220 C Lucas
ethical for human society to aim for more complete knowledge of risk –
ignorance is not regarded as an adequate defence for failing to insure. This
Modern outlook, while expanding the horizons of rationality, simultaneously limits the role of emotion.
Sociologist Jack Barbalet (2019) argues that in an increasingly individuated, self-responsible culture, emotion is turned inward. Subjected to the
forces of bureaucratisation and globalisation, the neo-liberalised self is
re-oriented, ‘not principally to consciously managing external forces but
is experienced as an arena in which the individual’s subjective faculties
[i.e. their emotions] require self-management’ (Barbalet 2019, p. 120). The
opportunity to manifest and express self-transcendent emotions, which
Barbalet describes as contributing to a sense of civic engagement, justice and moral duty, is consequently limited. For individuals faced with
responsibility for risk in today’s society, the options are therefore narrowed. Failing to purchase insurance is seen as wilfully irrational, while
negative emotional responses to insurance tend to be interpreted reductively, as related to individualised emotional experience such as lack of
interpersonal trust, rather than as self-transcendent commitments to different forms of just society.
Several chapters in this book explore and disturb the apparent modern
dualism of emotion and rationality as it applies to insurance. Jonathon
Turnbull and Christine Eriksen (Chapter 13) use the idea of affective
atmospheres (Anderson 2009) to conceptualise the fear and uncertainty
generated by both individuals’ potential exposure to radioactive isotopes from the Chernobyl wildfires, and the inability of existing systems
to measure or rationalise this risk. Other chapters show how emotion is
fundamental to insurers’ relationships with their customers. Liz McFall
(Chapter 15) describes how insurers have responded to the affective atmospheres of the zeitgeist through the architecture of their brand. In the nineteenth century this meant creating a sense of stability and reassurance in
the form of stone-faced edifices, while in the twenty-first, it means creating
a visual brand for insurtech that conforms to a light-footed, innovative,
hipster trend.
Trust could also be described as an affective atmosphere. Trust is both an
individual and a collective phenomenon, and is both emotional and rational,
in that it is a belief based on experience, whether that is direct, or indirect
(Lucas et al. 2015). As Maiju Tanninen, Turo-Kimmo Lehtonen, and Minna
Ruckenstein (Chapter 14) suggest, trust is easily lost unless continuously performed and embedded in everyday practices. For some insurance customers,
their personal relationship with their insurer embodies the performance of
trust. Bushfire survivors Jenny and Frank interviewed by Scott McKinnon,
Christine Eriksen, and Eliza De Vet (Chapter 8, p. 102-103) describe their
insurer as providing not only financial but also emotional support, meaning that their trust of their insurance company is distinctly interpersonal. For Northern Australian residents interviewed by Nick Osbaldiston
ethical for human society to aim for more complete knowledge of risk –
ignorance is not regarded as an adequate defence for failing to insure. This
Modern outlook, while expanding the horizons of rationality, simultaneously limits the role of emotion.
Sociologist Jack Barbalet (2019) argues that in an increasingly individuated, self-responsible culture, emotion is turned inward. Subjected to the
forces of bureaucratisation and globalisation, the neo-liberalised self is
re-oriented, ‘not principally to consciously managing external forces but
is experienced as an arena in which the individual’s subjective faculties
[i.e. their emotions] require self-management’ (Barbalet 2019, p. 120). The
opportunity to manifest and express self-transcendent emotions, which
Barbalet describes as contributing to a sense of civic engagement, justice and moral duty, is consequently limited. For individuals faced with
responsibility for risk in today’s society, the options are therefore narrowed. Failing to purchase insurance is seen as wilfully irrational, while
negative emotional responses to insurance tend to be interpreted reductively, as related to individualised emotional experience such as lack of
interpersonal trust, rather than as self-transcendent commitments to different forms of just society.
Several chapters in this book explore and disturb the apparent modern
dualism of emotion and rationality as it applies to insurance. Jonathon
Turnbull and Christine Eriksen (Chapter 13) use the idea of affective
atmospheres (Anderson 2009) to conceptualise the fear and uncertainty
generated by both individuals’ potential exposure to radioactive isotopes from the Chernobyl wildfires, and the inability of existing systems
to measure or rationalise this risk. Other chapters show how emotion is
fundamental to insurers’ relationships with their customers. Liz McFall
(Chapter 15) describes how insurers have responded to the affective atmospheres of the zeitgeist through the architecture of their brand. In the nineteenth century this meant creating a sense of stability and reassurance in
the form of stone-faced edifices, while in the twenty-first, it means creating
a visual brand for insurtech that conforms to a light-footed, innovative,
hipster trend.
Trust could also be described as an affective atmosphere. Trust is both an
individual and a collective phenomenon, and is both emotional and rational,
in that it is a belief based on experience, whether that is direct, or indirect
(Lucas et al. 2015). As Maiju Tanninen, Turo-Kimmo Lehtonen, and Minna
Ruckenstein (Chapter 14) suggest, trust is easily lost unless continuously performed and embedded in everyday practices. For some insurance customers,
their personal relationship with their insurer embodies the performance of
trust. Bushfire survivors Jenny and Frank interviewed by Scott McKinnon,
Christine Eriksen, and Eliza De Vet (Chapter 8, p. 102-103) describe their
insurer as providing not only financial but also emotional support, meaning that their trust of their insurance company is distinctly interpersonal. For Northern Australian residents interviewed by Nick Osbaldiston