology related to religion and spirituality as they relate to science, particularly the gendered stereotypes of irrationality and the perception that those in astrology are uncritical. Through five years of participant observation and 45 semi-structured interviews, the study revealed three main findings: civilian astrology, astrological certainty posturing and hegemonic certainty posturing. Civilian astrology is a domain of astrologically interested individuals who engage deeply with astrology but frame their interest as “fun” to avoid the irrationality label. In contrast, those engaged in astrological certainty posturing assert the scientific legitimacy of astrology with unwavering confidence, often dismissing contrary evidence. Finally, hegemonic certainty posturing involves anti-astrology individuals, mostly men, dismissing astrology with little knowledge of it, often using sexist stereotypes to assert rational masculinity. These behaviors are analyzed through the lens of gender dynamics, particularly Connell’s theory of hegemonic masculinity, where rationality is a male performance. The study concludes that astrology serves as a site where gender, rationality, and scientific authority intersect, challenging simplistic binaries and highlighting the need for a nuanced understanding of how marginalized groups negotiate their identities within broader cultural contexts.
Presenters
Ian WallerStudent, PhD, University of California - Santa Barbara, California, United States
Details
Presentation Type
Paper Presentation in a Themed Session
Theme
2025 Special Focus—Fragile Meanings: Vulnerability in the Study of Religions and Spirituality
KEYWORDS
Astrology, Rationality, Men of Reason, Certainty Posturing, Hegemonic Masculinity
