Cited by T. Quick, 'Puppy Love: Domestic Science, “Women's Work,” and Canine Care,' Journal of British Studies 58 (2) (2019), pp. 289-314.
Description:

'What makes the dog a “domestic” animal? Despite their long-standing status as domesticated beings, historical associations between dogsand modern forms of domesticity remain, as historical geographer Philip Howell has recently highlighted, poorly understood. [note: 'Philip Howell, At Home and Astray: The Domestic Dog in Victorian Britain (Charlottesville, 2015), 11–20. See also Kay Anderson, “Animal Domestication in Geographic Perspective,” Society and Animals 6, no. 2 (January 1998): 119–35.'] Somewhat surprisinglygiven 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. [note: 'Howell, At Home and Astray; Sarah Amato, Beastly Possessions: Animals in Victorian Consumer Culture (Toronto, 2015), chap. 2; Ingrid H. Tague, Animal Companions: Pets and Social Change in Eighteenth-Century Britain (Philadelphia, 2015), chap. 3; Laura Brown, Homeless Dogs and Melancholy Apes: Humans and Other Animals in the Modern Literary Imagination (Ithaca, 2010), chap. 3; Katherine C. Grier, Pets in America: A History (Chapel Hill, 2006); Kathleen Kete, The Beast in the Boudoir: Petkeeping in Nineteenth-Century Paris (Berkeley, 1994); Hilda Kean, The Great Cat and Dog Massacre: The Real Story of World War II’s Unknown Tragedy (Chicago, 2017).']' (p. 289)

'Though discussion of the specific emotional experiences associatedwith animals at this time is beyond the scope of this article, I further highlighthow new conceptions of “women’s work” carried with them long-standing expectationsaround women’s inherent capacities as (unpaid) affective laborers. [note: 'On the emotional demands placed on women workers at this time, see Lucy Delap, Knowing Their Place: Domestic Service in Twentieth-Century Britain (Oxford, 2011); Christine Grandy, “Paying for Love: Women’s Work and Love in Popular Film in Interwar Britain,” Journal of the History of Sexuality 19, no. 3 (September 2010): 483–507; Selina Todd, “Domestic Service and Class Relations in Britain,1900–1950,” Past and Present 203, no. 1 (May 2009): 181–204; Judy Giles, The Parlour and the Suburb: Domestic Identities, Class, Femininity and Modernity (Oxford, 2004). On pet-keeping and sentimentality during the nineteenth century, see, for example, Kete, The Beast in the Boudoir, chap. 4, and Howell, At Home and Astray, chap. 5.']' (p. 293)

'How to Save Our Dogs (1914), in which Collins set out her vision for the institute, announced her adherence to a well-establishedset of beliefs and values associated with upper-middle-class dog owners, including the conviction that their animals possessed (“spiritual”) intelligence. [note: 'Collins and Campbell, How to Save Our Dogs, 31–41, 48–51. Collins’s co-author, probably the wife ofthe arctic explorer who survived the ill-fated Scott expedition to the South Pole, does not appear to have had a hand in the day-to-day running of the institute, which is invariably associated with Collins alone inadvertisements and press commentary. On the connection between spiritualism, feminism, and the antivivisectionmovement, see Howell, At Home and Astray, chap. 5; Coral Lansbury, The Old Brown Dog: Women, Workers, and Vivisection in Edwardian England (Madison, 1985), 91–95.'] (p. 301)

'Domestic science constituted a means by which women were able to extend the bounds of female authority without directly challenging the convention of “separate spheres.” In this respect, it enclosed dogs more thoroughly within a realm (the home) that had historically been understood as subordinate to masculine social and economic concerns. [note: 'Howell, At Home and Astray, chap. 2.'] (p. 309)