In this chapter an ingroup is defined as a group that someone identifies strongly with. An outgroup is the opposite, and is a group or social category that you don’t identify with. From this reading it seems that ingroups and outgroups are determined by things like where you were born and raised, race, religion, language, and many other things rather than from individual choice. Related to this, one part of the reading that was interesting is when it touched on “intergroup boundaries”. It talked about how these group boundaries can even be found in food and how someone uses utensils. Americans don’t put their knives down while eating and that is identified by Brits just by seeing it.<\/p>\n
One thing I was thinking while reading is how unfair the idea of ingroups and outgroups seems. Maybe I don’t completely understand the concept but it almost seems like a stereotype. There is not much room for choice and personal preference in ingroups and outgroups. Rather then getting to choose what group you identify with, you are placed there by how society sees you. Some things such as where you come from or what language you speak are automatically grouped in ingroups and outgroups, but there are some things I think should be more of a choice.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In this chapter an ingroup is defined as a group that someone identifies strongly with. An outgroup is the opposite, and is a group or…<\/p>\n