After a summary of several contributions in this volume, we focus on certain problems and omissions in the debate about citizenship and the position of migrants in Dutch society. First, nearly all the contributions are related to the level of theoretical concepts or policy proposals, neglecting the level of social behaviour and important changes of social reality. Second, all authors acknowledge the fact that the moral dimensions of citizenship have become more important, yet nobody seems to be interested in a scientific explanation of this remarkable fact. In response to these omissions we try to understand why the Netherlands has changed from an open society into a community struck by xenophobia. One explanation might be that the intensity of social interaction has increased considerably. Another explanation is related to the fact the level of education has grown, creating a higher expectations of 'normal' behaviour. Together these tendencies undermine the ('typical Dutch') tradition of tolerance or deviant behaviour generally and for 'strange' behaviour of migrants specifically.

This article sketches an alternative route to stimulate public familiarity: introducing spaces and zones of hospitality. Maybe hospitality in (semi)public space can offer more safe and comfortable ways of interaction. How does hospitality relate to the principles of public life like free access? Which views of interaction between strangers are presupposed? It is argued that hospitality means sharing together a certain limited space. The persons present depend on each other and they have the opportunity to make contact and get nearer. Guests have the positive obligation to treat each other with respect. Hospitable social regulation may be promoted in various ways. First by introducing symbolic demarcations like gateways and fences. Secondly by introducing convivial forms of interaction. Making use of public space in sheltered and relaxed ways may function as 'leveler' through which newcomers may feel welcome and 'at home'. Thirdly, by means of a 'personal hospitability' small conflicts can be managed. In that case some persons may take the role of public host without being asked. Finally some objections against hospitability are dealt with: on the one hand the freedom to move as one wants would be restricted and on the other hand informal manners in hospitable spaces would not satisfy the rules of detached and impersonal public interaction. Against that it is argued that 'total freedom of movement' and impersonal interaction are not always suitable principles to shape public life.

In the Netherlands, the rise of new parties such as the Lijst Pim Fortuyn, the Partij voor de Vrijheid, lead by Geert Wilders and the movement Trots op Nederland, lead by Rita Verdonk, have attracted much attention. In an attempt to interpret and explain the (temporary) advance of these parties, both commentators and political scientists have often used the notion of populism. In most commentaries however, it remains unclear what the term exactly means and whether it has any explanatory value. The aim of this article is to investigate whether Rita Verdonk and Geert Wilders and their movements may actually be labelled as populist. By discerning the presence of the features of an ideal-typical populism in discourse and performance of both politicians their ‘degree of populism’ is measured. The differences in degree of populism also helps to explain why Geert Wilders and his party proved (thus far) more successful and durable.