The article offers a critique of the concept of cultural intelligence (CQ) from a semiotic perspective. It addresses three assumptions that underpin the CQ concept: that CQ exists, that conflict and misunderstandings are antithetical to CQ and that metacognition involves a cultural dimension. The analysis focuses in particular on the dimension of cultural metacognition which has recently been claimed to be the CQ concept's main contribution compared to earlier concepts such as cross-cultural or intercultural competence, a claim which is found to be overstated. The article uses the example of CQ training to illustrate the need for greater attention to context and motivation when CQ is deployed for business purposes, as well as to the role of experience in cultural learning processes. At a broader level, the article urges caution in assuming that all human attributes can be trained for business purposes, especially through short-term interventions.

y * This version of the article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the publisher's final version AKA Version of Record.

No abstract

No abstract

Political actors and research perspectives currently identify civil society as a resource that is not fully exploited-an observation that, with some strategic adjustments, could incite a revitalization of several essential issues. From this viewpoint, "bringing civil society back in" to the political agenda could contribute to a revitalization of the welfare state, democracy, equality, and social cohesion. Moreover, civil society could potentially become the space needed for a critique of current developments-on national, European, and global levels. We can, however, recognize that civil society, as a resource that many commentators strongly believe in, is not mobilized and used to the extent people envision. Why is this the case?We suggest that there are two reasons for the lack of engagement. One reason is related to the current political moment. The other reason is related to a particular conceptual and theoretical discourse on civil society. Concerning the first issue, the current political moment has become complex and, more importantly, loaded with paradoxes. Today, we can observe the prominent co-existence of apparently contradictory political ideologies, governance mechanisms, economic developments, and political and cultural clashes on multiple levels: between, first, the local and the national; second, the national and the global; and third, the secular and the religious. These developments have been with us for a while, but we now seem to experience these contradictions and paradoxes as the "normal" and not the "exception." In this landscape, we find more invocations of "globalization," as in a global financial crisis, a global pandemic, global trade and production patterns, and global refugee problems-together with more economic nationalism (in East Asia, the USA, and even the European Union), political-ideological nationalism (Brexit, "America First," Hungary, and Poland), and nationalist reactions against immigrants, to mention a few. Other paradoxes have become more pronounced during the last thirty years: There is a growing interdependence between a bigger and more forceful global market and more influential states. And as we realized that we were living in an increasingly secular society, we discovered that secularization came with a reinforcement of religions. This paradoxical world has spurred new crossroads, conflicts,