96 Fire
Insurance appears as a ‘fire object’; manifesting as ‘patterns of discontinuity between absence and presence’ (Law & Singleton 2005, p. 331). It is
other than what we might expect it to be, and as such can prove an elusive
research subject (Booth 2021). A fire object,
cannot be domesticated… faced with an object … that is complex and
generative in multiple and discontinuous absences, the limits of representational method are thrown into relief. We cannot bring it all to
presence in conventional texts. We cannot bring it all to any particular
presence. We cannot expect to be able to tell a consistent tale. And the
implications of this? Other possibilities—for example the allegorical,
the tolerance or art of ambiguity—might help. But in the first instance
this suggests the need for methodological humility. If the world is messy
we cannot know it by insisting that it is clear.
(Law & Singleton 2005, pp. 349–350)
In this section, our authors consider insurance in the context of fire and the
growing threat of wildfire, to lives and property in Australia and the United
States. Collectively, these chapters illustrate the multifarious factors that
constitute insurance and insurability, including the complex relations that
exist between various agents and how this makes up insurance or contributes to underinsurance. Wildfire is less predictable than flood, and more
destructive of property than wind or water. Photographs of razed homes
from which all that remains are a few twisted sheets of corrugated metal,
or a lone chimney left standing, are branded in the memories of those who
live in landscapes of fire. Scott McKinnon, Christine Eriksen, and Eliza
De Vet approach ideas of insurance and insurability from the standpoint
of householders – specifically those who survived the 2013 Blue Mountain
fires, and the 2020 Kangaroo Valley, Australia. They observe how the emotional as well as monetary valuing of household items contributes to a sense
of insurability, and this draws into question ideas of underinsurance and
‘adequate’ insurance coverage as the value of insurance shifts and changes.
Reflecting observations in previous chapters and those made by McKinnon
and colleagues, Kenneth Klein highlights the role that insurers and insurance play in manifesting underinsurance and how householders and lending practices intersect with these, both in Australia and the United States.
Again, in Australia, Pat O’Malley investigates the institutional setting of
insuring against fire, observing how the idea of building sustainability is
variously mobilized by developers, the fire protection industry and insurers,
and illustrates the politically charged nature of insurance and insuring.
Within the fiery landscapes of Australia and the United States, there
is a strong sense of insurance as a ‘fire object’ (Law & Singleton 2005). It
can be described and illustrated in particular ways, yet there appears to
be no consistent story to be told as agents – householders, governments,
insurers – flicker in and out of focus with varying degrees of agency. In this
Insurance appears as a ‘fire object’; manifesting as ‘patterns of discontinuity between absence and presence’ (Law & Singleton 2005, p. 331). It is
other than what we might expect it to be, and as such can prove an elusive
research subject (Booth 2021). A fire object,
cannot be domesticated… faced with an object … that is complex and
generative in multiple and discontinuous absences, the limits of representational method are thrown into relief. We cannot bring it all to
presence in conventional texts. We cannot bring it all to any particular
presence. We cannot expect to be able to tell a consistent tale. And the
implications of this? Other possibilities—for example the allegorical,
the tolerance or art of ambiguity—might help. But in the first instance
this suggests the need for methodological humility. If the world is messy
we cannot know it by insisting that it is clear.
(Law & Singleton 2005, pp. 349–350)
In this section, our authors consider insurance in the context of fire and the
growing threat of wildfire, to lives and property in Australia and the United
States. Collectively, these chapters illustrate the multifarious factors that
constitute insurance and insurability, including the complex relations that
exist between various agents and how this makes up insurance or contributes to underinsurance. Wildfire is less predictable than flood, and more
destructive of property than wind or water. Photographs of razed homes
from which all that remains are a few twisted sheets of corrugated metal,
or a lone chimney left standing, are branded in the memories of those who
live in landscapes of fire. Scott McKinnon, Christine Eriksen, and Eliza
De Vet approach ideas of insurance and insurability from the standpoint
of householders – specifically those who survived the 2013 Blue Mountain
fires, and the 2020 Kangaroo Valley, Australia. They observe how the emotional as well as monetary valuing of household items contributes to a sense
of insurability, and this draws into question ideas of underinsurance and
‘adequate’ insurance coverage as the value of insurance shifts and changes.
Reflecting observations in previous chapters and those made by McKinnon
and colleagues, Kenneth Klein highlights the role that insurers and insurance play in manifesting underinsurance and how householders and lending practices intersect with these, both in Australia and the United States.
Again, in Australia, Pat O’Malley investigates the institutional setting of
insuring against fire, observing how the idea of building sustainability is
variously mobilized by developers, the fire protection industry and insurers,
and illustrates the politically charged nature of insurance and insuring.
Within the fiery landscapes of Australia and the United States, there
is a strong sense of insurance as a ‘fire object’ (Law & Singleton 2005). It
can be described and illustrated in particular ways, yet there appears to
be no consistent story to be told as agents – householders, governments,
insurers – flicker in and out of focus with varying degrees of agency. In this