Ingroup membership is a shifting, context-dependent subjective construction, not a fixed category.

Evidence

Anticipating some later theoretical developments (see below), he suggested that an ingroup exists when “members [of it] all use the term we with the same essential significance” (p. 31). Thus, at the outset Allport opts for a subjective conception of the ingroup rather than one based purely on objective criteria, emphasizing that ingroup attachment is a shifting and elastic process, dependent on the particular context in which one finds oneself. He explains that “ingroup memberships are not permanently fixed. For certain purposes an individual may affirm one category of membership, for other purposes a slightly larger category. It depends on his need for self-enhancement” (p. 35). — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 424 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: The ‘we’ is a contingent individual experience, not an ontological structure or collective consciousness.; Structure is a historical stage of group self-making, not a timeless property. — Fredric Jameson, Marxism and Form, 532; Settler mentalities are effects of dominance structures, not fixed identities. — Nadim N. Rouhana and Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, When Politics Are Sacralized:…, 2040 (+6 more)

Broader Connections

• Group identity is fluid and contextually chosen, not fixed. #corroborates (0.97)
• Ingroup membership is a shifting, context-dependent self-definition tied to self-enhancement #corroborates (0.95) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 424