ABSTRACT
Anyone interested in understanding the central features of Lawrence’s ideological concerns would do well to turn to an early scene in Women in Love in which Rupert Birkin and Gerald Crich are arguing over the nature of “spontaneity” and its place in social life. The two characters voice fundamentally opposed ideas on the question, Birkin suggesting that “to act spontaneously on one’s impulses” is “the only really gentlemanly thing to do,” and Gerald insisting that the spontaneous behaviour of individuals can only lead to social disaster:
“And I,” Gerald said grimly, “shouldn’t like to be in a world of people who acted individually and spontaneously, as you call it.—We should have everybody cutting everybody else’s throat in five minutes.” (33)
The exchange is a brief one but its significance as a political debate should not be overlooked, for at stake here are two competing visions of what a society ought to be, both visions proceeding from very different assumptions about what exists at the core of human beings. Birkin’s idea implies that human nature, even if not essentially “good,” is at least social, and that true human society is realized only when human beings act according to their nature-that is, by impulse and in the absence of any form of outside coercion. Gerald, on the other hand, has a wholly pessimistic view of human nature, apparently believing that true society is realized only when human nature is restrained. In order to live together, this line of thought suggests, human beings must not act according to their natures but according to the rules that society constructs to keep their natures in check. For Birkin, true society begins with the complete freedom of the individual; for Gerald, who “stickles” for “convention” (142), it
begins with collective forms of constraint. For Birkin, only the “gentleman” acts on his real instincts; for Gerald, only the barbarian does.
