104 S McKinnon, C Eriksen, and E de Vet
the future. In these cases, domestic belongings were reframed less as fragile
possessions needing protection from fire, and instead as heavy constraints
or burdens from which survivors had now been freed (see also Horton
& Kraftl 2012; McKinnon & Eriksen 2021). Ronald (BM, 70s) used dark
humour to describe this transformed relationship, labelling the disaster’s
destruction a ‘fire sale.’ Rather than damaging, he preferred to think of the
fire as cleansing, in that it had ‘cleaned all the clutter’ from his home. The
idea that material belongings were ‘clutter’ was repeated by Heather (BM,
40s) who stated, ‘I think you learn, you declutter and you simplify your life
if that sort of thing happens.’
This re-framing by survivors brings in to question the assessment of
insurance levels as either adequate or inadequate. A survivor without sufficient insurance to replace lost home contents might be labelled ‘underinsured.’ Yet, if they have no intention to replace all their belongings and,
indeed, feel freed from, rather than lost without, these belongings, then the
term ‘underinsurance’ has little relevance to their lived experience with fire.
This is not to suggest that Heather and other participants who expressed
similar sentiments had not experienced sadness or even trauma at their loss.
The reassessment of objects as ‘clutter’ was often part of the recovery process, moving from mourning for enormous losses towards an acceptance of
transformed meanings and relationships. Bill and Sue (KV, 50s), for example, also lost their house and its contents. Asked about lost belongings, Sue
replied, ‘Now we just call it stuff, we don’t think about it too much, but it
was heartbreaking.’ Eriksen and Ballard (2020, p. 78) argue that post-fire, a
material object ‘is often understood through its absence.’ In Sue’s description, material belongings have a ghostly presence, which is not replaceable
but rather called upon post-fire for remembered non-monetary values and
for the emotional costs of loss. Subsequently re-labelled ‘clutter’ and ‘stuff,’
these objects are dismissed as unknown and unnamed, and can therefore be
more easily dealt with as absent.
Sue recalled that many of their lost belongings had been covered by insurance, before stating, ‘not that [insurance] covers the sentimental value.’
This statement reveals how objects insurance companies consider insurable, may be considered uninsurable by bushfire survivors because of their
non-monetary or more than monetary value (Booth & Harwood 2016). A
similar sentiment was expressed by Helen (KV, 60s), who had stored a number of precious belongings in a shelter below her home, as the Currowan
fire approached. She and her husband, Joe, had insured the buildings on
their property but not the contents. They stayed and defended the property
through the fire and their home suffered little damage. When asked if they
now intended to change their insurance levels, Joe stated, ‘If anything, I’d
try and reduce it. We’ve had the fire now. That was really the only risk that
I thought we had.’ Helen added that, while insurance could help rebuild a
building, ‘It couldn’t replace all my treasures that I keep looking at saying,
“Oh thank God that’s still there. I forgot to evacuate that.”’
the future. In these cases, domestic belongings were reframed less as fragile
possessions needing protection from fire, and instead as heavy constraints
or burdens from which survivors had now been freed (see also Horton
& Kraftl 2012; McKinnon & Eriksen 2021). Ronald (BM, 70s) used dark
humour to describe this transformed relationship, labelling the disaster’s
destruction a ‘fire sale.’ Rather than damaging, he preferred to think of the
fire as cleansing, in that it had ‘cleaned all the clutter’ from his home. The
idea that material belongings were ‘clutter’ was repeated by Heather (BM,
40s) who stated, ‘I think you learn, you declutter and you simplify your life
if that sort of thing happens.’
This re-framing by survivors brings in to question the assessment of
insurance levels as either adequate or inadequate. A survivor without sufficient insurance to replace lost home contents might be labelled ‘underinsured.’ Yet, if they have no intention to replace all their belongings and,
indeed, feel freed from, rather than lost without, these belongings, then the
term ‘underinsurance’ has little relevance to their lived experience with fire.
This is not to suggest that Heather and other participants who expressed
similar sentiments had not experienced sadness or even trauma at their loss.
The reassessment of objects as ‘clutter’ was often part of the recovery process, moving from mourning for enormous losses towards an acceptance of
transformed meanings and relationships. Bill and Sue (KV, 50s), for example, also lost their house and its contents. Asked about lost belongings, Sue
replied, ‘Now we just call it stuff, we don’t think about it too much, but it
was heartbreaking.’ Eriksen and Ballard (2020, p. 78) argue that post-fire, a
material object ‘is often understood through its absence.’ In Sue’s description, material belongings have a ghostly presence, which is not replaceable
but rather called upon post-fire for remembered non-monetary values and
for the emotional costs of loss. Subsequently re-labelled ‘clutter’ and ‘stuff,’
these objects are dismissed as unknown and unnamed, and can therefore be
more easily dealt with as absent.
Sue recalled that many of their lost belongings had been covered by insurance, before stating, ‘not that [insurance] covers the sentimental value.’
This statement reveals how objects insurance companies consider insurable, may be considered uninsurable by bushfire survivors because of their
non-monetary or more than monetary value (Booth & Harwood 2016). A
similar sentiment was expressed by Helen (KV, 60s), who had stored a number of precious belongings in a shelter below her home, as the Currowan
fire approached. She and her husband, Joe, had insured the buildings on
their property but not the contents. They stayed and defended the property
through the fire and their home suffered little damage. When asked if they
now intended to change their insurance levels, Joe stated, ‘If anything, I’d
try and reduce it. We’ve had the fire now. That was really the only risk that
I thought we had.’ Helen added that, while insurance could help rebuild a
building, ‘It couldn’t replace all my treasures that I keep looking at saying,
“Oh thank God that’s still there. I forgot to evacuate that.”’