Automobile theft is a crime at the margins of American life.
Yet, it also reflects themes that are at the core of modern existence, and what
it means to be human. For the thief,
the act can be a vicarious experience. It is a moment that Jeffrey T. Schnapp
suggests vaults the perpetrator into "the world as its conqueror, rule and
judge." In a classic role reversal, the often clever and technologically
adept thief gains freedom at the expense of an "unhorsed" owner, who
has lost autonomy and identity. Additionally,
the criminal, usually from the periphery of society, moves, albeit temporarily,
into a life "of bigger living," a world in which class distinctions and
material possessions have been temporarily suspended. 1
Even though auto theft is
statistically in decline, it is such a common occurrence in America that we
hardly take notice of it happening -- unless the car is ours. Insurance
industry statistics tell us that currently (2013) a car is stolen every 33
seconds and that if we were to string out the annual total of stolen cars
bumper to bumper, the line would stretch from New York City to Phoenix. Auto
theft, then, may not be central to our everyday lives, but is far from
inconsequential, particularly when it is directly related to more serious crime.
Many
Americans have directly or indirectly experienced the theft of a car, our most
prized possession after our homes. Our personal experiences, however, capture only
a portion of the complexity and changing nature of auto theft in the US from
the early days to the present. Accordingly,
several questions stand out. Most
significantly, who steals cars, what are their motives, and how has the crime
changed over time? Is it the drug of speed and thrills, sovereign
individualism, easy money, wanting what one does not have, race and class
antagonisms, the need for transportation, repressed sexual impulses, boredom,
or something else? Or in this case, as Sarah S. Lochlann Jain suggests, when we
focus on this criminal aspect of the automobile and culture “freedom meets
regulation and a potential for individuation rubs uneasily against actualized
homogeneity.”2 Furthermore, the story gets more convoluted when we
go beyond the thieves to the motives of those owners whose cars are stolen. Why
did so many Americans up to and through the 1960s leave their keys in their
cars, purportedly objects that were loved and often considered part of the
family? Moving from the individuals to the machines, questions surface
concerning what anti-theft measures were incorporated into the cars coming off
the assembly line, and the thousands of inventors’ aftermarket technologies? Automobile theft affords not only
opportunities for inventors to create devices to thwart thieves, but also for
thieves to use creative means to overcome ingenious locks and electronic
alarms. When the focus shifts from
people and objects to space, an examination of why some places are hot spots
for auto theft and others relatively safe begs to be explored. And in an age in
which transnational topics are widely discussed, it is pertinent to ask how international
forces work to the advantage of thieves?
But why
take time to tell this history at the margins? The narrative is not about
luscious cars or creative engineers and businessmen, but about everyday people,
both lawbreakers and victims. Fundamentally, however, it is a telling tale
about a significant slice of the American past. The topic also fits well in the
direction in which the recent historiography in automobile history seems to be
going, away from a focus on producers and toward users, even if those users
happen to be thieves and joy riders. And it illustrates one example of just how
central the automobile has been to American life during the twentieth century
and beyond.
Although, the
meaning of auto theft in the history of
twentieth century American life remains somewhat unclear, one conclusion is
that the auto thief steals an owner’s freedom, both literally and figuratively.
Consequently, and as mentioned previously, movement is transformed into
immobility, and vice-versa. As the Brazilian literary scholar Guilllermo Guicci
has argued in a different context, the deed marks “the demise of an illusion
and the loss of the hope of salvation through acceleration.”3 Going
a bit further and drawing on the insights of English sociologist John Urry,
this sacred thing called the car is central to the modernization of urban life,
including life’s disappointments. Movement, or kinetic modernity, cannot be
understood however, according to Urry, without the conceptual mirror image
twins of flexibility and coercion. And indeed, the history of auto theft is
intimately tied to the interplay of these notions. And in this case, some of
those automotive users -- thieves unlucky enough to be caught -- end up with
the ultimate loss of freedom, sentenced to jail or prison.
Thus, the
history of automobile theft in twentieth century America bridges the
interstices of science, psychology, economics, technology, and society. As
such, it is a powerful handle in exploring the foundations of criminal motives,
techniques, and organization; the development of a variety of anti-theft
technological countermeasures; the rise of institutional rejoinders from
government, the insurance industry, and manufacturers; the environmental
solutions created by city planners and architects; and finally, opportunities,
challenges, and diplomatic and legal relations among nations in an
international society. Additionally, it is a story that has taken place with
recurring cycles. During every era authorities proclaimed that auto theft had
been largely solved. Yet, subsequent to every announcement, new criminal strategies
thwarted the best of efforts, and the problem became bigger than ever. Only in
the recent past have we experienced a statistical decline in this criminal
activity.
Curiously, even though victims who
feel personally violated abound and the cost of auto theft to Americans remains
sky high, culturally--in literature and film--the auto thief is frequently lionized.
The act is often characterized as victimless--as long as the owner has
insurance--and the professional car thief is seen as a clever hero, satisfying
personal urges that reflect the central values of traditional American car
culture, namely, masculinity, status, and freedom. In sum, as long it is not
our car, the bad guys are not so bad.
You can make $20 for each 20 minute survey!
ReplyDeleteGuess what? This is exactly what large companies are paying me for. They need to know what their average customer needs and wants. So these companies pay $1,000,000's of dollars every month to the average person. In return, the average person, myself included, participates in surveys and gives them their opinion.