「自力更生」的道德化街景：都市社會弱勢者的街頭販售

Abstract

本文探討社會弱勢者運用都市街道空間進行販售之相關現象，主要目的在了解他們如何使用街道空間販售、販售所涉及的特定運作機制，以及空間使用權爭議。透過觀察與訪談等方法了解街頭販售成為社會弱勢者生計策略之脈絡，並援引Goffman的污名與戲劇觀點，以及Cresswell不宜此地概念，作為現象分析基礎。研究發現，既有的弱勢街頭販售可概分為三種型態：傳統型（販售玉蘭花、日用品、彩券等）、社會企業協作型（《大誌雜誌》、創世地瓜媽媽、熊米屋愛心手工餅乾），以及另類企業型（人生百味），文中分述各型態之內涵與運作特性。 弱勢街販在街頭空間的出現，經常被視為不宜此地的存在，且表面看似藉由同情憐憫而激發購買。然而，本研究發現，大多數弱勢街販傾向以「自力更生」訴求作為空間使用正當性之基礎。而移動或流動的販售型態，是弱勢街販在缺乏經濟與社會資本，以及自身的弱勢狀態之下不得已的生存策略，更是弱勢街販應對官方法令規範，使其街頭販售存續的游擊戰術。透過流動化的販售展演，自力更生得以具體實踐，並且將街道公共空間轉化為支撐起其生計與生存的空間，以及社會關係開展之所在，反過來形塑出另類的街道空間意涵。他們面對警察管制所採取的應對策略，則呈顯出目前政府在政策規範和管理上的模糊、矛盾與困局，街道空間使用權之爭議仍待解。 近期陸續出現的社會企業協作型與另類企業型，為弱勢街販開啟新的發展契機。他們在攪動既有生態，嘗試去除或翻轉污名形象之時，有偏向正式化發展的趨勢，更積極爭取合法使用街頭空間的機會。敦促政府正視正式化的可能性。 弱勢街頭販售將在街頭繼續上演。或許可說：在同情憐憫之外，弱勢街販的街頭販售，是以生存為經、工作為緯，尊嚴與權利為軸心所構築的街頭販售運作系統。也是弱勢街販在政府的規範框架之外，自力架構起其秩序，從都市縫隙萌發、蔓生的一股草根力量，一幅道德化街景。

This article explores the issues about street vending of the social disadvantaged in urban space. The main purposes are to understand how they appropriate street spaces for vending, their specific operation mechanisms, and the corresponding space contestations. Goffman’s stigma and performance perspectives, and Cresswell’s “out of place” concept are conducted as analytical bases. By means of observation and interview, the trajectories of becoming street vendors are described. Three types of street vending of socially disadvantaged people are discussed in details: the traditional type, the social enterprise type, and the alternative enterprise type. The existence of this kind of street vending on urban streets is often regarded as “out of place”, and operating in the name of compassion and pity. Nevertheless, “self-reliance” is what makes the fundamental and critical belief that underlies their appropriations of space. In the lack of economic and social capitals and under the restrictions of their disadvantaged conditions, they regularly keep moving around or adopt fluid occupation as strategies for making a living, which are also tactics that they apply to resist the regulations and managements of the municipal government for their persistent existences on the streets. Moreover, fluid occupation inverses the public street spaces into their livelihood spaces and survival spaces, generating alternative meaning of street space. Otherwise, they inevitably have to take actions to deal with the policing from city authority, and the strategies they take reflect the ambiguity, conflict, and predicament of the authority in their regulation, leaving the right to access to the space still controversial and unsettled. The two untraditional types of street vending emerged in recent years. They operate in a new trend and incline to move toward formalization. They’ve tried to urge the authority to consider to include them in formality. All in all, street vending of socially disadvantaged people is a performance system beyond compassion and based on the right to work with dignity in core. Street vending arising from below can be seen as strength of grassroots from city’s cracks and margins, creating their order outside the frame maintained by authorities, and consequently making it a moralized streetscape.