Conclusion 221
(Chapter 12, p. 160-161), however, ‘emotional reflexivity towards insurers is
built through experiences others have had, and this extends to thirdhand
stories that circulate in the civil sphere.’ Some of Osbaldiston’s participants
question the rationality of being insured, feeling that the risk of losing uninsured belongings in a cyclone helps them live ‘non-materialistic lives’ and
is ‘a good way to live.’ For some the emotional excitement of ‘living on the
edge’ is self-defining, for others a sense of fatalism together with some confidence in their own ability to get by. As McKinnon, Eriksen, and De Vet also
illustrate in their chapter, the ability to rebuild and replace possessions is
not commensurate with the loss of the affective, mnemonic, and emotional
aspects of homes impacted by climatic disaster.
Technical and political
Actuarial science, which underlies decisions made by insurers, is the application of mathematical and statistical methods to assess risk. As Kenneth
Klein points out (Chapter 9) insurance companies have enormous banks
of data on which to base these statistical decisions, and so it is noteworthy
when large proportions of customers, in this case victims of wildfire, find
themselves unexpectedly underinsured. Policy decisions are presented by
insurers as the outcome of techno-scientific calculations. Several chapters
in this book examine how insurers have made political decisions behind the
cover of actuarial rationalism. These authors reveal how insurantial logics
that appear to be benign, technical tools for managing risks often contain
hidden at their core a normative politics (or an over-riding profit motive)
that can exacerbate existing social problems and inequalities.
Chloe Lucas and Travis Young (Chapter 6) describe insurantial descriptions of resilience that emphasise individual self-discipline and self-reliance,
through the purchase of insurance. These normative imperatives align with
the neo-liberal ideology of non-interventionist, small government. The
experience of flood victims in both Hobart and Houston acted to entrench
the need for self-reliance – ironically, in order to negotiate the insurance
experience itself – as the application of insurance policy and practice
‘acted to contradict the knowledge and testimony of the insured, and to
destabilise participants’ sense of control and agency in the aftermath of the
disaster’ (Lucas & Young Chapter 6, p. 73). The call for self-reliance and
self- discipline also equates to a system that values individuals with existing wealth and privilege, while denigrating the disadvantaged. In Houston,
affluent white homeowners can make this system ‘work for them’, while for
black communities and renters, the benefit is not worth the cost.
Tanninnen, Lehtonen, and Ruckenstein (Chapter 14) describe how big
data being used by insurtech is ‘in the wild’ – stripped of past certainties
and breaking the assumptions of tried and tested technical insurance methodologies. It also offers opportunities to ‘gently manipulate or ‘nudge’’
(Chapter 14, p. 188) customers into behaviours that suit insurance companies.
(Chapter 12, p. 160-161), however, ‘emotional reflexivity towards insurers is
built through experiences others have had, and this extends to thirdhand
stories that circulate in the civil sphere.’ Some of Osbaldiston’s participants
question the rationality of being insured, feeling that the risk of losing uninsured belongings in a cyclone helps them live ‘non-materialistic lives’ and
is ‘a good way to live.’ For some the emotional excitement of ‘living on the
edge’ is self-defining, for others a sense of fatalism together with some confidence in their own ability to get by. As McKinnon, Eriksen, and De Vet also
illustrate in their chapter, the ability to rebuild and replace possessions is
not commensurate with the loss of the affective, mnemonic, and emotional
aspects of homes impacted by climatic disaster.
Technical and political
Actuarial science, which underlies decisions made by insurers, is the application of mathematical and statistical methods to assess risk. As Kenneth
Klein points out (Chapter 9) insurance companies have enormous banks
of data on which to base these statistical decisions, and so it is noteworthy
when large proportions of customers, in this case victims of wildfire, find
themselves unexpectedly underinsured. Policy decisions are presented by
insurers as the outcome of techno-scientific calculations. Several chapters
in this book examine how insurers have made political decisions behind the
cover of actuarial rationalism. These authors reveal how insurantial logics
that appear to be benign, technical tools for managing risks often contain
hidden at their core a normative politics (or an over-riding profit motive)
that can exacerbate existing social problems and inequalities.
Chloe Lucas and Travis Young (Chapter 6) describe insurantial descriptions of resilience that emphasise individual self-discipline and self-reliance,
through the purchase of insurance. These normative imperatives align with
the neo-liberal ideology of non-interventionist, small government. The
experience of flood victims in both Hobart and Houston acted to entrench
the need for self-reliance – ironically, in order to negotiate the insurance
experience itself – as the application of insurance policy and practice
‘acted to contradict the knowledge and testimony of the insured, and to
destabilise participants’ sense of control and agency in the aftermath of the
disaster’ (Lucas & Young Chapter 6, p. 73). The call for self-reliance and
self- discipline also equates to a system that values individuals with existing wealth and privilege, while denigrating the disadvantaged. In Houston,
affluent white homeowners can make this system ‘work for them’, while for
black communities and renters, the benefit is not worth the cost.
Tanninnen, Lehtonen, and Ruckenstein (Chapter 14) describe how big
data being used by insurtech is ‘in the wild’ – stripped of past certainties
and breaking the assumptions of tried and tested technical insurance methodologies. It also offers opportunities to ‘gently manipulate or ‘nudge’’
(Chapter 14, p. 188) customers into behaviours that suit insurance companies.