Reflections

Instead of presenting a new (concise) focus statement, I thought it might be best (selfishly, for my own writing/research purposes) to instead present a new, expanded version of my research paper’s argument in order to receive some much-needed feedback:

Although scholars, journalists, and other interested parties continue to study dogs in World War I, it has been to a limited, superficial, and at times simplistic extent. Often aimed at a more popular audience, most studies of dogs simply herald their achievements without much analysis of their actual contributions. This is not to suggest that these sources do not provide useful, factual information. Rather, this article argues for more rigorous study of military working dogs by using dogs in World War I as a case study. These dogs were part of a larger propaganda campaign to boost civilian morale in both Great Britain and the United States. Furthermore, it is worth questioning agency and adding the concept to this present discussion, not to complicate matters but rather to aid in the analysis of the use of military working dogs. What will result is the intertwining of studies in military working dog history, agency, and civilian morale while also analyzing and calling into question current published works on animals in warfare.

I have slowly been developing my argument as I have continued my research and writing process and as a result, my argument has taken a few different forms. Above is the most recent and any comments, questions, or concerns will be much appreciated!

Discuss the methodologies or theories you are likely to use in your research? Put another way, how do you position yourself as a historian? Where along the fault lines of historical methods do you see yourself as an author? Why is this methodology the one suited to your research question? How does this methodology/theory shape the question you want to address in your research?

I see myself perhaps first as a cultural historian because I am studying civilian morale during the First World War. I also believe myself to be an animal historian, as I am tracing the use of animals during World War I. I also view myself as situated at the intersections of animal history and discussions of agency, the niche that I am attempting to fill, at least to a limited extent with my research project. My primary focus on cultural history, allows for my central question and thesis to also focus on cultural aspects instead of say, social aspects or military aspects, for example.

I will admit that despite studying history as an undergraduate and now a graduate student, I am still not entirely sure what “methodology” is. I believe it is one of those concepts within the field of history that many pretend to understand but when it gets down to brass tacks, there is still a great deal of confusion. Nevertheless, I will take a stab at it for this week’s methodology/theory discussion.

The article I chose to analyze for methodology and/or theory is Erica Fudge’s “Milking Other Men’s Beasts,” published in an issue of History and Theory in 2013. In this particular essay, Fudge, a preeminent scholar in the field of animal agency, argues for animal agency by illustrating animals as historical actors instead of passive objects. Fudge recognizes that her article sits at the intersection of various fields of study: anthropology, social history, animal history, sensory history, and even animal science. Thus, Fudge utilizes arguments from a variety of fields in order to craft her own argument concerning animal agency.

Indeed, Fudge begins her article by explaining the title of her work is pulled from a “a single-line entry in a seventeenth-century Essex Sessions Roll,” a seemingly obscure source but a source that allows her to begin her discussion concerning animal agents (13). She then goes on to cite historians focusing on the senses, Temple Grandin, the famous animal scientist, and animal historians such as Virginia DeJohn Anderson. What results is fascinating insight into animal agency and a much more impressive argument due to its reaches into various fields. She ends by arguing: “And if we take seriously that there are other human ways of being in the world, as Grandin does, and if we acknowledge that that thing called being human itself might also contain multiple others, and that we—the readers of History and Theory—are just one manifestation of that, what we are opening up are new ways of addressing and assessing the world. And they, I am sure, knew this back in the seventeenth century too” (28).

Reading this article by Fudge and others like it (she has cropped up a few times in my research), I am left wondering: is it necessary for historians to merge various fields together when arguing something as complex as agency? I have debated including science or psychology in my own research project but I fear the scope of my paper is simply not great enough. Nevertheless, it is useful to see how a historian can successfully integrate various fields of thought in order to create a more robust argument.

For next week’s primary source presentation, I chose “The Diary of Two Red Cross Dogs,” a fanciful story found within the pages of an issue of The Red Cross Magazine from 1918. I chose this particular primary source due to its representation of the other evidence that will ultimately support my argument in my final research project. Indeed, a large part of my project involves examining the ways by which dogs were presented to the civilian public in order to boost morale on the home front during World War I. This article, published most likely in several allied nations during the Great War, tells the story of two small dogs named Rags and Tags. Though not the traditional war dogs that were used during the war, these dogs instead were tasked with collecting money for the Red Cross with the little boxes attached to their collars. As mentioned above, this is an entirely fanciful depiction of these dogs, jotting down their thoughts as they fulfill their wartime duties. And yet, its significance cannot be overlooked.

One depiction of dogs during World War I included those dogs that became mythical creatures. That is, those dogs whose stories were so exaggerated and at times unbelievable that it is difficult to separate fact from fiction. Nevertheless, these kinds of stories were critical to civilian morale. These heroic dogs made the horrors of wartime more palatable and made the muddling through of everyday life a bit easier. It also allowed for civilians to learn the successes of their own dogs they sent to the front, to perhaps understand a bit better that every little contribution can help, and to give a more humane element to the nightmare of new technologies and new, cruel wartime innovations.

How are dogs depicted in this particular primary source? In “The Diary of Two Red Cross Dogs,” Rags and Tags are presented as two spirited canines devoted to doing their duty. The diary is composed of what is supposed to be their thoughts as they become official Red Cross dogs and as they collect money alongside their owners. Certainly, this is not to be taken entirely seriously as we as humans can have no idea what these dogs are feeling or thinking. Nevertheless, this widely available article most likely put a few smiles on some otherwise dreary faces and brightened up an otherwise dismal time. Thus, though it is difficult to measure precise reactions to articles such as “The Diary of Two Red Cross Dogs,” it can be surmised that dogs like Rags and Tags aided in continued perseverance on the home front.

Sources: https://books.google.com/books?id=w6NFAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA2-PA25&lpg=RA2-PA25&dq=Sloane,+Julia+M.+%E2%80%9CThe+Diary+of+Two+Red+Cross+Dogs,%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=b54IqZsTJC&sig=g-2UBaPKt63gtn_trQ9dk_-aNKE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=80HRVPfvLK6wsAS7rIDABA&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Sloane%2C%20Julia%20M.%20%E2%80%9CThe%20Diary%20of%20Two%20Red%20Cross%20Dogs%2C%E2%80%9D&f=false

http://www.aef.com/on_campus/classroom/case_histories/3002/:pf_printable

As spring semester begins, it is perhaps appropriate that my first post of the new year include my research interests for the following semester (and my final semester, at that) and also the history department professors that I aim to have as a part of my committee. As part of my final set of studies, I will be working one-on-one in an independent study with Dr. Amy Nelson. As a result, Dr. Nelson has agreed to act as my adviser for my last semester. I will also have Dr. Kathleen Jones and Dr. David Cline as my other two committee members. I was only required to interview Dr. Cline as my other committee members were previously decided. Fortunately, as I have worked with Dr. Cline multiple times in the past three years, our interview was fairly short and to the point (i.e. he quickly agreed to be a part of my committee when asked).

My research interests have been narrowed greatly since the beginning of the fall semester: I am now focusing most readily on the use of dogs during World War I and the debates concerning such animals’ agency. I will be presenting my research at the Living with Animals conference in late March and will be accompanying Dr. Nelson to Kentucky to attend said conference.

How did I become interested in canine war heroes? I stumbled upon this topic quite unexpectedly. Indeed, although I have always been interested in World War I and World War II, I had never really considered the contribution of animals to either war effort. That is until I watched a documentary concerning both wars that explained the use of animals (and a variety of animals, at that). I immediately became fascinated with the idea of war animals and began researching the different types and various uses of animals in both world wars. What resulted was a plethora of information concerning war dogs, in particular, and a niche that appeared to need filling: the intersection of animal agency studies and World War I canine studies. Thus, I uncovered where I best believed I could make a contribution to the field of history.

As I am on a path quite different from my colleagues, I thought I would spend some of this post describing precisely how unique my experience has been. For starters, I will not be writing a thesis but rather a research paper on my chosen topic. I am also preparing for graduation this coming May while my colleagues are just beginning their second semesters at Virginia Tech. Lastly, I am dual enrolled in the history department and the education department. When I graduate in May, I will be graduating with two Master’s degrees and aim to begin a career in education. I have also spent three years at Virginia Tech, a year longer than my colleagues will ultimately spend in Blacksburg. Thus, my experience has been in many ways different from that of my colleagues and will continue to be so for this semester as well.

Lastly, I have been tasked with reviewing a former Virginia Tech history MA student’s thesis. I chose to read Kimberly Staub’s “Recipe for Citizenship: Women, Cookbooks, and Citizenship in the Kitchen, 1941-1945.” From the start of this thesis, it is easy to see why it became an award winner: Ms. Staub does an excellent job catching her readers’ attention from the start of the paper. Indeed, the topic itself is highly interesting and unique and food is a topic that we can all relate to quite effortlessly. The thesis is also well-written and clearly well-researched with a plethora of sources, including some images and advertisements. There are, however, some weaknesses to this thesis as well, a few that Ms. Staub recognizes herself within her work. For starters, I think this thesis could have benefited from a bit more comparison and contrasting between nations (if such sources are available). Also, if it had been possible, insight into the thoughts and feelings of these “kitchen citizens” themselves would have added greatly to Ms. Staub’s research and completed project. Certainly these are nit-picky issues with an overall fantastic piece of historical work. I can only hope that my own research interests will produce a similar product in the next few months.