Abstract
AbstractThe health and well-being of pets became a significant matter of medical and scientific concern during the first decades of the twentieth century. Addressing the case of dogs, this article contends that this circumstance was not primarily a consequence of developments internal to veterinary practice but rather emerged from the broader-based domestic-science movement. The elaboration of scientifically oriented approaches to dog care signals the incorporation of pets within a maternal ideal that emphasized care and efficiency as domestic virtues. Via consideration of canine milk foods, women-led canine medical institutions, canine-concerned domestic workers, and rationalist approaches to kennel design, the article demonstrates that dogs should be placed alongside such established objects of domestic scientific reform as children, homes, and human bodies. Moreover, it shows that scientific reconceptualizations of dogs relied on an extensive network of (primarily women) laborers that included food producers, nursing staff, kennel attendants, and breeders. The article thereby contributes to a growing body of scholarship highlighting ways in which the domestic-science movement forged new scientific objects and practices around the turn of the twentieth century. By the 1930s, dogs were routinely being upheld as exemplars of the kinds of homely existence made possible by scientifically informed approaches to domestic living.
Highlights
What makes the dog a “domestic” animal? Despite their long-standing status as domesticated beings, historical associations between dogs and modern forms of domesticity remain, as historical geographer Philip Howell has recently highlighted, poorly understood.[1]
Somewhat surprisingly given the very long history of canine domestication, recent work by Howell, Katherine Grier, Sarah Amato, Ingrid Tague, and others suggests that the positioning of dogs as participants in family life is a relatively recent phenomenon.[2]
This article builds on this historiography to consider one way in which dogs became domestic at the start of the twentieth century
Summary
What makes the dog a “domestic” animal? Despite their long-standing status as domesticated beings, historical associations between dogs and modern forms of domesticity remain, as historical geographer Philip Howell has recently highlighted, poorly understood.[1]. Via consideration of canine milk foods, women-led canine medical institutions, canine-concerned domestic workers, and rationalist approaches to kennel design, the article demonstrates that dogs should be placed alongside such established objects of domestic scientific reform as children, homes, and human bodies.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.