Shoplifting from Whitman's

I recently read a humorous, but honest, email sent out over the WUFO list serve. In the email, the writer described getting caught walking out of Whitman’s dinning with a large tray food without paying for it with his meal card. He reluctantly gave the woman his card and went to eat his meal. Later, he wrote to the entire Frisbee team, and some that are not on the Frisbee team (myself), that it was the first time that he had had to pay for a meal at Paresky since April of his freshman year. He got caught, then lied about paying, and was then dragged back into Whitman’s to actually pay for his meal. He later proclaimed that the incident was one of the most traumatizing experiences he has had while at Williams. His reasons for not paying for his meal was 1) that he was on the 20 meal plan and thus entitled to the meal, 2) Whitman’s was so easy to steal from that it was his duty to prove its faulty design, and 3) it was much more fun to steal from Whitman’s than have your card swiped.

            It is somewhat eerie how much the WUFO player’s justification mirrors that of the lady shoplifters of the 19^th century department store. At this point history, for the first time, stores that had once been owned by well-known merchants had been replaced by faceless department stores. The new stores seemed to have limitless money and goods that made shoplifting for these women an experience that was not “morally straining.” These women were not stealing from someone that they knew, but a large company, an idea. The WUFO player, like many of these 19^th century women, did not believe what they were doing was wrong. The women where stretching the amount of money that they had to spend by stealing some of the items that they believed they “needed.” The WUFO player was stealing to prove a fault in the system, or in Lehman’s terms: have snack bar points for later. But, while both felt a lesser tug of morality because of the faceless nature of the entity from which they were stealing, I would also argue that they each also felt some level of ownership to the places from which they were stealing.

            The department stores of the 19^th century were becoming more than simply a place to buy household necessities; they were becoming civic centers for middle class women. Department stores where one of the few places which women, at the time, would have the opportunity to get out of the house and socialize. It is likely that many of the “shoplifting ladies” had spent a good deal of time in the stores in which they were stealing from. These women might have felt a level of ownership over the department stores just as a group of territorial surfers have over a particular beach. I have been at Williams for two and a half years and while I physically own nothing at Williams, even my dorm room is on loan, I feel as though I own a part of Williams. It is much easier to take what you want from a place that you believe is your own.

            I am certain that the WUFO player felt as though he also had some ownership of Williams. He had bought into the full 20-meal plan and so he believed he had the right to take any food that he wanted from Whitman’s. It did not matter that the meal plan’s prices were calibrated on the fact that every student would miss a certain number of meals every semester. He felt that he had paid his dues into the system so the system owed him whatever he wanted. The ladies who shoplifted in the 19^th century often had charge accounts at department stores and spent a great deal of money there. They believed that they owned a part of the store so that the extra goods that they stole were owed to them by the store. And, if they were truly regular customers, the department store clerks would let the ladies get away with their crimes.

            A few days before I received the WUFO email I was eating lunch with one of my friends. Midway through our meal a dinning services woman politely came up to my friend and informed him that he had forgotten to swipe his card. She left with his card and promptly returned. There was no confrontation and no embarrassment. My friend had purposefully not paid for his meal (hoping to cash in at snack bar later) and there was not downside to getting caught. The author of “Shoplifting Ladies” pointed this out as one of the main motivators for the women’s petty thievery. The department store clerks stopped most of the women for “forgetting” to pay for stolen items. In the worst cases women gave fake names to police and had no charges filed against them. The risk of punishment is so low that almost any kind of thievery can be justified. For most of these women, it is the risk that drove them to shoplifting.

            I have a hard time imagining a life as uneventful as the “Shoplifting ladies” of the 19^th century. They spent almost all day, every day, at home. Their only escape from the domestic sphere was to do the household shopping. They were expected to be proper at all times. I think that shoplifting for certain women, at that time in history, was their rebellion. Even if they were the only ones who knew it, they had done something that was outside of the standards that society had mapped for them. It might have been exciting and even fun. That was the WUFO player’s last explanation for taking food from Whitman’s; it was “much more fun than paying.” I can’t wrap my head around the idea that stealing from Whitman’s could be fun. But, everyone has his or her own definition of fun.