In the above photo, as an adult, I was wearing an Amarillo High School (AHS) t-shirt to signify my school pride. Interestingly, I rarely wore such paraphernalia when in high school though I did so when on 10-day boot leave—excused absence from military duties for rest and relaxation.
After graduating in 1995, I joined the United States (U.S.) Marine Corps in 1996, as I was also signaling military affiliation in the picture by wearing dog tags and by way of a high and tight haircut. People familiar with elements with which I socially signaled are of the in-group.
For clarity, one source states, “A social signal is defined as any action or overt behavior, regardless of its form, intent, or the performer’s awareness, that is carried out in the presence of another person.” Thus, I used elements of in-group distinction. According to one source:
In social psychology and sociology, an in-group is a social group to which a person psychologically identifies as being a member. By contrast, an out-group is a social group with which an individual does not identify.
On one hand, I psychologically identified with the AHS graduating class of ’95, as opposed to other high schools in Amarillo, Texas. On the other hand, I identified as a U.S. Marine along with just under 175,000 other jarheads on active duty at the time.
The in-group and out-group distinction merely divides people into categories. Still, there’s another term used to address this sort of distinction. For instance, in a blogpost entitled You Can’t Sit with US! I stated:
In- and out-group preference determines who enjoys membership or privilege to a specific subset of people. For the second set of terms, I highlight observational research phrasing related to emic and etic viewpoints. Per one source:
The “emic” approach is an insider’s perspective, which looks at the beliefs, values, and practices of a particular culture from the perspective of the people who live within that culture.
The “etic” approach, on the other hand, is an outsider’s perspective, which looks at a culture from the perspective of an outside observer or researcher.
As an example of emic distinction, I understand warrior culture to some degree, because I’ve been a member of the in-group. If you never served in the military, you may comprehend this culture from only an etic perspective and to a limited degree.
Of course my in-group and emic identification as a veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces doesn’t bestow upon me association with fellow veterans, as though we’re all part of a so-called “community.” I addressed this matter in a blog entry entitled Constructive Dilemma Information, stating:
For the record, a community is a unified body of individuals who live in a particular area. Military veterans aren’t a monolith, we don’t all live in the same area, we don’t all know one another, and we don’t all share the same social or professional interests.
I served as military police (MP) in the Corps. As such, I know nothing about Marine Corps infantry units. Even among the other MPs, I was a garrison and not a field MP. This means I don’t share in-group or emic understanding associated with the latter, as one source clarifies thusly:
Garrison MPs do the street cop stuff and stand guard at the gates to the installations. Field MPs have a more combat centered mission. They process EPWs [enemy prisoners of war], do convoy escorts, man checkpoints, etc. There are garrison units, field units, and units who do both.
Likewise, when attending AHS, I wasn’t closely associated with many of the peers with whom I graduated. Although we mostly resided in close proximity to one another, I didn’t maintain a communal bond of in-group or emic significance with other Sandies (our mascot).
The point worthy of consideration here is that there are a variety of “us” and “them” categories within in- and out-groups. Addressing this matter, one source states:
Sometimes the “us versus them” bias involves one site pitted against another. In other cases, some team members bond, while others do not, and those that bond become the “us,” whereas those who do not become the “them.”
Among Sandies when I was in high school, I was a “them.” This is because I didn’t fit in with my peers. After graduating, I considered myself an “us.” Thus, the distinction between in- and out-group affiliation was merely a matter of psychological identification.
Similarly, I was considered an “us” by way of uniform when in the Corps, though I rarely bonded well with other jarheads and so I was often considered a “them.” At times, I wasn’t even aware of how much “other” I was deemed among my peers.
Thus, from an emic perspective, I know how it is to be an in-group member who is otherized—treated intrinsically different. Regarding this matter, one source states:
Interestingly, if you are in the “In-Group,” you may not realize it; however, the “Out-Group” members know exactly who is in which group. No doubt this resonates with anyone who has attended high school.
AHS was described as a “preppy” school when I attended, as a relatively affluent population of students comprised graduating classes. Surprisingly to me, my gangbanging friends on another side of town considered me an in-group member with preps even when I wasn’t preppy.
Equally remarkable, my in-group status as a Marine changed once I was subject to a special court-martial and was discharged from the military with unfavorable service characterization. At that time, I was very much aware of the out-group distinction.
Whether in regard to active AHS or military participation, I don’t recall disturbing myself too much with irrational beliefs about in- versus out-group distinction. However, it was after my discharge from the military that I upset myself with unproductive assumptions, and to a significant degree.
As much as one can psychologically identify as a member of an in-group, an individual can self-disturb with a host of unhealthy narratives about a perceived loss of identity regarding the out-group distinction. And disturb I did!
It was natural to self-identify as a Sandie and eventually de-identify with high school affiliation. That’s generally what people do in life. Yet, I bought into the hype of the Corps’ aphorism “once a Marine, always a Marine.” Thus, I never anticipated to be de-identified as a Marine.
During the time that I served in the Corps, it was said that “there are no ‘ex-Marines,’ only ‘former Marines.” However, after legal action, I was specifically told that I wasn’t a Marine any longer and all of my issued military uniforms were taken from me.
I was the ex-Marine that was said not to have existed. “Once a Marine” became “never a Marine again.” Still, it wasn’t the activating event of being stripped of my hard-earned title of Marine that led to the agony I experience when plummeting to membership of the out-group.
Rather, the unfavorable beliefs I maintained were what caused my agonizing consequences. As such, I was deeply saddened by the narratives I told myself. Noteworthy, my response to the event of out-group otherization was created by unhelpful assumptions.
All the while, I didn’t take time to consider that, as previously stated, an “in-group is a social group to which a person psychologically identifies as being a member.” Psychological identification occurs within the mind. So, too, does self-disturbance.
Therefore, as much as I caused myself agony with what I unproductively believed, I could also un-disturb myself by adapting more productive assumptions about my out-group status. As such, a loss of identity doesn’t automatically result in agonizing consequences.
This is an important psychoeducational lesson for people who’ve been removed from familial acquaintanceship, excommunicated from religious groups, discharged from military branches, or relegated to members of an out-group in other capacities. I understand this from an emic perspective.
The in-group and out-group distinction holds as much power over you as your mind allows. If you’ve transitioned from the in- to the out-group and now experience significant disturbance, I may be able to help you stop causing agony for yourself.
If you’re looking for a provider who works to help you understand how thinking impacts physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral elements of your life—helping you to sharpen your critical thinking skills, I invite you to reach out today by using the contact widget on my website.
As a psychotherapist, I’m pleased to help people with an assortment of issues ranging from anger (hostility, rage, and aggression) to relational issues, adjustment matters, trauma experience, justice involvement, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression, and other mood or personality-related matters.
At Hollings Therapy, LLC, serving all of Texas, I aim to treat clients with dignity and respect while offering a multi-lensed approach to the practice of psychotherapy and life coaching. My mission includes: Prioritizing the cognitive and emotive needs of clients, an overall reduction in client suffering, and supporting sustainable growth for the clients I serve. Rather than simply helping you to feel better, I want to help you get better!
Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW
References:
Bryan, S. P. (2022, November 7). In groups and out groups. The University of Texas at Dallas. Retrieved from https://obcc.utdallas.edu/news/in-groups-and-out-groups/
Gilbert, K., Hall, K., and Codd, R. T. (2019, August 30). Radically open dialectical behavior therapy: Social signaling, transdiagnostic utility and current evidence. Dove Medical Press Ltd. Retrieved from https://www.dovepress.com/radically-open-dialectical-behavior-therapy-social-signaling-transdiag-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-PRBM
Hollings, D. (2024, August 11). Constructive dilemma information. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/constructive-dilemma-information
Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer
Hollings, D. (2024, April 2). Four major irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/four-major-irrational-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better
Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/
Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching
Hollings, D. (2023, March 21). Matching bracelets. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/matching-bracelets
Hollings, D. (2023, September 3). On feelings. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-feelings
Hollings, D. (2024, January 1). Psychoeducation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychoeducation
Hollings, D. (2022, November 1). Self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-disturbance
Hollings, D. (2023, October 8). You can’t sit with us! Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/you-can-t-sit-with-us
IGI Global. (2008). Social categorization: In-groups and out-groups. West Chester University. Retrieved from https://www.wcupa.edu/coral/documents/07in-outgroups.pdf
Pikachusplayhouse. (2024). Field vs garrison. Reddit. Retrieved from https://www.reddit.com/r/MilitaryPolice/comments/183f487/field_vs_garrison/
W., G. (2020, May 5). The ‘warrior culture’ is more than a badge. WavellRoom. Retrieved from https://wavellroom.com/2020/05/05/the-warrior-culture-is-more-than-a-badge/
by Gareth WMay 5, 2020
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Emic and etic. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emic_and_etic
Wikipedia. (n.d.). In-group and out-group. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_and_out-group
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Preppy. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preppy
Comments