Comprehensive Study Guide for Eric Birling in 'An Inspector Calls'

First Impressions and Character in Context Eric Birling is a central figure in J.B. Priestley’s play An Inspector Calls, and understanding his character is vital to grasping the play’s overarching message. As the son of Mr. and Mrs. Birling and the brother of Sheila, Eric occupies a position of privilege, yet he is instantly portrayed as troubled. He is employed at Birling and Co., his father’s business, but is immediately shown to have a drinking habit, which Priestley suggests may be an attempt to drown his sorrows. The stage directions describe Eric as being in his "early twenties, not quite at ease, half shy, half assertive," a description that highlights his inherent naivety and discomfort. Priestley utilizes Eric as a symbol of redemption, suggesting that regardless of past atrocities, individuals possess the capacity for change and improvement. Eric is presented in a sympathetic light, largely due to his opposition to Mr. Birling’s capitalist and individualistic attitudes. This sympathy is further bolstered by the lack of a constructive paternal role model in his life. Priestley suggests that Eric’s immoral behavior, specifically the rape of Eva Smith, is a product of societal norms where he was simply following the lead of other men. Although Eric is naive regarding the extent of lower-class suffering, he eventually demonstrates remorse and regret. While he accepts responsibility for his actions, he rejects taking sole responsibility for Eva’s suicide. Ultimately, Eric represents optimism, embodying the idea that anyone can change for the better. # The Innate Morality of Eric Birling Priestley portrays Eric as a character capable of discerning right from wrong, presenting him in a favorable fashion compared to the older generation. A key indicator of his morality is his emotional response to the news of Eva Smith’s death. The stage directions state that he responds "[involuntarily] My God!" Priestley’s choice of the adverb "involuntarily" is significant, as it shows that Eric’s moral nature is so deeply rooted that he cannot suppress his emotional reaction. In the patriarchal society of $1912$, revealing such emotion was often condemned as "hysteria," a trait associated with femininity. By having Eric react this way, Priestley conveys that emotion is a fundamental human trait necessary for societal improvement. He intends for the audience to mirror Eric’s instinctive emotional reaction. This is sharply contrasted with Mr. Birling’s reaction, which is described as "rather impatiently" dismissing the suicide as a "horrible business." This distinction highlights the divide between the older and younger generations and their differing attitudes toward the lower classes. # Socialist Views and Intellectual Opposition Despite his own atrocious acts, Eric is depicted as possessing inherently socialist views. He explicitly condemns his father’s capitalist worldview and challenges the exploitation of workers. When Mr. Birling discusses his business practices, Eric asks, "Why shouldn’t they try for higher wages?" This question demonstrates Eric’s ability to empathize with the lower classes and his recognition of the need for better workplace rights and the abolition of labor exploitation. This capacity for empathy and emotion separates Eric and Sheila from the other characters, setting them apart as morally superior figures with whom the audience should align. Eric is also keenly aware of the hypocrisy and corruption within the upper class. He recognizes the internal contradiction in Mr. Birling’s desire for "lower costs and higher prices" while denying employees a living wage. Eric exclaims his discontent with this hypocrisy, noting that the company tries for the highest possible prices while workers are denied the same pursuit for their wages. Eric realizes that meritocracy is a myth; being a "good worker" does not guarantee better treatment in a capitalist system designed to exploit labor for profit. He further exposes his father’s hypocrisy in hiding his views from the Inspector, noting with a "bitter" laugh that Mr. Birling did not mention his "every man for himself" philosophy to the authorities. # Reluctant Conformity and the Powerlessness of Privilege Despite his moral compass, Priestley portrays Eric as too weak to meaningfully oppose his father’s treatment of the lower classes. Eric understands that the system is immoral and ridiculous, yet he continues to abide by social conventions and exploit the system he privately disdains. This discomfort is captured in the stage directions "not quite at ease," which foreshadows his attitude throughout the play. He is uncomfortable with his family’s lifestyle, his father’s behavior, and his own actions. This is evident during the engagement celebrations; Eric is eager to end the toasts for a marriage that is essentially a business transaction. However, he feels powerless to intervene. When he interrupts his father’s speech, he do so "[not too rudely]," saying, "Well don’t do any (speechmaking). We’ll drink to their health and have done with it." The qualifier "not too rudely" suggests that Eric lacks the power to challenge his father directly, even though he is fundamentally ill at ease with the capitalist motivations behind Sheila’s marriage. # The Universality of Immorality and the Influence of Environment Priestley uses Eric to demonstrate that sin and immorality are not beyond anyone, even those who initially seem positive or moral. Eric acknowledges the immorality of Mr. Birling’s "respectable friends," such as Alderman Meggerty, yet his weakness leads him to mimic their behavior. Alcohol serves as Eric’s coping mechanism for the hypocrisy and materialism of his family, and Priestley highlights its lower-class connotations. The play teaches that a perceived lack of influence should not prevent reform; instead, individuals must unite in dissent to prevent moral degradation. Even Eva Smith, the exemplar of morality, is forced into prostitution by sheer desperation. Priestley maintains audience sympathy for Eric by deflecting blame onto his parents and society. Eric was raised in an environment that was "not cosy and homelike," with a "cold woman" for a mother and a father who is "not the kind of father a chap could go to when he’s in trouble." This poor parenting stunted Eric’s moral development, as he was taught to treat others with the same callousness he received. Furthermore, Mr. Birling’s lectures to Eric and Gerald on capitalist and patriarchal values show how Eric was shaped to disrespect women and disregard the lower classes. # Normalization of Male Behavior and Unreliable Narration Priestley provides context for Eric’s immoral actions by showing how "respectable" men in $1912$ society normalized the use of prostitutes. Within this patriarchal framework, women were perceived as inferior, and their value was measured by their bodies and sexual utility. Eric’s narration of his encounter with Eva is likely unreliable and biased to make himself appear less culpable. By using the pronoun "it" in the phrase "and that’s when it happened," Eric allows the audience to fill in the blanks regarding the potential rape, a manipulation by Priestley to keep Eric redeemable. Priestley also uses the euphemism "that state when a chap easily turns nasty" to describe Eric’s intoxication. The use of colloquial language like "chap" normalizes his lack of restraint and implies that the alcohol, rather than a lack of morals, was the cause of his behavior. Throughout the play, the audience is forced to question whether Eric’s actions reflect his true character or societal conditioning. # Final Impressions: Regret and Limited Responsibility By the end of the play, Eric is portrayed as repentant. He immediately recalls his actions, saying, "Yes I remember," indicating that his regret is authentic. His use of euphemisms and his dramatic exit indicate a deep sense of shame. However, his responsibility remains limited. He attempts to disassociate himself from his actions by using the third person, referring to himself as "a chap." He reinforces his evasion of responsibility by comparing his exploitation of Eva to the actions of his father’s friends, implying that he lacked good roles models. By trivializing his alcohol-fueled violence as a state familiar to all men, Eric avoids full guilt. Priestley suggests that this avoidance of responsibility is the root of society’s problems. While the Inspector causes Eric to be depicted unsympathetically at times, his potential for change remains the focus. # Relationships and Ideological Conflict Eric stands in direct ideological opposition to Mr. Birling. This father-son conflict mirrors the clash between socialism and capitalism. Eric challenges his father’s confidence that "the Germans don’t want war" and rejects the maxim that one must "come down sharply" on workers asking for better conditions. Priestley uses dramatic irony to make Mr. Birling’s ignorance about world affairs look foolish, which by extension makes Eric’s opposition look favorable. Eric’s relationship with his mother is characterized by a lack of maternal care. Mrs. Birling is more concerned with social standing than her son’s welfare. She inadvertently blames Eric for Eva’s death before realizing his involvement, then refuses to believe the truth because it jeopardizes the family reputation. Eric’s outrage at his mother is palpable when he accuses her of killing both Eva and his unborn child: "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." Unlike his mother, Eric eventually accepts responsibility, telling her, "I’m ashamed of you as well - yes both of you." Eric and Sheila are aligned as the "more impressionable" younger generation who appreciate the Inspector’s message, though Eric’s conversion to socialism is portrayed as weaker and more erratic than Sheila’s, possibly due to his intoxication and emotional overwhelm. # Relationship with Eva Smith and Social Impact The inter-class nature of Eric’s relationship with Eva Smith was unconventional for $1912$. Eric uses vague, euphemistic language like "threatened to make a row" to hide the true extent of his violence and the likelihood of rape. Interestingly, the relationship takes a maternal turn, with Eric noting, "In a way she treated me – as if I were a kid." Eva’s refusal of Eric’s stolen money contradicts Mrs. Birling’s stereotype of the lower class as "immoral scavengers." Eric’s treatment of Eva is symbolic of the broader abuse of the working class by the upper class. While the other characters’ offenses against Eva were indirect—causing her to lose her job or denying her charity—Eric’s offense is the most severe because it is both physical and emotional. He used his social influence and physical force to overpower her. This explicit immorality serves as a catalyst for the audience’s own self-reflection; if a character as flawed as Eric can seek redemption, so can the members of the audience. The play ends on a cliff-hanger regarding the second death, forcing the audience to consider their own moral responses to societal suffering.