Polly Purebred or the Underdog
In a society riddled with a vast blend of dog breeds, what makes the ideal canine for companionship? There are multiple factors one considers ranging from color, temperance, size, to personalities and likability. Yet, it is obvious that society considers certain breeds to be the ideal over others. We come up with stereotypes like the “family dog” and then assign different breeds to confining categories. Think about Golden Retrievers or Labradors and how often they’re referred to as family oriented or kid-friendly breeds. On the other end, breeds like Pitbulls and German Shepherds are oppositely labeled as dangerous or unpredictable. Essentially, what ultimately seems like a personal choice is actually deeply ingrained in our knowledge of and prejudice toward different types of dogs. This established bias then dictates our way of treating certain breeds against others. One could argue that in comparison to human society, we are quite similar in how different demographics are treated and viewed. Two authors, Virginia Woolf and James Herriot, use canine characters in their work to bring attention to issues of class in breeding through the canine’s actions and beliefs. Therefore, the dogs depicted in both stories represent classism in breeding through the perspectives and prejudices they hold against other canines.
Woolf’s biography, Flush, imagines the tale of Cocker Spaniel, Flush, which is presumably known as a historically popular and acclaimed breed. The Spaniel breed has been recognized by the American Kennel Club as the ideal family dog for decades, but outrageously popular when Woolf’s biography was published. So, it can be suggested that Flush would then be high class, likely the highest at the time for breeds. The idea of class is reflected in Flush, as the main character, by often being close minded or condescending in the perspective of other dogs. He aligns himself with his human companion Ms.Barrett, who also portrays a lavish way of living and assumed to be high class. Furthermore, Flush believes that “the Spaniels followed human example, and looked up to Greyhounds as their superiors and considered Hounds beneath them” (Woolf 12). The use of superior and inferior to describe dogs inferences to readers that there is a hierarchy of breed, at least to Flush. That the most purebred or popular dogs assume highest position, while more difficult or unattractive breeds assume lowest. Also, Flush asserts that he is only following “human example”, suggesting the idea that humans orient themselves in a similar fashion. As a member of today’s society, the attitude and opinion Flush follows is no different than our own. We divide and categorize humans in a similar way to breed; looking for the best qualities or “kind” of person. When doing this, similar to breed, stereotypes and generalizations bleed into the categorization.
In recent years, there has been an exorbitant amount of individuals who choose to “shop” for canines instead of adopting from shelters or homes. Their logic, as stated, comes from stereotypes and generalizations made about different dogs. Another factor to be considered is attributes such as brindle shade, eye color, hair length, and even plain “cuteness” level. Coupled together, these reasons cause dogs to be separated and creates a caste-like system. One can imagine this being much like the human class system: based on things like money, power, education, race, and gender. The impact of this causes hundreds of dogs to be ignored and labeled as “unadoptable.” One well-known example of this is with Pitbull and Boxer breeds which are often recognized as “bully breeds” or dogs that will be violent and unfit for homes. Attributes that feed into the stereotypes of these breeds are often their teeth, muscular build, and size. When these details are combined together, it puts Pitbulls or Boxers on a lower likeability tier compared to their counterparts. Essentially, a lower class. Placing stereotypes on these breeds gives them a disadvantaged life; putting them at risk for spending their lives within a shelter, and possibly being euthanized.
When looking at class as a social, it is true there are more reinforcers to be considered beyond physical characteristics. Other indicators of class include wealth, level of education, geographic, and even power. Once these components are brought together is when the barriers around classes are set. This is evident in Woolf’s biography, as Flush established his boundaries of high versus low canines beyond the realm of breed. Alongside the other one determiner of class, he also brings in the wearing of leashes, collars, water bowls, and other objects used by dogs that can be assigned value. He explains this as “Some are chained dogs; some run wild. Some take their airings in carriages and drink from purple jars; others are unkempt and uncollared and pick up a living in the gutter” (Woolf 23). Shining through in this description is what Flush institutes as the separation between breeds. In simplest terms, there are the chained dogs and then the wild dogs. He references his own lifestyle in mentioning the purple jar and restroom locations, but does not assign any generalized assumption to high class dogs. Instead, he does so with the wild dogs in describing them as unclean and homeless. Woolf makes this choice in specificity to highlight the micro-aggressive remarks and feelings Flush has toward the unchained. Meaning, dogs either without owners or of lower position to him.
In James Herriot’s All Creatures Great and Small, readers are presented with Tricki Woo, a Pekingese, and his own extravagant tale alongside Mrs.Pumphrey. The Pekingese breed historically has been linked to Chinese emperors because of their society’s religious beliefs and preference of the breed’s ferocious personality. Not only is Trick Woo idealized by Ms. Pumphrey for his breed but is given a luxurious lifestyle that can be associated with higher-class; much like his companion. Similar to Flush’s character, Trick Woo’s class directly correlates with how he perceives and treats others in the story. When Ms. Pumphrey shares one of the many tales of Trick Woo, she describes how “he wrote a letter to the editor of Doggy World enclosing a donation, and told him that even though he was descended from a long line of Chinese emperors, he had decided to come down and mingle freely with the common dogs” (Herriot 87). The specific word choice of “coming down” to the level of “common” breeds encourages the idea that Tricki Woo holds opinion on the ranking or class of dogs. That he is above the breeds of the canines who “read” or subscribe to Doggy World. What he considered to be the “common dog” is not directly stated, but one could imagine it being canines without a distinguished breed, or mutts. Ones that do not follow the same famously adored lineage that Trick Woo, and Flush, both have.
Growing up with dogs, I have never found myself to be biased about breeds and behavior, or canines or in general. To simply put it, I am an all out dog lover, with an especially soft spot for the underdog. I don’t look at dogs for their kind and make assumptions based on such, but agree that others do. My “why” for this ranges from that I’m a mutt and rescue canine advocate to being raised in an environment where every dog was loved. When I was 3 years old, my Uncle Bob was in his senior year at Clemson University when he first saw Indy. This dog used to hang around a gas station near the school, but never on lease or with an owner. Overtime and after various sightings of Indy my Uncle decided to pick up Indy and bring him back to Massachusetts. This, of course, was without the permission of my grandparents. Despite their disapproval, the instant connection my toddler self had with this dog washed away any concern (and my other uncle’s pet allergy). To paint a picture, Indy was a classic yellow mutt with stubby legs, smushed face, and was slightly overweight. There was no clear association of breed or heritage, but to anyone in my family, that did not matter. I did not prefer him for the way he looked or the associations he had to other canines. He could not be confined to a class or category. His ability to be gentle, loving, and protecting of my younger self all while a best friend overruled any class or breed he could’ve had.
Reasoning for Tricki Woo’s established prejudices not only come from his favored breed, but the environment he is ingrained in. Similar to Flush’s means, Tricki Woo is part of a lavish lifestyle alongside Ms.Pumphrey. Since Woo’s human companion has no other family to indulge her funds and lifestyle into, Ms. Pumphrey instead gives such attention to Trick Woo. This causes the canine to be accustomed to the finer things in life; eating human food, sending generous donations, and even betting on horses. Such activities, arguably, are only associated with those of the upper class. Not every individual, or canine, is able to give and spend copious amounts of money. Additionally, not every canine descends from acclaimed lineages or history. So, rather than associate himself with other dogs, ones he considers “common,” Trick Woo takes on the same agenda of his companion, Ms. Pumphrey. To live extravagantly in excess. Even Ms. Pumphrey notices Woo’s biased outlook, and calls out this behavior by stating, “I can’t think why he should have these little prejudices. Perhaps it is because he is an only dog — I do think an only dog develops more prejudices than one from a large family” (Herriot 90). Not only is Ms.Pumphrey addressing the fact that Trick Woo is undeniably judgemental of other canines, she clearly defines his behavior as “prejudices.” Doing such moves the image of Trick Woo away from being just a judgemental animal, and toward the idea of him holding established biases of others. Trying to assign reason to this, Ms.Pumphrey suggests that it is simply because Trick Woo is the focal point of their life. I vehemently disagree with this sentiment. Explanation for such behavior of Tricki Woo extends from the lifestyle he was given, being upper class, and the breed he is defined as. Such qualities, when put together, rank Tricki Woo higher on the caste system thus heightening his perceived superiority over other canines.
The making of an ideal companion is pulled from a number of different thoughts, beliefs, and biases society has about different animals. Some individuals prefer certain attributes, behaviors, and breeds, while others simply love canines for who they are. Regardless of an individual’s reasoning, it must be highlighted that there is an underlying class system when it comes to breed. Humans hold dogs to different standards and expectations based on the stereotypes and assumptions society has made about them. Having a tiered system for canines is inherently toxic because it causes certain breeds to be neglected while others are cherished. Authors like Woolf and Herriot give insight into the outcome of the breed rank with dogs like Trick Woo and Flush. These characters express the prejudices they hold about other breeds to represent the class system they align with, but also to point out the difference in treatment of breeds. If humans, and canines, continue with biased practices in breeding and adoption, issues with euthanization and homeless-ness of dogs will only rise.
