A Special Issue of Culture and Organization on ‘Denaturing Darwin: Evolution, Culture and Organization’Guest Editors: Simon Lilley, Geoff Lightfoot, Ruud Kaulingfreks, and Hugo LeticheThe Theme:Darwin, once again, is seemingly everywhere—competing for general acclaim as ‘The Greatest Briton’; slugging it out with Creationists in American schools; the subject of public disputes as to who can be regarded as his true disciples; with awards in his name for both scientific endeavour and suicidal stupidity; through to new reclamations of his ideas in academia. And even though the theory of evolution may not be the ‘universal acid’ that Daniel Dennett (1995) seeks, burning through all that stood in its way, it has been etched into a broad swathe of the natural, social and political sciences. Sometimes, for example, it appears to merely rest as agreeable metaphor, as in Marshall’s (1980) deployed in economics; sometimes to lie as causal explanation, as in social inequality as rendered by social Darwinists; sometimes to stand as proof, as atheistic fundamentalists use it to deny the existence of Gods; and sometimes to act as the Trusty Sword of Truth, as wielded to defeat those contemporary bogey figures, be they post-modernists, feminists or social-constructionists (see, for example, Pinker, 2003 or Dawkins,1976, 2001).The misapplication of Darwinist thinking in the social sciences, on its own, could justify a library let alone a special issue. Yet such a narrow theme risks simply returning to the bitter battles over sociobiology of the 1970s, fought over similar terrain. Instead, the rise and rise of Darwinism itself demands a closer look. We suggest here four themes that might evolve.First, perhaps, is the origin of The Origin of Species. The genesis of the central idea—evolution through natural selection—continues to attract discussion as to whether Darwin was creator, or (unknowing) disciple. Yet Darwin’s construction of the argument, his proof (drawn from his own cultivations) and its presentation, draws into question the whole question as to what is natural, and what is selected. Thus, for example, even as his theory appears to extinguish one Creator, in practice, another seems to emerge in His place—a theme that is continuously re-enacted today, as programmers seek to develop natural selection in software. We would welcome papers further examining such origins and their consequences.Darwin’s writing is undoubtedly skilled, as he weaves his subjects into an evocative narrative. But the pernicious spread of Darwinism cannot be laid simply to the power of his rhetoric. Why did the idea of evolution through natural selection so quickly and virulently spread beyond its natural host and find such welcome in seemingly unrelated fields? And why does it continue to excite similar interest as an explanation for apparently unrelated phenomena today? We welcome work that seeks to explore the phenomena of Darwinism itself.At the same time, despite Darwin’s own warnings, as his ideas spread they became and continue to become derivations of derivations: mere pastiche or downright wrong. Diluted and adulterated, these homeopathic theories claim to explain more and more of the world around, be it in terms of rampant individualism or carefully pruned collective, while still claiming fidelity to the purity of their source. Unsurprisingly, such unruly science has shown itself capable of producing monsters, both hopeful and hopeless, with monstrous results. We call, then, for critique of such abominations.And finally, despite the overwhelmingly critical tone of what has preceded, there is the question of where a more considered examination of the consequences of the Darwinist explosion might take us. This may stretch, for example, from the exploration of a radical humanism that might take account of contemporary issues that oscillate between the biological and social sciences, such as Bio-nomics, through to discussion to whether Darwinism and the social sciences will always remain incommensurable. In the field of organization, for example, could we go beyond rather simple notions of ‘population ecologies’ to consider the mutual co-construction of ‘organized’ bodies and the ‘fitness landscapes’ that they both constitute and inhabit?Submissions: Full papers should be submitted by email attachment no later than Tuesday, 31 May 2005 to s.lilley@le.ac.ukSpecial Issue of Culture and Organization on ‘Sensation and Organization’sensation/sen?se&art1;n/ noun1feeling in one’s body.2awareness, impression.3intense feeling, esp. in community.4cause of this.5sense of touch. · 1,2awareness, feeling, perception, sense.3commotion, excitement, furore, outrage, scandal, stir, thrill.In a world that seems to have an endless appetite for sensation and the sensational, some of us constantly push the extreme in sport, entertainment or experience—bored with reality, we may seek our thrills in the virtual or attempt to extend our physical and sensory capabilities through technological or other prostheses. A good part of the world’s information, communication and entertainment industry is geared to titillating our thirst for the latest fad or fashion; the new sensation; the latest exposure; the latest or longest hidden secret; the most romantic myth; the greatest risk; the peek into the forbidden or the unknown, or, like Big Brother, the processes of the mundane, all on a mass scale. The Disney Corporation has long known how to stimulate or simulate feeling or emotion in its audiences; our appetite for dreams and illusion seems to have no bounds. Indeed the world could be viewed as one big spectacle in which we are all performers—and where the deceivers and tricksters are never what they seem. Even the domestic is now the subject of fame: celebrity chefs in unprecedented numbers offer epicurean tools and techniques to constantly re-animate jaded palates. Has our accelerated sense of the extreme, of excess, luxury, pleasure and desire easily gratified rendered our senses numb in the face of ordinary experience? Do we have to re-organize our lives in order to get anything out of them?Or is the challenge to recognize the extremes of crisis, catastrophe and disaster with which we still rub shoulders and the degree of sensory deprivation which much of the world still experiences—pain, famine, torture, disease, violence or simply the lack of human company. How do we make sense of the non-sense of the world, and do we need to? Are our sensibilities appropriate for the job they have to do? How do we seek to organize the world rationally to deal with our sense of it? How do governments, organizations and institutions seek to control and manipulate our sense of the world, and our sense of identity? Although we are exposed to surveillance in myriad ways every day, are there any sensational exposures left that have not already been exposed? Is, as Niklas Luhmann implied, secrecy the unspoken condition for social organization?We invite papers which seek to explore all aspects of the ideas of sensation and sense in connection with organization and organizations. Papers might focus on some of the following themes: Sense and sensibility Deception, Trickery, Lies Feeling and emotion The Power of Positive Emotion Sensemaking Shock and Scandal Non-sense Sensuality and Sexuality Sensory deprivation Dreams, Illusion, the Surreal Pain and Fear Identity and Control Synesthesia and Disorientation Prostheses Spectacle, Kitsch, Melodrama Uncovered Histories Fads and Fashions Guilt, Retribution and Reparation Secrecy and Mystery Detection and ExposureElectronic submissions should be sent to the co-editors as e-mail attachments in Word (Word 97 or higher) or Word for Macintosh (98 or higher), with the subject heading ‘Sensation and Organization Issue’, by no later than by Tuesday, 1 March 2005. (Papers accepted for publication will be expected to conform to the C&O style guide—see inside back page of previous issues).Submissions should be sent to:Jean Helms Mills (jean.mills@smu.ca), Associate Professor, Org. Behaviour, ORAlbert J. Mills (albert.mills@smu.ca), Professor of Management, Sobey School of Business,Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, N.S., Canada B3H 3C3Call for PapersA Special Issue of the Journal of Organizational Change Management on ‘Women and the Leadership of Change’Guest Editors: Professor Heather Höpfl (University of Essex) and Professor Peter Case (University of Exeter)For over a decade now, consultants, practitioners and academics have attempted to reframe leadership for a new century. Since the early 1990s, books, courses and training programmes have called for new styles of leadership variously identified as ‘post-heroic’ (Huey, 1994; Sandmann and Vandenberg, 1995), ‘21st Century Leadership’ (McFarland, Senn, and Childress, 1998), and community-centred and non-authoritarian leadership (Hesselbein, Goldsmith and Beckhard, 1996; Hirschhorn, 1997). Companies seem to have embraced the rhetoric of new styles of leadership and consultants have responded to this with a wide range of organisational development initiatives which seeks to promote the qualities of the so-called 21st Century Leader. A quick glance of many such programmes and at the ubiquitous ‘airport’ management text suggests that an interesting shift is taking place in the way in which leadership is defined. Many of the qualities which seem to be required by the new leaders are traditionally ones which might be described as feminine qualities. Yet, women’s leadership is still regarded as problematic. Sandmann and Vandenberg (1995) cite Peter Senge as saying, ‘Especially in the West, leaders are heroes--great men (and occasionally women) who rise to the fore’ in times of crises... (Senge, 1990: 340, italics added). Frequently, when women do achieve leadership positions it is by suspended precisely the qualities which appear to be in demand in notions of 21st Century Leadership.This Special Issue of the Journal of Organizational Change Management seeks to give attention to why this might be the case. Why is it that women appear only to be able to succeed by acquiring male characteristics whereas men are encouraged to acquire feminine qualities? Is this in fact the case or does it merely reflect the rhetoric of a shift in leadership styles? Are women’s styles of management and leadership valued? Or is it the case, as Czarniawska (2004) has argued, that only exotic (e.g. foreign) women can be allowed a leadership role because their difference can be conciliated by assumptions about nationality rather than gender.We are seeking papers which seek to come to terms with these issues and welcome contributions which are either theoretical papers or empirical studies.Papers should be sent to reach the editors by 1 September 2005. Please contact Heather Höpfl (hopfl@essex.ac.uk) or Peter Case (Peter.Case@ exeter.ac.uk) for further information regarding this issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]