The conflict between Christianity and Islam is a core issue for all varieties of European neo-nationalist and nativist right-wing ideo­logical organisation, from populist and far-right parties to extra-parliamentary groups and individuals. As a mundane political-social critique, this defensive and nationalistic form of anti-Islamism focuses on the downsides of mass immigration from Northern Africa and the Middle­ East, stressing the incompatibility of gross gender inequality, sexual intolerance and religiously motivated Islamist terrorism as well as the theocratic sharia system of laws with (...) the secular European model of society. Antisemitism makes an appearance in the guise of the old Nazi concept which portrays ‘World Jewry’ as a community of international financial exploiters, allegedly inspired in their misdeeds by their religion. However, this notion is being countered by a stronger, pro­semitic ideology, portraying the state of Israel as an ally in the struggle against Islam. As ‘traditional’ European religions, Christianity and the different historical and local varieties of paganism serve as important points of positive identification. (shrink)

What makes insurance special among risk technologies is the particular way in which it links solidarity and technical rationality. On one hand, within insurance practices ‘risk’ is always defined in technical terms. It is related to monetary measurement of value and to statistical probability calculated for a limited population. On the other hand, and at the same time, insurance has an inherent connection to solidarity. When taking out an insurance, one participates in the risk pool within which each member is (...) reciprocally responsible for others’ risks. The combination of technical controllability and solidarity has made insurance a successful tool for governing welfare societies during the twentieth century. From the point of view of business ethics, it is interesting that, as we argue in this article, the connection between insurance and solidarity is not limited to social welfare assemblages, but is evident in relation to private insurance as well. At the same time, however, it is important to understand that insurance does not advance all forms of solidarity. Hence, this theoretical article analyzes the specific conceptions of solidarity that the different forms of insurance practice produce. Particular emphasis is put on the distinction between ‘chance solidarity’ and ‘subsidizing solidarity’. The main questions of the article are: What kinds of conceptions of solidarity are built in the insurance technology? And how are the limits of solidarity defined and justified in different forms of insurance? (shrink)

The article presents two main arguments. First, we claim that in contemporary societies, insurance enacts peculiar kinds of solidarities as well as inequality and exclusion. Especially important in this respect are life, health, disability and old age pension insurance, both in compulsory and voluntary forms. Second, the article maintains that the ideas of solidarity, inequality and exclusion are transformed by the machinery of insurance. In other words, the concrete ways in which insurance relations are practically arranged have an effect on (...) the ways in which the related moral and political concepts are perceived. We elaborate on three different forms of insurance solidarity, which we call chance, risk and income solidarity. The existence of multiple forms of solidarity relevant to insurance is significant because practices of insurance require decisions concerning what kind of solidarity is emphasised, when it is emphasised, and on what grounds. Moreover, what is solidarity for some can entail exclusion and inequality for others. Showing these internal tensions within insurance practice underlines the inherently political and moral nature of insurance. (shrink)

The digital world provides various ethical frames for individuals to become ethical subjects. In this paper I examine – in a Foucauldian and Luhmannian way – the differences between three systems of communication: the proprietary, the open/free and the cracker system. It is argued that all three systems provide a different set of ethical codes which one can be subjected to. The language of each system is restricted and they cannot understand each other, they merely consider each other as the (...) environment. The systems generate a diversity of ethical codes as they give different shapes to digital objects. To proprietary software companies digital objects are an instrument of financial profit. The free software/open source movement emphasises transparency; the end user must be able to view and alter the source code. The cracker scene sees digital objects in a different way. For this particular system, only copy-protected digital objects are appealing. Copy protection binds its target to the world of matter. Breaking the protection is the ultimate challenge and a way to gain honour and status inside the cracker scene. A copy-protected digital object is simultaneously an utmost example of the hidden source code (the open/free system), a perfect artefact that can be owned and sold (the proprietary system) and a challenge to be cracked (the cracker system). (shrink)