**1. Introduction**

174 Sociological Landscape – Theories, Realities and Trends

Spencer, Herbert. 1873. *The Study of Sociology*. [New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1896.] Spencer, Herbert. 1876-1896 *The Principles of Sociology*, 3 volumes. [Westport, Conn.,

Spencer, Herbert. 1867. *The Principles of Biology* [New York and London, D. Appleton and

Spencer, Herbert. 1888. *The Principles of Psychology* [New York, D. Appleton and company,

Sumner, William Graham. 1896 "Earth Hunger or the Philosophy of Land Grabbing." pp.

Stoel, T. B. Jr. 1979. "Revising the American Dream." *Amicus* (A Publication of the Natural

Turner, Ralph H. 1964. "Collective Behavior." pp. 382-425 in R. E. L. Faris (ed.), *Handbook of* 

Udall, Stewart L. 1980. "Foreword." pp. xi-xvii in Catton, William R. Jr. 1980. *Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change*. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. United States, President's Materials Policy Commission. 1952. *Resources for Freedom: A Report* 

Webb, M., and J. Jacobsen. 1982. *U.S. Carrying Capacity: An Introduction*. Washington, DC:

Wyant, W. K. 1982. *Westward in Eden: The Public Lands and the Conservation Movement.*

Youngquist, Walter. 1997. *GeoDestinies: The inevitable control of Earth resources over nations and* 

*to the President*. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office

31-64 in A. G. Keller (ed.) *Earth-Hunger and Other Essays*. New Haven, CT: Yale

Spencer, Herbert. 1862 *First Principles* [New York, De Witt Revolving Fund, 1958]

Quinn, J. A. 1950. *Human Ecology*. New York: Prentice-Hall

Resources Defense Council, Inc.) 1 (Fall):7-10.

*Modern Sociology*. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company.

*individuals*. Portland, OR: National Book Company.

Greenwood Press, 1975]

company, 1914]

University Press.

Carrying Capacity, Inc.

Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.

1883]

In the area of the biological sciences, it is usual that scientists store biodiversity material in scientific collections. As a means for obtaining greatest results in researches, it becomes natural to establish mutual cooperation between collections.

Unfortunately, one recurrently encounters conflict of interests among scientists, affecting the functioning of scientific collections. Although papers illustrating the human side of scientists, including their frailties, are quite popular (e.g., Hellman, 1998), cases specifically involving collections are less well known.

Researchers that study a specific group of organisms seem to create an affective bond so strong for the animals-objects studied that they often act as the owners of some samples of the collection or even of the whole taxonomic group. As a consequence, when exchange and access to material or information are needed, difficulties may be created: samples are hidden and information is not fully disclosed.

In this chapter, we explicit the behavior of scientists1 with reference to scientific collections, their obstacles, beliefs, fears and greeds. We demonstrate that the conduct of scientists sometimes resembles a behavior present in social animals, known as territorialism2. Thus maybe some of the observed conducts could be justified by the soft politics of power, camouflaged in publications, that arises in the science fields.

For this purpose, we introduce Bourdieu's idea of hierarchy inside the sciences and Foucault's conceptions of power. Unhappily, we demonstrate that power conflicts are closer to us scientists than we thought or wished to be true. Therefore, this chapter intends to make a reflection over the professional conduct dynamics in scientific collections.

In behalf of our objective, it is important that the reader understand the meaning of a few biological contexts. That's why we clarify some aspects of ethology (the study of animal

 1 We realize that this behavior must not and cannot be generalized to the entire group of professionals that work with scientifc collections. However, this chapter concerns behavior pertaining to a by no means negligible portion of this group. Therefore we apologize to those professional that feel unjustly affected by this exposure.

<sup>2</sup> We take into consideration the diferent perspectives (sociological, geographical, political, etc.) of territory and territoriality. However, in this chapter, territorialism is quoted as a concept belonging to the biological sciences, as explained in the following topic.

Zoological Collections and the Effects of Scientific Territorialism 177

Co-habitation and acquaintance in groups require behavior adaptations to maintain the cohesion of the group, either temporally or permanently. As a result, it is possible to observe a complex net of relationships characterizing social positions among members of the same

In some societies with hierarchical positions it is possible to see a dominant-subordinate relationship where violence becomes minimized. In some cases a stable dominant relation arises because the dominant animal is bigger and stronger than the others (Hutingford & Chellapa, 2006, as cited in Chase et al., 2002). Once this hierarchy is established, this configuration will be stable. Generally, the situation is accepted with no confusion. This implies that a hierarchical ordination decreases the mutual aggressiveness in the group. There's no doubt that this represents an advantage from the biological point of view. Combats are harmful not only because of the physical damages, but also because of the time spent in an activity that is otherwise useless for the needs of the group (Carthy, 1974).

There are a huge amount of social behaviors inside a group of animals, such as reproduction, foraging, play, and so on. The social behavior with most interest to us in this paper is territoriality. Territory defense occurs when animals adjust their struggle behavior to their position in space, defending a specific area. Such protected areas allow the attainment of food, water, rest spots, shelter, or sexual and cleaning partners. Depending on the species, these areas can be maintained for distinct periods of time, such as a few hours a day, a whole station, or a year, and it could be defended for one individual, for a couple, or

In territorial systems the size of the land and the configuration of their boundaries are the result of a state of equilibrium between the behaviors of neighbors. There is a minimal limit to the size of the territory. When population density is high, the boundaries of the land may overlap, making the lands relatively smaller. In such occasions, the limits of defense and

The winners obtain the best territories, while the losers stay with the worst areas or end without land. Quality land and land achievement will depend on the density of a population, defensibility of the area, availability of resources, and the age of the animal. Territorial males can expel each other with strength and still allow the presence of some subordinate (non-territorial) males on their land. Animals with lower hierarchical position have their access to resources limited by those with higher positions and therefore suffer more debilitating effects, aggression and sometimes are forced to migrate (Deag, 1980).

In some species the presence of aggressive and strong members in the society preclude that other members have access to the limiting resources. As a consequence, the excluded animals use different tactics in order to share the forbidden resources (Krebs & Davis, 1993). The animals with no land can live in a tolerable way in the areas that belong to other well succeeded animals. Alternatively, animals with no land could spend the whole or part of the time on the boundaries of the land, exploring the resources of that region without being

The defense of a territory implies the existence of something that must be defended against competitors. Why would an animal try to take a resource that already is being protected, if there were plenty of undefended resources? The fact that competition occurs implies that

for a group of animals (Hutingford & Chellapa, 2006).

observed (Hutingford & Chellapa, 2006).

aggressive reactions between neighbors are established (Sire, 1960).

groups (Carthy, 1974).

behavior) and zoology (the science that deals with animals). In topic two, we explain the social behavior of animals. We emphasize their relation in and outside the group and their relation to the environment. In topic three we make clear what a scientific collection is, explaining its aims and importance. In subject four we demonstrate the dynamics between some professionals that work on those collections. And in topic five we associate this behavior with animal territorialism, which is established as a consequence of the hierarchy that is maximized by the illusion of power existing inside the scientific academy.
