An in group is a group that you strongly identify with while an outgroup on the other hand, is a group in which you do not. I found it interesting how specific the dichotomy is between groups that creates the “us and them” as stated on page 142. Small cultural differences like the way they dress, what they eat, or even hobbies can create different ingroups. Is it possible for an individual to be a part of multiple ingroups if their characteristics fit into the basis of those ingroups?
It is interesting how intergroup boundaries are also specific. For example, the way cultures view each others eating habits and how they use utensils creates an intergroup boundary. Another boundary I found interesting is for example, when Americans who know Japanese try to converse with Japanese in their language to make them feel more comfortable when in reality, it is intolerable. Overall, I think that this article dives into many examples of ingroups and classifications within ingroups that were interesting but also contains a lot of information that makes it difficult to digest.
I agree with you that there is a lot of information to take in within and out-groups because they can contest a lot of things. For my FYS this was a concept that I had to grasp onto quickly to be able to analyze different language varieties and find the relationship between them. I do believe it is very insightful to understand the relationships because they can tell a lot of background when it comes to stigmas associated with a language.
I also agree, there are many in groups that you can associate with our be involved in. I feel like it is layered which means that your intersectionality will push you into many different ingroups because it’s who you are. This also means that there are many outgroups, not just one that you don’t belong to.