Studied by 2 people
conserved within her class
“husband’s social superior” ACT 1
she is the only character who is not named at first and is merely referred to as Mr Birling’s “wife”, suggesting that her societal role dehumanised her and detached her from any sense of being
the way she is introduced enables priestley to satirise a society that allows humans to be defined by their role or purpose within the class system
she is a paragon of the aristocratic woman during the edwardian era. as a married upper class woman, she is secure and almost held fixed within the hard wired conventions of a capitalist and classist society
anything that threatens these conventions threatens her
by extension it seems she is commodified, valued based on what can be achieved by marrying her as opposed to value based on moral judgement - creates an environment in which she can act ignorantly and reject responsibility for her actions
“arthur you’re not supposed to say such things”
marionette of her class as she is complicit in upholding its conventions
conditions her husband to do the same - trying to iron out any faux pas - so they can operate seamlessly within the expectations of their class
“i think sheila and i better go the drawing room and leave you men”
contextually, women would typically retire to the drawing room after dinner to allow the males of the household to discuss topics deemed unfit for women to discuss. men would often indulge in cigars and drink. this spacial segregation helped to reinforce the gender divide which is so internalised for mrs birling that she actvely enhances this separation.
dismisses herself from the room - no desire to break free from her gender role
she acknowledges that marriage is process of enforcing and adopting a different set of controls and norms
her commitment to maintain the patriarchal status who shows that she is complicit in her own oppression and in fact upholds it
emphasises the disparity between the generations
“sheila! what an expression! really the things you girls pick up these days” ACT 1
challenges the younger generation as they threaten the capitalist and classist system she is secure in
she scolds her daughter
her superficially drive. codes of conduct are exposed as she cares more about speech and etiquette than anything else
the noun “girl” shows mrs birling belittles sheila in n order to dismiss her behaviour and portray it as foolish or uncouth
she reinforces the separation between the older generation who are robust to newer ways of thinking and the younger generation that seem vulnerable of “picking” them up as though the were a diseases
she tells sheila “when you’re married, you’ll realise”
which emphasises how her world view is largely based on her role as a wife
she is a tool for priestley to capture how marriage within the edwardian era was a rite of passage that was drenched in supeficality and opression.
- men permitted to exert control over their wives - woman would shift to conform to this.
shrouded in pomposity and egoism
she [enters, briskly and self confidently, quite out of key] ACT 2
entry into act 2 conducted entirely under the arrogance of her social superiority
she is so performative in her expressions of her class that it seems she is living a different narrative to the rest of the characters in the play
[affecting great surprise], [smiling, social] and [same easy tone]
conceited and calculated
well rehearsed in conducting her social behaviour, but this fails to apply to this present situation they have found themselves in - affable performance does not match the tone of the investigation
her class driven egoism characterises her as controlling - extends from her behaviour in act 1 when she scolded sheila’s behaviour
stage direction “rebuking them” and her announcement of “i’m talking to the inspector now, if you don’t mind” - her belief in her inherent superiority - defensiveness as her reputability is threatened.
groups lower class - “girls of that class” to dismiss them as an aggregate inferior group that all behave in the same way - classist attitudes apparent
ignorant and oblivious
“he’s only a boy” ACT 2
“well really! Alderman meggarty! we are really learning something tonight
she operates under a sheilded worldview as she fails to see beyond the superficial boundaries of her class
priestley employs dramatic irony as mrs birling absolves eric from his drunken behaviour - it seems he is far more than an innocent little boy
oblivious and ignorant to her own children in capitalist maintenance of rep and conformity to class ideals - capitalism blinding
in one sense this exposes how ignorant she is to what goes on around her - encapsulated within the contrived and artificil bubble she has created for herself
could alsoshow her desperation to condemn and denounce others to distract from any of her own flaws and deny taking any responsibility
her name is wholly ironic and would be noted by priestley’s contemporary audience who had a good understanding of plays. the name sybil is an allsuion to the sibyls of Greek mythology which were prophetesses that could see into the future
priestley may be highlighting how her arrogance is so overt that she percieves herself in an almost supernaturally powerful light due to her class.
robust to accepting responsibility ACT 2
“gross impertinence” ACT 2
“i consider i did my duty”
she is dishonest, claiming she did not recognise the girl in the photograph
priestley later uses this to expose her as deceitful when it becomes appararent that she has in fact met eva smith before
mrs birling is disgusted when eva uses her name, calling it a “gross impertinence”, demonstrating an amplified prejudice towards her which seems hyperbolic as eva merely used her name, showing how highlight mrs birling regards herself and how she believes that this is a great threat to her own status
she considers it “her duty” - overarching arrogance
ironic - juxaposes what is expected of someone in a philanthropic position
noun duty - tool to explore the disparity in the perspectives of capitalists and socialists
for capitalists, upholding the class system was paramount - as shown through mrs birling’s refusal to help, under the belief that it was her “duty”not to
this idicates how her personal and a societal wide prejudice got in the way of actually helping eva, despite her position at the women’s charity
critiques classism which penetrates every aspect of Edwardian life
Priestley introduces audience to the social duty vs moral duty dichotomy - “duty” is a noun echoed by both Mr Birling and the Inspector also, challenging Mrs Birling’s understanding of it
perhaps this hyperbolic response to eva’s plea for help is used to portray the attitudes shared by many of the upper class who believed that any association with people of a lower class could harm their high status
through this, priestley might also be attempting to shed light on the performatively philanthropic actions of the upper class as well as exposing the corruption within supposedly charitable organisation which was enabled by capitalism
need for a welfare state
“i won’t believe it”
she is almost proud of her decision, even though it had negative repurcussions - incapable of addressing her own wrongdoing
rejection of responsibility
“he certainly didn’t make me confess” ACT 3
overtly proud in her rejection of any responsibilty for eva’s death - feels it is necessary to publicly assert this
verb “confess” - connotes crime - by not doing this, she suggests has not been unlawful in her actions - nothing to confess - implicitly dissolves responsibility
imperative verb “make” - hints at another reason as to why she so actively rejects responsibility - inspector’s active efforts - way for her to secure her power in this power struggle
lexis here insinuates that admiting responsibility would be conceding to the inspector which threatens her social role, thus she is reluctant to do so
also attempts to propel events forawrdafter the inspctor leaves to dismiss the truth
“in the morning, they’ll be as amused as we are”
verb amused - not guilty or remorseful as she should be - therefore hints at detachment
perhaps overcompensating - rejecting responsibilty by suggesting she is feeling the antithesiss of guilt
lack of conscience
speaking [triumphantly] ACT 3
Mrs Birling, much like Mr Birling and Gerald, relishes in the idea that the inspector may be a fraud. they perceive it as a means through which to absolve themselves of any responsibility as they foolishly believe it would negate their wrongdoings
boastful at the suggestion - stage directions connote the idea that she feels she has won a battle - blatantly disregards the loss of innocent life and is only enthused that her pristine reputation won’t be compromised
on the surface, the metaphorical battle may be between her and the inspector who she deems “a trifle impertinent” in his behaviour. she quicly percieved him as a threat to her and quickly became defensive against him setting up this dynamic
alternatively it could be a more microcosmic representation of the opposing socialist forces trying to change the capitalist society and the classist older generation’s rejection of it
unfair distribution of power
is she most to blame? ACT 3
as Mrs Birling’s charity organisation was eva smith’s last resort, this might suggest it was her responsibility
however the discretion must be made between her and the other perpetrators of eva’s demise
she was not complicit in eva’s despair and merely failed to help
rather than portraying her as actovely malicious, it seems priestley uses Mrs Birling as a tool to comment on the strongly distorted beliefs and perspectives of the upper class
she is no more than a marionette of her own class, thus she could be considered absolved somewhat of responsibilty.
through being born into an upper class family, she would have internalised those values, unknowingly stripping herself of any autonomy
priestley might be trying to convey that her upholding of capitalist ideas is a result of her victimisation to it
she explains that “the girl had begun by telling us a pack of lies” which is an arguable logical and valid reason to deny eva help
unfortunately, this put what the audience come to know as a moral individual in a desperate situation in a moral predicament. she refused eric’s stolen money and so turned to legitimate sources of help with hope. these legitimate sources of aid turned against her like they did for many destitue women of the time.
this also serves to highlight the flaws that were present with the lack of a welfare state and system in 1912
she is a mouthpiece for preistley to express the necessity for this welfare system as charity oorganisations are rife with too much prejudice to be able to provide care
Note 
Flashcard (103)