The question of what Australian identity means has re-emerged, as globalisation and a concerted political effort to reconstruct an 'Anglo' identity have caused uncertainty about 'who we are'. To explore how Australians conceptualise identity, this paper examines empirical research since Phillips' [1998. Popular views about Australian identity: Research and analysis. Journal of Sociology, 34(3), 281-302. doi: 10.1177/144078339803400305] seminal work synthesising research on Australian identity. Nearly two decades on, a civic/ethno-nationalist distinction and traditional socio-political correlates remain; but less dichotomous constructions are also being explored and more progressive values included. Key differences are found in the increased range of meanings of Australianness, as well as an apparent shift, for some, towards a cosmopolitan identity.

In the context of the war on terror, Australian leaders announced that an increased threat of terrorist activity existed within Australia in 2014, which was generated by young people travelling to engage in military activity in the Middle East and returning radicalised. The prime minister at the time, Tony Abbott, called on Australians to rally together, in the face of such a threat, as Team Australia. This article analyses the responses by cartoonists to this call, focusing on the way the notion of Team Australia is portrayed as a challenge to core aspects of Australianness, such as mateship, multiculturalism and the fair-go. Frame analysis is used to explore how the cartoons connect with the broader populace and represent, challenge, reconstruct and rely on implicit and explicit understandings of Australianness. The cartoons frame Abbott's Team Australia as exclusionary, unfair, politically elitist, anti-multicultural and un-Australian, even while pursuing a nationalist project.

ABSTRACT Dilemmas around how to deal with asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat have been a key driver of political and public discourse for over a decade. In 2012, an ‘Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers’ was established to provide advice to the Australian government about how to deal with the increasingly embarrassing issue of asylum seekers drowning at sea and a parliamentary stalemate on the matter. Using frame analysis to understand how national and post-national identities are being recruited in this debate, this paper analyses submissions to the Panel. We demonstrate how arguments for and against asylum seekers are constructed around nationalism, regionalism and globalism (cosmopolitan). Australia was variously framed as having an alternative national character from that promoted by politicians, as having a key regional role, and hence identity, and as a global citizen (both in reality and in appearance). Contrary to expectations, we found that each frame served as a vehicle through which progressive arguments were articulated, indicating the utility of each in arguing for more humane treatment of ‘Others’.

A ustralian nationalism, once seen as laconic and understated, has become increasingly shrill over the last fifteen years. One evidence is the growing popular use of Australian flags, particularly their display on cars to celebrate the national day. Popular use of the flag has been encouraged by relevant government bodies, such as the N ational A ustralia D ay C ouncil. This article explores migrants' responses to the flag display. Qualitative interviews and focus group discussions identified a continuum of reactions ranging from inclusion to exclusion. Contrary to expectations, many migrants see it as simply a demonstration of festivity and pride, in which they feel included. While recognizing that the flag display could represent exclusionary nationalism, migrants carefully attribute this usage to a limited number of individuals, rather than seeing it as emblematic of a more generally held sentiment. Additionally, migrants tend to read the flag through civic, transnational, and multicultural lenses, in order to see themselves as included in the identity that it is seen to portray.