170 C Eriksen and J Turnbull
scholarly work on affective atmospheres, sensing assemblages, and volumetric sovereignty, which underpin our theoretical framing, to examine the
ungovernable atmosphere and the uncontrollable flow of air and radioactive
particles in the CEZ. We conclude by suggesting the implications of such
thinking for critical disaster and insurance studies more broadly.
Atmospheric frameworks
Atmosphere as an affective phenomenon has become a critical concept in
the last decade, allowing scholars in the social sciences ‘to grasp the affective materiality of spacetimes that are diffuse and excessive of bodies yet also
palpable through the sensory capacities of those bodies’ (Engelmann &
McCormack 2018, p. 187). Affect concerns the precognitive, felt, impulsive,
ebbs and flows of lived experience. On these terms, atmosphere does not
only refer to the envelope of gases that surrounds the Earth, but also to a
field of affective experience. This mode of thinking helps us make sense of
the 2020 wildfires in the CEZ, their representation, and sensed embodiment.
Following Choy (2018, p. 56), it is not ‘the actuality of atmospheric objects
or worlds, but rather how people adjust relations and relational capacities
when motivated by an atmospheric question,’ which determines how affective atmospheres are sensed, embodied, and only later expressed in emotional terms (see also, Anderson 2009; Anderson & Ash 2015). The qualities
of physical atmospheres, such as temperature, pressure, and humidity, vary
over space and time. Human bodies can often sense these variations. Yet,
this is not always the case. For example, the invisibility of radiation, and the
human body’s inability to detect low doses, means atmospheric radiation
(and other atmospheric pollutants) gain some of their affective capacities
through participating in sensing assemblages. Here, ‘non-human bodies and devices of various kinds,’ with the capacity to be ‘affected or perturbed,’ come together to render them present to human senses (Engelmann
& McCormack 2018, p. 188). Recent work on environmental sensing has
probed the expansive scope of sensing technologies that challenge human
conceptions of agency, experience, and the boundaries of the body (e.g.
Gabrys 2020). These forms of sensing, observing, and marking pertain to
the wildfires in the CEZ.
Like with atmosphere, a growing body of scholarly work concerning
volumetric and voluminous conceptualisations of space and sovereignty is
helpful for our analysis of the spatiotemporal problem inherent to insurance studies. Largely inspired by Sloterdijk’s (2009) notion of ‘spheres’
and Weizman’s (2002) ‘politics of verticality,’ these recently developed
approaches enable three-dimensional (3D) understandings of space, which
challenge the often disembodied two-dimensional (2D) understandings of
elemental relationships (Adey 2015; Billé 2017; Billé 2019). Elden’s (2009;
2013; 2017) work has been particularly influential, initially emphasising the
economic, strategic, legal, and technical dimensions of vertical politics, and
scholarly work on affective atmospheres, sensing assemblages, and volumetric sovereignty, which underpin our theoretical framing, to examine the
ungovernable atmosphere and the uncontrollable flow of air and radioactive
particles in the CEZ. We conclude by suggesting the implications of such
thinking for critical disaster and insurance studies more broadly.
Atmospheric frameworks
Atmosphere as an affective phenomenon has become a critical concept in
the last decade, allowing scholars in the social sciences ‘to grasp the affective materiality of spacetimes that are diffuse and excessive of bodies yet also
palpable through the sensory capacities of those bodies’ (Engelmann &
McCormack 2018, p. 187). Affect concerns the precognitive, felt, impulsive,
ebbs and flows of lived experience. On these terms, atmosphere does not
only refer to the envelope of gases that surrounds the Earth, but also to a
field of affective experience. This mode of thinking helps us make sense of
the 2020 wildfires in the CEZ, their representation, and sensed embodiment.
Following Choy (2018, p. 56), it is not ‘the actuality of atmospheric objects
or worlds, but rather how people adjust relations and relational capacities
when motivated by an atmospheric question,’ which determines how affective atmospheres are sensed, embodied, and only later expressed in emotional terms (see also, Anderson 2009; Anderson & Ash 2015). The qualities
of physical atmospheres, such as temperature, pressure, and humidity, vary
over space and time. Human bodies can often sense these variations. Yet,
this is not always the case. For example, the invisibility of radiation, and the
human body’s inability to detect low doses, means atmospheric radiation
(and other atmospheric pollutants) gain some of their affective capacities
through participating in sensing assemblages. Here, ‘non-human bodies and devices of various kinds,’ with the capacity to be ‘affected or perturbed,’ come together to render them present to human senses (Engelmann
& McCormack 2018, p. 188). Recent work on environmental sensing has
probed the expansive scope of sensing technologies that challenge human
conceptions of agency, experience, and the boundaries of the body (e.g.
Gabrys 2020). These forms of sensing, observing, and marking pertain to
the wildfires in the CEZ.
Like with atmosphere, a growing body of scholarly work concerning
volumetric and voluminous conceptualisations of space and sovereignty is
helpful for our analysis of the spatiotemporal problem inherent to insurance studies. Largely inspired by Sloterdijk’s (2009) notion of ‘spheres’
and Weizman’s (2002) ‘politics of verticality,’ these recently developed
approaches enable three-dimensional (3D) understandings of space, which
challenge the often disembodied two-dimensional (2D) understandings of
elemental relationships (Adey 2015; Billé 2017; Billé 2019). Elden’s (2009;
2013; 2017) work has been particularly influential, initially emphasising the
economic, strategic, legal, and technical dimensions of vertical politics, and