inspector calls

Mr Birling THESIS (1)

Through the character of Mr Birling, Priestley presents a potent critique of the self serving capitalist ethos prevalent in early 20th century Britain, exposing its inherent opposition to social responsibility and its detrimental impact on both the working class and familial relationships.

Mr Birling THESIS (2)

Birling’s unwavering commitment to profit and social status blinds him to the interconnectedness of society and the emotional needs of his own family, rendering him as a symbol of the callous individualism Priestley vehemently opposes.

Mr Birling THESIS (3)

Ultimately, Birling serves as a cautionary figure, embodying the outdated and morally bankrupt values that Priestley urges his audience to reject in favour of a more compassionate and socially conscious future.

Mr Birling vs Inspector: Social Responsibility - Corporate Social Responsibility (Birling) (1)

Mr. Birling embodies a capitalist ideology fundamentally opposed to corporate social responsibility, a concept powerfully championed by and personified within, the Inspector, who is constructed as the embodiment of social conscience and the very principle of corporate social responsibility that Birling so readily dismisses. Birling’s dismissive assertion regarding community, "as if we were all mixed up together like bees in a hive - community and all that nonsense," immediately reveals his individualistic and exploitative stance. The simile, comparing community to "bees in a hive," utilizes zoomorphism to belittle socialist ideals, portraying them as unnatural and chaotic.

Mr Birling vs Inspector: Social Responsibility - Corporate Social Responsibility (Birling) (2)

The idiomatic noun "nonsense" further underscores Birling’s arrogant dismissal of any social model that prioritizes collective well-being over profit. Priestley uses Birling here as a microcosm for the archetypal capitalist employer of the early 20th century, whose prosperity was often directly built upon the exploitation of the lower classes, symbolized by Eva Smith.

Mr Birling vs Inspector: Social Responsibility - Corporate Social Responsibility (Birling) (3)

Birling embodies this self-serving approach, viewing his workers as mere "labour costs" to be minimized, as he states, "It's my duty to keep labour costs down." The noun "duty" is employed ironically, highlighting his warped sense of obligation which prioritizes profit over the human cost.

Mr Birling vs Inspector: Social Responsibility - Corporate Social Responsibility (Birling) (Alternative view) (1)

Alternatively, one could interpret Birling’s staunch individualism not merely as a rejection of corporate social responsibility, but as a sincere, albeit misguided, belief in the efficacy of free-market capitalism.

Mr Birling vs Inspector: Social Responsibility - Corporate Social Responsibility (Birling) (Alternative view) (2)

From this perspective, his focus on "labour costs" and profit maximization might be seen as his way of contributing to the overall economic prosperity of society, with the belief that a thriving business ultimately benefits everyone through job creation and wealth generation.

Mr Birling vs Inspector: Social Responsibility - Corporate Social Responsibility (Birling) (Alternative view) (3)

The noun "duty," while seemingly ironic, could be argued as representing his genuine commitment to this economic model, where his primary responsibility lies in ensuring the success and longevity of his business within a competitive market.

Mr Birling vs Inspector: Social Responsibility - Corporate Social Responsibility (Birling) (Alternative view) (4)

This interpretation suggests that Birling’s resistance to the Inspector’s collectivist ideals stems from a deeply ingrained faith in a different, arguably outdated, model of societal contribution, rather than outright malice.

Mr Birling: Class and Politics - Social Stratification (Birling) (1)

Mr. Birling’s interactions with Edna, the family’s maid, starkly illustrate the entrenched social stratification of 1912, a system where status and power were rigidly determined by wealth and birth. Birling’s instruction, "Give us the port, Edna. That’s right," directed dismissively towards his social equals while including Edna as a mere functionary, immediately establishes his ingrained sense of superiority.

Mr Birling: Class and Politics - Social Stratification (Birling) (2)

The imperative "Give us" highlights his expectation of immediate service, while the detached affirmation "That’s right," following Edna’s compliance, underscores her role as an obedient subordinate whose actions require his validation. Birling embodies the patriarchal head of a prosperous household, secure in his upper-middle-class status and the privileges it affords him, including the readily available service of those in lower social echelons.

Mr Birling: Class and Politics - Social Stratification (Birling) (3)

Edna, in her largely silent presence, symbolizes the invisible foundation upon which the Birlings’ comfortable existence is built, a constant reminder of the hierarchical structure that dictates their interactions. Her lack of individual voice within the play underscores the power imbalance inherent in this social stratification.

Mr Birling: Class and Politics - Social Stratification (Birling) (4)

Birling’s concern with avoiding "public scandal" further highlights his awareness of maintaining his position within this hierarchy; the noun "scandal" implies a threat to his social standing, revealing his investment in upholding the class distinctions that benefit him. He embodies the dominant class whose primary concern is the preservation of their elevated status.

Mr Birling: Class and Politics - Social Stratification (Edna) (1)

In contrast, Edna embodies the working class, largely unseen and unheard, whose labor sustains the lifestyle of the Birlings. Her minimal dialogue and functional presence on stage highlight her lack of agency and the limited opportunities afforded to those in her social position.

Mr Birling: Class and Politics - Social Stratification (Edna) (2)

She symbolizes the vast majority of the population whose contributions were essential yet often unacknowledged by the ruling classes.

Mr Birling: Class and Politics - Social Stratification (Edna) (3)

The power dynamic between Birling and Edna exemplifies the inherent inequality of social stratification, where one class exerts authority and the other is expected to comply without question.

Mr Birling: Class and Politics - Social Stratification (Alternative View) (1)

Alternatively, one could argue that Birling’s seemingly dismissive interactions with Edna are not necessarily malicious but rather a product of the deeply ingrained social norms of the time. His curtness might be interpreted as a reflection of the accepted distance between employer and domestic staff, a social code that dictated formal, rather than personal, interactions.

Mr Birling: Class and Politics - Social Stratification (Alternative View) (2)

From this perspective, "Give us the port, Edna. That’s right," could be seen as a simple, efficient instruction within the established social framework, rather than a deliberate act of dehumanization. Birling, in this view, embodies the typical behaviour of a man of his class and era, acting within the confines of a social system he inherited and likely never questioned.

Mr Birling: Class and Politics - Social Stratification (Alternative View) (3)

The lack of direct address to Edna beyond the functional request might simply reflect the customary social distance maintained between different strata of society at the time.

Mr Birling vs Eric: Younger/Older Generation - Affluent neglect (Birling) (1)

The fractured relationship between Mr. Birling and his son, Eric, poignantly illustrates the concept of affluent neglect, where material comfort masks a significant lack of parental engagement and emotional support, impacting both father and son. Birling embodies a father figure whose preoccupation with business and social standing has seemingly blinded him to the emotional needs of his own son.

Mr Birling vs Eric: Younger/Older Generation - Affluent neglect (Birling) (2)

In contrast, Eric embodies the emotional vulnerability that can exist even within affluence, and his character reveals the potential consequences of such paternal detachment. Birling’s exasperated query regarding Eric’s behavior, "What’s the matter with that child?" delivered with irritation and a sense of detachment, encapsulates his superficial engagement with Eric’s struggles.

Mr Birling vs Eric: Younger/Older Generation - Affluent neglect (Birling) (3)

The use of "that child" rather than addressing Eric directly highlights Birling's emotional distance and his tendency to objectify his son, viewing him as a problem rather than an individual in need of support. He symbolizes a parent who prioritizes external appearances over internal well-being. Additionally, even when confronted with Eric’s confession regarding the stolen money, Birling’s primary concern remains the financial and reputational damage:

Mr Birling vs Eric: Younger/Older Generation - Affluent neglect (Birling) (4)

"You're the one I blame for this." The accusatory pronoun "you" immediately deflects responsibility and prioritizes his own standing over Eric’s moral culpability or well-being, further widening the emotional chasm between father and son. Eric, therefore, embodies the neglected child of affluence, yearning for genuine connection in a family focused on material success.

Mr Birling vs Eric: Younger/Older Generation - Affluent neglect (Alternative View) (1)

Alternatively, one could argue that Birling’s seemingly harsh reactions to Eric stem from a traditional, perhaps outdated, view of paternal responsibility and discipline. His focus on financial accountability and his dismissal of Eric as "spoilt" might be interpreted as his attempt to instil responsibility in his son, albeit in a clumsy and emotionally distant manner.

Mr Birling vs Eric: Younger/Older Generation - Affluent neglect (Alternative View) (2)

From this perspective, his question, "What’s the matter with that child?" while lacking warmth, could be seen as an attempt to elicit a straightforward explanation and impose a solution based on his understanding of right and wrong. Birling, in this view, embodies a father figure operating within the norms of a more emotionally reserved era, where direct reprimand and emphasis on financial prudence were considered key aspects of raising a son, even if it lacked the emotional nuance we might expect today.

Mr Birling vs Eric: Younger/Older Generation - Affluent neglect (Alternative View) (3)

Conversely, Eric's actions could be viewed not solely as a consequence of neglect, but also as a manifestation of youthful rebellion against the rigid expectations and emotional constraints of his privileged upbringing.

Mr Birling CONCLUSION (1)

In essence, Mr. Birling symbolizes the entrenched and damaging ideology of profit-driven individualism that Priestley argues must be dismantled to foster a more humane society

Mr Birling CONCLUSION (2)

His consistent dismissal of collective responsibility, his exploitative treatment of the working class exemplified by Eva Smith, his rigid adherence to social hierarchies demonstrated in his interactions with Edna, and his emotionally detached relationship with Eric collectively paint a portrait of a man deeply invested in a system that prioritizes personal gain over communal well-being.

Mr Birling CONCLUSION (3)

Consequently, Birling stands as a stark representation of the pre-war social order that Priestley implores his audience to learn from and move beyond. Through this flawed and ultimately unrepentant character, Priestley delivers a powerful message advocating for empathy, social responsibility, and a fundamental shift away from the selfish tenets embodied by Mr. Birling

Mrs Birling THESIS (1)

through the character of Mrs Birling, Priestley exposes the ingrained class prejudice and moral hypocrisy prevalent within the Edwardian upper class, revealing a women whose public persona of social responsibility masks a private adherence to rigid social hierarches and a callous disregard for the working class, particularly working class women like Eva Smith

Mrs Birling THESIS (2)

Mrs Birling’s inability to acknowledge her ole in Eva’s tragic fate, coupled with her dismissive treatment of those she deems socially inferior underscores the systematic inequalities and moral blindness that perpetuate social injustice

Mrs Birling THESIS (3)

ultimately, Mrs Birling serves as a potent symbol of the older generation’s resistance to change and their complicity in maintain a social order built upon exploitation

Mrs Birling: Social Responsibility - Intersectional Feminism (1)

Mrs. Birling embodies a privileged indifference to the plight of working-class women, a stark contrast to the vulnerable position of Eva Smith, highlighting the intersecting inequalities of gender and class that underpin the play. In direct contrast, Eva Smith embodies the tragic consequences of intersecting social inequalities, highlighting the specific vulnerabilities faced by working-class women in Edwardian society.

Mrs Birling: Social Responsibility - Intersectional Feminism (2)

Mrs. Birling’s dismissive pronouncement regarding Eva’s pregnancy, "She came to you for help, at a time when she was in trouble," reveals a detached acknowledgment of Eva’s desperation without any genuine empathy. The phrase "in trouble" is a euphemism that downplays the severity of Eva’s situation as an unmarried, pregnant woman in a socially unforgiving era, a vulnerability compounded by her working-class status.

Mrs Birling: Social Responsibility - Intersectional Feminism (3)

Mrs. Birling embodies the societal blindness of affluent women who fail to recognize the precarious position of those less fortunate, particularly when compounded by gender expectations.. Her initial refusal of stolen money, implied in Mrs. Birling’s incredulous tone, reveals a moral integrity that transcends her class, challenging the prejudiced assumptions of the upper classes.

Mrs Birling: Social Responsibility - Intersectional Feminism (4)

Her subsequent assertion, "As if a girl of that sort would ever refuse money!" exposes her class prejudice, assuming an excessively greedy and desperate nature among working-class women, entirely disregarding individual circumstances and the desperation that might lead someone to refuse tainted money. The phrase "that sort" dehumanizes Eva, reducing her to a stereotype based on her class, thus ignoring the complexities of her individual moral compass.

Mrs Birling: Social Responsibility - Intersectional Feminism (5)

Mrs. Birling, therefore, symbolizes the comfortable ignorance of upper-class women who fail to acknowledge the intersecting oppressions faced by those like Eva Smith.

Mrs Birling: Social Responsibility (Intersectional Feminism) (Alternative View) (1)

Alternatively, one might argue that Mrs. Birling’s judgment of Eva Smith, while harsh, stems from a rigid adherence to the social and moral codes of her time. Her scepticism towards Eva’s motives and her insistence on personal responsibility could be seen as a reflection of the prevailing societal expectations placed on women, regardless of their class.

Mrs Birling: Social Responsibility (Intersectional Feminism) (Alternative View) (2)

From this perspective, Mrs. Birling’s pronouncements, such as "As if a girl of that sort would ever refuse money!," might not solely be rooted in class prejudice but also in a belief in universal moral standards and a suspicion of those who deviate from them.

Mrs Birling: Social Responsibility (Intersectional Feminism) (Alternative View) (3)

This interpretation suggests that Mrs. Birling operates within a framework of strict social and gendered expectations, which, while ultimately contributing to Eva’s demise, were widely accepted within her social milieu.

Mrs Birling: Social Responsibility (Intersectional Feminism) (Alternative View) (4)

Conversely, Eva’s actions could be viewed not solely as a consequence of societal oppression but also as a series of choices, however limited, within the constraints of her circumstances.

Mrs Birling vs Sheila: Younger/Older Generation - Generational Conflict (Mrs Birling) (1)

The burgeoning conflict between Mrs. Birling and Sheila serves as a microcosm for the wider generational schism Priestley explores, revealing fundamentally different attitudes towards social responsibility and the established social order.

Mrs Birling vs Sheila: Younger/Older Generation - Generational Conflict (Mrs Birling) (2)

Mrs. Birling, embodying the deeply ingrained conservatism of the older generation, struggles to comprehend Sheila’s burgeoning empathy. Her sharp, almost incredulous query, "What business is it of yours?" directed at Sheila’s compassionate questioning about Eva Smith, underscores her belief in maintaining strict social boundaries.

Mrs Birling vs Sheila: Younger/Older Generation - Generational Conflict (Mrs Birling) (3)

The possessive pronoun "yours" not only dismisses Sheila’s concern as irrelevant but also subtly reinforces the patriarchal notion that a young woman should not concern herself with matters deemed outside her social sphere.

Mrs Birling vs Sheila: Younger/Older Generation - Generational Conflict (Mrs Birling) (4)

Mrs. Birling symbolizes an older generation whose identity and social standing are inextricably linked to the rigid class hierarchy of Edwardian England, a hierarchy they see as natural and immutable. Her resistance to acknowledging any collective responsibility stems from a fear of disrupting this established order.

Mrs Birling vs Sheila: Younger/Older Generation - Generational Conflict (Alternative View) (1)

Alternatively, one might delve deeper into the psychological underpinnings of Mrs. Birling’s resistance. Her adherence to social conventions and her dismissal of Sheila’s concerns could be interpreted as a defence mechanism, a way to maintain her own sense of security and superiority within a rapidly changing social landscape.

Mrs Birling vs Sheila: Younger/Older Generation - Generational Conflict (Alternative View) (2)

Her generation had benefited from the existing hierarchy, and acknowledging its flaws might threaten her own identity and privilege. In contrast, Sheila’s burgeoning empathy could be seen as a characteristic of youth, less burdened by the ingrained prejudices of the past and more open to ideals of social justice.

Mrs Birling vs Sheila: Younger/Older Generation - Generational Conflict (Alternative View) (3)

However, this idealism might also be viewed as naïve by the older generation, lacking the “practicality” they associate with experience and the need to maintain social stability. The generational conflict, therefore, becomes a complex interplay of ingrained beliefs, social anxieties, and the idealism of youth encountering the pragmatism (or perceived inflexibility) of age.

Mrs Birling: Class and Politics - Dual Self (1)

Mrs. Birling’s character powerfully embodies the concept of the dual self, revealing a significant psychological split between her carefully constructed public identity as a respectable member of the upper class and her prejudiced private behavior and beliefs regarding those of a lower social standing. In public, particularly as the chairwoman of the Women's Charity Organisation, Mrs. Birling projects an image of social responsibility and moral rectitude.

Mrs Birling: Class and Politics - Dual Self (2)

However, her private interrogation of Eva Smith reveals a starkly contrasting self, one characterized by cold judgment and a rigid adherence to class distinctions. Her pronouncement, "I used my influence to have it refused," regarding Eva’s plea for help, exposes the ruthless exercise of her class power, a behaviour entirely at odds with the supposed charitable aims of her public role.

Mrs Birling: Class and Politics - Dual Self (3)

The noun "influence" highlights the insidious way in which social standing can be weaponized against the vulnerable, revealing a private self that prioritizes the maintenance of class boundaries over compassion. This duality is further evident in her condescending dismissal of Eva as "a girl of that sort," a dehumanizing generalization that she would likely never utter in a public setting.

Mrs Birling: Class and Politics - Dual Self (4)

The phrase "that sort" encapsulates her private prejudice, reducing Eva to a stereotype based on her class, a stark contrast to the benevolent facade she presents in her public life. Mrs. Birling, therefore, embodies the hypocrisy inherent in a social system that allows the privileged to maintain a respectable public image while privately perpetuating class inequalities.

Mrs Birling: Class and Politics - Dual Self (Alternative View) (1)

Alternatively, one could argue that Mrs. Birling’s behavior is not necessarily a conscious exercise in duplicity but rather a manifestation of deeply internalized social norms and beliefs prevalent within her class. Her public acts of charity, however limited or judgmental, might genuinely be seen by her as fulfilling her social duty, while her private prejudices are simply the accepted way of viewing the lower classes within her social circle.

Mrs Birling: Class and Politics - Dual Self (Alternative View) (2)

From this perspective, the split between her public and private self is not a deliberate deception but a reflection of the inherent contradictions within a social system that espoused charity while simultaneously upholding rigid class barriers. Her use of "influence" might be seen as her exercising what she genuinely believed to be her right and responsibility as a member of the upper class, and her dismissal of "a girl of that sort" could be interpreted as a reflection of the common class-based assumptions of her time, rather than a uniquely malicious personal trait.

Mrs Birling: Class and Politics - Dual Self (Alternative View) (3)

The concept of a "dual self" in this context might then be seen not as a deliberate psychological split, but as the embodiment of the inherent hypocrisy embedded within the social and political structures of the era.

Mrs Birling CONCLUSION (1)

In essence, Mrs. Birling’s public persona is carefully curated to uphold her social status and reinforce the existing class structure, while her private actions reveal a deep-seated prejudice that actively disadvantages those beneath her.

Mrs Birling CONCLUSION (2)

This duality allows her to navigate the social and political landscape of the time, maintaining her power and privilege without acknowledging the human cost of the class divisions she reinforces.

Eric THESIS (1)

Through the character of Eric, Priestley critiques the damaging effects of affluent neglect and the abuse of power inherent in Edwardian England’s rigid class and gender hierarchies

Eric THESIS (2)

Eric’s fractured relationship with her father, his exploitative treatment of Eva Smith and his struggles with toxic masculinity reveal the destructive consequences of emotional detachment, male entitlement and societal expectations that prioritize the needs of the privileged while marginalizing and disempowering the vulnerable

Eric THESIS (3)

Ultimately, Eric embodies both the potential for redemption and the deep-seated societal flaws and necessitate change.

Eric vs Mr Birling: Younger/Older Generation - Affluent Neglect (Eric) (1)

The fractured relationship between Mr. Birling and his son, Eric, poignantly illustrates the concept of affluent neglect, where material comfort masks a significant lack of parental engagement and emotional support, impacting both father and son. Birling embodies a father figure whose preoccupation with business and social standing has seemingly blinded him to the emotional needs of his own son.

Eric vs Mr Birling: Younger/Older Generation - Affluent Neglect (Eric) (2)

In contrast, Eric embodies the emotional vulnerability that can exist even within affluence, and his character reveals the potential consequences of such paternal detachment. His "excitable queer moods" and descent into drinking are symptomatic of an underlying emotional turmoil, a silent cry for attention and understanding that has seemingly gone unheeded by his preoccupied father.

Eric vs Mr Birling: Younger/Older Generation - Affluent Neglect (Eric) (3)

Eric symbolizes the younger generation within wealthy families who may experience a profound sense of emotional neglect despite material comfort, leading them to seek solace in destructive behaviours.

Eric vs Mr Birling: Younger/Older Generation - Affluent Neglect (Eric) (4)

Even when confronted with Eric’s confession regarding the stolen money, Birling’s primary concern remains the financial and reputational damage: "You're the one I blame for this." The accusatory pronoun "you" immediately deflects responsibility and prioritizes his own standing over Eric’s moral culpability or well-being, further widening the emotional chasm between father and son.

Eric vs Mr Birling: Younger/Older Generation - Affluent Neglect (Eric) (5)

Eric, therefore, embodies the neglected child of affluence, yearning for genuine connection in a family focused on material success.

Eric vs Mr Birling: Younger/Older Generation - Affluent Neglect (Eric) (Alternative View) (1)

Alternatively, one could argue that Birling’s seemingly harsh reactions to Eric stem from a traditional, perhaps outdated, view of paternal responsibility and discipline. His focus on financial accountability and his dismissal of Eric as "spoilt" might be interpreted as his attempt to instill responsibility in his son, albeit in a clumsy and emotionally distant manner.

Eric vs Mr Birling: Younger/Older Generation - Affluent Neglect (Eric) (Alternative View) (2)

From this perspective, his question, "What’s the matter with that child?" while lacking warmth, could be seen as an attempt to elicit a straightforward explanation and impose a solution based on his understanding of right and wrong. Birling, in this view, embodies a father figure operating within the norms of a more emotionally reserved era, where direct reprimand and emphasis on financial prudence were considered key aspects of raising a son, even if it lacked the emotional nuance we might expect today.

Eric vs Mr Birling: Younger/Older Generation - Affluent Neglect (Eric) (Alternative View) (3)

Conversely, Eric's actions could be viewed not solely as a consequence of neglect, but also as a manifestation of youthful rebellion against the rigid expectations and emotional constraints of his privileged upbringing.

Eric: Gender - Lack of Autonomy (1)

Eric Birling’s exploitative encounter with Eva Smith epitomizes a stark abuse of power rooted in the gender and class hierarchies of the time, significantly (depriving) Eva of her autonomy. His admission, "I insisted on her coming inside," though seemingly innocuous, reveals a coercive dynamic where Eric leverages his social and economic superiority to override Eva’s potential reluctance.

Eric: Gender - Lack of Autonomy (2)

The verb "insisted" carries a subtle yet potent implication of pressure and the silencing of Eva’s agency, highlighting how societal structures afforded men like Eric the perceived right to impose their will upon working-class women. This initial act sets the stage for a relationship built upon inequality, where Eva’s autonomy is immediately compromised by Eric’s entitled assertiveness.

Eric: Gender - Lack of Autonomy (3)

His subsequent confession, "I didn't even remember - that's the hellish thing," regarding the financial support he provided, underscores his casual disregard for Eva’s well-being and the precariousness of her situation. The adjective "hellish" points not only to his guilt but also to the devastating consequences of his thoughtless actions on Eva’s life, further eroding her control over her circumstances and forcing her into a position of dependence.

Eric: Gender - Lack of Autonomy (4)

Eric embodies the insidious entitlement fostered by a patriarchal and class-based society, where his actions, born from a sense of male prerogative, directly contribute to Eva’s increasing lack of agency and her ultimate vulnerability. He symbolizes the destructive intersection of male privilege and class dominance that strips individuals of their fundamental autonomy.

Eric: Gender - Lack of Autonomy (Alternative View) (1)

Alternatively, one could interpret Eric’s actions not solely as a deliberate act of exploitation but also as a manifestation of his own internal struggles and a misguided attempt to exert some form of control or intimacy. His “insistence” might stem from a sense of loneliness and a lack of genuine connection, albeit expressed in a harmful and entitled way.

Eric: Gender - Lack of Autonomy (Alternative View) (2)

However, this interpretation does not absolve him of responsibility for the impact of his actions on Eva’s autonomy. Similarly, while Eva is undoubtedly a victim of societal forces and Eric’s behavior, her decisions, such as seeking financial assistance from him, could be seen as attempts to regain some semblance of control within her constrained circumstances.

Eric: Gender - Lack of Autonomy (Alternative View) (3)

This perspective acknowledges the complexity of human interactions within unequal power dynamics, without diminishing the significant role Eric plays in undermining Eva’s autonomy.

Eric vs Gerald: Gender - Toxic Masculinity (Eric) (1)

Both Eric Birling and Gerald Croft, despite their shared upper-class background, embody different facets of toxic masculinity, revealing the damaging constraints imposed upon men by societal expectations of dominance and emotional suppression. Gerald, seemingly the more socially adept and conventionally masculine of the two, initially presents an image of control and competence. In contrast,

Eric vs Gerald: Gender - Toxic Masculinity (Eric) (2)

Eric embodies a more overtly troubled manifestation of toxic masculinity, characterized by an inability to articulate his emotions and a propensity for impulsive, often aggressive behavior, particularly when under the influence. His stammered explanation, "I was in that state when a chap easily turns nasty," attempts to excuse his forceful encounter with Eva, attributing his actions to a generalized male state rather than taking personal responsibility.

Eric vs Gerald: Gender - Toxic Masculinity (Eric) (3)

The phrase "easily turns nasty" suggests a societal normalization of male aggression, a dangerous aspect of toxic masculinity that absolves men of accountability for their harmful behaviour towards women. Eric’s reliance on alcohol and his emotional volatility can be interpreted as symptoms of a restrictive masculine code that discourages emotional expression, leaving him with unhealthy outlets for his internal struggles.

Eric vs Gerald: Gender - Toxic Masculinity (Eric) (4)

Both Eric and Gerald, therefore, illustrate the damaging spectrum of toxic masculinity, one through a veneer of controlled dominance and the other through emotional ineptitude and impulsive aggression, both ultimately contributing to the exploitation and disempowerment of women like Eva Smith.

Eric vs Gerald: Gender - Toxic Masculinity (Alternative View) (1)

Alternatively, one could argue that Gerald’s actions are more calculated and strategic, driven by a desire for social acceptance and the maintenance of his engagement to Sheila, while Eric’s behaviour stems from a genuine lack of maturity and self-control, exacerbated by his drinking.

Eric vs Gerald: Gender - Toxic Masculinity (Alternative View) (2)

Gerald’s attempt to rationalize his affair could be seen as a performance of expected masculine behaviour within his social circle, where discreet sexual encounters might have been tolerated as long as they didn't threaten social standing.

Eric vs Gerald: Gender - Toxic Masculinity (Alternative View) (3)

In contrast, Eric’s “nastiness” might be interpreted as a more visceral manifestation of his inner turmoil and a rebellion against the stifling expectations of upper-class masculinity. This perspective suggests that while both characters operate within a patriarchal framework, their individual motivations and the ways in which they embody toxic masculinity differ in their intent and execution.

Eric CONCLUSION (1)

In conclusion, Eric Birling's journey from a neglected and irresponsible young man to someone capable of acknowledging his culpability highlights the corrosive impact of affluent neglect and unchecked privilege.

Eric CONCLUSION (2)

His actions serve as a stark indictment of a society where wealth and status insulate individuals from the consequences of their behaviour, particularly concerning those with less power.

Eric CONCLUSION (3)

While Eric's initial behaviour reflects the destructive aspects of toxic masculinity and entitlement, his eventual remorse offers a glimmer of hope, suggesting the possibility of personal and societal transformation.

Sheila THESIS (1)

Sheila Birling of An Inspector Calls is defined by a compelling trajectory from an initial state of acquiescence to the patriarchal norms of Edwardian society to a fiercely articulated challenge against its inherent inequalities

Sheila THESIS (2)

her journey is marked by a growing awareness of social justice, fuelled by empathy for Eva Smith and a disillusionment with her parents entrenched conservatism, positioning her as a potent symbol of the younger generation’s potential to disrupt and ultimately dismantle the rigid social hierarchies of her time

Sheila vs Mrs Birling: Younger/Older Generation - Generational Conflict (Sheila) (1)

The burgeoning conflict between Mrs. Birling and Sheila serves as a microcosm for the wider generational schism and intersectional feminism Priestley explores, revealing fundamentally different attitudes towards social responsibility and the established social order.

Sheila vs Mrs Birling: Younger/Older Generation - Generational Conflict (Sheila) (2)

Mrs. Birling, embodying the deeply ingrained conservatism of the older generation, struggles to comprehend Sheila’s burgeoning empathy. Her sharp, almost incredulous query, "What business is it of yours?" directed at Sheila’s compassionate questioning about Eva Smith, underscores her belief in maintaining strict social boundaries.

Sheila vs Mrs Birling: Younger/Older Generation - Generational Conflict (Sheila) (3)

Conversely, Sheila’s impassioned response, "But these girls aren't cheap labour - they're people," marks a decisive break from her mother’s entrenched worldview. The declarative statement, employing the emphatic plural noun "people," signifies a profound moral awakening and a rejection of the dehumanizing language prevalent within the capitalist system her parents uphold. Sheila embodies the nascent social conscience of the younger generation, increasingly attuned to issues of social injustice and inequality. Her use of "people" elevates the working class beyond their economic function, recognizing their inherent dignity and challenging the prevailing societal tendency to view them as a faceless workforce.

Sheila vs Mrs Birling: Younger/Older Generation - Generational Conflict (Sheila) (4)

This generational divide is further emphasized by Sheila’s willingness to accept personal responsibility, contrasting sharply with her mother’s obstinate denial. Sheila’s moral evolution, spurred by the Inspector’s revelations, positions her as a symbol of hope for social progress, representing a generation willing to dismantle the outdated social structures that the older generation, like Mrs. Birling, tenaciously defend. The conflict between them is not merely a familial disagreement but a representation of the broader societal tension between clinging to established, unequal systems and embracing a more compassionate, egalitarian future.

Sheila vs Mrs Birling: Younger/Older Generation - Generational Conflict (Alternative View) (1)

Alternatively, one might delve deeper into the psychological underpinnings of Mrs. Birling’s resistance. Her adherence to social conventions and her dismissal of Sheila’s concerns could be interpreted as a defence mechanism, a way to maintain her own sense of security and superiority within a rapidly changing social landscape. Her generation had benefited from the existing hierarchy, and acknowledging its flaws might threaten her own identity and privilege.

Sheila vs Mrs Birling: Younger/Older Generation - Generational Conflict (Alternative View) (2)

In contrast, Sheila’s burgeoning empathy could be seen as a characteristic of youth, less burdened by the ingrained prejudices of the past and more open to ideals of social justice. However, this idealism might also be viewed as naïve by the older generation, lacking the “practicality” they associate with experience and the need to maintain social stability.

Sheila vs Mrs Birling: Younger/Older Generation - Generational Conflict (Alternative View) (3)

The generational conflict, therefore, becomes a complex interplay of ingrained beliefs, social anxieties, and the idealism of youth encountering the pragmatism (or perceived inflexibility) of age.

Sheila vs Gerald: Gender - Lack of Autonomy (Sheila) (1)

Furthermore, Sheila’s initial presentation vividly illustrates a profound lack of autonomy, deeply rooted in the patriarchal conditioning of the time. Her anxious question regarding the engagement ring, "Is it the one you wanted me to have?," starkly reveals her internalized prioritization of Gerald’s desires over her own. The possessive pronoun "you" highlights her conditioned reliance on male approval for validation, effectively subordinating her own preferences and desires.

Sheila vs Gerald: Gender - Lack of Autonomy (Sheila) (2)

This ingrained behavior underscores how women of her era were systematically socialized to find their identity and worth through their relationships with men, severely limiting their capacity for independent thought and action. Sheila embodies the societal expectation that women should be agreeable and deferential to male authority, a conditioning that actively stifled their autonomy and self-determination.

Sheila vs Gerald: Gender - Lack of Autonomy (Sheila) (3)

This lack of autonomy reflected the early 20th century context where women had limited legal and economic independence, their roles largely confined to the domestic sphere. Priestley, writing later, critiques these Edwardian values through Sheila's initial dependence, highlighting the restrictive impact of patriarchal structures on female agency, a theme that resonated with post-war shifts in societal expectations for women.

Sheila vs Gerald: Gender - Lack of Autonomy (Gerald) (1)

Gerald Croft, while seemingly empowered by his gender and social standing within the Edwardian societal structure, also experiences a significant lack of complete autonomy, albeit in ways distinct from Sheila’s more overt constraints. His adherence to the rigid expectations of upper-class masculinity dictates a performance of stoicism and control, limiting his emotional range and compelling him to suppress any vulnerability.

Sheila vs Gerald: Gender - Lack of Autonomy (Gerald) (2)

His engagement to Sheila, while seemingly a choice, is also framed within the societal imperative for men of his status to secure advantageous marriages, suggesting a degree of obligation rather than pure personal volition. Gerald operates under the watchful eye of social decorum, where any deviation from expected masculine behaviour could jeopardize his reputation and standing.