Who and What is a Social Deviant?

Introduction

Are you a social deviant? If someone asked you that question would you be offended? Why? Traditionally the word deviance has been used to describe people who are considered wrong or bad. The word deviance suggests that there is something morally wrong with the person in question and this judgement may include stigmatizing, labeling and/or penalizing the person through negative sanctions like social shunning or if considered deviant enough, criminal charges (Ehret, 2023, Module 1).

For the purpose of this post, however, deviance will be examined from the sociological perspective of difference or outside the norm (Ehret, 2023, Module 1) and the subject of Vanlifing will be used to show how the perception of a behaviour can change through time from being a highly stigmatized and negative way of living to a highly admired and positive way of expressing ones ideas of freedom as a lifestyle. This post will also explore how vanlifing can be a source of both positive and negative deviance and possibly even a site for moral entrepreneurship.

First we will take a look at history via popular culture (Saturday Night Live, 1993) and see how vanlifing was used as an example of who not to be according to the views of the time. We will then take a look at more recent vanlifers who are using social media to change societal views about what it means to live in a van. Vanlifing is becoming synonymous with travel, simplicity and a rejection of conventional norms to achieve freedom. Finally, we will see how one woman's loss of her apartment became an opportunity to use vanlifing as an affordable alternative to renting and as praxis for political activism.

But first a few terms...

Positive and Negative Deviance

Put most simply, social deviance is an act that goes against social, contextual and/or cultural norms (Sumner 1906). A deviant act can be positive like travelling the world in a van (like how cool is that?) or negative like camping in a van on public property without permission from officials, defying codified by-laws. Acts of deviance whether negative or positive are given meaning according to how people react. These reactions are called sanctions and are designed to regulate social and moral norms. (Ehret, 2023, Module 1)

Sanctioning

Negative and positive deviance is determined and regulated by negative and positive sanctioning. (Ehret, 2023, Module 1) For example, a vanlifer who travels the world gaining fame and fortune by gathering 1 million subscribers is being positively sanctioned by their community. A vanlifer who lives locally and gets a ticket for camping in a parking lot or who gets shunned by the locals is being negatively sanctioned.

Labelling Theory and Stigmatization

Becker (1963) defined labelling theory as a social process that has authority figures deem a person deviant or delinquent for stepping outside established rules. If an individual gets criminalized for a wrong doing the label sticks and the individual is more likely to commit future crimes and may in turn accept this label as a master status meaning they have fully identified with and accepted the label as true of their character. Stigma and labelling work together to create negative narratives that can be applied to individuals in an attempt to regulate and shame them into socially acceptable behaviour (Ehret, 2023, Module 2).

Ehret, (Module 2, 2023), defined stigma as "negative social typing by which a specific behaviour or trait is viewed as socially undesirable." Stigma is another social process, often used in partnership with labelling, that deviance is regulated by moral entrepreneurs to uphold dominant social views.

Moral Entrepreneurs

Moral entrepreneurs are described as people or groups who have are in power and who use that power to label individuals or acts as moral or immoral. These self-serving and self appointed moral regulators use the media to build a case against those who they wish to regulate and to create what is called moral panics. These moral panics are taken up by community members who can be swayed to subscribe to the same social ideals to farther legitimate the cause by stigmatizing individual's actions and refining labels placed upon them. Moral entrepreneurs, by creating worst case scenarios and feeding upon the communities fears, work to create laws that will criminalize those whose actions they deem as morally inferior in an attempt to create a moral conversion. (Becker 1963).

Historically...
Depiction of the negative consequence of pot smoking which was against socially acceptable norms and moral codes of the time. (Originally Aired 05/08/93). The cultural context of this clip shows the remnants of the "leave it to beaver" ideals of the perfect family of the 40s and 50s, that passed through the 60's, ushering in large scale positive sanctioning of pot smoking and other drug use by the hippie youth counter culture and who are now Boomer parents; many of whom adopted a more conservative lifestyle that included the more understanding yet still rigid ideas around pot smoking of the 90's. If you smoked pot in the 90's you were definitely, "going to end up in a van down by the river." And that was definitely not considered a good thing.

Matt Foley on Saturday Night Live acts as social deviant and a moral entrepreneur by proxy for the kid's parents to discourage them from smoking pot. The basic narrative is that people who live in vans are crazy, drug addicted and morally corrupt individuals who will never amount to anything. The parental moral regulation in this case is done through negative sanctioning and reinforcing stigmas that conflate pot smoking with living in a van with being nuts. Pot was also illegal in the 90s so if caught with illegal drugs the police would be acting as moral regulators by laying criminal charges.

Contact

Pre-Pandemic...
Vanlife had become a positively sanctioned way of living one's creativity and desire to have a simplified less commodified life. A symbol of freedom but one that also comes with a price tag of 40K-180K depending on style of vehicle.
Note: Pot smoking is no longer connected to living in a van down by the river--in fact now it is legal in Canada and many American States.

Meet Kara and Nate who make their living from creating youtube videos about vanlifing. They don't seem to face any stigma related to their choice to live in a van and in fact have a highly monetized channel with a large fan base. This couple has traveled to over 100 countries in 4 years and now has over 1 million subscribers which is a good example of positive sanctioning.

These positive deviants are living the life of their dreams while changing the negative stereotyping of what it once meant to live in a van down by the river. In this video they compare their own van with a bigger and more outfitted vehicle that I imagine, because of their large fan-base, was given to them free to use as they review. They may have also received promotional income from doing this video.

They are demonstrating a morally acceptable and socially sanctioned way to earn a living, gain YouTube celebrity, travel and influence. This lifestyle requires specific skills to create and edit videos, the dedication needed to put content out week after week and the resilience it takes to do this while living on the road. Therefore rather than being seen as the easy way out for a pothead and moral inferior, living in a van by the river is now seen as a dream by many and a goal for many others.

Post-pandemic:

Vanlifing as a political statement, an answer to chronic poverty and reaction of the disenfranchised...
A solution for some individuals who refuse to pay high rents on low wages to live in boxes on stolen land. Home-free vs. Homeless. Includes the values of flexibility, independence, creativity and freedom of choice that living in poverty removes from individuals who are doing their best to live in accordance with the neo-liberal values that are imposed upon all citizens by the dominant classes. More importantly an allied act of de-colonization. Price tag: 13K for bus and 10k for build costs along the way; so far around 10K in systems.

Meet Kathrine Williams who was labelled a delinquent in childhood and as "different" in her adulthood. She has accepted herself as a social deviant and adopts the master status of non-conformist. Kathrine is a Soulpreneur and the owner of Curbside Condo and Bus Granny. Kathrine bridges the old narrative of homeless because of bad choices, turning it into a conversation about being homefree and having the freedom to choose amongst limited choices. Combining the new narrative of freedom and success while adding a socially conscious and politically influenced view through the lifestyle of vanlifing, she aims to blur the boundary between positive and negative deviance.

An X drug addict in recovery over 20 years (from negative to positive deviance), a spiritual teacher (often considered way out there) and Grandmother of 3 (super normal part of life), Kathrine found herself having to make a choice between paying high rents and living a life of meaning. To pursue her degree in sociology, gender studies and social justice which is a normal goal even though she is a bit old for such endeavours (positive and negative deviance), she bought and is slowly renovating a bus while living in it in Canada (back to ambiguous deviance).

Kathrine has just successfully completed her first year living full time in a bus. Because Kathrine is not championing any real adventure lifestyle or travel (which tends to attract positive sanctioning) but resides in parking lots (some down by the river) and has established a relatively stable lifestyle, she can be seen as both a positive and negative deviant because living in a vehicle in one town is not legally sanctioned nor socially acceptable.

Without an agenda to move on to another location, Kathrine may be subject to fines or harassment by local officials and shunning by residents although this has not happened in Canada to date. Rather, local officials are turning a blind eye and residents, if not doing the same, are offering support and friendship via a familiar wave in the morning while heading to work or a quick stop to chat while Kathrine walks her dog.

Currently Kathrine faces no real moral entrepreneurs but this could shift if more people in vans show up which may trigger the Christian left's views on the undeserving poor that often appears as NIMBY (not in my backyard) mentality which serves to stigmatize the homeless and creates amongst community members real but unsubstantiated fears of facing violence, burglary and active addiction in their neighbourhoods. If enough people show up in vans and buses these moral entrepreneurs will act to make sure by-laws are enforced and possibly lobby for stricter laws and harsher penalties further criminalizing the activity of vanlifing.

As a positive deviant Kathrine is acting as a change agent by shining a light on what can only be seen as a housing crisis in her hometown and also as resistance to colonization. Kathrine actively shuns the status quo in favour of creating her own reality outside the property ownership and rental system yet she still lives amongst those who are deeply committed to maintaining the status quo. And so the question remains: Is she a negative deviant, a positive deviant, a change agent or a visionary? Is there a possibility of being all of these things depending on which story is being told about her and by whom?

References

Becker, Howard. 1963. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press.

Schoepflin, Todd. 2011. “Deviant While Driving?” Everyday Sociology Blog, January 28. Retrieved February 10, 2012 ( http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everydaysociology/2011/01/deviant-while-driving.html).

Sumner, William Graham. 1955 [1906]. Folkways. New York, NY: Dover.

From <https://www.oercommons.org/courseware/lesson/28008/student/?section=5>