Neoliberal risk thinking undermines the actuarial categories classical insurance requires

Evidence

The denial of legitimacy of personal categories has also had profound implications for the construction of the keyword “risk” in neoliberalism. The connotations of the term “risk” are treacherous in the modern world. Should one approach risk as an actuarial concept, then the ability to sort individuals into stable categories and identities is the indispensable prerequisite for the application of probability algorithms to what would otherwise be merely the idiosyncratic and incommensurate life trajectories of historical personalities. Classical approaches to risk parlayed stable categories into prudential outcomes. Yet, because of the first commandment of the plasticity of the individual, this is increasingly not how everyday neoliberalism understands risk. — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 336

Categorization

  • XREF: Connects to the earlier chapters of this book establishing the neoliberal ‘first commandment’ of individual plasticity, and to broader critiques of the risk society (Beck, Giddens) that assume stable actuarial categories. — connects to: Algorithmic risk prediction individualizes insurance and erodes social solidarity — Aris Komporozos-Athanasiou, Speculative Communities: Living with…, 421; Neoliberalism induces risk-bearing then blames the victims when risk fails — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 351; Neoliberals rejected population-level statistics and risk insurance as hubristic — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market: Human Rights…, 210 (+7 more)
  • DEFINE: Distinguishes classical/actuarial risk from the vernacular neoliberal usage by showing their divergent prerequisites.

Broader Connections