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

Read more

Summary

Introduction

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.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call