RELATIONS OF DOMINANCE AND EQUALITY IN D. H. LAWRENCE

13
As for homosexuality (which Moore discounts), the
plain fact is that Lawrence was aware of it, and
that he rejected it himself as mechanicist and
destructive (pp.149-50).
Spilka complements his idea about Lawrence's attitude towards
homosexuality by saying that the "Lawrentian brotherhood seems
aimed, from the first, at "unison in spirit, in understanding,
and in pure commingling in one great work"" (p.160).
It seems
clear that both Moore and Spilka underplay or avoid the theme of
homosexuality.
For them this is not even worth discussing
because they do not believe Lawrence having such a tendency.
Furthermore, they find in the author only his conscious
intentions and ignore the half-conscious, the latent. Spilka's
view falls into moralism and prejudice.
Moore's view is more a
defense of a friend who is accused of something 'bad' than
moralism.
Another critic who does not figure among Lawrence's
disciples is R.E. Pritchard (1971) and his view of this theme is
psychological.
Pritchard explains Lawrence's homosexuality in
the following way:
Lawrence had initially feared his father's
passionate nature, confusing violence with
sexuality ... His inability to achieve the
necessary relationship and identification with
his father led — as is common in such cases —
to a homosexual desire to submit and to be
possessed by father-figures of male potency
... So in Lawrence,, savagery usually implied a
fierce, dehumanising passion or mindless
sensuality, often with guilty homosexual
overtones; something he desired as a release for
his sexual energies, but feared as a separation
from the social body and the love of woman (p.23).
As for the theme of domination in Lawrence's npvels, Harry
T. Moore says that Lawrence has been called a 'male chauvinist'.
He disagrees with this view and claims that "Lawrence was aware
of his urcre to dominate, but he foucrht acrainst it" (p.342).
✓ ' - •*