Eric Birling

• How does Priestley present Eric as a symbol of redemption?

  -Priestley presents Eric in a sympathetic light through Eric’s opposition to Mr Birling’s capitalist and individualistic attitudes.

  -Remorse and regret is clearly shown by Eric while he accepts responsibility for his actions, yet he rejects taking sole responsibility for her suicide.

  -The character of Eric can be seen as a source of optimism; anyone can change for the better.
• How is Eric Birling presented as ignorant?

  -Priestley portrays society’s norms as the reason for the immoral behaviour of Eric (his rape of Eva) - he is simply following in the footsteps of other men.

  -Eric is presented as naive and ignorant of the true extent of the suffering of the lower-class.
• How and why does Priestley present Eric as innately moral?

  Priestley demonstrates his morality through the stage directions “[involuntarily] My God!”. The use of the adverb “involuntarily” demonstrates the moral nature of Eric as he could not suppress his emotional reaction.

  Here, Priestley attempts to convey the message that emotion is human and thus necessary for society to improve; Furthermore, he wants the audience to react like Eric did and feel instinctively emotional.
• How does Priestley present Eric as a socialist?

  Priestley portrays Eric to have personal views which are

  inherently socialist:

  Eric condemns his father’s capitalist view of his workers and challenges this through the question “why shouldn’t they try for higher wages?”.

  It is clear that Eric is able to empathise with the lower-classes and can recognise the need for better workplace rights and the even more desperate need of ridding society of the practice of exploiting labourers.
• How does Priestley present Eric as a socialist?

  Priestley presents Eric with the capacity for empathy and emotion, which therefore separates him (and Sheila) from the other characters, who are unable to experience such emotions. This is done to demonstrate Eric as morally superior and as a character, which the

  audience should align themselves with.
• How does Priestley demonstrate that Eric is aware of hypocrisy and corruption?

  The upper-class’ internal corruption and hypocrisy is acknowledged by Eric. Priestley demonstrates Eric as not completely naive, but

  aware of levels of corruption in society.
• How does Priestley demonstrate that Eric is aware of hypocrisy and corruption?


  Eric initially sees Mr Birling’s hypocrisy in the determination to achieve “lower costs and higher prices”, yet, denying Eva and his employees a higher wage.

  Eric exclaims his discontent with such hypocrisy as “why shouldn’t they try for higher wages” as “we try for the highest possible prices”.

  He realises that there is no meritocracy and that a “good worker” does not constitute better treatment, but that capitalism exists fundamentally to exploit workers and create profit.
• How does Priestley demonstrate that Eric is aware of hypocrisy and corruption?


  Eric recognises how his father is hypocritical in hiding his views from Inspector as he “[Laughs bitterly] I didn’t notice you told him that it’s every man for himself”.

  Eric lets out a “bitter” laugh because he realises Mr Birling’s hypocrisy, yet, there is no humour to be found in the moraless capitalism, which his father abides by.
• How does Priestley show that Eric reluctantly conforms to the class system?

  Priestley presents Eric as continuing to abide by the social conventions of exploiting those in the lower-classes and failing to meaningfully oppose this system, whilst understanding this behaviour is immoral, wrong and ridiculous.
• How does Priestley show that Eric reluctantly conforms to the class system?

  Priestley demonstrates Eric’s discomfort towards his family’s lifestyle and privilege, through the stage directions “not quite at ease”. These foreshadow Eric’s attitude throughout the entire play; he is not quite at ease with his father’s behaviour, nor is he quite at ease with his own.
• How does Priestley show that Eric reluctantly conforms to the class system?

  Although Eric disapproves of the speech his father makes at Gerald and Sheila's engagement, he is portrayed as powerless to do anything. This is evident as Eric interrupts the speech and protests “[not too rudely] Well don’t do any (speechmaking). We’ll drink to their health and have done with it.”

  Eric interrupts through the stage directions “[not too rudely]” as he

  doesn’t have the power to challenge his father directly yet is not quite at ease with the capitalist purpose of his sister’s marriage.
• How does Priestley show through Eric that anyone is capable of immorality?

  Initially Eric is portrayed as a positive character who has morals, he disapproves of Mr Birling’s individualistic business rhetoric (speech). However, the revelation of Eric’s rape of Eva demonstrates that sin is not beyond anyone.
• How does Priestley show through Eric that anyone is capable of immorality?

  Arguably, alcohol is Eric’s response and coping mechanism to the hypocrisy and materialism of his family. There are also lower-class connotations of alcoholism.
• How does Priestley show through Eric that anyone is capable of immorality?

  Through suggesting that it is Eric’s perceived lack of influence, which prevents him from making change, Priestley teaches that people need to stand up for reform regardless of who they are in society. Therefore, everyone should unite in dissent, rather than disregard their morals.
• How has Eric's upbringing made him the character that he is?

  Eric’s childhood has been within a “not cosy and homelike” environment; he has been raised by a “cold woman” and “not the kind of father a chap could go to when he’s in trouble”.

  Priestley therefore encourages the audience to view Eric as the product of poor parenting. Through denying Eric care or compassion throughout his childhood, Eric’s parents have condemned him to treating others with the same callousness by offering no support, they have stunted his moral development.
• How does Priestley suggest that Mr Birling tries to influence Eric's mindset?

  Priestley preceded the Inspector’s arrival with a series of lectures delivered from Mr Birling to Eric and Gerald. Considering the capitalist, individualistic and patriarchal content of Mr Birling’s speech, perhaps Priestley uses this to show the audience that Eric is being shaped by the values of his father. He has been taught to disrespect women and disregard the lower-classes .
• How does Priestley use the actions of males in 1912 as an influence for Eric's behaviours?

  Priestley provides a legitimate explanation for Eric’s

  immoral actions. Eric has learnt to associate prostitution with the normal behaviour of the upper-class; his behaviour is

  therefore normalised.

  Contextually, Eric’s behaviour can also be excused (to a degree) as, within 1912 society, women were perceived as being inferior to men. This

  meant their value was measured through the utility of their bodies and sexual appeal.
• How does Priestley excuse Eric's behaviours with the use of unreliable narration?

  Eric is left to tell the story about what he did to Eva which means his narration is likely to be unreliable. His biased telling of the story (to make himself look less bad) enables the audience to take what they want from the story and ignore anything they don’t want to believe.
• How does Priestley excuse Eric's behaviours with the use of unreliable narration?

  He says “and that’s when it happened”. The use of the pronoun “it” allows the audience members to fill in the gaps about what ‘it’ is that Eric did to Eva. Thus, Priestley manipulates the audience into perceiving Eric as redeemable as they retain their own opinion of whether he actually did rape Eva

  This implies that it is Priestley’s intention for Eric to be favoured by the audience and serve as a medium for socialist ideas and converted capitalists.
• How does Priestley excuse Eric's behaviours with the use of unreliable narration?

  Priestley uses the euphemistic phrase “that state when a chap easily turns nasty” as a substitute for Eric’s admittance of being drunk.

  Priestley’s choice of colloquial language normalises Eric’s lack of restraint which implies that it’s the alcohol which caused him to act in that way, not his lack of morals. This prompts the question of whether he would have abused Eva if he was sober.
• How does Priestley show that Eric has genuine regret for what he has done?

  -Eric is portrayed by Priestley as repentant and remorseful for his immoral actions towards Eva.

  -Eric immediately recalls his actions as “yes I remember - “. Priestley does this to demonstrate Eric’s authentic regret, as he still thinks about Eva and the impact of his actions.
• How does Priestley show that Eric has genuine regret for what he has done?

  -Priestley’s linguistic use of euphemistic phrases and dramatic exit shows that Eric feels guilty and doesn’t want to think about what he did, as he’s ashamed of his actions.

  -Priestley uses the third-person when Eric is recalling the events of his relationship with Eva, such as “when a chap”. This allows Eric to disassociate himself from his cruel actions.
• How does Priestley show that Eric takes limited responsibility for what he has done?


  -Priestley portrays Eric as only partially accepting responsibility for the death of Eva Smith.

  -Priestley reinforces Eric’s evasion of responsibility as he excuses his behaviour by comparing his exploitation of Eva to the use of prostitutes by Mr Birling’s “respectable friends”. Here, Eric implies that he is not responsible for how he acted, due to a lack of good role models to follow.
• How does Priestley show that Eric takes limited responsibility for what he has done?

  “that state when a chap easily turns nasty”. Here, Eric insinuates that alcohol-fuelled violence is a state familiar to all men and is therefore acceptable. Priestley’s use of the colloquial noun “chap” suggests Eric is trivialising the situation and doesn’t feel guilty to a great extent. This causes him to be perceived as similar to the older generation as he is avoiding

  responsibility.

  It is this avoidance of responsibility, which Priestley places the blame for society’s problems on.
• What is Eric's relationship with Mr Birling like?

  Eric consistently challenges and opposes Mr Birling’s opinions

  and capitalist attitudes:

  ● Eric raises the question of “what about war”, which is opposed by Mr Birling who is staunchly confident in “the Germans don’t want war”.

  ● Mr Birling’s proud claim of striving for “lower costs and higher prices” is rejected by Eric, who questions “why shouldn’t they try for higher prices” and that she simply “can’t go and work somewhere else”.
• What is Eric's relationship with Mr Birling like?

  Priestley places these characters in juxtaposition to mirror the conflict between capitalism and socialism. Eric’s opinions are socialist by nature – he is standing up for worker’s rights and exposing the corruption and exploitation of capitalism.
• What is Eric's relationship with Mrs Birling like?

  -Mrs Birling, inadvertently, diverts blame onto Eric for Eva’s suicide as “He should be made an example of. If the girl’s death is due to anybody, then it’s due to him”.

  -However, upon realising that Eric is indeed Eva’s partner she refuses to accept this as the truth: “Eric, I can’t believe it. There must be some mistake.”

  -Mrs Birling refuses this fact as it jeopardises the reputation of the Birling family, which she values over her son’s loss of a child.
• What is Eric's relationship with Mrs Birling like?

  Eric’s outrage towards his mother, who is similarly unsympathetic and fails to even apologise, is demonstrated by Priestley: “Then - you killed her… and the child she’d have had too – my child – your own Grandchild – you killed them both – damn you, damn you.” and “You don’t understand anything. You never did. You never even tried.”
• What is Eric's relationship with Mrs Birling like?

  -Mrs Birling expresses her disappointment in her son as “Eric I’m absolutely ashamed of you”; it is clear Mrs Birling still hasn’t accepted any responsibility and shows no remorse.

  -Mrs Birling only expresses this after the Inspector’s leave- perhaps she knew that he would object to her saying this.

  -Eric responds to this with “well, I don’t blame you. But don’t forget I’m ashamed of you as well - yes both of you”. This shows that Eric has, conversely, accepted responsibility.
• How does Priestley use both Eric and Sheila in the play?

  Both of the younger-generation characters are in opposition to the

  older-generation’s beliefs of capitalism and individualistic tendencies:

  ● Through this, Priestley suggests that people must work together

  despite their differences for the shared aim of bettering society.

  ● The Inspector acknowledges their age as making them “more impressionable”, to both the ideologies of their parents and the ideology of socialism that the Inspector propagates
• Did Eric or Sheila change the most in the play?

  Eric’s agreement with some socialist ideas is not to the same extent as Sheila’s comprehensive conversion to socialist ideology. It is important to consider if Eric’s favouring of the Inspector is merely due to Eric’s agreeable nature and why Priestley portrays Eric’s socialist ideas as being weak.

  Priestley conveys this ambivalence (uncertainty) in Eric’s mindset through a heightened emotional state as he acts erratically in the stage directions changing quickly from “[shouting]” to “[quietly]”.
• Did Eric or Sheila change the most in the play?

  -Perhaps Eric has been emotionally overwhelmed by the Inspector and is, therefore, not speaking seriously when he supports the inspectors view. Instead, it is a superficial, impulsive level of agreement.

  -Arguably, Eric finds moral sanctuary in agreeing with the Inspector as it is easier to do this than to argue with him.