Self-Censorship in Contemporary Astrology
Post Research Report by Linda Parkinson-Hardman
In March and April 2025, I conducted a mini research project for a module in the MA in Cultural Astronomy and Astrology at UWTSD The topic I chose to study was self-censorship amongst contemporary astrologers. Below is an edited version of the essay submitted to the University for marking.
Please note: this post is too long for most email clients. To read the rest on Substack, just click the title and voila, you’ll be taken to the whole thing. :-)
Introduction
This research project arose out of two pieces of unrelated information. The first was an article by Michelle Pfeffer on the marginalisation of astrology, introducing the concept of self-censorship as one factor amongst many, in the marginalisation of astrology1. The second was the personal observation of self-censorship in action in some videos by astrologers on YouTube.
Self-censorship is defined by Daniel Bar-Tal as ‘[..] an act of intentionally and voluntarily withholding information from others in the absence of formal obstacles.’2 and by Glenn Loury as ‘an implicit social convention of restraint on public expression, operating within a given a community3’ and is observed when: ‘members whose beliefs are sound but nevertheless differ from some aspect of communal wisdom are compelled by fear of ostracism to avoid the candid expression of their opinions.4’
Two theories underpin the phenomenon of self-censorship. The first, Social Identity Theory from Henri Tajfel (1919-1982) and John Turner (1947-2011) holds that people assume part of their identity through the groups they belong to, and if they have a belief that is not consistent with the group it is better to avoid expressing it5. The second, the Spiral of Silence theory is posited by Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann where those who hold alternative beliefs to the majority population tend to remain silent because of perceived threats6.
Whilst these theories appear similar, the first operates within specific groups: work colleagues, friends and family for instance, and is internally focused on maintaining an identity within that group. The second tends to exist in the wider population, and is externally focused on conforming to social and political expectations. Both became evident in this research project.
The aim of the research was to investigate if, why and how astrologers self-censor and what impact they believe this has, if any, on their work with clients and the public.
Literature Search and Review
The accuracy of astrology has sometimes been called into question, and initially it was the skill of the astrologer that was deemed faulty, as Claudius Ptolemy (c. 100-178 CE) says:
‘In the first place, the mistakes of those who are not accurately instructed in its practice [..] have brought about the belief that even its true predictions depend upon chance, which is incorrect. For a thing like this is an impotence, not of the science, but of those who practise it.’7
Such statements call the professional standing of astrologers into question because, as Ptolemy pointed out some astrologers make inaccurate predictions rendering the whole open to ridicule and scepticism8. Over time attacks on astrology included the discipline itself9 demonstrated by the arguments of Cicero (106-43 bc) who, according to Nick Campion, believed all divination should be ‘state controlled’ because astrologers could not make ‘precise judgements’10.
This scepticism created differing arguments about the veracity of astrology including the twins problem11 where two people born at the same time do not live the same lives; predestination versus the miraculous nature of God12; that all people born under one sign share common characteristics13; determinism versus free moral choice14; and finally, astrology as demonic as in the Roman Catholic Catechism until 199415.
The occasional inability to accurately predict events, and the scepticism it led too has echoed down the ages as each argument is repeated even in the present day. For example, the following was published in 2025:
‘If any of your parishioners show an interest in even seemingly benign esoteric or New Age spirituality—for example, astrology—warn them that they’re opening themselves to evil forces that will seek to drag them to hell.’16
Such sceptical views fuelled a witch-hunt, and as Nicholas Campion reminds us, expulsions of astrologers were common in Roman society because of their ‘[..] destabilizing effects on the body politic [..]’17. The threat of imprisonment, torture and death were also prevalent as Campion reflects ‘how on earth can one ever predict an imminent violent end to a king or general’s life without putting one’s own life in danger?’18. History demonstrates the truth of this statement through events like Constantine’s (272-337) outlawing of divination and threat of torture in 35719, the torture of Luca Gaurico (1476-155820) after predicting problems between Giovanni II Bentivoglio (1443-1508) and Pope Julius II (1443-1523)21, and the incarceration of Thomas Harriot (1560-1621) for casting nativities for the King and Crown Prince22. All these events suggest that astrology was a politically sensitive and taboo topic.
The inevitable result of such forces was an increase in self-censorship amongst astrologers to the extent that, according to Helena Avelar de Carvalho (1964-2021), ‘To some degree, self-censorship has always been present in astrological writings as a defensive measure against criticism’.23 She carries on ’[..] the self-imposed restrictions always intensify in periods of increased hostility towards astrology.’24 Examples occur throughout the scholarly literature and de Carvalho uses the medieval modifications of astrological texts and apologies as examples to demonstrate astrology as ‘licit and pious’25.
De Carvalho’s paper identifies three primary causes of self-censorship, the first is potential conflict with the church over free will; the maintenance of patronage26; and political and ethical concerns, all consistent with the spiral of silence theory27 reflecting a need to stay within proscribed social and political boundaries.
As a result, the day-to-day work of many astrologers became more cautionary as demonstrated in 1425 when Simon Belle (Dates not known) wrote of the Saturn Jupiter conjunction that ‘[..] it is not my intention to assert that the aforesaid effects signified by the great conjunction will inevitably or necessarily happen from the aforesaid conjunction.’28 According to de Carvalho this example avoided determinism and acknowledged free will29, and is just one of several examples of Belle’s self-censorship for religious and political reasons30.
De Carvalho also cites the coronation of King Duarte who was mindful that astrology was only one factor impacting the event. As she notes ‘They (astrologers’) were often placed in difficult situations, compelled to adapt the judgement to the patron’s concerns to avoid being offensive or to give the impression of impiety.’31.
Astrologers working within royal courts had to navigate constantly shifting political sands32. According to de Carvalho this had two effects, the first was to obfuscate potentially sensitive information, and the second to avoid sharing the source of information. De Carvalho suggests examples of both can be found in codes used by Belle in his manuscripts33. Ethics, as well as self-protection clearly played a role in such obfuscation as demonstrated by Guido Bonatti’s (Dates not known) example advising astrologers to take care when advising clients on the virginity of women34.
In the early modern period, Michelle Pfeffer uses the professional life of Carlos de Sigüenza y Góngora to show how his perception of astrology changed from professional pride, to disdain. This, she says, demonstrates how astrology’s dominance across academic and professional fields was undermined by the shifting sands of ‘astronomical and mathematical developments’35 together with political concern about its ‘socially disruptive’36 nature and its recasting as ‘vulgar’37. In this regard, Sigüenza’s story highlights the importance of maintaining professional status amongst non-astrological colleagues as one driver of self-censorship38.
Overt censorship of astrology did not cease with its early modern marginalisation, raising its head again during WWII when, according to Oliver Parkin, a Mass Observation report of July 1941 stated that ’more people follow their fate (or Britain’s) in the stars, as indicated by astrologers, than follow the day to day advice of God as outlined by his archbishops, preachers, [and in] parish magazines.’39
Parkin explains this acknowledgement of astrology’s power was a matter of national concern because it might influence the morale and security of the population40 because, as Patrick Curry observed regarding early modern England41, the primary readership was believed to be working class women42.
Whilst at first glance this might have little to do with self-censorship, the focus of wartime astrological predictions in the popular press tended towards the positively vague43 and was encouraged by the Home Intelligence committee as it met ‘Certain psychological needs [..]’ adding the contemptuous statement that journalists, newspaper owners and mystics were simply interested in selling papers rather than the spiritual needs or wellbeing of readers4445.
Against this background Parkin notes a sceptical and moral backlash against astrology as evidenced by events like the BBC radio play ‘Stardust’, the demand for a ‘practical cure’ from Rev. Clement Rogers of Kings College London, the accusation of astrologers as ‘fifth columnists’ by Cyril Garbett, and a parliamentary debate about the risks ‘addicts of astrology’ put on the morale of the general population46. This resulted in a parliamentary debate between MP’s Brendan Bracken and Edward Keeling where the former:
‘[…] asked the Minister of Information whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that astrologers are predicting that Germany is on the verge of collapse; and whether he will stop astrological predictions about the war in order to counteract the risk that addicts of astrology will relax their efforts?’47
To which Bracken replied: ’Astrologers seem to have the misfortune to be perpetually in conflict. And as no sensible person takes their predictions seriously, I cannot ask our overworked censors to meddle in their mysteries.’48
As Parkin states, this scepticism and concern about social destabilisation as also noted by Pfeffer49, Curry50 and Campion51, resulted in overt control by editors of the astrological predictions published52 because of the political risk of getting it wrong53, the need to avoid sensitive political and military issues54, and the desire to support official propaganda about the Home Front55.
Garry Phillipson identified such social control as a key mechanism of authority to the extent that researchers as respected as Hans Eysenck (1916-1997) and David Nias were warned about getting involved in astrological research, even when such research might have been critical56. Similarly he reports Robert Currey’s experience of editing Wikipedia pages against the ‘Guerilla Skeptics’57.
In addition, he notes, as we have already seen with the Rod Dreher article58, the attacks on astrology are simplistic with no understanding of the complexity involved nor of the belief of astrologers themselves59. This results in the suggestion by Alison Bird that astrologers avoid the subject altogether rather than admitting to a belief that sceptics might scoff at60. This avoidance is emblematic of social identity theory’s desire to be part of a group61.
Phillipson identifies three stages to social control: dismissing astrology as ‘rubbish’; denying the voice of the marginalised; and finally the explicit threat of violence, in one instance in the name of ‘science and rationality’62. As Campion notes ‘One may ask why, if it is drivel, it arouses such anger, and why one part of the British media regulation regards it as so dangerous’63.
Both theories of self-censorship, the social identity theory and the spiral of silence theory appear to come together in the work of Dvora Mivtzari Weil’s study of psychotherapists incorporating astrology into their work noting that ‘[..] integrating the astrological chart in the therapy room is a very controversial issue.’64. Weil identifies issues that seem depressingly familiar including possible criticism by non-astrological colleagues, fear of exclusion from professional bodies, and clients who doubt their ability. Her research showed they would prefer to use the chart without anyone knowing, whilst acknowledging the ethical issues of doing so65.
Typically, she reports these astrologers are ‘guarded, careful and defensive’. They keep their astrological work secret with one research subject describing herself as ‘in the closet’66.
At the other end of the visibility scale are astrologers on social media. Over time, I have noticed the occasional statement in some YouTube videos implying a concern about expressing contentious interpretations. This activity not only impacts video but is also evident in interviews between astrologers, mystics and channels. One example occurs in an interview between Pam Gregory and Lee Harris:
’[..] we are aware that because of the .. say .. platform that we are currently having this conversation on, that there is certain words that we should not use so that the message can get through [..]’67.
This and similar sentences, appear indicative of an awareness that to say certain things on YouTube might result demonetisation, or account closure68. It places YouTube in the role of ‘patron’ and as de Carvalho has already pointed out, being out of step with one’s patron could have significant social and political impacts69.
Overall, this review identified two broad reason categories for self-censorship. The first group correlates with the social identity theory of self-censorship and seems internally focused on how other people perceive the astrologer. The second group correlates with the spiral of silence theory of self-censorship and appears externally focused on security and safety, economic sanctions, and one’s professional standing.
Methodology
The literature search and review revealed two sets of reasons for self-censorship each underpinning the question of ‘how astrologers self-censor’. Therefore, a pragmatic, mixed methods approach, as defined by Tashakkori and Cresswell70, was used to collect and analyse data from a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews to ‘draw inferences’ in ‘a single study or program of enquiry.’71
Firstly, a questionnaire (appendix 1) was devised that split the two reason categories into nine statements (question 14). The first three reflecting Tajfel and Turner’s social identity theory72, the remainder Noelle-Neumann’s spiral of silence theory73. The aim was for twenty respondents completing the questionnaire hosted on my website74 with an introduction briefing participants about the research.
An email was sent to two astrologers who each forwarded it to an undisclosed number of recipients. The email was also sent to all astrological association group owners asking for their help with dissemination to members.
Broadly, each question on the questionnaire was chosen to do one of two things:
1. To correlate different factors. For example, are professional astrologers more likely to self-censor than those who are not? In order for this to be determined two sets of data were required, the first was whether a respondent considered themselves to be ‘professional’ following the definition given in the questionnaire as ‘earning some or all of your income from astrological work’. The second used a 10 point Likert scale to ‘discover the strength of feeling or attitude’75 to each of the nine reasons for self-censoring.
2. To gather more meaningful qualitative responses to questions based on the definitions and beliefs of respondents were asked such as ‘why do you practice astrology?’, what do you understand the term self-censorship to mean?’. Together with the ‘other’ box on some quantitative questions I was able to gather Clifford Geertz’s (1926-2006) ‘thick description’ of the ‘[..] multiplicity of complex conceptual structures, many of them superimposed upon or knotted into one another, which are at once strange, irregular, and inexplicit [..]’76.
The final questions invited further participation by receiving a research report, taking part in future research, or doing a follow-up interview.
As indicated by Hennink et al, beginning with the questionnaire allowed me to ‘[..] interpret the findings, [..] understand any trends or patterns, [..] and contextualize the behaviour.’77 The data was assessed to identify common factors about self-censorship which in turn helped formulate initial interview questions. These questions were used to open up discussion about the perspective, attitude and belief of five interviewees to understand whether Geertz’s ‘thicker’78 conversation would reveal more about the impact on astrologers professional and personal lives.
Findings and Discussion
A request for help with the research project was sent to two astrologers known to me who each forwarded it to an undisclosed number of their personal contacts. I also contacted the organisers of twenty seven Astrological Association groups. I received responses from five group organisers confirming they would pass it along to their members. As a result, the web page was visited 55 times and viewed 63 times between 20th March and 9th April 2025. There were sixteen responses to the questionnaire, eleven people each requested a copy of this post research report and indicated they would take part in future research, and ten invitations to a follow-up interview were sent out, six people booked an appointment and five interviews were recorded.
Although only one question required an answer, there was significant completion of all questions by most respondents. All shared their definition of self-censorship indicating a high degree of awareness of both its meaning and impact, comments ranged from the simple ‘Fear of speaking your truth.’79 and ‘The exercising of control over what we say and do’80, to ones that reflect the psychological effect of self-censorship such as ‘[…] you yourself put on the blocks and restrictions, so you are not able express yourself and be truly free.’81
The first qualitative question in the questionnaire asked why respondents practiced astrology, their answers were consistent with sensemaking in an uncertain world82. One respondent captured all the reasons offered by others within six bullet points: ‘To seek guidance, To understand others, To find out when difficult times will come to an end, To understand myself, To look forward to positive phases, To try out my predictive capabilities.’83 Typically, responses were couched in the ‘positively vague’ statements encountered in wartime press astrology84 and appear to reflect de Carvalho’s ‘defensive measure’85. This question was useful in anchoring respondents in their astrological lives before they considered questions about how and to what degree they might self-censor.
The questionnaire was constructed in such a way as to allow the correlation between questions about how respondents practiced their art, and their self-rating on four Likert scales about their likelihood of self-censoring in relation to NON astrological topics online and offline, and astrological topics in the same contexts. Each correlation was calculated using the arithmetic mean that identified simple trends. After analysis though no correlation was found meaning that, at least for this cohort, being a professional astrologer or not made no difference to the degree of self-censorship.
Fifteen respondents completed all the Likert scale questions with all but one of the nine options selected as a reason to self-censor (appendix 2). The following explores the five most commonly selected.
Reason 1. I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings.
According to Boris Groys, self-censorship is usually practised because people fear the consequences of doing so, he also points out it can occur through a fear of upsetting others who might for example, have different religious beliefs86. This was evident in the work of de Carvalho who reminds us of the difficult position of some astrologers and their patrons87.
This view was reflected by several participants with one acknowledging that self-censorship is a defensive mechanism that involves ‘[…] keeping quiet about my ideas or thought less they offend others or gets me into any heated situations.’88.
Perhaps with age this changes and more than one respondent recognised that as they matured they were less concerned with the opinions of others than they had been when starting their astrological career. One interviewee even went so far as to say ‘[…] that could be the fact I'm older and I don't give a flying f*** […]89’
Reason 2. I worry that what I share may be uncomfortable or difficult to read or hear.
Respondent C made the most compelling argument for concern about the effect of an astrological reading on the recipient, she commented that ‘[…] in line with the ethics of astrology, we shouldn't be judgmental.’ and went on to say ‘[…] that the type of language I use and the interpretations I make are neither fearmongering nor sugarcoating.’90 One interviewee was careful to say that everything about astrology is subjective and therefore open to interpretation by both astrologer and client91. The equivocation of Simon Belle in 1425 is another example of this, linking neatly to an awareness of political expediency92.
Reason 3. My opinions might not be the same as other people’s.
Whilst this response was selected less frequently than the previous two as a reason for self-censorship, the comments made in the questionnaire would suggest it is one of the most important, directly connecting to Tajfel and Turners Social Identity Theory93. In the historical literature it shows up in the comment by the MP Brendan Bracken’s comment that ‘no sensible person takes their predictions seriously’94 and in this research as comments such as astrology being a ‘[…] handle to ridicule or personally undermine with.’95 or inferring ‘[…] that you must be stupid if you do (believe in astrology)’96.
Almost all participants made some mention of the need to hide or minimise their astrological interests and work although only two mentioned the impact of holding a different belief to the group. The first commented that when she did bring up the subject it resulted in demeaning her work to 'entertainment and trivial chit-chat.’ and one interviewee acknowledged the ‘[…] black vortex online’ which she always regrets being pulled into because of the loss of energy and possible trolling97.
Reason 4. I am worried about touching on topics that might be banned, or which are politically or culturally sensitive.
The scholarly literature shares clear examples of astrology as political and cultural pariah such as Cicero’s belief that it should be managed by the state98 because of its potentially destabilizing effects on the masses99, and Sigüenza’s potentially detrimental effects on his career100. This view was reflected by several participants and is best summed up in the statement ‘I feel as an astrologer I need to present my content in politically neutral manner as far as I can.’ One interviewee went so far as to unwittingly support the view of authorities that it can be destabilising by commenting that ’Astrology gives you that control over your destiny […] (unlike) those big institutions like the church have conditioned us in the past.’101
Reason 8. Concern for my professional standing amongst NON-astrology colleagues.
This reason was also the most common to emerge from the literature search, why this is the case is not known but it could be related to a historical record which tends toward the recounting the life and times of prominent people. If this is the case, then it would follow that professional careers would be under scrutiny. This is evidenced by those papers focusing on specific astrologers such as Simon Belle102, Guido Bonatti103 and Carlos de Sigüenza y Góngora104.
It was also a concern reflected by several participants. For example, one respondent commented that she would occasionally ‘[…] discuss with coffee buddies who do not necessarily believe in astrology and they warn me to be careful not to discuss at work […] I want to maintain my credibility […].’105. One interviewee referred to the pseudoscience argument often levelled at astrology in her comment that ‘[…] particularly if they're scientific minded or mathematic, (they) can be really, really superior about (it)’106.
Whilst the quantitative data was not helpful to the original research question, it did reveal a challenge to my assumption that contemporary astrologers would self-censor. On analysis, I was surprised to note that, with a single minor exception, the degree to which respondents self-censored about general topics was consistently greater than the degree to which they self-censored about astrology (appendix 2). This appeared contradictory until the qualitative data from the questionnaire and interviews were factored in.
Statements such as ’I participate in a number of astrology networks where I don't self-censor at all, but I would never discuss astrology on social media.’107 and ‘For decades I found it not worth mentioning that I was an astrologer, put off by general incomprehension and smirking condescension.’108 are indicative of a cohort who generally avoid talking about astrology with outsiders because of the consequences alluded to by de Carvalho.
Despite the limited data set some observations can be made. Perhaps the first is the difference in the contexts of self-censorship and highlighted by this statement, ‘There are so many ways we censor ourselves. In particular I have noticed it at different times as a woman, a psychotherapist and an astrologer.’109
This astute observation recognises that different circumstances involve different approaches to how much we reveal about ourselves. Initially, I had assumed that this would be most evident in astrology, that it proved not to be the case was surprising and appears reflective of the internal focus of social identity theory110. It is also evidenced by interviews and statements showing a world where respondents do not talk about astrology outside of the confines of clients and colleagues. This was summed up by one respondent who kept her interest in astrology hidden from family and friends saying ‘[…] I felt it would be disapproved of, - or, worse still, l would be ridiculed in public by my mother. […] l didn’t want to be made a spectacle for people to point at and snigger about.’111 Even participants least likely to self-censor astrologically against the Likert scales (scoring 1 for each) have found ’[…] it not worth mentioning that I was an astrologer […]’112 and that others infer ‘[…] you are stupid if you do (believe in astrology) […].113
What the research evidence appears to demonstrate is that, unlike the historical record, it is not so much any actual censorship, exclusion and ridicule driving contemporary self-censorship, but rather a fear of it, at least in this research cohort.
Conclusion
This research project set out to discover why and how contemporary astrologers self-censor and has demonstrated that self-censorship is still active within the astrological community supporting Carvalho’s belief, that self-censorship acts as a protective measure for practitioners114.
Centuries of persecution, prejudice, scepticism and ridicule have taken their toll on astrologers through the ages, and still do so today. The literature search revealed two categories of reason for self-censorship. After splitting them into nine statements, the research data appears to demonstrate that the social identity of astrologers is congruent when with astrologers and clients, and is not when with outsiders. This seems to have resulted in practitioners who appear, at least in this study, to be insular and fearful of repercussions. The internet, for all its promise of greater access to information, has not changed the felt sense that to be an astrologer is to invite risk.
More research is needed to determine if the outcomes identified in this small, self-selected study hold true for the astrological community as a whole.
1 Michelle Pfeffer, ‘Reassessing the Marginalisation of Astrology in the Early Modern World’, The Historical Journal, 66 (2023),152-1176.
2 Daniel Bar-Tal, ‘Self-Censorship as a Socio-Political-Psychological Phenomenon: Conception and Research’, Advances in Political Psychology, 38.1 (2017), 37-65, (p. 41). <doi: 10.1111/pops.12391>
3 Glenn Loury, ‘Self-censorship in public discourse: A theory of “political correctness” and related phenomena’, Rationality and Society, 6 (1994), 428-461. (p. 430). <doi:1 0.1177/1043463194006004002>
4 Loury, Self-censorship in public discourse, p. 430.
5 Henri Tajfel and John Charles Turner, ‘An integrative theory of intergroup conflict’, in The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, ed. By W. G. Austin & S. Worchel, (Monterey: Brooks/Cole, 1979), pp. 33–47 (p. 33).
6 Alycia Burnett and others ‘The Self-Censoring Majority: How Political Identity and Ideology Impacts Willingness to Self-Censor and Fear of Isolation in the United States, Social Media + Society, 8,3 (2022), 1-12, (p. 1). <doi: 0.1177/20563051221123031>
7 Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos, trans. by F. E. Robbins. (Loeb Classical Library 435. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1940) <DOI: 10.4159/DLCL.ptolemy-tetrabiblos.1940>.
8 Nicholas Campion, A History of Western Astrology Volume I, (London, Bloomsbury Academic, 2008), p. 195.
9 Campion, Western Astrology: Vol. I, p. 229.
10 Campion, Western Astrology: Vol. I, p. 199.
11 Campion, Western Astrology: Vol. I, p. 187.
12 Campion, Western Astrology: Vol. I, pp. 252-3.
13 Campion, Western Astrology: Vol. I, p. 269.
14 Nicholas Campion, A History of Western Astrology Volume II, (London and New York, Bloomsbury Academic, 2013) p. 156.
15 Campion, Western Astrology: Vol. I, p. 255.
16 Rod Dreher, Rod Dreher's Diary, (2025) <https://roddreher.substack.com/p/christians-sleepwalking-into-the> [accessed 18th April 2025].
17 Campion, Western Astrology: Vol. I, p. 229.
18 Campion, Western Astrology: Vol. I, p. 227.
19 Campion, Western Astrology: Vol. I, p. 279.
20 British Museum, Luca Gaurico, <https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/term/BIOG198327> [accessed 18th April 2025].
21 Brendan Dooley, A Companion to Astrology in the Renaissance. (Boston: Brill, 2014) p. 12 [accessed: 18 April 2025]. Please note: Dooley cites Guido Bentivoglio which is incorrect, it should be Giovanni II Bentivoglio.
22 Dooley, Companion to Astrology, p. 12
23 Helena Avelar de Carvalho, ‘Preludes to the Inquisition: self-censorship in medieval astrological discourse’, Annals of Science, 70.1 (2020) 10-25, (p. 10). <DOI: 10.1080.00033790.2020.1714283>
24 de Carvalho, ‘Preludes to the Inquisition’, p. 10.
25 de Carvalho, ‘Preludes to the Inquisition’, p. 10.
26 de Carvalho, ‘Preludes to the Inquisition’, p. 13.
27 Noelle-Neumann, The Spiral of Silence, p. 1.
28 Helena Cristina Ferreira Avelar De Carvalho, The Making Of An Astrologer In Fifteenth-century France The Notebooks Of S. Belle: Lisbon, Ms 1711 And Paris, Nal 398, (Unpublished PhD Thesis, The Warburg Institute, University Of London, 2018), p. 103.
29 de Carvalho, The Making Of An Astrologer, p. 117.
30 de Carvalho, ‘Preludes to the Inquisition’, p. 14.
31 de Carvalho, ‘Preludes to the Inquisition’, p. 17.
32 de Carvalho, ‘Preludes to the Inquisition’, p. 21
33 de Carvalho, ‘Preludes to the Inquisition’, pp. 21-22.
34 de Carvalho, ‘Preludes to the Inquisition’, pp. 23-24.
35 Pfeffer, Marginalization of Astrology, p. 1154.
36 Pfeffer, Marginalization of Astrology, p. 1157-58.
37 Pfeffer, Marginalization of Astrology, p. 1158.
38 Pfeffer, Marginalization of Astrology, p. 1175.
39 Mass Observation Archive, SxMOA/1/1/6/7/3 FR 769 ’Mass Astrology’, 1st July 1941, p. 1, in Oliver Parkin, ‘The Politics of Press Astrology in Wartime Britain, 1939-42’, Historical Research, 96 (2023), 243-262 (p. 243).
40 Oliver Parkin, ‘The Politics of Press Astrology in Wartime Britain, 1939-42’, Historical Research, 96 (2023), 243-262 p. 244.
41 Patrick Curry, Prophecy and Power: Astrology in Early Modern England, (2024, Ceredigion, Sophia Centre Press), p. 5.
42 Parkin, ‘Press astrology’, p. 244.
43 Parkin, ‘Press astrology’, p. 245.
44 Parkin, ‘Press astrology’, p. 248.
45 Parkin, ‘Press astrology’, p. 252.
46 Parkin, ‘Press astrology’, p. 249-50.
47 Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, Volume 380: debated on Wednesday 3 June 1942, <https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1942-06-03/debates/049be7ad-726b-413a-93f7-1ab77065bc54/AstrologicalPredictions?highlight=astrology#contribution-3a7304e4-d7e6-4f02-885b-d662a9aafbcb> [accessed 20th April 2025].
48 Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, Volume 380: debated on Wednesday 3 June 1942, <https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1942-06-03/debates/049be7ad-726b-413a-93f7-1ab77065bc54/AstrologicalPredictions?highlight=astrology#contribution-3a7304e4-d7e6-4f02-885b-d662a9aafbcb> [accessed 20th April 2025].
49 Pfeffer, ‘Marginalization of Astrology’, p. 1157.
50 Curry, Prophecy and Power, p. 20.
51 Campion, History of Astrology Vol II, p. 135.
52 Parkin, ‘Press astrology’, p. 251.
53 Parkin, ‘Press astrology’, p. 254.
54 Parkin, ‘Press astrology’ p. 255.
55 Parkin, ‘Press astrology’, p. 257.
56 Phillipson, Garry, ‘Astrology as Heresy in Contemporary Belief’, Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture, 13.1 (2019), pp. 12–30, (p. 6) <doi: 10.1558/jsrnc.38056> [accessed 18th March 2025].
57 Phillipson, ‘Astrology as Heresy’, p. 7.
58 Rod Dreher, Rod Dreher’s Diary (2025), <https://roddreher.substack.com/p/christians-sleepwalking-into-the> [accessed 18th April 2025]
59 Phillipson, ‘Astrology as Heresy’, p. 8.
60 Alison Gwendy Bird, Astrology In Education: An Ethnography, 2006, (Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Sussex, 2006), p. 111.
61 Tajfel and Turner, ‘Intergroup Conflict’, p. 33.
62 Phillipson, ‘Astrology as Heresy’, p. 10.
63 Nicholas Campion, Astrology and Popular Religion in the Modern West : Prophecy, Cosmology, and the New Age Movement (Farnham: Ashgate, 2012), p. 4.
64 Dvora Mtvtzari Weil, Lived Experience of Psychotherapists, (Unpublished PhD Thesis, Pacifica Graduate Institute, 2002) p. 161.
65 Weil, Lived Experience of Psychotherapists, pp. 162-3.
66 Weil, Lived Experience of Psychotherapists, p. 164-5.
67 Pam Gregory, The Future Human [videocast], YouTube, 5th March 2025, [accessed 18th April 2025].
68 Anthony Zappin and others, ‘YouTube Monetization and Censorship by Proxy: A Machine Learning Prospective’, Procedia Computer Science, 198, 2022, 23-32, (p. 23), <doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2021.12.207>.
69 de Carvalho, ‘Preludes to the Inquisition’, p. 10.
70 Monique Hennink, Inge Hutter and Ajay Bailey, Qualitative Research Methods, (London: Sage Publications, 2011)p. 52
71 Hennink, Hutter and Bailey, Qualitative Research Methods, p. 52.
72 Tajfel and Turner, Integrative theory of intergroup conflict, p. 33
73 Burnett and others ‘The Self-Censoring Majority’ p. 1.
74 Linda Parkinson-Hardman, Self-Censorship in Contemporary Astrology, (2025), <https://lindaph.co.uk/self-censorship-in-contemporary-astrology-research-project/>.
75 Judith Bell and Stephen Waters, Doing Your Research Project: a guide for first-time researchers, (Maidenhead: Open University Press 2014) p. 163.
76 Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures : Selected Essays, 3rd ed. (New York: Basic Books, 1973) p. 10.
77 Hennink, Hutter and Bailey, Qualitative Research Methods, p. 55.
78 Geertz, nterpretation of Cultures, p. 10.
79 Linda Parkinson-Hardman, Self Censorship in Contemporary Astrology Questionnaire, Respondent K.
80 Linda Parkinson-Hardman, Questionnaire, Respondent M.
81 Linda Parkinson-Hardman, Questionnaire, Respondent L.
82 Jarle Bastesen, Birthe Kåfjord Lange, and Bent Sofus Tranøy, ‘Making sense of uncertainty – Interrogating conceptions of the New Normal’, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 2025, 1-11 (p. 1) <doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2025.101407>
83 Linda Parkinson-Hardman, Questionnaire, Respondent A.
84 Parkin, ‘Press Astrology’, p. 245.
85 de Carvalho, ‘Preludes to the Inquisition’, p. 10.
86 Boris Groys, ‘Hurting the Feelings of Others’, Social Research, 83.1 (2016) 211-224 (p. 211).
87 de Carvalho, ‘Preludes to the Inquisition’, p. 17.
88 Linda Parkinson-Hardman, Questionnaire, Respondent B.
89 Linda Parkinson-Hardman, Self Censorship in Contemporary Astrology, Interview 3, (6th April 2025) Unpublished.
90 Linda Parkinson-Hardman, Questionnaire, Respondent C.
91 Linda Parkinson-Hardman, Interview 4, (6th April 2025).
92 de Carvalho, The Making Of An Astrologer, p. 103.
93 Tajfel and Turner, ‘An integrative theory’ (p. 37).
94 Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, Wednesday 3 June 1942.
95 Linda Parkinson-Hardman, Questionnaire, Respondent E.
96 Linda Parkinson-Hardman, Questionnaire, Respondent L.
97 Linda Parkinson-Hardman, Interview 5, (9th April 2025).
98 Campion, Western Astrology Vol. I, p. 199.
99 Campion Western Astrology Vol. I,, p. 229.
100 Pfeffer, ‘Marginalization of Astrology’, p. 1154.
101 Linda Parkinson-Hardman, Interview 4, (6th April 2025).
102 de Carvalho, The Making Of An Astrologer, p. 103.
103 de Carvalho, ‘Preludes to the Inquisition’ pp. 23-24.
104 Pfeffer, ‘Marginalization of Astrology’, p. 1154.
105 Linda Parkinson-Hardman, Questionnaire, Respondent G.
106 Linda Parkinson-Hardman, Interview 5, (9th April 2025).
107 Linda Parkinson-Hardman, Questionnaire, Respondent F.
108 Linda Parkinson-Hardman, Interview, 2.
109 Linda Parkinson-Hardman, Questionnaire, Respondent F.
110 Tajfel and Turner, Intergroup conflict, p. 33
111 Linda Parkinson-Hardman, Questionnaire, Respondent E.
112 Linda Parkinson-Hardman, Interview 2, (4th April 2025).
113 Linda Parkinson-Hardman, Questionnaire, Respondent L.
114 de Carvalho, ‘Preludes to the Inquisition’, p. 10.
Wolf Moon is where I publish occasional essays and thoughts about topics that interest me.