I don’t want to get in a fight with someone whose work I respect, but there’s been a bit of anti-intellectual bubbling in various astrological corners of the blogosphere lately. One person, an extremely educated and intelligent person with a tremendously respectable body of work behind him, suggests that academia is inherently materialistic and therefore it is pointless and silly to imagine a course in astrology at any sort of accredited university.
While material reductionism is indeed a common philosophy in certain departments, it’s hardly the norm throughout all departments. Religion, philosophy, the humanities — many of them sport professors whose theoretical approach is deeply anti-materialistic. Deconstruction, until recently the sine qua non of literature departments, calls into question the very possibility of an objective materialist world by deconstructing the binaries upon which such assumptions rest. I know philosophers who argue for platonic idealism, and one of my good friends and a professor in a social science argues persuasively against reductive materialism. These are not just examples of a few people who are like government officials against the war in Afghanistan: these are people who argue these positions in their field.
There are quite a lot of departments who study things that are not material or objective. There’s no particular reason why astrology could not be among them (and no particular reason why, necessarily, it should be among them, either).