164 N Osbaldiston
These emotions cause Fredrick to reject insurance for his possessions as a
necessary part of his life. He does not insure his contents at all and suggests
he feels ‘quite pessimistic’ regarding how insurance plays such a ‘primary
role in society.’ It might be added that Fredrick also ‘just lives with’ risks
arguing that, ‘it’s a good way to live.’ While Fredrick uses these emotional
states to negate any desire to insure his contents, other participants use confidence and a sense of fatalism to do a similar thing. Gemma, a middle-aged
single mother of three from the Northern Beaches area, exemplifies an
attitude that was prevalent amongst renters. When discussing the need for
insurance, she dismisses it with a wave of the hand arguing that ‘we live a
very simple, non-materialistic life, so for us, I don’t feel that we need the
insurance to cover.’ She adds later,
INTERVIEWER: how confident would you be that you would be ok after
(a large-scale natural disaster)?
GEMMA: I’ve done it – when I left home, we sold everything we owned and
we put our possessions in the car and we drove here and we started a
new life. So for me, we would do it again. It would be difficult but we
don’t live that materialistic life for that to be a big, big problem.
Despite having school-aged children and multiple items in her home, such as
a TV, beds, clothing, refrigerator, freezer, Gemma expresses confidence and
exhibits feelings of optimism in her ability to start again without insurance.
Her experiences in the past allow for an emotional response best described
as complacence. Later in the interview when pressed on the risks of cyclones,
she responds with a sense of fatalism, ‘if a cyclone comes, do what I can do.
Whatever happens, happens […] my belief is, when it’s your time, it’s your time.’
This ‘fatalism’ is a recurring theme amongst some of our participants,
even those who are insured. These are also the kinds of insights that inform
critiques of Beck’s (1992) work wherein ‘public perceptions of risk’ are not
responded to always through ‘rational choice’ or cost-benefit calculations
(Mythen 2005, p. 143). Rather, risks can at times be influenced by ‘fate in
patching together personal interpretations of danger’ (Mythen 2005, p. 143).
As described above in the case of Gemma, there is a psychological moment,
built on past experiences, that allows her to wave off potential dangers and
allowing her to have confidence in herself despite unknowns and uncertainty (Osbaldiston, McShane and Oleszek 2019). Frequently, it is the renters in this study who are also dismissive of insurance because they feel little
attachment to their material possessions, claiming them to be of little to no
value. As one middle-aged male renter from within Cairns’ internal suburbia argues, ‘we don’t really have much value to begin with.’ Thus, distinct
from other participants, the decision not to insure is based on low emotional
connection to an imagined future sense of loss. Potential peace of mind provided by insurance is dismissed and negated.
These emotions cause Fredrick to reject insurance for his possessions as a
necessary part of his life. He does not insure his contents at all and suggests
he feels ‘quite pessimistic’ regarding how insurance plays such a ‘primary
role in society.’ It might be added that Fredrick also ‘just lives with’ risks
arguing that, ‘it’s a good way to live.’ While Fredrick uses these emotional
states to negate any desire to insure his contents, other participants use confidence and a sense of fatalism to do a similar thing. Gemma, a middle-aged
single mother of three from the Northern Beaches area, exemplifies an
attitude that was prevalent amongst renters. When discussing the need for
insurance, she dismisses it with a wave of the hand arguing that ‘we live a
very simple, non-materialistic life, so for us, I don’t feel that we need the
insurance to cover.’ She adds later,
INTERVIEWER: how confident would you be that you would be ok after
(a large-scale natural disaster)?
GEMMA: I’ve done it – when I left home, we sold everything we owned and
we put our possessions in the car and we drove here and we started a
new life. So for me, we would do it again. It would be difficult but we
don’t live that materialistic life for that to be a big, big problem.
Despite having school-aged children and multiple items in her home, such as
a TV, beds, clothing, refrigerator, freezer, Gemma expresses confidence and
exhibits feelings of optimism in her ability to start again without insurance.
Her experiences in the past allow for an emotional response best described
as complacence. Later in the interview when pressed on the risks of cyclones,
she responds with a sense of fatalism, ‘if a cyclone comes, do what I can do.
Whatever happens, happens […] my belief is, when it’s your time, it’s your time.’
This ‘fatalism’ is a recurring theme amongst some of our participants,
even those who are insured. These are also the kinds of insights that inform
critiques of Beck’s (1992) work wherein ‘public perceptions of risk’ are not
responded to always through ‘rational choice’ or cost-benefit calculations
(Mythen 2005, p. 143). Rather, risks can at times be influenced by ‘fate in
patching together personal interpretations of danger’ (Mythen 2005, p. 143).
As described above in the case of Gemma, there is a psychological moment,
built on past experiences, that allows her to wave off potential dangers and
allowing her to have confidence in herself despite unknowns and uncertainty (Osbaldiston, McShane and Oleszek 2019). Frequently, it is the renters in this study who are also dismissive of insurance because they feel little
attachment to their material possessions, claiming them to be of little to no
value. As one middle-aged male renter from within Cairns’ internal suburbia argues, ‘we don’t really have much value to begin with.’ Thus, distinct
from other participants, the decision not to insure is based on low emotional
connection to an imagined future sense of loss. Potential peace of mind provided by insurance is dismissed and negated.