How it happened
The term emerges. Doctors describe an irresistible urge to steal things a person does not need and can afford to buy.
Department stores emerge. For the first time, merchandise is displayed openly and can be touched. Shoplifting rises sharply.
An explanation emerges. Thefts committed by women from wealthy families are explained as illness, not deliberate wrongdoing.
Inequality emerges. The same theft committed by a poor woman remains a crime. The diagnosis is not available to everyone.
This fourth step is the main criticism historians make of the story. The diagnosis offered a way to avoid shame and trial for those who could afford a doctor and a lawyer.
Explanations from that time look bizarre today. The urge was linked to the female body, fainting, and the effect of stores on the nerves, and all of it was presented as medicine.
What we know now
The actual disorder exists and is included in classification systems, but it is very rare, affecting a fraction of a percent. Its defining feature is not the theft itself, but that the item is not needed, has no value to the person, and is often later discarded or returned.
The overwhelming majority of shoplifting has nothing to do with it. People steal for profit, out of need, or on impulse, and these are ordinary offenses, not a medical condition.
It is also important to note that the disorder involves severe distress. A person gets no pleasure from the item, feels ashamed, and often hides what is happening for years without seeking help.
This history shows clearly how a medical term can do social work. The diagnosis explained what did not fit the era's ideas: why a wealthy woman would steal something she could afford to buy.
Finish reading in the Miqo app
1 more minute, then a quiz at the end. Find it under “Crime → Women Criminals”
Point your phone camera here to open the App Store or Google Play.
Sources
- The term was introduced in the early 19th century and spread with the development of department stores
- historians note that it was applied selectively depending on the accused person's social status. In modern classification systems, the disorder is described as rare, with the characteristic absence of practical value in the stolen items