Benjamin Boudou
email: benjamin.boudou@univ-rennes.fr

Good Concept, Bad Politics? The Heuristic Value of Hospitality

This paper assesses the heuristic value of hospitality. Hospitality as a politics or a political justification of border policies is ambivalent. The power of the hosts, the expectations of gratefulness and quiescence from the guests, the temporariness of hospitality, or the hypocrisy and partiality of the welcoming rhetoric, raise doubts about the current revival in activist, political, and scholarly mobilizations of the concept. Nevertheless, I argue that hospitality as an analytical tool has a heuristic role in migration studies. I reconstruct the main conceptualizations of hospitality-an "ordinary practice of accommodation," a "social mechanism," an "ideology," an "idea," or a "normative principle"-to show how it produces new and useful knowledge across different fields. Hospitality helps to describe, explain, and evaluate social phenomena such as the accommodation of migrants at home, the quality of welcome against organized hostility, the justification of resistance to harsh border enforcement, the social construction of foreigners as temporary guests, and the relationships between the religious and legal vocabularies of asylum.

Good concept, bad politics? The heuristic value of hospitality

Hospitality refers to the practice of welcoming and the value that makes welcoming a virtuous act. The self-evident nature of hospitality-we all have welcomed and been welcomed-should not hide the set of rules that govern its practice: Who are "we" who welcome? Whom are we welcoming? Where? For how long? For what reasons? For what purposes? In which circumstances? All these questions specify and organize the practice of hospitality according to social and political norms. This has two main implications. Firstly, the concept is both descriptive and evaluative. To qualify a person or an action as hospitable, or to claim the term hospitality to name a business (as in the "hospitality industry"), is not a neutral practice. Hospitality sheds "a specific moral light" (Skinner 1989, 11): a warm light of friendliness, openness to the Other, promptness to share or to use generously of one's possessions. Secondly, the term hospitality is common and used in everyday interactions, but also has different layers of meaning which social scientists, historians, and philosophers mobilize for research purposes.

Hospitality is both a category of practice, "developed and deployed by ordinary social actors," and a category of analysis, "used by social analysts" (Brubaker and Cooper 2000, 4).

In other words, there is nothing obvious about hospitality, and it should not be simply surrendered to its commercial uses. Hotels and restaurants rebranding themselves as part of the hospitality industry have not convinced scholars that paying for a service amounts to being welcomed, in the "true" sense of the term, even if it involves conflicting interpretations, semantic diversions, or normative considerations.

Let us consider Richard Cumberland's paradigmatic definition, dating from the 17 th century:

"Liberality is Justice conspicuous in Actions, bestowing gratis upon others what is our own. [...] Towards the Miserable, it is called Compassion; and towards the Poor in particular, Alms-giving. Toward Strangers it is called Hospitality, especially, if we entertain them in our Houses" (Cumberland 2005, 690-91).

Directly echoing the lessons of Aristotle, Cumberland made of liberality, and hence of hospitality, a necessity to sustain the common good of all against private interests (justice), tempered by the need to "reserve to our selves sufficient to pursue our own Happiness" (Cumberland 2005, 689). To Aristotle, property must be rightfully hospitable, while practicing hospitality was the prerequisite for being a virtuous property-owner (Aristotle 1998(Aristotle , 47-48 [1263a]]). Hospitality bathes one in the moral light of openness and generosity but does not eschew the traditional social schemes of property and mastery over one's home.

Today, attempts to condition hospitality to cultural homogeneity-one could not welcome without a proper "home," i.e., a closed cultural nation-signal a similar ambiguity: hospitality is a practice of openness which relies on a principle of closure (property, selfinterest, sovereignty, or identity of the political community).

Such ambiguities have made hospitality a contested concept, but also a creative one.

From the most banal acts such as receiving friends at home, to moral theories and political discourses, hospitality crosses different scales of human activities which involve organizing interactions between inside and outside, self and other, private and public, familiar and foreign. In its practice and in the discourses and attitudes it generates, hospitality reveals fundamental dynamics of sociality, as well as ethical and political values. This is particularly salient in migration contexts, where the categories of "outside," "foreign," or "other" follow legal and political borders. But is it relevant to conflate the practice of hospitality with migration? As a category of analysis, what does hospitality show and what does it hide? What do we learn, and what do we ignore when we pay attention to the roles of hosts and guests, or to the value of home and welcome in situations of displacement? I set out to reassess hospitality as a conceptual tool. By reconstructing the ambivalence of hospitality for modern political vocabulary (Section 1), its revival in times of migration troubles (Section 2), and its main conceptualizations (Section 3), I aim to defend the heuristic value of hospitality in migration studies (Section 4).

In his famous study on "the law of hospitality," Pitt-Rivers (2012, 513) wrote that hospitality "makes the unknown knowable," meaning that it transforms the (unknown) stranger into a (knowable) guest. While acknowledging its ambiguous politics, I argue that hospitality, as an analytical tool, has an analogous role in migration studies. I show that the paradigm of hospitality-as an "ordinary practice of accommodation," a "social mechanism," an "ideology," an "idea," or a "normative principle"-describes, explains, and evaluates in new ways and with a broader scope of phenomena here. The latter include the accommodation of migrants at home, the justification of resistance to border enforcement, relationships between the religious and legal vocabularies of asylum, and ascription to the status of guest.

Resisting the appeal of hospitality

The vocabulary of hospitality has become pervasive in the literature on migration over the last decade, especially after 2015 and the "summer of migration." The construction of the influx of asylum-seekers as a humanitarian crisis, and the surge of individual practices to welcome refugees throughout Europe, have made a concept that had largely disappeared from the Western political vocabulary once again relevant.

In the 18 th century, however, philosophers considered hospitality obsolete in its traditional sense, as inns and hotels were said to have replaced personal ties and individual charity. This narrative assumed that modern human interactions were more aptly described with notions of self-interest, commerce, and utility rather than with virtue, benevolence, and tradition. Hospitality was discussed from a historical or religious perspective, but the point was always to underline its disappearance among "civilized" and modern people (Boudou 2020). Montesquieu (1989, 339) could thus write that "hospitality, so rare among commercial countries, is notable among bandit peoples", and Diderot (1976, 144) that "the sacred hospitality, extinguished everywhere police and social institutions made progress, is only be found among savage nations." Rousseau regretted that self-interest made hospitality a mere commercial practice: "Those who would thus traffic in the simplest duties of humanity must be a despicable people indeed. I have observed that it is in Europe alone that hospitality is sold" (Rousseau 1992, 134).

At a more conceptual level, the international law tradition had constructed a form of state duty of hospitality, inspired by natural law and religion [START_REF] Cavallar | The Rights of Strangers: Theories of International Hospitality, the Global Community, and Political Justice since Vitoria[END_REF]. But the rise of nationalism in the 19 th and 20 th centuries and this narrative of hospitality as contrary to modernity rendered hospitality all but irrelevant beyond the private sphere or religious traditions. When the concept reappeared in public discourses, it generally referred to the largesse of states towards refugees and exiles. As "refugee" became a legal category, hospitality remained on the side of benevolence and charity rather than justice.

Hence, there are several good reasons to resist the vocabulary of hospitality in the political sphere. Hospitality, as a situation where hosts receive guests in their home, may not be suited to discuss the various claims made either by nation-states or asylum-seekers. The main doubt raised against host-guest politics is that it is too closely tied to an ancient social practice to help make sense of contemporary issues (O'Neill 2000, 186-87). It is tainted by paternalism (of hosts over guests), religiosity (of a "sacred" duty), essentialism (of home and strangers), and power relations in disguise [START_REF] Rozakou | The Biopolitics of Hospitality in Greece: Humanitarianism and the Management of Refugees[END_REF][START_REF] Chamberlain | Responsibility for Migrants: From Hospitality to Solidarity[END_REF]. Indeed, hospitality is hardly compatible with equality. The relationship between hosts and guests implies deference to the host, gratitude for what must be experienced as a generous gift, and, as a guest, a sense of one's role and place. A foreigner-as-guest has remained the one who must "behave in a peaceable manner in the place he happens to be in" (Kant 1991, 106). Cicero also stated it plainly: "It is the duty of a foreigner or resident alien to do nothing except his own business, asking no questions about anyone else, and never to meddle in public affairs, which are not his own" (Cicero 1991, 48).

These rules of respect, politeness, and civility tend to depoliticize the power relations between citizens and non-citizens, or between the state and migrants, and limit the ability of the latter to exercise full political agency. Guest status assignment prevents contentious politics. As [START_REF] Sayad | The Suffering of the Immigrant[END_REF] showed regarding the demand of politeness to Algerians in France, or Anderson regarding the "rigged rules of civility" that "provided excuses for endless stonewalling" (Anderson 2010, 98) against rights claims during segregation in the United States, the moralization of politics through domestic imageries tends to work against minorities.

Closely related to inequality is the precarious nature of hospitality practices.

Hospitality cannot last "forever;" as a form of benevolence, it must remain an exceptional moment. It is described as an exception to the rule, a surplus of humanity in the scales of justice, a principle of generosity in its "equal" treatment of persons. Perhaps no one has better formulated this tension than Vladimir Jankélévitch, when he juxtaposed the arithmetic of "the just" with the overflow of charity, the "metrics of justice" with the "passionate maximalism of love: "The most juridical minds have always sensed that justice itself would not be viable without the unjust, unreasonable, incomprehensible exception that breathes life into it. This is precisely the role of the generous approximation: the oil of misunderstanding, the lubricating approximation grease the wheels of social life." (Jankélévitch 2011, 76) Hospitality signals a reason beyond the law and a clear articulation of rights and duties. It addresses the demands made by particular Others which the "juridical minds" may overlook. I will come back later to this "excessive" view of hospitality, but let me simply mention here that it can legitimately be interpreted as entrenching arbitrariness. In fact, one can argue that hospitality and other acts of love or beneficence fall short of what justice requires. As Kant wrote: "[W]ere we all to behave thus, and perform no act of love or kindness, but left the rights of every man inviolate, there would be no misery in the world" (Kant 1997, 179).

Thus, hospitality is opposed to the regularity of the Law. As it stands on the side of beneficence and compassion, it is exposed to the hazards and uncertainties of something which can be asked for, but never rightfully claimed. With the example of hospitality, the lawyer Rudolf von Jhering justified the replacement of gratuitousness and favor with compensation and business: "Let him [the reader] suppose he has the choice between a journey into a land where he can find hotels everywhere, and into on in which there are no inns at all, but where this want is replaced by a general hospitality. [...] I doubt not that he would decide for the country of inns. Hospitality is a fine thing, truly; one which opens the door to the weary wanderer [...]; yet for practical life [...] an inn is better than hospitality. For an inn gives me the certain of a reception, which I have not in hospitality; and my money spares me the humiliation of a request, of accepting a favour, of giving thanksmy freedom and independence on the journey lie in my purse." (Jhering 1913, 90-91) Finally, hospitality stands in contrast to a crucial concern of philosophical liberalism: impartiality. Hospitality may appear to be an impartial practice at first sight: It welcomes "all" strangers, without distinctions among race, nationality, or religion, in the manner of the universalist words of Paul (Ephesians 2:14-19 ; Colossians 3:11), or of the Good Samaritan who helps the wounded stranger. Therefore, it should be a principle of openness to the neighbor in general [START_REF] Ricoeur | The Socius and the Neighbor[END_REF]. In practice, however, neighbors are generally not anonymous strangers, and the host is the one to determine which strangers deserve hospitality. This makes it a partial and biased practice and virtue that contradicts the ideal of impartiality.

I will not elaborate further on the essentialist, colonial, and nativist undertones which the rhetoric of hospitality in politics carries. [START_REF] Rosello | Postcolonial Hospitality: The Immigrant as Guest[END_REF], [START_REF] Bessone | Le Vocabulaire de l'hospitalité est-il républicain ?[END_REF], [START_REF] Carpi | Refugee Hospitality in Lebanon and Turkey. On Making 'The Other[END_REF], [START_REF] Holzberg | Wir Schaffen Das': Hope and Hospitality beyond the Humanitarian Border[END_REF], [START_REF] Chamberlain | Responsibility for Migrants: From Hospitality to Solidarity[END_REF][START_REF] Debono | Plastic Hospitality: The Empty Signifier at the EU's Mediterranean Border[END_REF] have convincingly shown that speaking of hospitality in terms of migration policies is inherently statist, and often hypocritical and detrimental to migrants. It leaves them in the position of needy and powerless guests, no different from the "weary wanderer" [START_REF] Jhering | Law as a Means to an End[END_REF] mentioned in the quote above.

At face value, hospitality for migrants enacts a form of "domopolitics" [START_REF] Walters | Secure Borders, Safe Haven, Domopolitics[END_REF][START_REF] Taylor | Domopolitics, Citizenship and Dissent: An Analysis of 'Crimes of Solidarity' and Hospitality in Contemporary France[END_REF]) ruling over foreigners as if they were (un)invited guests. As such, the norms of domestic hospitality apply, such as remaining discreet, being aware and respectful of the house rules, and leaving after a while. Thus, one can legitimately conclude that hospitality is epistemologically inadequate and normatively undesirable. It systematically relies on methodological nationalism and legitimizes the perspective of the hosts, understood as the natives, nationals, or citizens acting out of generosity towards foreigners.

Hospitality or open borders? A clarification

I have underlined some limitations to the politics of hospitality for contemporary migration. At the same time, I have noted that what has been experienced as a new configuration of migration has resurrected the ancient-rooted concept.

In 2015, more than one million migrants arrived in Europe by sea or land. Most were fleeing conflicts in Syria, Libya, Iraq, or Afghanistan. The number of asylum applications rose from roughly 216,000 to one million between 2014 and 2015 [START_REF] Euronews | Eurostat Data Reveals Increase in First Time Asylum Seekers for the Second Quarter of 2015[END_REF]. Since then, the Mediterranean Sea has become the deadliest migration route, as 22,748 people have been reported dead or missing [START_REF] Sunderland | Europe's Deadly Border Policies[END_REF]. Some countries opened their borders, such as Germany, which quickly planned to welcome about 800,000 refugees. Conversely, Hungary decided to erect a fence along the Serbian and Croatian border and to send to prison refugees who crossed it illegally [START_REF] Thorpe | Migrant Crisis: Hungarian Jails Crowded by 'illegal' Refugees[END_REF]. The issues at stake for the European Union have been framed as both political and economic, but also moral.

Scholars, activists, and some political leaders retrieved hospitality as a virtue and a duty that should inspire European countries during this "crisis." A European petition launched in March 2016 ended with a straightforward call: "There is no other alternative: hospitality and right to asylum or savagery!" [START_REF] Agier | Pas d'alternative : Droit d'asile, Ou Barbarie[END_REF]. The reinterpretation of a historical and familiar value, common to religious and secular traditions which had supposedly guided Europe from Homeric times to modern post-war refugee flows [START_REF] Boucheron | Migrants, Mémoire Du Monde[END_REF][START_REF] Graziani | Migrants: Écoutons La Leçon d'Ulysse[END_REF], became essential to bluntly claiming that something was going wrong. Hospitality is opposed to closure and indifference to the fate of the displaced. It formulates an immemorial obligation to care, and take care, that the practice is not limited by the legal duties owed to refugees. It relates to a form of common decency; it is so obvious that one must be hospitable to those in dire need, that closing one's doors in such difficult circumstances has revealed that states have lost their moral compass entirely.

Notice that hospitality is here only a matter of state power over their borders. It merely offers a rallying cry for letting people in. Why, then, should one speak of hospitality when open borders are the real goal?

The critique of states' inhospitality targets a problem deeper than the exclusion of asylum-seekers. The critique encompasses an assessment of the conditions of exclusion and the way borders are enforced. Michael Walzer captured this point well: "Strangers can be welcomed or not welcomed; they cannot be admitted or excluded. Of course, being welcomed or not welcomed is sometimes effectively the same thing as being admitted or excluded, but the distinction is theoretically important" (Walzer 1983, 36).

In other words, open borders differ from practicing hospitality. The former let people move in and out, while the latter hints at the conditions in which people are received.

Hospitality signals a quality: being greeted, properly or decently received, is different from being free to circulate.

As Stavo-Debauge (2018) and Carlier (2020) demonstrated with the idea of urban hospitality, hospitality includes spaces, accommodations, homemaking practices, services, or discourses that make a world inhabitable. Hospitality is not merely a matter of openness as it, in fact, requires forms of closure, echoing the delimitation of a home space which offers protection, privacy, and intimacy. Similarly, borders and sovereignty may seem to be necessary forms of closure to provide protection to people on the move; a refuge needs to be closed off from what caused the need to seek refuge in the first place. Hence, hospitality appears more rightfully as the opposite of hostility (i.e., harassment and deterrence strategies and apparatuses which make the secure existence of migrants impossible).

The British example of explicit "hostile environment" policies is a case in point of organized inhospitality. The goal is "to dissuade illegal residence in the UK by preventing people from accessing basic services" through a series of vexing controls throughout the social and bureaucratic levels of society, "requiring migrants to prove frequently their right to reside during everyday life" (Griffiths and Yeo 2021, 2-3). However, can hospitality formulate a relevant political response to this purposefully hostile policy? Theresa May justified her decision by saying that "what we don't want is a situation where people think that they can come here and overstay because they're able to access everything they need." [START_REF] Travis | Immigration Bill: Theresa May Defends Plans to Create 'Hostile Environment[END_REF].

To "overstay" is the typical offense against hospitality: I have been welcomed as a guest, and became an intruder once I overstayed your welcome. Although it is clear that the "hostile environment" concept has distorted the meaning of "overstay"-as the "Windrush scandal" testifies: as a result of the hostile environment policies, people who had arrived to the UK before 1973 from former colonies, especially the "Windrush generation" from the Caribbean, have been considered as illegal immigrants; some have even been detained and deported despite being permanent residents (Gentleman 2019)-the vocabulary of temporary hospitality towards "guests" enables these forms of abuse. Again, there is something vexing about hospitality taken at face value as an inclusive, positive, and generous practice.

Jacques [START_REF] Derrida | Hostipitality[END_REF] famously coined the term "hostipitality" to underline the "hostile" dimension of hospitality, which he unpacked from its etymological roots and propensity to switch from openness to closure. Although I believe that Derrida committed an etymological fallacy by seeing a formal structure in the complex origins of the term-the Latin word hostis first meant "the stranger," then "the enemy"-his critical gaze could be useful in detecting the dangers of a naïve and simplistic use of the concept in politics.

As Wilcok argued regarding the limitations of hospitality as a ground for resisting hostility, "without rights to participate in society independently, being made to 'feel welcome' is somewhat insufficient for many of those without status" (Wilcock 2019, 144).

But hospitality being "insufficient," or at least ambivalent, does not mean it is unnecessary.

Reconceptualizing hospitality

The notion of hospitality circulates among different disciplines, covers different grounds, and often oscillates between normative and descriptive conceptions. Before uncovering its heuristic value, I will briefly reconstruct its main conceptualizations. I will highlight five of them here: hospitality as an ordinary practice of accommodation, a mechanism, an ideology, an idea, and a normative principle.

Hospitality as a practice of accommodation is mainly used descriptively. It is close to its usual understanding (hosting, welcoming, receiving guests), meaning "the rendering of comfort to a visitor within one's own territory" (Herzfeld 1987, 77). Comfort involves peaceful exchanges (material or symbolic), fulfilment of the basic needs of the guest, and opportunities to learn from and about each other. But opening one's house, offering food, or guaranteeing the security of the guest can have far-reaching political consequences in a migratory context where the state's control of movement and its reluctance to enforce asylum-related laws make of hospitality a potential site of resistance.

Describing what occurs in a scene of hospitality reveals a more complex situation. In her exploration of a feminist conception of hospitality, Hamington (2010, 26) argued that, as a practice, hospitality had a performative dimension that actualized the shared and connected identities of the host and the guest, while Rottmann and Nimer (2021, 2) illustrated how the private sphere of hospitality could become "a site of contention, whereby wider sociopolitical subjectivities are renegotiated." Hosting in a context of national hostility towards migrants is de facto a critical statement on the state's actions. Private homes offer a form of surrogate asylum as states are reluctant to provide it. Their owners set an example to show what could and should be done [START_REF] Merikoski | At Least They Are Welcome in My Home!' Contentious Hospitality in Home Accommodation of Asylum Seekers in Finland[END_REF]. Mundane practices of hospitality, such as the offering of food or tea by Syrian refugees in Belgium [START_REF] Vandevoordt | The Politics of Food and Hospitality: How Syrian Refugees in Belgium Create a Home in Hostile Environments[END_REF], can reverse the usual hostguest dynamic of dependency and allow the temporary guests to regain a sense of autonomy and dignity.

Anthropologists have analyzed hospitality and its formal and ritual practices as an interaction mechanism. Pitt-Rivers (2012) formalized the concept of a "law of hospitality" which required peacefulness, respect (of the guest, the host, and the law of hospitality itself), honor, and protection. Beyond what is exchanged during hospitality, Marshall Sahlins considered hospitality a condition for "good relations." It "provides an atmosphere in which direct exchange of presents and trade goods can be equitably consummated" (Sahlins 2017, 199) and acts as a mechanism to "suggest sociability" (Sahlins 2017, 189).

As I have argued elsewhere [START_REF] Boudou | A Political Anthropology of Hospitality[END_REF], hospitality rituals signal the broader organization of the host community and its relationships to foreigners, but also its conceptualizations of social and political boundaries and scope of reciprocity. Hospitality is a mechanism that allows contact without integration and a peaceful management of distrust towards foreigners.

Social scientists studying the circulations of the concept of hospitality in migratory contexts have devoted attention to the discrepancies between the outer positive aspects of hospitality and its function as an ideology that entrenches processes of exclusion. Carpi and eno uz (2019) convincingly demonstrated the effects of the discourse of hospitality in the case of Syrian refugees in Lebanon and Turkey. Relabeling humanitarianism has served a geopolitical agenda (virtue-signaling, to put it briefly), and polarized populations between hosts and guests, even when prior social relations existed around the border: "the reconfiguration of the refugee-host social encounter in terms of hospitality started to reproduce spaces to which some inhabitants belongedwhose sense of belonging was reinforced by their act of hostingand to which others did not. [...] Syrian nationals therefore turned into temporary guests, even when they were already inhabiting the same space as cheap labourers" (Carpi and Pınar eno uz 2019, 132).

Hospitality functions as an ideology that fuels nationalism and the domination of citizens over non-citizens under the guise of a disinterested act.

The most enduring conception of hospitality remains its philosophical elaboration as a practical idea. I take idea here in the Kantian definition of the term: a "moral perfection whose object can never be adequately given in experience," "a yardstick by which to estimate our moral worth, and to know the degree to which we are faulty and deficient" (Kant 1997, 229).

Derrida influentially reformulated the idea of hospitality as unconditional and unpredictable [START_REF] Derrida | Of Hospitality[END_REF]. There can be no law of hospitality, as it should be a constant reinvention of a relation, and there should not be any conditions to the arrival of "the Other." Thus, Derrida pointed to an unbridgeable gap between the ethical demands of hospitality and its legal-political instantiations. He underlined the tension between a pure concept of unconditional hospitality and conditional hospitality; therefore, not pure hospitality and, in fact, almost inhospitality.

More precisely, Derrida exposed a double dilemma of hospitality. Firstly, political practices of hospitality necessarily taint the concept with the violence of law and politics, while also opening the political community to others. Secondly, remaining faithful to a pure idea of hospitality is an infinite task that puts one's identity and home at risk in letting anyone enter without conditions, while also suggesting that political hospitality is always perfectible.

Although we can often find the theme of transaction between ethics and politics in Derrida's work, he argues that the movement from idea to concrete practice is bound to fail.

"Unconditional" hospitality can only take place in the form of a conditional practice which, necessarily, chooses (and therefore excludes), discriminates, and questions the newcomer.

Finally, as argued in the previous section, a more overt normative principle of hospitality has emerged as a critical standard of legitimacy and democracy at the borders. The goal is not an open border politics: The self-determination of democratic peoples, as a form of closure, entails here a prima facie right to control borders, in accordance with cosmopolitan norms [START_REF] Benhabib | The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents, and Citizens[END_REF]. Against the criminalization of movement, the domineering practices to enforce borders that jeopardize the basic interests and human rights of migrants, and the neglect of certain forms of oppression as grounds for asylum, hospitality formulates a counter-narrative and a counter-politics to nationalist and sovereigntist exclusion.

Echoing Kant's "cosmopolitan right [...] limited to conditions of universal hospitality" (Kant 1991, 105), hospitality should guarantee the right "not to be treated with hostility" and to be welcomed if being turned away would endanger one's life. There is no need to radically expand on Kant's perspective to consider that a principle of hospitality concurs with a global reindexation of values, giving priority to the respect and enforcement of the human rights of migrants over states' interests.

The heuristic value of hospitality

How do we solve this tension between a concept that seems inadequate for contemporary politics and its revival as a productive, although contentious, concept? What are the analytical benefits of mobilizing hospitality, when open borders, human rights, justice, or solidarity seemingly provide enough traction?

Following the main conceptualizations of hospitality explained above, I contend that there are five main areas where it brings an original and productive perspective on the social and political phenomena of migration. In doing so, I aim to defend the heuristic potential of hospitality.

Studying the ordinary practices of accommodation sheds light on major issues.

Firstly, it helps to include home and homemaking practices under normative and political scrutiny while thus far, the political value of home has received scant attention. Individuals leave their home, find one, create one, feel more or less at home, and experience its deprivation, but what we mean by that remains unclear. The current turn from migration to the encompassing paradigm of displacement, including within borders in phenomena such as gentrification and the eviction of citizens, brings into question the value of home in a more pressing way (i.e., how exactly it matters to people and why it has material and normative power). Hospitality metaphorically opens the doors of home as a site where politics is done in a non-political way. Rather than pondering the nature of the right, duty, or obligation of hospitality, the focus here is on the emotional aspect of home (in feelings of attachment, ease, intimacy, or nostalgia), the specific harms that its deprivation creates, and how hospitable practices respond to them.

Secondly, ordinary hospitality also means ordinary uses of the word "hospitality."

The thickness of the concept in terms of religious, moral, or historical prestige provides an expressive quality to one's actions or beliefs. In other words, there is a specific effect in speaking of hospitality, echoing Skinner's "special moral light" mentioned in the introduction. It summons an imaginary of virtuous generosity and openness which identifies these actions with religious, moral, and historical traditions that go beyond mere legal or political ones. In other words, calling upon hospitality evokes the "superior laws of humanity" [START_REF] Balibar | Etat d'urgence démocratique[END_REF]) rather than any political ideology. This is a crucial element for understanding that hospitality helps to prevent the politicization of what welcoming citizens consider as pure moral altruism or humanitarianism [START_REF] Hamann | Practicing Willkommenskultur: Migration and Solidarity in Germany[END_REF]. This refusal of politics enables collective actions among people with very different sociological and ideological profiles. They do no act in the name of a conception of what should be a just policy of migration, but against blatant injustices and distress which common-sense morality dictates should be relieved.

Hospitality, understood as a social mechanism, integrates culturally varied experiences of welcome. It takes into consideration religious justifications of the duty to welcome, ritual practices, and faith-based organizational structures, which are usually shunned by secular theorists in an abstract civil society. Here we have a concept that bridges the strict opposition between religious and secular vocabularies. It can rely on other rationales, and requires other practices, than humanitarian actions. Neighborliness, friendship, brotherhood, honor, and respect have become active notions that organize migrant accommodation in ways that are religiously and culturally much more specific than humanitarian help [START_REF] Lauterbach | A Refugee Pastor in a Refugee Church': Refugee-Refugee Hosting in a Faith-Based Context[END_REF][START_REF] Zaman | A Right to Neighbourhood: Rethinking Islamic Narratives and Practices of Hospitality in a Sedentarist World[END_REF]).

To view hospitality as a mechanism also expands the types of entities we can regard as being part of a relation of hospitality. Consider Alvin Gouldner's famous conceptualization of the norms of reciprocity and beneficence, which he defined as generic rules of social interactions, i.e., "a kind of plastic filler, capable of being poured into the shifting crevices of social structures, and serving as a kind of all-purpose moral cement" (Gouldner 1975, 249-50). Hospitality is a "concrete normative orientation" of the norm of beneficence (Gouldner 1975, 266). Such a relational approach to hospitality, defined by the relation it creates rather than by the entities it relates, is epistemologically useful for its flexibility. For instance, making an environment welcoming, building a host-guest relationship, or preventing hostile interactions can also apply to our relations with non-humans. As Latour (2007, 262) wrote, "so many other entities are now knocking on the door of our collectives. Is it absurd to want to retool our disciplines to become sensitive again to the noise they make and to try to find a place for them?". Hospitality constitutes a functional norm to analyze this renewed sensitivity to a broader set of non-human entities, such as animals, or even potential aliens and spirits (Boudou 2016, 205-9).

Understanding hospitality as an ideology enables a critical standpoint on contemporary forms of domopolitics. I have argued that including the value of home and homemaking practices is of crucial importance to make sense of specific harms and needs that occur in displacement. At the same time, conflating the political community with home leads to unfair expectations towards foreigners. A would-be citizen should not have to behave like a guest, and citizens should not act as if the country, its laws and institutions, are their own property. The tendency to require politeness, deference, or good manners from newcomers necessarily moralizes a political relationship, homogenizes the community, forcefully tames political conflicts, infantilizes migrants, and leaves an underspecified margin of appreciation for the state to decide whether "guests" behave properly (Boudou 2021b).

"The dream of home is dangerous," wrote Bonnie Honig (1994, 585), as is the fantasy of a hospitable democracy.

Following hospitality as it makes its way into policy discourses raises important questions, such as, why is "welcome" more important than "inclusion?" To what extent is reciprocity expected from welcomed guests? What kinds of conflict are avoided or prohibited? Which form of equality is made impossible? These issues need to be addressed when the vocabulary of hospitality replaces that of law-and politics-based relations. Such a discourse reveals an imaginary of the political community that may turn into an exclusionary ideology. Both because welcoming involves a certain quality of inclusion and because hospitality relies on the continuance of an unequal relationship, claiming to be hospitable can translate into receiving very few guests and remaining "forever" the host, even towards native populations in colonial contexts.

As Derrida put it, "one can become virtually xenophobic in order to protect or claim to protect one's own hospitality" (Derrida and Dufourmantelle 2000, 53). This is not the only outcome of political hospitality-I have argued how hospitality practices can become egalitarian and emancipatory (Boudou 2021a, 93-94)-but studying its weaponization for exclusionary purposes contributes to a finer understanding of the contradictions between institutional practices and their professed principles.

Derrida's idea of hospitality has attracted criticism for its abstraction and supposedly ingenuous purity, a rather uncommon quality in his philosophy. Derrida himself acknowledged that pure hospitality only made sense poetically (Derrida 2001). What remained was a personal experience of the aporia: "I do all I can to try to adjust my 'commitments' to the unconditional affirmation that runs through 'deconstruction.' [...] I do often feel these aporias as tragic pains" (Derrida 2005, 128-29). Nevertheless, his development of the paradoxical structure of hospitality-a pure idea of unconditional openness necessarily betrayed by its practical translations-proved to be central. Pierre Bourdieu referred to "politics of purity" in describing the "engagement" of the first public intellectuals at the end of the 19 th century. People like Émile Zola were publicly naming and shaming the state and its institutions for their role in the Dreyfus affair "gave birth to a politics of purity which was the perfect antithesis of the 'Raison d'Etat'" (Bourdieu 1991, 658). Bourdieu further asks:

"What was the basis of this anti-political politics? It was the existence of social worlds whose fundamental law was the refusal of the legality sspecific to the economic and political fields, the refusal of ends and values that these fields recognized, such as money, power, honors. [...] [The intellectuals] affirmed the right to transgress the most sacred values of the collectivity-those of patriotism and of nationalism [...]. They founded their authority upon the unwritten laws of an ethical and scientific universalism in order to exercise a kind of moral ministry and to launch, on certain occasions, a collective mobilization for the purposes of a struggle designed to disperse throughout the whole social world the values which were current in their own universe." (Bourdieu 1991, 658) This accurately describes what Derrida and others did when publicly reacting against the criminalization of solidarity and hospitality. Derrida set a "pure" and "transgressive" concept with which to call for "a politics of the foreigner, a right of foreigners that will not be a dereliction of justice" (Derrida 2002, 144). Hospitality as a pure idea offers a reason to mobilize that does not disappear, as it aims at an ideal of justice that cannot be satisfied.

The dual experience of an urgent and impossible hospitality could easily lead to despair, as Derrida himself conceded (Derrida 2006, 212). Yet, it also suggests that we can do more and better. Hospitality is a principle that generates political hope. It prevents any satisfactory compromise between what should ideally be done to welcome others and what is actually done: "[The absolute pole of unconditional hospitality is] the place from which immediate and concrete matters of urgency are dictated. The political task then remains of finding the best 'legislative' transaction, the best 'juridical' conditions to bring it about, so that in a given situation the ethics of hospitality are not in principle violated -and are respected as far as possible." (Derrida 2005, 131) This is a meliorist project, in the pragmatist sense, one to make hospitality into a goal that is increasingly plausible as we work towards the conditions of its actualization. Every step is necessary, but not sufficient, and political hospitality is one of these steps. Asylum, fraternity, sanctuary, solidarity, or inclusion may be other steps in leading us towards a hospitable world where no one is treated with hostility. Each of these concepts considers foreigners as generative of duties of recognition, support, and care. This is, in fact, how Cicero-and later, Grotius-characterized justice: 'Justitia foras spectat', literally 'justice looks outside' or 'justice is concerned by what is beyond ourselves'; it 'extends to the interests of others' (Grotius 2005, 97). This vocabulary helps to describe the practices and reasons that open communities to the needs, interests, pleas, claims, and rights of outsiders, and towards resisting ideals of autarchy. In this sense, a principle of hospitality contributes to the logic of "cosmopolitan humility," which Cabrera (2020) described in opposition to "state arrogance."

Hence, this meliorist endeavor would also require an exercise of imagination to welcome the perspectives of foreigners and render citizens more sensitive to their interests. This is how Arendt read Kant's hospitality: thinking means to "train one's imagination to go visiting" (Arendt 1992, 43) as well as "making present to my mind the standpoints of those who are absent; that is, I represent them" (Arendt 1969, 241). While hospitality is merely a metaphor here, I believe that such cosmopolitanism of the mind legitimizes institutions to practically represent the interests of non-citizens within nation-states (Boudou forthcoming).

Thus, taking the idea of hospitality seriously opens new conceptual and institutional paths for more responsive and inclusive democracies.

Conclusion

"Neither a man of many guests nor a man with none," recalled Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics (Chapter IX-10). He also noted the wordplay on xenos in his Rhetoric (Book III, Chapter XI-8): "a guest should not be a stranger forever." I believe that both these proverbial sayings were hinting at the necessary-but-not-sufficient quality of a politics of hospitality: welcoming too many means including too few, and welcoming them too long means, in fact, excluding them. Hence, we must remain cautious when mobilizing hospitality in migration contexts.

Migration involves a complex set of rights that ranges from minimal protection of human rights to full integration into a political and legal regime. A liberal democracy, based on the rule of law and the main treaties of international law signed, can rightly decline that its migration policies be placed under the heading of hospitality. To a certain extent, hospitality as a political or legal principle should remain disappointing. It relies on certain forms of closure which reinforce nationalist biases, thus proving to be limited in asserting the freedom of migrants and the equality between established citizens and outsiders.

Nevertheless, evaluating the quality of welcome, justifying citizens' welcoming practices against the state's hostility, and keeping in sight the ideal of an inhabitable world for everyone, sustain hospitality as a valuable political concept. The ambiguous politics of hospitality should not prevent us from using it as a category of analysis.

I argued here that there is considerable gain in looking at migration through the lenses of hospitality. It takes the value of home and homemaking practices seriously, and the claim to be hospitable as an expressive quality that circumvents the politicization of one's helpful actions. It has an epistemological flexibility that helps to bridge the gap between secular and religious approaches to welcoming, and to depict new relationships between humans and non-humans.

Studying the diffusion of the vocabulary of hospitality in the political sphere sharpens the critique of domopolitics, while arguing for an ideal of hospitality keeps the demand for

just border politics open-ended. Finally, the path that hospitality opens beyond a mere welcome is that of the democratic inclusion of non-citizens, which would require institutional improvements to be realized.


PhD Caroline Le Guiner
email: caroline.le-guiner@univ-nantes.fr

T Larcher

A Lafoux

G Toumaniantz

S Webb

A Bourdon

T Girard

K Martinais

C Babarit

M Ledevin

C Huchet

A Hivonnait

L Hesbert

C Jounier

D Augereau

E Audran

O Adjali

G Gourdon

P Moullier

J Votteler

S Hammond

A Tretiakova

Characterization of the muscular and cardiac diseases of the DMSXL mouse model, a transgenic mouse model for Myotonic Dystrophy type 1

Context of the study

Myotonic Dystrophy type 1 (DM1) is an autosomal dominant, progressive, and multi-systemic genetic disorder affecting at least 900,000 individuals worldwide. It is primarily characterized by myotonia, muscular weakness, and muscle atrophy. Other clinical manifestations include cardiac conduction defects, cardio-respiratory problems, cataracts, endocrine dysfunction and frequent neurological manifestations. The disease is caused by unnaturally expanded repeats of CTG trinucleotide in the 3'-untranslated region of the DMPK (dystrophia myotonica protein kinase) gene. In DM1 patients, the number of CTG repeats within the mutant DMPK allele ranges from 50 to 5000. The number of repeats roughly correlates with disease onset, severity and life expectancy (more repeats correlated with earlier onset, more severe symptoms and shorter lifespan). CTG-containing mutant DMPK transcripts are toxic. They aggregate as nuclear foci and impact the expression and function of RNA-binding proteins (such as MBNL1 and CELF1), resulting in spliceopathy of downstream effector genes, which accounts for much of the disease phenotype. Several therapeutic approaches either pharmacological or gene-therapy based, are under investigation to address this unmet medical need. One current limitation for the efficient evaluation and development of therapeutic products is the lack of DM1 animal models that ideally recapitulate the symptoms and the complex pathophysiology of this disease. Among available animal models, one of the most relevant remains the DMSXL mouse model, which carries a 45-kb human genomic fragment including the DMPK gene with more than 1200 CTG repeats. The human DMPK transgene is under the control of its own promoter and has been shown to have an almost ubiquitous expression. Initial characterization studies demonstrated that homozygous DMSXL mice display several manifestations of the human DM1 pathology, including growth retardation, muscle defects, cognitive impairments, nuclear foci, and splicing abnormalities. After establishing a colony in our own facility, our goal was to define in our hands the most relevant and sensitive readouts that characterize this animal model, especially for its muscular and cardiac diseases, in both genders.

Conclusion

The data obtained in the frame of this study confirm that the DMSXL mouse model exhibits several features of the DM1 pathology at the muscular and cardiac levels. Expression of the mutated human DMPK messenger, which contained CUG-repeats, was detected in skeletal muscles and heart at both 1 and 4 months of age. This mutant transcript aggregates as foci in the nuclei of the muscle cells, where sequestration of the MBNL1 protein was also observed. As a consequence, and even if expression of the murine CELF1 mRNA was not modified, splicing defects of several downstream messengers was shown. Due to high level of inter-individual variations, no clear skeletal muscle histological abnormalities were observed. However, grip force was found reduced in 4 months old DMSXL animals. At the same age, the heart exhibited no EKG abnormalities, but an initiation of structural remodeling. Except for body weights, no gender effect was raised during this study. All these data will be of importance to design future preclinical studies for the evaluation of the efficacy and safety of different therapeutic products designed to treat DM1 at the muscular and cardiac levels, and using this unique DMSXL mouse model. Different groups of male and female homozygous DMSXL mice and littermate wild-type (WT) controls were followed and evaluated at 4 months of age. Tissue samples were also evaluated at 1 month of age.

LV THICKNESS (mm)

To avoid bias in the analysis, all experiments were done in a blinded fashion. No WT control mice died during the course of the study, whereas we observed 5 sudden deaths (mice were found dead in their cage, without any preliminary symptom) out of the 32 DMSXL animals (15%), between 1.5 and 3 months of age. Chronic pneumonia was identified as one of the cause of death. Clear weight reductions were observed in females (whatever the genotype), and in DMSXL mice (whatever the sex).

mRNA EXPRESSION LEVELS

Finally, no modification of hematology nor clinical chemistry parameters (urea, creatinine, ALP, ALT, AST, CK, total proteins, glucose, calcium) were observed at 4 months of age).

Muscular strength was assessed using forelimb and four limbs grip test test at 4 months of age. Force was measured over 5 successive trials with a short latency between each test. Results were expressed as the mean of 3 median values obtained during the 5 tests.

Results showed that DMSXL males and females exhibited significant and similar decreases of absolute force developed by forelimbs and by four limbs. However, these differences were no longer significant after body mass normalization for the calculation of relative force. Muscle resistance was also evaluated at using treadmill at 4 months of age The time and the total distance to exhaustion were determined. No significant difference were observed between WT and DMSXL mice (data not shown). At 4 months of age, conventional measurement of the electrocardiography (EKG) parameters was performed on anesthetized animals. Classical intervals and segments (P wave, RR interval, PR interval, QT interval, QRS interval) were measured, and compared between the different experimental groups. After basal measurements, animals were submitted to challenge with Flecainide (20mg/kg) which acts as a pharmacological stressor of conduction disorders. As the data were similar for males and females, sex-group data were pooled to explore the effect of the genotype. No significant difference were observed between WT and DMSXL mice, whether before or after the Flecainide challenge (data not shown).

During the same anesthesia, before and after Flecainide challenge, 2Dechocardiography and pulsed Doppler was also performed to look for possible structural remodeling (left ventricular thickness, diameter and end-diastolic volume), as well as systolic function (ejection and shortening fractions) and diastolic function (E/A ratio, isovolumetric relaxation time =IVRT, and deceleration time). Again, as the data were similar for males and females, sex-group data were pooled. No modification of the systolic and diastolic functions were overserved, whatever the experimental group and condition. However, significant reduction of the left ventricle diameter and end-diastolic volume were observed in the DMSXL animals, suggesting initiation of a structural remodeling in these animals at 4 months old. After sacrifice at 1 month or 4 months of age, relative quantification of of human DMPK (hDMPK), murine DMPK (mDMPK) and murine CELF1 (mCELF1) mRNA levels were performed using RTqPCR analysis. Murine HPRT1 mRNA was used as endogenous control. As the data were similar for males and females, sex-group data were pooled.

As expected, expression of hDMPK mRNA only in the DMSXL mice, at similar levels between the different muscles. mDMPK and mCELF1 mRNAs were detected in both genotypes, with slight (often non statistically significant) reduced expressions observed in the DMSXL animals. To be noticed, slight decreases of the expression of these 3 mRNA were observed with age, whatever the genotype, suggesting a global physiological regulation of these expressions. After sacrifice at 1 month or 4 months of age, we investigated the presence of ribonuclear inclusions of sense hDMPK mRNA carrying CTG expansions (thereafter designed as nuclear foci) in heart and biceps femoris muscles using using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) with a (CAG) 5 fluorescent probe. Comparing to WT tissues in which no specific signal was detected, DMSXL muscles showed some nuclear foci, ranging from 1 up to 7 foci per nucleus, occasionally forming large ones. The number of nuclei with nuclear foci were counted using an automatized method, and showed a decrease from 1 to 4 months of age, especially in biceps femoris. As the data were similar for males and females, sex-group data were pooled.

In DMSXL skeletal muscles and heart, IHC using an antibody specific for MBNL1 followed by the FISH technique showed sequestration of the MBLN1 protein next to the hDMPK nuclear foci. As the data were similar for males and females, sex-group data were pooled. Smaller fibers were identified in DMSXL mice at 1 month of age, but this difference was not statistically different (probably secondary to the high level of inter-individual variations), and was no more visible at 4 months of age.

  test) After sacrifice at 1 month or 4 months of age, the splicing profiles of different murine mRNA were analyzed using semi-quantitative RT-PCR analysis. As the data were similar for males and females, sex-group data were pooled. No splicing modifications were observed for splicing of Insulin Receptor (INSR) exon 11, nor for Titin (TTN) exon 313 (data not shown). On the contrary, LIM Domain Binding 3 (LBD3) exon 11, Integrin Subunit Alpha 6 (IGTA6) exon 27 and Sorbin and SH3 Domain Containing A (SORBS1) exon 27, and Muscleblind Like Splicing Regulator 1 (MBNL1) exon 7 showed clear mis-splicing in DMSXL muscles. Representative pictures of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for sense hDMPK transcript in heart. A 5'-Cy3labeled (CAG) 5 probe detected sense RNA foci (red) in some nucleus (arrowheads) in samples from DMSXL mice. Nuclear DAPI counterstaining (blue). Scale=10 µm picture of the colocalization of DMPK mutant transcripts with the MBNL1 protein in biceps femoris muscle of a 4 months old DMSXL mouse. Some nuclear MBLN1 aggregates also displayed CUG transcript accumulation that resulted in signal colocalization (arrowhead). Scale bar=10 µm

  1 month or 4 months of age, type of muscle fibers was determined based on their expression of myosin heavy chain (MyHCI, IIa and IIb) isoforms in biceps femoris muscle. The percentage of each fiber type were compared between the experimental group. For all analyzed fiber types (i.e. type 1, 2A, X and 2B), no group effect was demonstrated and no difference in fiber type distribution could be identified (data not shown), maybe secondary to the high level of inter-individual variations.Representative picture of immunolabelling for myosin heavy chain (MyHC) isoforms in biceps femoris muscles. Labeling of MyHC type 1 (red), MyHC type 2A (cyan) andMyHC type 2B (green) enables muscle fiber typing. Fibers with no labelling are type X (black). Some few hybrid type 1:2A fibers (arrowhead) were only observed in DMSXL animals. Scale=100 µm After sacrifice at 1 month or 4 months of age, muscle fibers size was measured in biceps femoris muscle using minimal Ferret diameter and a laminin immunolabelling.