Australia Day, flags on cars and Australian nationalism

http://jos.sagepub.com/Journal of Sociology

http://jos.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/03/31/1440783314524846The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1440783314524846

published online 31 March 2014Journal of SociologyFarida Fozdar, Brian Spittles and Lisa Hartley

Australia Day, flags on cars and Australian nationalism

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

The Australian Sociological Association

can be found at:Journal of SociologyAdditional services and information for

http://jos.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jos.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jos.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/03/31/1440783314524846.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Mar 31, 2014OnlineFirst Version of Record >>

at Curtin University Library on May 1, 2014jos.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Curtin University Library on May 1, 2014jos.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jos.sagepub.com/

http://jos.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/03/31/1440783314524846

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.tasa.org.au/

http://jos.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jos.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jos.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/03/31/1440783314524846.refs.html

http://jos.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/03/31/1440783314524846.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Journal of Sociology 1 –20

© The Author(s) 2014Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1440783314524846

jos.sagepub.com

Australia Day, flags on cars and Australian nationalism

Farida FozdarUniversity of Western Australia, Australia

Brian SpittlesUniversity of Western Australia, Australia

Lisa HartleyCurtin University and University of Western Australia, Australia

AbstractThis article reports the results of research into the recent popular phenomenon of flying Australian flags on one’s car for Australia Day. A survey was undertaken in Western Australia in 2011 to ascertain who flies the flag and why. Results indicate the phenomenon was widespread, with a quarter of those surveyed displaying car-flags. A clear relationship between car-flag-flying and exclusionary nationalism is demonstrated. Car-flag-flyers rate more highly on measures of patriotism and nationalism, and feel more negative towards Muslims and asylum seekers, and more positive about the White Australia Policy. They are also significantly more likely to feel their culture and values are in danger, and have a nativist vision of Australian identity. While both groups are positive about Australia’s diversity, car-flag-flyers are more likely to feel that migrants should assimilate. The results support other literature that suggests that in some contexts the Australian flag has come to be associated with exclusionary nationalism.

KeywordsAustralia, flag, nationalism, patriotism, racism

Corresponding author:Farida Fozdar, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Hwy, Crawley, Western Australia 6009, Australia. Email: [email protected]

524846 JOS0010.1177/1440783314524846Journal of SociologyFozdar et al.research-article2014

Article

at Curtin University Library on May 1, 2014jos.sagepub.comDownloaded from


2 Journal of Sociology

Background

Flags are important symbols in the construction of national identity (Billig, 1995; Kemmelmeier and Winter, 2008; Kwan, 2010; Smith, 2003; Spillman, 1997; Ward, 2010). While Anderson (1991) noted the importance of the printing press to the construction of the nation as an imagined community, before its invention it was the flag that filled this role. Flags perpetuate nationalism in overt, but also covert, ways – when being consciously waved or when hanging unnoticed on public buildings (Billig, 1995: 8). Both uses produce a taken-for-granted national identity and, in the process, establish an ‘us’ and a ‘them’.

National symbols such as flags attain meaning through being embedded in cultural practices (Kemmelmeier and Winter, 2008). Available as part of the ‘performance’ of nationalism (Dunn, 2009), flags are sites for the contestation of values. Unlike other state symbols (e.g. currency, the coat of arms) the state does not seek to control or monopolize its use. The flag is thus gifted to ‘the people’ who are encouraged to keep it relevant by proliferating its use (Orr, 2010).

Countries differ in their use of the national flag. In the US the flag is ever-present. Public institutions, including schools, are required to fly the flag, and after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, up to 82% of Americans flew the flag on their homes, cars or selves (Skitka, 2005). This created in the American mind an ideological narrative that saw flag-flying as patriotic, and not flying it as unpatriotic (Bratta, 2009). In the United Kingdom, ultranationalist fascist groups appropriated the British flag in the 1970s and 1980s, resulting in its public use being generally limited to official buildings and activities asso-ciated with the royal family. In Northern Ireland the flag is a highly visible and conten-tious symbol of different nationalisms – the recent rioting caused by the decision to limit the display of the Union Jack from Belfast City Hall is evidence of this.

Australians historically have not been flag-flyers. Rather, their nationalism has been described as low key, ‘laconic and undemonstrative’ (Orr, 2010: 510). They have tradi-tionally been wary of US-style nationalism, limiting flag use to official occasions. However the public use of the Australian flag has proliferated in recent years. In line with the growing nationalism observed in a range of countries concerned by an increasingly globalized world, this appears to reflect a desire to express national pride by ‘owning’ the national symbol and investing it with particular meanings. The increased use in Australia is not simply the result of the conservative Howard government’s (1996–2007) insist-ence that schools fly the flag in order to receive government funding (Clark, 2006). It is much more organic and viral in its spread (Orr, 2010). While the flag has been used to display strong nationalist sentiment in public arenas, such as during the Cronulla riots and by anti-immigration politician Pauline Hanson (Noble, 2009), it is more common in its banal uses. These have included the installation of flag poles in homes, and display on cars around Australia Day each year (Huxley, 2009; Orr, 2010).

The flying of flags on cars became popular around Australia Day 2006 in Western Australia (Casellas, 2006), peaking a few years later. Car-flags are available for sale some months prior to Australia Day and cars carry them up to six months later. The asso-ciation of flags with Australia Day is not in itself surprising. Australia Day, established as a national public holiday in 1994, has become a day of significant nationalist senti-ment (McAllister, 2012; National Australia Day Council, 2011; Spillman, 1997). Such



Fozdar et al. 3

events encourage the expression of popular nationalism (Billig, 1995; Durkheim, 1995 [1912]; Fox, 2006). Street parades, music shows, iconic ‘Australiana’ competitions (thong throwing, cow-pat bingo, wood chopping), and sausage sizzles, are common (McAllister, 2012: 95). Western Australia celebrates with particular enthusiasm. For weeks beforehand retailers sell, or give away (e.g. with the purchase of a six pack of beer), cheap plastic flags designed for display on cars. Flags are also to be found for sale as temporary tattoos, earrings, headbands, T-shirts, bikinis, thongs, beach towels, balls and so on, encouraging a ‘patriotic fashion statement’ (Huxley, 2009: 7; see Bratta, 2009, for similar merchandising in the US, post-9/11). On the day, Perth (WA’s capital) hosts the largest festivities in the nation, with 250,000–350,000 people gathering along the Swan River to enjoy a day long program, culminating in a half-hour fireworks display set to iconic Australian music.1

Such overt expressions of nationalism always run the risk of being exclusionary. In 2009 Anglo-Australians at Sydney celebrations forced darker-skinned revellers to kiss the flag, threatening verbal and physical abuse for non-compliance (Burke, 2010; Huxley, 2009: 7; McAllister, 2012: 114).

The association of the flag with a ‘resurgent, aggressive nationalism’ in the Australia Day context (McAllister, 2012: 114) may be related to similar uses of the flag in other contexts (Huxley, 2009; Orr, 2010; Perera, 2007). Most obvious is the use of the flag during the Cronulla riots in 2005, where several thousand Anglo-Australian young people wore or waved the Australian flag while chanting, ‘we grew here, you flew here’, holding posters saying ‘Aussies fighting back’, with ‘100% Aussie‘ written in ink on their skin, or wearing ‘Wog free’ T-shirts (Bliuc, 2012; Noble, 2009; Perera, 2007, 2010). It has been argued that this was a [re]assertion of Anglo dominance, and a call to arms against an imagined enemy. The rioters may have been influenced by conservative politician Pauline Hanson, who used the flag to signal an exclusionary white Australian identity, draping herself in it to launch her anti-immigration One Nation party (Dunn, 2009; Jupp, 2002; Perera, 2007). Perera (2007: 12) notes that while the flag was used ‘as an emblem of racial particularism and aggression’ at Cronulla, and again at the Sydney ‘Big Day Out’ Australia Day concert, politicians and the media failed to make a distinction between ‘deploying the flag as a celebration of “harmless” nationalist sentiment and deploying it as an emblem of exclusionary violence’. The result, she argues, has been normalizing its association with racist displays. She argues that these uses of the flag reinforce a racial identification of Australian national identity as British and white, to the exclu-sion of minorities and the Indigenous population.

As a result of their nation’s history, Australians have a complex relationship with diversity and national identity (MacIntyre and Clark, 2003). Australian nationalism tends to be defensive, ‘obsessed with border politics where “worrying” becomes the dominant mode of expression of one’s attachment to the nation’ (Hage, 2003: 47). While generally positive about cultural diversity at a surface level, perhaps as a result of multiculturalism becoming part of the nation-building discourse post-White Australia Policy (Moran, 2011), research consistently identifies a simultaneous negativity among Australians towards migrants, and such attitudes are becoming more prevalent (Goot and Watson, 2005; Ipsos, 2011). The conservative Howard government enacted a significant shift




away from policies and rhetoric supportive of multiculturalism to more traditionalist, monocultural identifications of Australia (Curran, 2006; Joppke, 2004; Jupp, 2002; Maddox, 2005; Moran, 2005; Noble, 2009; Tate, 2009), and consciously associated these values and the politics around them, with the flying of the flag, and with a unique and innate Australian identity (Clark, 2006). This approach continued, although to a lesser extent, under the Labor Party, which won office in 2007, and whose focus remained on ‘integration’, ‘social cohesion’ and ‘citizenship’ rather than celebrations of diversity (Jacobs and Malpas, 2011).

This complex relationship is perhaps salient on Australia Day – a day where national identity, and the ironies and contradictions at the heart of Australia’s history, are an inevi-table focus (McAllister, 2012). While other nations celebrate national days of independ-ence, Australia Day marks the arrival of the first fleet of convict ships to the British colony in 1788, when the Union Jack (not officially replaced until 1954) was raised, symbolizing British dominion over Australia.2 For Australia’s Indigenous peoples 26 January is remembered as Survival or Invasion Day (Kwan, c2008; McAllister, 2012). This tension provides an undercurrent to any celebrations.

While ‘suburban nationalism’ is nothing new, its manner and frequency of expres-sion is intensifying (Orr, 2010: 506) – Anzac Day is increasing in popularity, ‘pil-grimages’ to Gallipoli and the Kakoda trail are now common, the refrain ‘Aussie Aussie Aussie, oi, oi, oi’ is internationally known, flag-raising is now an unofficial part of the kindergarten day, and bumper-stickers proliferate with pictures of the Australian flag (often superimposed on a map of Australia) with captions such as ‘Support it. Or F*#k off’, and ‘F@#k off, we’re full’. In line with the growing flag-based public expression of nationalism in the US since 9/11 (Bratta, 2009), Australians have come to claim the flag as representing a particular set of values and practices. According to Bratta (2009: 240) the US flag became associated with the Bush binaries of ‘good versus evil … civilized versus barbarous, and us versus them … Occident and Orient’. Media commentary around 2006 and 2007 began to make the same claims about the Australian flag, linking its use in some contexts with racism (ABC, 2007; Huxley, 2009; Jones, 2006; Mulvey, 2007). Huxley (2009: 6) suggested that the flag had become a symbol of provocation, used as a weapon to divide. As noted, aca-demics have also argued that the flag’s symbolic value is to represent those of white Anglo background as the legitimate population of the nation-state, excluding others (Foley, 1996; Perera, 2007):

Undeniably there is a racial element to some of this [flag use].… Whether tattooed on the skin, painted on the face and worn to the Cronulla race riots, or brandished at the Big Day Out rock concern, many now appropriate the Australian flag as an expression of a narrow brand of ‘Aussie’ nationalism. In its more militant uses, the flag is wielded confrontationally – as a symbolic weapon – against whichever recently arrived ethnic group is accused of failing to assimilate. (Orr, 2010: 510–11)

The current research asked how prevalent the phenomenon of car-flag use is around Australia Day and what it represents. We tested the hypotheses that compared to non-car-flag-flyers, car-flag-flyers are more likely to:



Fozdar et al. 5

(1) express exclusionary nationalism, but show no difference in terms of patriotism; and

(2) express less positivity towards cultural diversity generally and to particular out-groups.

In order to test the common assumption that car-flag-flying is a ‘working-class’ phenom-enon, we also investigated education level and socio-economic status, to test the hypoth-esis that:

(3) compared to non-car-flag-flyers, car-flag-flyers are more likely to be less edu-cated and have lower socio-economic status.

Definitions

Before proceeding it is necessary to clarify what is meant by terms used to characterize the various phenomena under consideration.

Patriotism and nationalism. The distinction between patriotism and nationalism is more common in the US and among psychology researchers than in the UK and Australia and among sociologists, who tend to use the terms interchangeably. Patriotism is defined as love of one’s country and its values, and in-group solidarity – an affective attachment to one’s group (Skitka, 2005). Nationalism, on the other hand, is defined as uncritical acceptance of state political authority and belief in the superiority of one’s nation com-pared to others (i.e. out-group antipathy) (Skitka, 2005).3 Flying the American flag post-9/11 has been found to indicate patriotism, not nationalism: ‘to symbolize [Americans’] commitment and connections to their fellow citizens, not to declare that the United States was superior and dominant, or that out-groups should beware’ (Skitka, 2005: 2009). In contrast, Kemmelmeier and Winter (2008) found the US flag generated hostile and exclusionary nationalism, and aggressiveness towards other countries, concluding that flag-flying is related to nationalism and not patriotism.

Exclusionary nationalism. Since patriotism and nationalism tend to be used inter-changeably in Australia, we have used the phrase ‘exclusionary nationalism’ to signal pride for one’s country that includes a derogation of or negativity towards others, includ-ing minorities. Exclusionary nationalism is related to ethno-nationalism and racism.

Ethno-nationalism and civic nationalism. Ethno-nationalism relies on the historical conception of the nation-state as a collective of individuals ‘belonging’ together on the basis of a shared language, culture, traditions and history (Gellner, 1996). In the context of a settler society it equates to exclusionary nationalism, where minorities who do not share these things are denigrated. Civic nationalism is often contrasted with ethno-nationalism. It is a commitment to a common destiny and government through shared civic institutions and the rule of law (Giddens, 1985; Habermas, 1994; Smith, 1991). Civic nationalism is a relatively inclusionary form of nationalism, ethno-nationalism is relatively exclusionary.

Nativism. Nativism is ‘the belief that being “truly Australian” means being born in Australia, having Australian ancestors, and living here most of our lives’ (Goot and Watson, 2005: 183). It is related to negativity to immigration and multiculturalism.




Racism; cultural racism/new racism. Racism is an extremely difficult term to define, worse still to measure (Karlsen and Nazroo, 2006). Billiet and de Witte (2008: 254) define everyday racism as holding negative attitudes towards migrants, whereas other measures of racism focus on discriminatory acts and structures that maintain inequality, rather than attitudes (Karlsen and Nazroo, 2006). Bulmer and Solomos (1999: 4), in their introduction to the Oxford Reader on Racism suggest ‘racism is an ideology of racial domination based on (i) beliefs that a designated racial group is either biologi-cally or culturally inferior and (ii) the use of such beliefs to rationalize or prescribe the racial group’s treatment in society’. The terms ‘cultural racism’ and ‘new racism’ (Barker, 1981; Blaut, 1992) recognize that modern racism is less about assumptions of biological superiority and inferiority, more commonly reflecting a tendency to see the world in terms of cultural hierarchies and maintain practices that exclude certain minor-ity groups on that basis, whether these groups are ‘racially’ different or not. ‘Prejudice’ and ‘racist’ attitudes tend to be used synonymously (Pedersen and Barlow, 2008; Pedersen et al., 2011).

These definitions serve as ideal types, rather than mutually exclusive categories, and are part of a continuum of pride in the national collective that ranges from patriotism and civic nationalism to racism. We have attempted to elucidate their relationship to the sur-vey items below.

Methodology

Procedure

The study was undertaken in Perth, Western Australia.4 Data was collected at two points. In the week leading up to Australia Day passers-by were invited to complete the survey by research assistants with clipboards based in several shopping areas and car parks across the wider metropolitan area. On Australia Day itself, eight research assistants and the primary researcher surveyed people gathered at 10 fireworks observation sites, between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. Sites were mainly designated non-drinking (only on one site, with 41 surveys collected there, was alcohol allowed).

Participants

In total, 513 people completed the survey; 163 during the week prior to Australia Day, and 350 on Australia Day 2011. Of these, 154 reported flying flags on their car in either or both 2010 and 2011, 347 in neither year, and 12 did not respond to the question (and were therefore excluded from the analysis). In order to generate a larger number of cases for comparison, and because there was no statistical difference between time of comple-tion and flag-flying, responses were aggregated. Thus all responses, regardless of site, are dealt with together (n = 501).

The majority of participants were male (58%); 34% were aged 18–29 years, 18% 30–39 years, and 20% 40–49 years. Almost three-quarters of the sample identified as Australian (52%), Anglo-Saxon-Caucasian (10%) or ‘white’ (10%). Just over 9% of par-ticipants were of Middle Eastern background, 2.4% were Indigenous Australians, and



Fozdar et al. 7

0.7% of Asian origin (9.6% did not respond to the question). The majority of the sample earned less than $100,000 per annum, with 23% earning under $25,000; 20.4% between $25,000 and $50,000; 22.5% between $50,000 and $75,000; and 13.7% between $75,000 and $100,000. In terms of highest level of education attained, 33% had high school level, 26% TAFE (Technical and Further Education) qualifications, and 31% a university Bachelor’s degree.

Measures

The survey had three parts. The first was a set of demographic questions. The second consisted of 33 questions pertaining to nationalism and diversity5 to which participants responded using Likert-type scales, plus several forced-choice responses. The third con-sisted of five open-ended questions regarding attitudes about the Australian flag, the practice of displaying flags on cars, and the meaning attributed to this practice.

Flag-waving. Participants were asked to indicate whether or not they displayed a flag on their car the year the survey was conducted (2011), and/or the previous year (2010).

Demographic information. Participants were asked their gender, education, age, income level, post code, voting preference, citizenship status and ethnic identity.

Patriotism and nationalism (see Tables 1–4). Questions 1–4 are based on Kemmelmeier and Winter’s (2008) ‘patriotism’ measures. Questions 9 and 10 reflect ‘nationalism’ (the questions are based on those used in the International Social Survey Program National Identity II survey; see Goot and Watson, 2005) as do questions 11, 13, 14 and 15. A number of the other questions measure aspects of racism, and negativity to cultural diversity, which equate to the nationalism measures of Skitka (2005). Some items in Tables 2 and 3 measure ethno-nationalism (e.g. 24–6, 28–31), others measure civic nationalism (e.g. 21–3). The survey included a set of questions from Goot and Watson (2005) derived from a number of national and international surveys (see also Jones, 2000; Pakulski and Tranter, 2000). One (see Table 2) measures what is seen as required to be ‘truly Australian’ – participants are presented with nine items (speaking English, feeling Australian, having Australian citizenship, respecting Australia’s political institutions and law, living mostly in Australia, being born in Australia, hav-ing Australian ancestry, being Christian, and not having an allegiance to another country) and asked to respond on a Likert scale (where 1 = not important and 5 = very important). Some items measure ethno-nationalism/nativism (living mostly in Aus-tralia, being born in Australia, having Australian ancestry, being Christian), others measure civic nationalism.

Positivity towards out-groups (see Table 3). To assess levels of ethno-nationalism or cultural racism, items that measure participants’ positivity towards Indigenous Australians, Mus-lim Australians, asylum seekers, Asian Australians and white Australians, adapted from Pedersen et al. (2011; see also Pedersen and Barlow, 2008) were used. Participants responded on a 5-point Likert-type scale (where 1 = not at all, and 5 = very).




Tab

le 1

. Pa

trio

tism

and

nat

iona

lism

.

Que

stio

nPe

ople

who

had

flag

s ne

ither

yea

rPe

ople

who

had

flag

s ei

ther

yea

r

(N)

1 (%

)2

(%)

3 (%

)4

(%)

5 (%

)M

ean

(N )

1 (%

)2

(%)

3 (%

)4

(%)

5 (%

)M

ean

1.

In g

ener

al, I

’m g

lad

to b

e A

ustr

alia

n.34

00.

90.

610

.311

.277

.14.

629

149

0.7

0.0

3.4

8.1

87.9

4.82

6**

2.

In A

ustr

alia

n pu

blic

sch

ools

, eve

ry d

ay

shou

ld b

egin

with

the

Nat

iona

l Ant

hem

.34

421

.211

.331

.19.

926

.53.

090

152

9.9

7.2

27.6

11.8

43.4

3.71

7**

*

3.

Aus

tral

ia s

uffe

rs w

hen

patr

iotis

m

decr

ease

s.33

48.

17.

535

.619

.829

.03.

542

146

6.2

4.8

19.9

25.3

43.8

3.95

9**

*

4.

I wou

ld d

escr

ibe

mys

elf a

s a

patr

iot.

337

5.9

4.7

29.1

23.1

37.1

3.80

713

80.

01.

413

.815

.968

.84.

522

***

5.

I am

pro

ud o

f Aus

tral

ia’s

hi

stor

y32

89.

510

.430

.218

.331

.73.

524

140

5.7

5.7

20.0

21.4

47.1

3.98

6**

*

po

litic

al p

ower

325

9.5

14.2

33.5

20.3

22.5

3.32

014

26.

37.

026

.826

.133

.83.

739

**

ec

onom

ic s

ucce

ss32

73.

11.

221

.434

.639

.84.

067

142

1.4

4.2

16.9

28.9

48.6

4.19

0

tech

nica

l and

sci

entif

ic s

ucce

ss33

11.

56.

924

.831

.135

.63.

924

138

0.7

4.3

18.1

25.4

51.4

4.22

5**

cultu

ral a

chie

vem

ents

325

7.1

9.2

23.1

27.7

32.9

3.70

214

03.

63.

625

.025

.742

.13.

993

**

sp

ortin

g ac

hiev

emen

ts32

31.

21.

514

.629

.453

.34.

319

137

0.7

2.2

9.5

19.0

68.6

4.52

6**

mul

ticul

tura

lism

323

7.1

8.7

16.7

24.8

42.7

3.87

314

56.

25.

522

.122

.144

.13.

924

6

. A

ustr

alia

is a

wor

ld le

ader

in m

any

way

s.32

84.

38.

828

.732

.325

.93.

699

142

2.8

3.5

19.0

38.7

35.9

4.01

4**

7.

Aus

tral

ia is

an

impo

rtan

t pa

rt o

f the

‘Fre

e W

orld

’.34

21.

52.

317

.031

.947

.44.

213

152

1.3

0.7

9.2

24.3

64.5

4.50

0**

*

9.

Gen

eral

ly, t

he m

ore

influ

ence

Aus

tral

ia h

as

on o

ther

nat

ions

, the

bet

ter

off t

hey

are.

344

7.0

9.9

37.5

24.7

20.9

3.42

714

92.

77.

429

.525

.534

.93.

826

***

10.

Aus

tral

ia is

the

mos

t im

port

ant

coun

try

in

the

Asi

a-Pa

cific

reg

ion.

342

15.5

12.6

27.2

17.3

27.5

3.28

715

05.

34.

023

.324

.742

.73.

953

***

Not

e. t

-tes

t si

gnifi

canc

e le

vel *

**p<

.001

; **p

<.0

1; *

p<.0

5; r

espo

nses

to

ques

tions

1–1

8 w

ere

stru

ctur

ed o

n a

5-po

int

Like

rt-t

ype

scal

e: 1

= D

isag

ree,

3 =

Neu

tral

, 5 =

Agr

ee.

(Con

tinue

d)



Fozdar et al. 9

Que

stio

nPe

ople

who

had

flag

s ne

ither

yea

rPe

ople

who

had

flag

s ei

ther

yea

r

(N)

1 (%

)2

(%)

3 (%

)4

(%)

5 (%

)M

ean

(N )

1 (%

)2

(%)

3 (%

)4

(%)

5 (%

)M

ean

11.

The

Whi

te A

ustr

alia

Pol

icy

save

d A

ustr

alia

fr

om a

lot

of p

robl

ems

expe

rien

ced

by

othe

r co

untr

ies.

338

32.5

12.1

31.4

13.0

10.9

2.57

714

511

.76.

940

.715

.924

.83.

352

***

12.

It is

goo

d to

hav

e pe

ople

from

diff

eren

t et

hnic

, rel

igio

us a

nd r

acia

l gro

ups

livin

g in

A

ustr

alia

.

344

2.0

3.8

17.2

25.0

52.0

4.21

215

37.

88.

519

.028

.136

.63.

771

***

13.

Peop

le w

ho c

ome

to li

ve in

Aus

tral

ia

shou

ld a

dopt

Aus

tral

ian

valu

es.

345

5.5

5.8

14.5

22.9

51.3

4.08

715

30.

71.

39.

810

.577

.84.

634

***

14.

Peop

le w

ho c

ome

to li

ve in

Aus

tral

ia

shou

ld le

ave

thei

r ol

d w

ays

behi

nd.

341

29.6

22.3

21.4

12.3

14.4

2.59

515

317

.611

.817

.620

.932

.03.

379

***

15.

I fea

r th

at m

y cu

lture

and

its

mos

t im

port

ant

valu

es a

re in

dan

ger.

342

27.2

17.0

24.6

15.8

15.5

2.75

414

812

.810

.123

.016

.937

.23.

554

***

16.

Asi

an c

ultu

re h

as h

elpe

d to

mak

e A

ustr

alia

a fa

r m

ore

inte

rest

ing

plac

e.34

28.

810

.831

.328

.720

.53.

412

153

19.6

9.2

27.5

28.8

15.0

3.10

5**

17.

Hav

ing

a fla

g on

one

’s c

ar is

a w

ay

of s

how

ing

that

one

is p

roud

to

be

Aus

tral

ian.

345

21.2

8.1

22.3

19.1

29.3

3.27

215

41.

92.

611

.015

.668

.84.

468

***

18.

Hav

ing

a fla

g on

one

’s c

ar in

dica

tes

that

th

e pe

rson

is m

ore

patr

iotic

tha

n m

ost.

347

44.4

12.7

24.5

8.4

10.1

2.27

115

320

.911

.832

.013

.721

.63.

033

***

Not

e. t

-tes

t si

gnifi

canc

e le

vel *

**p<

.001

; **p

<.0

1; *

p<.0

5; r

espo

nses

to

ques

tions

1–1

8 w

ere

stru

ctur

ed o

n a

5-po

int

Like

rt-t

ype

scal

e: 1

= D

isag

ree,

3 =

Neu

tral

, 5 =

Agr

ee.

Tab

le 1

. (C

ontin

ued)




Tab

le 2

. Be

ing

trul

y A

ustr

alia

n.

Que

stio

nPe

ople

who

had

flag

s ne

ither

yea

rPe

ople

who

had

flag

s ei

ther

yea

r

(N)

1 (%

)2

(%)

3 (%

)4

(%)

5 (%

)M

ean

(N)

1 (%

)2

(%)

3 (%

)4

(%)

5(%

)M

ean

Som

e pe

ople

say

the

follo

win

g th

ings

are

impo

rtan

t fo

r be

ing

trul

y A

ustr

alia

n. O

ther

s sa

y th

ey a

re n

ot im

port

ant.

How

impo

rtan

t do

you

thi

nk e

ach

of t

he

follo

win

g is

?19

. Sp

eak

Engl

ish

345

2.3

1.2

9.9

18.0

68.7

4.49

615

10.

70.

74.

611

.382

.84.

748

**20

. Fe

el A

ustr

alia

n33

95.

63.

823

.022

.744

.83.

973

147

0.7

1.4

6.1

25.9

66.0

4.55

1**

*21

. H

ave

Aus

tral

ian

citiz

ensh

ip34

16.

55.

922

.018

.547

.23.

941

147

2.0

2.7

15.0

18.4

61.9

4.35

4**

*22

. R

espe

ct A

ustr

alia

’s p

oliti

cal i

nstit

utio

ns

and

law

345

0.0

0.6

4.1

15.1

80.3

4.75

115

21.

30.

70.

77.

989

.54.

836

23 L

ive

mos

tly in

Aus

tral

ia34

26.

15.

821

.622

.543

.93.

921

152

2.6

2.0

13.2

15.8

66.4

4.41

4**

*24

. Bo

rn in

Aus

tral

ia33

849

.713

.018

.97.

111

.22.

172

152

30.9

13.8

15.8

12.5

27.0

2.90

8**

*25

. H

ave

Aus

tral

ian

ance

stry

339

53.1

13.0

19.5

5.6

8.8

2.04

114

933

.613

.416

.113

.423

.52.

799

***

26.

Be C

hris

tian

344

56.4

11.0

15.7

6.1

10.8

2.03

815

147

.010

.619

.26.

616

.62.

336

*27

. N

ot h

avin

g an

alle

gian

ce t

o an

othe

r co

untr

y34

142

.212

.025

.58.

511

.72.

355

148

28.4

6.1

33.8

10.8

20.9

2.89

9**

*

Not

e. T

-tes

t si

gnifi

canc

e le

vel *

**p<

.001

; **p

<.0

1; r

espo

nses

to

ques

tions

25–

33 w

ere

stru

ctur

ed o

n a

5-po

int

Like

rt-t

ype

scal

e: 1

= N

ot, 5

= V

ery.



Fozdar et al. 11

Tab

le 3

. Po

sitiv

ity t

owar

ds o

ut-g

roup

s/in

gro

ups.

Que

stio

nPe

ople

who

had

flag

s ne

ither

yea

rPe

ople

who

had

flag

s ei

ther

yea

r

(N)

1 (%

)2

(%)

3 (%

)4

(%)

5 (%

)M

ean

(N)

1 (%

)2

(%)

3 (%

)4

(%)

5 (%

)M

ean

28.

In g

ener

al h

ow p

ositi

ve d

o yo

u fe

el a

bout

In

dige

nous

Aus

tral

ians

?34

27.

012

.335

.125

.120

.53.

398

148

6.8

10.8

39.2

23.6

19.6

3.38

5

29.

In g

ener

al h

ow p

ositi

ve d

o yo

u fe

el a

bout

M

uslim

Aus

tral

ians

?33

914

.719

.239

.216

.510

.32.

885

153

25.5

15.0

39.9

11.8

7.8

2.61

4**

30.

In g

ener

al h

ow p

ositi

ve d

o yo

u fe

el a

bout

as

ylum

see

kers

?33

924

.816

.234

.215

.09.

72.

687

152

36.2

19.7

34.2

4.6

5.3

2.23

0**

*

31.

In g

ener

al h

ow p

ositi

ve d

o yo

u fe

el a

bout

A

sian

Aus

tral

ians

?34

23.

89.

138

.627

.820

.83.

526

152

11.2

10.5

39.5

24.3

14.5

3.20

4**

32.

In g

ener

al h

ow p

ositi

ve d

o yo

u fe

el a

bout

w

hite

Aus

tral

ians

?34

30.

66.

133

.534

.125

.73.

781

153

1.3

2.0

33.3

27.5

35.9

3.94

8

Not

e. T

-tes

t si

gnifi

canc

e le

vel *

**p<

.001

; **p

<.0

1; r

espo

nses

to

ques

tions

20–

4 w

ere

stru

ctur

ed o

n a

5-po

int

Like

rt-t

ype

scal

e: 1

= N

ot a

t al

l, 3

= N

eutr

al, 5

= V

ery.




Orientations to diversity (see Table 4). Participants were asked to indicate whether they believe it is better for Australian society if groups (a) maintain distinct traditions and customs; (b) adapt and blend into the larger society; or (c) respect and learn from each other’s cultural differences. This question, with responses (a) and (b), is taken from the AuSSA survey reported in Goot and Watson (2005), but response (c) was added for this study.

Results

Analysis of the results was undertaken by generating descriptive statistics – specifically means of the Likert-scale responses and percentages within each response option. T-tests were then conducted to identify significant differences. Tables 1–4 convey the results (percentages and means for the Likert-scale questions, percentages for the non-Likert-scale questions).

In the discussion, in order to allow for ease of comparison between car-flag-flyers and non-car-flag-flyers, percentages calculated by aggregating the two ‘agree’ response options on the Likert-scales are included.

Flag-waving

One in five participants reported having flown car-flags to celebrate Australia Day in 2011, the year the research was undertaken, and one in four, the previous year. Car-flag-flyers were significantly more likely to report that they also participated in other ‘days’ such as Red Nose Day, Wear Pink for Breast Cancer Day, etc. (t-test, p <.001) indicating car-flag-flyers have a greater propensity to engage in such collective activi-ties generally.

Demographics

A number of t-tests were conducted to examine whether there were differences between car-flag-flyers and non-car-flag-flyers with regard to demographic characteristics. As hypothesized, car-flag-flyers were significantly more likely to have lower levels of education, compared to non-car-flag-flyers (p<.001). However, there were no

Table 4. Orientations to diversity.

Question People who had flags neither year (n = 291)

People who had flags either year (n = 116)

33. It is better for Australian society if groups:

Maintain distinct traditions and customs 8.6 10.3

Adapt and blend into the larger society 17.9 28.4

Respect and learn from each other’s cultural differences

73.5 61.2



Fozdar et al. 13

significant differences between flag-flyers and non-flag-flyers in terms of their SEIFA (a measure of comparative socio-economic disadvantage),6 nor their income levels. Thus, no clear relationship between car-flag-flying and class position was established.

Flag-flyers were more likely to be younger (p <.001) but there was no difference by gender. Those without car-flags in either year were slightly more likely to be Australian citizens (84.2%, n = 280) than those with flags (81.4% n = 128), but this difference was not significant. Thus car-flag-flying is not associated with formal membership of the nation-state.7

Patriotism and nationalism

A series of t-tests was conducted to examine differences between car-flag-flyers and non-car-flag-flyers on items measuring nationalism and patriotism.

While clear majorities of both groups saw themselves as patriots, car-flag-flyers were significantly more likely to, compared to non-car-flag-flyers (84.7% versus 60.2%; see Table 1). Car-flag-flyers were also significantly more likely to agree that they are ‘glad to be Australian’ (96.0%, compared to 88.3%); that public schools should begin each day with the National Anthem (55.2%, compared to 36.4%); and that ‘Australia suffers when patriotism decreases’ (69.1%, compared to 48.8%).

What is the source of this patriotism? Respondents were asked how proud they felt about seven items relating to Australian life. For six of the seven items, respondents with car-flags felt more pride than those without flags; and this difference was significant for all but two items (multiculturalism and economic success). Levels of pride in Australia’s sporting achievements were highest for both groups (flag-flyers 87.6%, non-flag-flyers 82.7%). Participants were almost as proud of Australia’s economic success (77.5%, ver-sus 74.4%); technical and scientific success (76.8%, versus 66.7%); and cultural achieve-ments (67.8%, versus 60.6%). Of flag-flyers, 68.5% were proud of Australia’s history, while non-flag-flyers were more ambivalent at 50%; 59.9% of flaggers indicated they were proud of Australia’s political power compared to 42.8% of non-flaggers. Australia’s multiculturalism was the only item where more pride was expressed by those without flags (67.5%, compared to 66.2%), and this difference was not significant.

In sum, both groups were proud of Australia, but car-flag-flyers were generally more proud. Non-car-flag-flyers were more ambivalent about Australia’s history and political power, but sporting successes, economic strength, technical and scientific success, cultural achievements and multiculturalism were sources of pride for a major-ity of both groups.

Car-flag-flyers’ pride in Australia translated into positivity towards Australia’s influ-ence over other nations and in the region. Thus they were significantly more likely to agree that ‘Australia is an important part of the “Free World”’ (88.8%, compared to 79.3%); that ‘the more influence Australia has on other nations, the better off they are’ (60.4%, compared to 45.6%) and that ‘Australia is the most important country in the Asia-Pacific region’ (67.4%, compared to 44.8%).

In contrast, non-car-flag-flyers were significantly more likely to agree that ‘Asian culture has helped to make Australia a far more interesting place’ (49.2%, compared to




39.3%), indicating a degree of positivity towards the influence of Asia on Australia, rather than vice versa.

The main measure of exclusionary nationalism in this set of questions was an item measuring levels of support for an explicitly exclusionary immigration policy, that is, whether respondents believed the White Australia Policy had ‘saved Australia from many problems experienced by other countries’. Of those with car-flags 40.7% agreed, significantly higher than the 23.9% for those without flags. It must be noted that majori-ties of both groups did not agree with the statement.

Car-flag-flying was also associated with a sense of threat to one’s culture and values. While four out of ten of the total sample feared their culture and its most important val-ues were in danger, this was significantly higher for car-flag-flyers (a majority at 54.1%) than non-car-flag-flyers (31.3%).

Car-flag-flyers were significantly more likely to agree that ‘having a flag on one’s car is a way of showing that one is proud to be Australian’ (84.4%, versus 48.4%) and ‘indi-cates that the person is more patriotic than most’ (35.3%, versus 18.5%).

People with car-flags indicated higher levels of agreement than those without for all nine items related to perceptions of what it means to be truly Australian (see Table 2). Interestingly, however, both groups rated ‘civic’ nationalism items more highly than ‘ethno-’nationalism or nativist items.

Of the nine items, showing respect for Australia’s political institutions and laws rated most highly for both flaggers (97.4%) and non-flaggers (95.4%). This was the only item for which there was no statistical difference between the two groups. Speaking English was almost as important for both groups (94.1% of flaggers, 86.7% of non-flaggers). Living mostly in Australia was also an important indicator for flaggers, at 82.2%, less so for non-flaggers (66.4%), with a similar pattern for Australian citizenship (80.3%, versus 65.7%).

Sense of attachment was important for both groups. Majorities agreed that feeling Australian was very important, although this was almost unanimous for car-flag-flyers (91.9%), but significantly less important for non-flaggers (67.5%).

Indicating the importance of ethno-nationalism/nativism to car-flag-flyers, 39.5% believed being born in Australia was important to being truly Australian (compared to non-flaggers at 18.3%); 36.9% agreed having Australian ancestry was important (com-pared to 14.4%); and 23.2% felt being Christian was important (compared to 16.9%).8 Of car-flag-flyers, 31.7% felt it was important not to have an allegiance to another country (significantly more than the 20.2% among non-flag-flyers).

Positivity towards out-groups, and orientations towards diversity

To measure comparative levels of exclusionary nationalism, participants were asked how positive they feel towards a range of ethnic groups. While a blunt measure, this provides some insight into general orientations to diversity. The results indicate clear differences (see Table 3). Positivity towards Muslims and asylum seekers was very low among both car-flag-flyers and non-car-flag-flyers, but was significantly lower among flag-flyers. Of flaggers, 19.6% felt positive towards Muslim Australians compared with 26.8% of non-flaggers; and 9.9% of flaggers were positive towards asylum seekers (versus 24.7%). Of car-flag-flyers, 38.8% felt positive towards Asian Australians compared with 48.6% of



Fozdar et al. 15

non-flaggers. There was no significant difference between flag-flyers and non-flag-fly-ers in terms of positive attitudes towards Aboriginal Australians (43.2% versus 45.6%).9

In terms of attitudes to diversity, results replicate the contradictions identified in ear-lier research. Three questions sought views on Australian cultural diversity, and results for all items demonstrated significant differences between car-flag-flyers and non-car-flag-flyers. A majority of both groups agreed it is good for people from different ethnic, religious and racial groups to live in Australia (64.7% of car-flag-flyers, 77% of non-flaggers). However, a majority of both groups also felt that people who move to Australia should adopt Australian values (88.3% of people with car-flags, 74.2% of non-flaggers). Relatedly, over half (52.9%) of car-flag-flyers believed migrants should leave their old ways behind, compared with only a quarter (26.7%) of non-flaggers.

Participants were also asked which would be the better approach for Australian soci-ety in terms of dealing with internal diversity (Table 4). Only one in ten flag-flyers and non-flag-flyers agreed groups should maintain distinct traditions and customs, but simi-larly only a fifth of non-car-flag-flyers and a third of flag-flyers felt the appropriate response was for minorities to adapt and blend into the larger society. Instead, clear majorities of both groups selected the third option, not included in previous surveys, see-ing it as more appropriate to ‘respect and learn from each other’s cultural differences’ (73.5%, and 61.2 respectively). Thus for both groups integration rather than assimilation appears to be the preferred option.

Discussion and conclusion

We sought to determine whether Australia Day car-flag-flyers are more likely than non-car-flag-flyers to express exclusionary nationalism, but not patriotism. The results indi-cate that car-flag-flyers rate more highly on measures of exclusionary nationalism, but also on other forms of nationalism (such as civic nationalism) and of patriotism.

We also sought to determine whether car-flag-flyers are more likely than non-car-flag-flyers to be less positive about cultural diversity and out-groups. This hypothesis was also confirmed. Car-flag-flyers were significantly less positive about Australia’s diversity generally, and about Muslim and Asian Australians and asylum seekers specifi-cally; and more likely to support assimilation of migrants. They were also more fearful that their culture and values are under threat, supporting Hage’s (2003: 47) argument that Australian nationalism is associated with defensiveness and worry (see also Dandy and Pe-Pua, 2010).

Some evidence was provided that Australia Day car-flag-flying is a ‘working-class’ phenomenon, with a relationship demonstrated between it and education level, but not socio-economic status.

For all measures indicating levels of patriotism, nationalism and attitudes to diversity, car-flag-flyers rated higher (on patriotism and nationalism) and lower (on positivity to diversity) compared to non-car-flag-flyers, and most of these differences reached statisti-cal significance. While individual results for specific questions speak to the hypotheses, this cumulative effect is a powerful indicator that car-flag use is associated with exclu-sionary nationalism or cultural racism. The effect is even more striking as the survey was conducted among a population for all of whom, it can be assumed, national pride was




salient, given the Australia Day context. The results indicate, as suggested by earlier commentators, that for some, though clearly not all, car-flag-flying may be about assert-ing a particular version of the nation. Historically, flags were about signalling sides in battle, and it appears ‘elements of this signalling of “insider” versus “outsider” remain’ (Orr, 2010: 521).

The results are of particular interest given the current environment where globaliza-tion has been predicted to reduce the importance of national identifications, encouraging instead a growth of cosmopolitan and post-national identities and orientations, and grad-ually eliminating the need for any form of state-level belonging whatsoever (Beck, 2006; Hedetoft and Hjort, 2002; Werbner, 2008). Rather than the more inclusive identities and orientations to difference foreseen by some (Ariely, 2012; Beck, 2006; Norris and Inglehart, 2009; Wise and Velayutham, 2009), Australian nationalism appears alive and well and the flag appears to have come to represent, to some Australians, an identity associated with the majority culture and race, and exclusive of difference. These results appear to support the suggestion that globalization may lead to rising levels of xenopho-bia, rather than greater cosmopolitanism (IPSOS, 2011; Joppke, 2004).

Bratta (2009) argues one cannot modify the narrative of the flag once it is fixed in the public sphere. Thus the use of the flag in an exclusionary way at Cronulla, by Pauline Hanson and in racist bumper-stickers, cements a certain message within it. Perera (2007: 13) suggests that post-Cronulla there is ‘almost a naturalised relationship between the flag, Anglo-Australian identitarianism and racist violence’. Its viral replication on cars re-transmits this message, but only partially. The effect is not total, as clearly some peo-ple with car-flags are positive about diversity, do not feel their values and way of life are under threat, and do not view minorities in a negative way.

A further observation is worthy of note. Regardless of car-flag-flying status, the levels of negativity about minorities, exclusionary definitions of what it means to be truly Australian, and agreement with the statement that the White Australia Policy saved Australia from many problems, are troubling. The fact that one out of four non-car-flag-flyers, for instance, agreed with this latter statement, indicates that a strain of negative race-based nationalism is reasonably widespread.

In January 2012 the results of the study were publicized in a press release, producing an enormous response (see Fozdar, under review). The suggestion that the Australian flag might in some contexts be associated with racist attitudes caused a massive public outcry. This sensitivity reinforces the observation that the flag has taken on a strong symbolic value in the minds of the Australian people, whose relationship to it is no longer ‘laconic and undemonstrative’. While qualitative data from the study indicated that people were not particularly conscious of their reasons for flying the flag on their cars, they were nevertheless highly insulted by the suggestion that it might signal nega-tive forms of nationalism.

Is it possible to conclude that the Australian flag has come to stand for exclusionary nationalism? Not absolutely, for all uses of the flag are contextual. But it seems clear that with the change in uses of the flag, the growth in public ‘ownership’ of it, and its increas-ing importance as a symbol aligned with a certain version of Australian identity, there is a danger that it may be becoming so. The question then becomes one of whether its rehabilitation is possible.



Fozdar et al. 17

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

1. It is likely that Perth’s celebrations are enhanced by the fact that, unlike most other Australian capital cities, it does not hold fireworks displays on New Year’s eve.

2. The British flag retains pride of place in the top left hand quadrant of the current design (Kwan, 2010).

3. While patriotism and nationalism are connected through positive in-group evaluation, Skitka (2005) provides evidence from factor analysis that they are distinguishable constructs.

4. The project received approval from the relevant universities’ Ethics Committees. Permission was provided by the relevant authorities to conduct surveys at all sites.

5. As outlined below, a number of questions were taken or adapted from other sources, some of which have been validated. Sources include Goot and Watson (2005: 190) (who used the following sources: International Social Survey Program, 1995; Australian Election Study, 1996, 2001; Australian Constitutional Referendum Study, 1999; Australian Survey of Social Attitudes, 2003); Kemmelmeier and Winter (2008) and Pedersen and Paradies (2010).

6. SEIFA (Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas) is a suite of four summary measures created from 2006 Australian Census information. The indexes are used to explore different aspects of socio-economic conditions by geographic area. Every geographic area in Australia is given a SEIFA number which shows how disadvantaged that area is compared with other areas in Australia. Information is available at: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/2039.0/

7. Around 85% of the Australian population are citizens, the remainder consisting of per-manent residents, tourists and those on temporary visas. The slight over-representation of non-citizens in the car-flying sample could demonstrate over-compensation to signify one’s symbolic allegiance to the nation-state. However, as the difference was not statistically significant, little can be concluded from this result, apart from the fact that citizens are not over-represented.

8. It is worthy of note that two measures were much lower for both groups than the 2003 results reported by Goot and Watson. First, 39.5% of flaggers and 18.3% of non-flaggers felt that people had to be born in Australia to be truly Australian – 24.9% overall. This is much lower than the 58% reported by Goot and Watson (2005: 188). Similarly, 23.2% of flag-flyers believed that true Australians had to be Christian, compared with 16.9% of non-flaggers, whereas Goot and Watson report the 2003 figure at 36% (2005: 188). The massive difference between the 2003 figures and the current results is perhaps surprising given the stability of the result that Goot and Watson report over the decade to 2003. While the cur-rent sample is not representative, it is a sample for whom nationalism was salient, given the Australia Day context. Additionally, the years post-2003 saw strong nationalist sentiment encouraged at the highest political levels. One might therefore expect higher, not lower, figures. The fact that car-flag-flyers were far less likely than the general population in 2003 to require these ‘nativist’ characteristics as measures of true Australian-ness may indicate that nativist definitions have declined. Without testing among a representative sample this remains conjecture.

9. Interestingly, only 59.8% of non-flag-flyers were positive about white Australians, compared to 63.4% of flag-flyers (one of the few non-significant differences overall); 33% of both groups chose the neutral column for this question, and very few selected ‘not at all’.




References

ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission) (2007) ‘Raising the Flag’, Compass (transcript 1 July), URL (consulted February 2014): http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s1967604.htm

Anderson, B. (1991) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism, revised and extended edn. London: Verso.

Ariely, G. (2012) ‘Globalisation and the Decline of National Identity? An Exploration across Sixty-three Countries’, Nations and Nationalism 18(3): 461–82.

Barker, M. (1981) The New Racism: Conservatives and the Ideology of the Tribe. London: Junction Books.

Beck, U. (2006) The Cosmopolitan Vision. Cambridge: Polity Press.Billiet, J. and H. de Witte (2008) ‘Everyday Racism as Predictor of Political Racism in Flemish

Belgium’, Journal of Social Issues 64(2): 253–67.Billig, M. (1995) Banal Nationalism. London: Sage.Blaut, J. (1992) ‘The Theory of Cultural Racism’, Antipode 24(4): 289–99.Bliuc, A.M., McGarty, C., Hartley, L. K. and D. Muntele-Hendres (2012) ‘Manipulating national

identity: the strategic use of rhetoric by supporters and opponents of the ‘Cronulla riots’ in Australia’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 35(12): 2174–2194.

Bratta, P. (2009) ‘Flag Display Post-9/11: A Discourse on American Nationalism’, Journal of American Culture 32(3): 232–43.

Burke, L. (2010) ‘Horror Show of Aussie Celebrations’, The West Australian 26 October.Bulmer, M. and J. Solomos (1999) Racism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Casellas, S. (2006) ‘They’re Just Rolling Along’, The West Australian 27 January: 9.Clark, A. (2006) ‘Flying the Flag for Mainstream Australia’, Griffith Review (Getting Smart: The

Battle for Ideas in Education), Edition 11.Curran, J. (2006) The Power of Speech: Australian Prime Ministers Defining the National Image.

Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.Dandy, J. and R. Pe-Pua (2010) ‘Attitudes to Multiculturalism, Immigration and Cultural

Diversity: Comparison of Dominant and Non-dominant Groups in Three Australian States’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34(1): 34–46.

Dunn, K. (2009) ‘Performing Australian Nationalism at Cronulla’, in G. Noble (ed.) Lines in the Sand: The Cronulla Riots, Multiculturalism and National Belonging. Annandale, Sydney: The Institute of Criminology Press.

Durkheim, E. (1995 [1912]) The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. New York: The Free Press.Foley, C.A. (1996) The Australian Flag: Colonial Relic or Contemporary Icon? Leichhardt,

NSW: The Federation Press.Fox, J. (2006) ‘Consuming the Nation: Holidays, Sports and the Production of Collective

Belonging’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 29(2): 217–36.Fozdar, F. (2012) ‘Flagging nationalism: Some thoughts on the nature of provocation’. TASA (The

Australian Sociological Association) 2021 Conference Refereed Proceedings. November 26–29, Brisbane, Australia.

Gellner, E. (1996) ‘The Coming of Nationalism and Its Interpretation: The Myths of Nation and Class’, in G. Balakrishnan (ed.) Mapping the Nation. New York: New Left Books.

Giddens, A. (1985) A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism. Cambridge: Polity Press.Goot, M. and I. Watson (2005) ‘Immigration, Multiculturalism and National Identity’, pp.182–203

in S. Wilson, G. Meagher, R. Gibson, D. Denemark and M. Western (eds) Australian Social Attitudes. Sydney: NSW Press.

Habermas, J. (1994) ‘Struggles for Recognition in the Democratic Constitutional State’, pp. 107–47 in A. Gutmann (ed.) Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.



Fozdar et al. 19

Hage, G. (2003) Against Paranoid Nationalism: Searching for Hope in a Shrinking Society. Sydney: Pluto Press.

Hedetoft, U. and M. Hjort (2002) The Postnational Self: Belonging and Identity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Huxley, J. (2009) ‘When Patriotism Becomes Provocation’, Sydney Morning Herald (Weekend Edition, News Review), 31 January: 6.

Ipsos (2011) Global Views on Immigration, Global @dvisor, URL (consulted February 2014): http://www.ipsos.fr/sites/default/files/attachments/globaladvisor_immigration.pdf

Jacobs, K. and Malpas, J. (eds) (2011) Ocean to Outback: Cosmopolitanism in Contemporary Australia. Perth: University of Western Australia Publishing.

Jones, B. (2006) ‘Racism Draped in a Flag’, Sydney Morning Herald 28 January, URL (con-sulted February 2014): http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/racism-draped-in-flag/2006/01/27/1138319443954.html

Jones, F.L. (2000) ‘Diversities of National Identity in a Multicultural Society: The Australian Case’, National Identities 2(2): 175–86.

Joppke, C. (2004) ‘The Retreat of Multiculturalism in the Liberal State: Theory and Policy’, British Journal of Sociology 55(2): 237–57.

Jupp, J. (2002) From White Australia to Woomera: The Story of Australian Immigration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Karlsen, S. and J. Nazroo (2006) ‘Measuring and Analyzing “Race”, Racism, and Racial Discrimination’, pp. 86–111 in J. Oakes and J. Kaufman (eds) Methods in Social Epidemiology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kemmelmeier, M. and D. Winter (2008) ‘Sowing Patriotism, but Reaping Nationalism? Consequences of Exposure to the American Flag’, Political Psychology 29(6): 859–879.

Kwan, E. (2010) ‘Flag’, pp. 98–105 in M. Harper and R. White (eds) Symbols of Australia: Uncovering the Stories Behind the Myths. Sydney and Canberra: University of New South Wales Press Ltd and National Museum of Australia Press.

Kwan, E. (c2008) ‘Celebrating Australia: A History of Australia Day’, URL (consulted 15 August 2012): http://www.australiaday.org.au/media/42069/australia%20day%20history% 20pdf.pdf

MacIntyre, S. and A. Clark (2003) The History Wars. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.Maddox, M. (2005) God Under Howard: The Rise of the Religious Right in Australian Politics.

Crows Nest, NSW: Allen and Unwin.McAllister, P. (2012) National Days and the Politics of Indigenous and Local Identities in

Australia and New Zealand. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Moran, A. (2011) ‘Multiculturalism as(2005) Australia: Nation-building in Australia: Inclusive

National Identity and the Embrace of Diversity’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 34(12): 2153–72.Moran, A. (2005) Australia: Nation, Belonging and Globalization. New York: Routledge.Mulvey, P. (2007) ‘Flags “Not Banned” but Unwelcome’, News.com.au, 22 January, URL (con-

sulted 15 August 2012): http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,21095538–2,00.html National Australia Day Council (2011) ‘A Wonderful Australia Day 2011’, News and Media 25

January, URL (consulted February 2014): http://web.archive.org/web/20110129180032/http://www.australiaday.org.au/media/?x=64

Noble, G. (2009) Lines in the Sand: The Cronulla Riots, Multiculturalism and National Belonging. Sydney: Institute of Criminology Press.

Norris, P. and R. Inglehart (2009) Cosmopolitan Communications: Cultural Diversity in a Globalized World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Orr, G. (2010) ‘A Fetishised Gift: The Legal Status of Flags’, Griffith Law Review 19(3): 504–26.




Pakulski, J. and B. Tranter (2000) ‘Civic, National and Denizen Identity in Australia’, Journal of Sociology 36(2): 205–22.

Pedersen, A. and F. Barlow (2008) ‘Theory to Social Action: A University Based Strategy Targeting Prejudice against Aboriginal Australians’, Australian Psychologist 43: 148–59.

Pedersen, A. and Y. Paradies (2010) Development of an Australian ethnocentrism scale and its relation to acculturation ideologies. Unpublished paper.

Pedersen, A., Y. Paradies, L. Hartley and K. Dunn (2011) ‘Bystander Antiprejudice: Cross-cultural Education, Links with Positivity towards Cultural “Outgroups” and Preparedness to Speak Out’, Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology 5(1): 19–30.

Perera, S. (2010) ‘From “Sovereignty” to “Sustainability”: The Loops and Lineaments of Exclusion 2001–2010’, pp. 1–28 in S. Perera, G. Seal and S. Summers (eds) Enter at Own Risk? Australia’s Population Questions for the 21st Century. Perth, WA: Black Swan Press.

Perera, S. (2007) ‘“Aussie Luck”: The Border Politics of Citizenship Post Cronulla Beach’, Australian Critical Race and Whiteness Studies Association Journal 3(1): 1–16, URL (con-sulted February 2014): http://www.acrawsa.org.au/files/ejournalfiles/64SuvendriniPerera.pdf

SBS (2010) Immigration Nation. URL (consulted 23 February 2010): http://www.sbs.com.au/immigrationnation/videos/20/wednesday-16-february-8-30pm-sbstwo#related

Skitka, L. (2005) ‘Patriotism or Nationalism? Understanding Post-September 11, 2001 Flag Display Behavior’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology 35: 1995–2011.

Smith, A. (1991) National Identity. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Smith, A. (2003) Chosen Peoples. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Spillman, L. (1997) Nation and Commemoration: Creating National Identities in the United States

and Australia. New York: Cambridge University Press.Tate, J. (2009) ‘John Howard’s “Nation” and Citizenship Test: Multiculturalism, Citizenship and

Identity’, Australian Journal of Politics and History 55(1): 97–120.Ward, T. (2010) Sport in Australian National Identity: Kicking Goals. Abingdon: Routledge.Werbner, P. (2008) Anthropology and the New Cosmopolitanism: Rooted, Feminist and Vernacular

Perspectives. ASA Monograph No. 45. Oxford: Berg.Wise, A. and S. Velayutham (eds) (2009) Everyday Multiculturalism. Houndsmills: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Author biographies

Farida Fozdar (aka Tilbury) is Associate Professor in Anthropology and Sociology at the University of Western Australia. Her research focuses on race relations and migrant settlement, citizenship and nationalism, social exclusion, religion and issues to do with refugees and asylum seekers.

Brian Spittles is a research assistant working at The University of Western Australia and complet-ing his PhD at Murdoch University.

Lisa K. Hartley is a Lecturer at the Centre for Human Rights Education at Curtin University. Her research focuses on the rights of asylum seekers and refugees; prejudice towards marginalised social groups; and the factors that foster activism and advocacy about social injustice. Lisa has a range of publications in the fields of social and community psychology, as well as refugee and migration studies.



Australia Day, flags on cars and Australian nationalism

Documents

Transcript of Australia Day, flags on cars and Australian nationalism