RELATIONS OF DOMINANCE AND EQUALITY IN D. H. LAWRENCE

offered him. Gerald would never admit homosexuality, or whatever
term Lawrence uses to disguise it.
Hence, stubbornly Birkin
argues with Ursula, trying to defend his point of view about a
man friend.
One thing must be taken into account in their
argument: Ursula opens the dialogue and this implies that she
has not become submissive to her husband.
In opening the
conversation, Lawrence allows Ursula to express her opinion,even
though she does not, or cannot, agree with her husband. She says
"'Did you need Gerald?' she asked one evening. 'Yes,' he said"
(p.472).
The fact that she opens the dialogue implies that she
is also open to discuss the subject.
And their discussion marks
chiefly the existence of their differences which are preserved
since both say what they want, what they think. And they do
disagree with each other:
'Aren't I enough for you?' she asked.
'No,' he said. 'You are enough for me, as far
as a woman is concerned. You are all women to me.
But I wanted a man friend, as eternal as you and
I are eternal.'
'Why aren't I enough?' she said. 'You are enough
for me. I don't want anybody else but you. Why
isn't the same with you?' (ibid).
Apart from their different points of view, we see that neither
Birkin nor Ursula (nor the author) imposes the correct way to
live. Ursula questions her husband, but she does not say 'I must
be the only one in your life'.
She asks, instead, why she is
not enough.
And even when she says that Birkin's need is "an
obstinacy, a theory, a perversity" she is not saying that he
must stop thinking the way he does.
She is simply defending her
opinion.
Also in Birkin's reluctancy to cooperate in the
conversation, he is exercising his right to think differently
from his wife.
Thus the book ends with an unfinished argument
between the couple.
I believe that this final conflict of ideas