Studied by 0 people
personification of capitalism
Analysis
Context
Intentions
depicted as a “heavy looking rather portnetous man in his middle fifties” ACT 1
microcosmic of the older generation
“heavy looking” - his physical frame is synonymous with affluence and indulgence in luxury
shows very clearly that he has way more than needed
to priestley’s contemporary audience, this portrayal would have held weight as they were a generation emerging from a period of war and were accustomed to meagre food rations
his heaviness is deeply metaphorical as it is alsso a physical assertation of the solidity of his status whilst also standing to represent his hedonistic and undiciplined tendencies
displays a “portentous” attitude ( tries hard to impress) which is used to expose his superficiality and the superficiality of capitalists
birling is desperate to assert and justify his status as this is all he can see value in
priestley introduces capitalism as an ostentatious (pretentious , showy) affair in order to satirise it
Birling operates within a realm of this ostentatious capitalism as his house is “substantial and heavily comfortable but not cosy or homelike” ACT 1
the unorthodox phrase “heavily comfortable” os almost an oxymoron to present the pseudo- luxury of the social elite as a facade
“comfortable” - image of luxury and indulgence - financial comfort
“heavy” connotes exhaustion and intensity/tension which subverts the ususal expectations of what a “home” is
lack of emotional connection with it - not cosy
despite all the things they have, they are not well adjusted
the focus on class and etiquette prevents a sense of togetherness
“heavy” - adjective captures the misery that ensues from the act of relentlessly upholding an overt radiation of wealth
Birling’s lower class roots means his high class lifestyle can ever seem homelike
Birling compensates for his “provincial” speech and unrefined etiquette, through his “substantial” house as a clear indicator of his high social status. This desire to ensure his
status as belonging to the upper echelons of society (higher status) is derived from his
initial social inferiority, before he started his business.
this leads the reader to pity the cosmetic nature of Mr Birling’s wealth as well as the way in which his pursuit of high status seemingly encompasses all of his being
“hard headed practical man of business” ACT
embodies capitalist views which are made extremely prominent through his manner of speech.
Birling is used as a construct to discredit capitalism through political allusions which his contemporary audience would understand
Sir Stanley Baldwin, a prime minister, accused "hard faced men of profiting off the war as they were the business owners who supplied the products needed most during this time and made sure to maximise their profits from doing this by exploitation
Mr Birling stands to represent these affluent businessmen who callously took advantage of the suffering of war for financial gain
“hard headed” has connotations of sensibility and determination - admirable qualitites of capitalist success - arrogantly portrays himself as an exemplary man although in the process leading to a dismissal of emotion - the capitalist way to success
also, "hard headed" could also refer to his static mindset and foreshadow that he will not undergo a significant change.
alternatively this could suggest some introspection, however due to his complete disregard for the wellbeing of anyone else, this merely serves to further exemplify and convey to his audience his self interest at the expense of his workers
the effect of plosive sounds is a harsh and forced confidence.
through this, priestley illuminates the flaws in those middle class capitalists for which Mr Birling is a microcosm for
superiority complex and stupidity - unreliable capitalism
Analysis
Context
Intentions
“unsinkable, absolutely unsinkable”
“there isn’t a chance of war” ACT 1
superiority complex furthered through his dominating presence in the one sided conversations he has
in his first speech claims titanic is
the continuous use of modal verbs that communicate certainty shows his overconfidence
here, he asserts his opinion as “absolute” fact as though he believes he is omniscient
each one of his claims were disproven
dramatic irony of this amplifies his stupidity
as birling represents the capitalists of this period, his comments have the effect of evoking an impression of unreliability surrounding capitalism
therefore a lack of trust in it -
gives the opportunity for priestley to uphold a socialst message and for it to be well recieved by the audience.
fragile and unacquainted with aristocratic life
Priestley makes sure to highlight how Mr Birling is “rather provincial in his speech” ACT 1
meaning his voice is tainted by a regional accent, indicative of the newely emergent middle class who often had a working class background. the rise of ndustrialisation allowed for social mobility for many manufacturers like Birling.
this method of determining social status was a superficial trope widely stuck to in 1912 Britiain
as it is hard to change his accent, he feels the need to copensate by showing class through “easy manners”
“good solid furniture of the period” - impression of quality + specific tablware such as “dessert plates” “champagne glasses” “decanter of port” - modifying adjectives - specific purpose - items of unreasonable luxury - markers of status
portrayed as somewhat unrefined as he carries this emblem of his lowerclass roots, despite his attemps to assert himself with a luxurious lifestyle
his voice acts as a barrier between him, a member of the Noveau riche (ppl who acquired their own money rather than being born into wealth) and the likes of gerald, an aristocrat
his relentless desire to uphold an appearance of wealth stems from the constant threat of classism and he has consequently built up his self worth on his abundance of material goods and a polished reputation which affirm his wealth and social standing.
priestley ridicules birling’s attempts at this to highlight the foolish pretence of the capitalist ideology
“port” is used as a metonym for wealth
Birling reveals he has embarked on a rather sycophantic (using flattery to favour individuals) investigation to copy Gerald’s taste in port with the announcement that “finchley told me its exatly the same port your father gets from him” ACT 1
as affluence is only navigated through these meaningless objects and symbols, priestley exposes how hollow it is
he also presents mr birling as obsessive in his attempts to assert his status which likely come from a place of insecurity
he is also guilty of social indiscretions.
he wants to complement the chef on the food yet he is scolded by his wife who reminds him “you’re not supposed to say such things” ACT 1
this social faux pas reveals that despite his attenpts, this status does not come naturally and is ultimately a facade due to the barriers limiting social mobility in 1912 - he would never truly be upper class
birling’s character is to be condemned and looked down upon by upper class men from respected families due to his lack of a noble background
social divisions existed even in the higher classes in which birling would be categorised as an impooster
priestley uses the character of mr birling not only as a method to critique capitalism to also reveal the cycle of oppression caused by the seocial divisions and classism and also to portray capialism as a wholly negative force
capitalism caused birling’s perpetual insecurity in his social position which is clearly exhausting to uphold as well as damaging to both his family and also society - attains validation of his superiority in an almost sadistic manner (pleasure in inflicting pain), through denying pay rises and maintaining poor working conditions and hours - essentially exercising complete control over these lower-class women.
The excessively self-centred nature of Mr Birling isdriven by his determination to uphold an appearance of affluence - ultimately and inevitably at the expense of his employees, causing the firing of Eva Smith.
Priestley focuses on the insecurities of Mr Birling
and the middle-class, as this is necessary to establish a connection with the middle-classcontemporary audience, through exploiting the genuine insecurities they faced.
attempt to disguise his vulnerability + assert power
Analysis
Context
Intentions
“as if we were all mixed up together like bees in a hive - community and all that nonsense” ACT 1
use of this simile acts as a form of belittlement as he is comparing the ideology he doesn’t agree with - socialism and those that enforce it to “bees”, effectively zoomorphising them
conveys that birling views socialists as insect like; being unintelligent and spreading as like an infestation
as “bees” are recognisable for their stingers, the comparison could suggest that Birling sees them as a threat
to counteract this insecurity, Birling dismisses their view as “nonsense” in order to assert superiority
contrastingly, the concept of bees in a hive relates to the hierarchal social class structure which encourages exploitation to thrive through the mistreatment of those lowest in the hierarchy by those above
the worker “bees” of the “hive” allude to the working class as both are expendable.
the dangers faced by worker “bees” show similarities to the treatment of the working class in factories where they sufferent dehumanisation and the risk of injury due to lax safety regulations at the time
“mixed together” emphasises the proximity of the “bees” in the hive
as Birling derives his dominance from his social standing, he expresses the need to be distinct from the working class.
ironically his wife is his “social superior” and so higher class than him. this further exemplifies his capitalist greed to have access to this elite world. Birling does not want to recognise himself as just another “bee” as this would consequently force him to accept the other “bees” as fellow people he could not exploit.
denial would be even more ridiculous to post war audience who know that anyone could face threats, regardless of social standing
additionally, the threat that mr Birling knows he faces is illuminated by his dislike of being “together” with the other “bees” as the direct association with the exploitation is scandalous and carries the potential to ruin his reputation
aims to distance himself from it as futher reinforced by his decision to live in a “suburban house”
misogynistic to assert his power
Analysis
Context
Intentions
“is there any reason why my wife should answer questions from you, Inspector” - ACT 2
misogyny to establish his role as head of the household. attempts to speak on behalf of Mrs Birling and Sheila, becoming emblematic of the patriarchy
interrogates the inspector
possessive pronoun ‘my’ is a means of him establishing control to elevate himself
marriage in 1912 Britain was a means of achieving social mobility, it as percieved as a transcation. Birling taing ownership of his wife in this moment may be a metaphor for him grasping onto his status and value within society, which is currently under threat.
the use of a rhetorical question paints Birling as patronising, he is in a power struggle with the inspector and he immediately resorts to aggression and disrespect to win the social battle, painting him as undeserving of respect.
as priestley has previously portrayed him as ignorant and oblivious (through refrences such as describing the titanic as “unsinksble” a key moment of dramatic irony to ridicule his idiocy), the audience condemns Mr Birling’s arrogance.
he also critiques the inspector at every opportunity, almost searching for his flaws and mistakes, he complains “a young unmarried girl [sheila] is being dragged into this”
preoccupied with reputation
“if this comes out at the inquest, it isn’t going to do us much good. the press might easily take it up-” ACT 2
act 2 is an opportunity for the other characters to start contemplating feelings of remorse, yet we see none of this with mr birling
as a member of the older generation, birling exhibits a high external locus, meaning he percieves his behaviours as a result of external influences - not the fault of his own. he “dubiously” tells his wife
we see him subtly reprimanding his wife for her negligence of Eva which not only expresses his hypocrisy but also demonstrates him desperately attempting to expel the blame and responsibility onto others
the “dubious” mention of “the press” is more revealing in terms of his character. connotations of shyness and uncertainty which juxtaposes his former confident and extroverted self. birling’s anxiety at the mention of the press stems from a fear of his reputation being compromised. it not all motivated by guilt or pity towards eva
moment of dramatic irony intended to evoke a bitter excitement that birling, a disagressable character is due a dire fortune, as the audience knows that birling’s knighthood is at stake. priestley is perhaps explorinig how every fibre of Mr birling’s being is superficial - the only thing that can elicit an emotional response from him is another frivolous trope of wealth, yet he remains uphased by the concept of death or suicide
sheila as a transaction
Analysis
Context
Intentions
his artificial care for his daughter is ironic as we know he exploits sheila for social and financial gain through marriage. he views her only function as his daughter is to marry an affluent man thus he is sure to mention her arital status even though it is not relevant.
from this we see his hollowness: he doesn’t care that a young girl was subject to suicide so his apparent concern for sheila to be exposed to a police investigation is deceitful.
moreover, the adjective “unmarried” is used as an epithet of weakness which emulates male arrogance, suggesting a woman ‘needs’ marriage as a form of safety.
the lack of familial dynamic between Mr Birling and his fdaughter serves to exacerbate the divide between the older and younger generation.
ultimately, priestley highlights how the individualistic notions of caitalism compromise having meaningful relationships as mr birling fails to compassion to anyone, even his wife and daughter.
another example you could consider is his exclamatory question “what’s the matter with that child?” - transitions of language - shifting from the progressive pronoun “my” to the demonstative pronoun “that” metaphorically expells himself of the ownership over sheila once she begins demonstrating socialist ideology. perhaps this is a critique of how political views were valued over familial compassion.
Inspector as a foil to mr birling
Analysis
Context
Intentions
“we are members of one body. we are responsible for each other” ACT 3 (inspector)
as an advocate of collectiveism and social responsibility, the inspector is used in Act 3 to dismantle the ruthless individualism endorsed by mr B. the inspector crystalises his socialist beliefs within the phrase
the anaphora of the collective pronoun “we” directly contrasts Mr Birling’s egocentric view
this concept of collectivism is dismissed by Mr Birling in Act 1 through the simile “like bees in a hive” in which Mr Birling zoomorphises socialism to portray it as absurd and foreign.
this is where the role of the inspector becomes apparent; he educates his audience that socialism is in fact humane, perhaps why the metaphor of a “body” is used to juxtapose Mr Birling’s previous animalistic simile
the inspector is used to hold a mirror up to the flaws in Mr Birling’s beliefs
designed to be condemned
Analysis
Context
Intentions
“Now look at the pair of them. the famous younger generation who know it all. and they can’t even take a joke-” ACT 3
birling’s final words of the play were intented to riducule his children
not only is his callousness apparent through his acerbic tone, but his apathy also resonates through his belief that the notion of suicide, and the revalation of all the ways they have exploited the working class, could be considered a “joke”
this phrase is also laced with irony as mr birling is the only character who claimed to “know it all” with his mentions of the “titanic” and “silly little war scares”. priestley deliberately set the play in 1912 to fragmentise this “know it all” ignorance of the older generation.
to an extent, by identifying them as the “younger generation”, priestley groups sheila and eric with his own audience, intending for them to be riled by Mr Birling’s ignorant sarcasm and also to encourage his audience to reject the capitalist views of their parents.
it is important to note here that mr birling is interrupted by the telephone much like he was interrupted by the inspector at the start. perhaps priestley chose the form of a play to communicate his allegorical diatribe so he can visually portray mr birling’s beliefs as the archetype of the capitalist older generation as inimportant. he enforces a pensive “mement of silence” to amplify the dramatic effect of the phone call.
denying responsibility
Analysis
Context
Intentions
“that fellow obviously didn’t like us. he was prejudiced from the start, probabily a socialist or some sort of crank - he talked like one” - ACT 3
the complex sentence is used as an act of deceit to make himself come across as more informed and reliable than he truly is
adverb “obviously” shows his arrogance and ignorance. he turns rather defensive and aggressive at the prospect of someone threatening his respectability, which may again stem from a place of insecurity
his inability to display any kind of remorse is reflective of the stubbornness of the older generations - he doesn’t allow there to be any question of him being responsible
Note 
Flashcard (52)