The Gileses simply explain an ingroup to be a social group with which one identifies strongly, yet explain an outgroup to be a social group with which one does not identify with strongly. At the surface, this dichotomy can be illustrated via distinct languages, speech styles/dialects, fashion codes, cultural events, traditions, and more. One of the Giles made an interesting point of how people can have dual or even multiple identities. I definitely concur with the idea that a person can switch or be “triggered” to align with a certain identity at certain moments. For instance, a black or African American person may be able to identify with both the more closely knit African American culture and with the American culture at large. Yet, certain cultural aspects, traditions, and codes may come to the forefront of that person’s identity depending on where they are and who they are with. This kind of code-switching can be supported by the social identity theory, which suggests that when an ingroup identity becomes noticeable, then members of that identity are likely to emphasize the most treasured characteristics of it. A native Korean whose first and predominant language may be Korean could find solace in speaking with other native Korean-speakers when surrounded by Americans who solely speak English. Although the person could be able to communicate in English, speaking in Korean with another person would open up a new gateway of possibilities to talk about cultures, traditions, and sentiments that they could both identify with.
Giles’ notes the significant concept of language suicide, which follows that communication codes and language can gradually disappear over time if members of an ingroup are pressured to assimilate into the majority outgroup. Those who identify with “low vitality groups” are pressured to succumb to the dominant groups’ social control. Without a doubt, this phenomenon can be seen on university campuses across the U.S., including here at the University of Richmond. The ways in which white Americans practice, order, and identify with American culture is perpetuated as the mainstream “norm” for any and everyone to follow. This sort of control is especially induced onto smaller ingroup cultures and their members who might only make up a small percentage of the university’s quota. Dominating groups at universities, career and workspaces, etc seek to maintain social privileges in this way and have the audacity to glorify a 7% diversity rate. Someone, please, make it make sense.
Be First to Comment