Eric Birling Character Analysis

Eric Birling: A Study in Redemption and Social Commentary

First Impressions and Character Context

Eric Birling is a pivotal character in Priestley's "An Inspector Calls," offering insight into the play's central themes. As the son of Mr. and Mrs. Birling and brother to Sheila, Eric is part of a wealthy, upper-class family. He is employed by his father's company, Birling and Co. From the outset, Eric is portrayed as having a drinking problem, which may indicate an attempt to escape his inner turmoil.

The stage directions describe Eric as being in his "early twenties, not quite at ease, half shy, half assertive," highlighting his naivety and internal conflict. Priestley uses Eric as a symbol of redemption, suggesting that even those who have committed terrible acts can change and improve.

Innately Moral

Priestley presents Eric as a character capable of distinguishing between right and wrong. Eric's emotional response to Eva's death reveals his inherent morality. The stage directions indicate this with "[involuntarily] My God!" The use of "involuntarily" suggests that Eric's emotional reaction is genuine and uncontrollable.

Within the patriarchal society depicted in the play, expressing emotions was often seen as a feminine trait and condemned. Priestley uses Eric to convey the message that emotion is a necessary human trait for societal improvement, urging the audience to react emotionally to the events unfolding.

Eric's reaction contrasts sharply with Mr. Birling's, who dismisses Eva's suicide with impatience, saying, "yes yes. Horrible business." This contrast underscores the differing attitudes between the older and younger generations towards the lower classes.

Socialist Views

Eric possesses inherently socialist views, which are significant considering his reprehensible act of raping Eva. He challenges his father's capitalist perspective on workers, questioning, "why shouldn’t they try for higher wages?" This demonstrates Eric's ability to empathize with the lower classes and recognize the need for better workplace rights and an end to the exploitation of laborers.

Priestley presents Eric as having the capacity for empathy and emotion, separating him and Sheila from the other characters who seem incapable of such feelings. This distinction is intended to portray Eric as morally superior and a character with whom the audience should align.

Awareness of Hypocrisy and Corruption

Eric recognizes the internal corruption and hypocrisy within the upper class. He is not entirely naive and is aware of the corruption in society.

Eric is critical of Mr. Birling's hypocrisy in seeking "lower costs and higher prices" while denying Eva and his employees a higher wage. He questions why they shouldn't strive for higher wages when "we try for the highest possible prices."

He understands that meritocracy is a fallacy and that being a "good worker" does not guarantee better treatment. Instead, he sees that capitalism fundamentally exploits workers for profit. Eric also recognizes his father's hypocrisy in concealing his true beliefs from the Inspector, noting, "[Laughs bitterly] I didn’t notice you told him that it’s every man for himself."

Reluctantly Conforms to the Class System

Eric is portrayed as being too weak to challenge his father's treatment of the lower classes. He understands that it is immoral and wrong but passively conforms to the social conventions of exploiting those less fortunate.

Priestley uses the stage directions "not quite at ease" to highlight Eric's discomfort with his family's lifestyle and privilege. This foreshadows his attitude throughout the play, as he is uneasy with both his father's behavior and his own.

Eric is eager to conclude the engagement celebrations, recognizing the absurdity of making toasts for a marriage that is merely a business transaction. Although he disapproves, he seems powerless to act, as evident when he interrupts his father's speech, saying "[not too rudely] Well don’t do any (speechmaking). We’ll drink to their health and have done with it."

Anyone is Capable of Immorality

Initially, Eric is depicted as a moral character who disapproves of Mr. Birling's individualistic business rhetoric. However, the revelation of Eric's rape of Eva demonstrates that no one is immune to sin.

Eric acknowledges that Mr. Birling's "respectable friends," such as "alderman Meggerty," act immorally, but he lacks the strength to stand up for his beliefs. Consequently, he emulates their behavior.

Alcohol serves as Eric's coping mechanism for dealing with his family's hypocrisy and materialism. There are also lower-class connotations associated with alcoholism.

Priestley suggests that people must stand up for reform, regardless of their position in society. Everyone should unite in dissent rather than abandon their morals. Even Eva, an exemplar of morality, is forced into prostitution out of desperation.

Why is Eric Like This?

Priestley maintains the audience's sympathy for Eric by offering potential reasons for his behavior, which allow for a more understanding perspective. He deflects blame onto Eric's parents and the society in which he lives.

Eric's childhood environment was "not cosy and homelike." He was raised by a "cold woman" and a father who was "not the kind of father a chap could go to when he’s in trouble." Priestley encourages the audience to see Eric as a product of poor parenting. By denying him care and compassion, his parents stunted his moral development.

Mr. Birling's lectures to Eric and Gerald before the Inspector's arrival impart capitalist, individualistic, and patriarchal values, shaping Eric's worldview. He has been taught to disrespect women and disregard the lower classes.

Normal Male Behavior

Priestley provides a legitimate explanation for Eric's immoral actions. Gerald reveals that "respectable" men use prostitutes, normalizing Eric's behavior. Eric has learned to associate prostitution with the normal behavior of the upper class.

Contextually, Eric's behavior can be partially excused because, in 1912 society, women were perceived as inferior to men and valued primarily for their bodies and sexual appeal.

Unreliable Narration

Eric is left to recount his actions towards Eva, making his narration potentially unreliable. His biased storytelling allows the audience to interpret the events as they see fit.

He says, "and that’s when it happened." The use of "it" allows audience members to fill in the gaps about what Eric did to Eva. Priestley manipulates the audience into perceiving Eric as redeemable by allowing them to form their own opinions about whether he raped Eva.

This suggests that Priestley intends for Eric to be seen favorably by the audience and to serve as a vehicle for socialist ideas and the conversion of capitalists.

Priestley uses the euphemistic phrase "that state when a chap easily turns nasty" as a substitute for Eric's admission of being drunk. This normalizes Eric's lack of restraint and suggests that alcohol caused his behavior, not a lack of morals. This prompts the question of whether he would have abused Eva if he were sober.

Throughout the play, the audience is encouraged to consider whether Eric's actions reflect his true character or whether society has conditioned him to behave in this manner.

Final Impressions: Genuine Regret

Eric is portrayed as repentant and remorseful for his actions towards Eva. Priestley presents Eric as experiencing regret.

Eric immediately recalls his actions, saying, "yes I remember - ." This demonstrates his authentic regret, as he still thinks about Eva and the impact of his actions. Priestley's use of euphemistic phrases and dramatic exits shows that Eric feels guilty and ashamed.

Priestley uses the third person when Eric recalls the events of his relationship with Eva, such as "when a chap ." This allows Eric to disassociate himself from his cruel actions.

Limited Responsibility

Eric only partially accepts responsibility for Eva's death. Priestley presents Eric as failing to accept full responsibility.

Eric excuses his behavior by comparing his exploitation of Eva to the use of prostitutes by Mr. Birling's "respectable friends."

He implies that he is not responsible for his actions due to a lack of good role models.

"that state when a chap easily turns nasty." Here, Eric insinuates that alcohol-fueled violence is familiar and acceptable. Priestley's use of the colloquial noun "chap" suggests Eric is trivializing the situation and doesn't feel guilty.

Eric's attempts to divert blame make him similar to the older generation, who avoid responsibility.

Priestley suggests that this avoidance of responsibility is the root of society's problems. He introduces the Inspector to address this issue, which leads to Eric being depicted unsympathetically.

Relationships with other characters

Mr Birling

Priestley presents Eric as ideologically opposed to Mr. Birling. This father-son relationship is portrayed as opposing.

Eric challenges Mr. Birling's opinions and capitalist attitudes.

Eric questions "what about war", which is opposed by Mr. Birling, who is confident that "the Germans don’t want war".

Mr. Birling's 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".

Mr. Birling's maxim: "If you don’t come down sharply on some of these people, they’d soon be asking for the earth", is rejected by Eric as "I think it was a damn shame (that Eva died)" and that you "can’t blame her".

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.

Priestley's portrayal of Mr. Birling as dislikeable is achieved through playing on Mr. Birling's ignorance surrounding world affairs (e.g. the impending world war) through dramatic irony.

His lack of emotion towards Eva’s death (dismissing it “rather impatiently”) also contributes to his abhorrent presentation.

By standing in opposition to his father, Eric is viewed favorably by the audience.

Mrs Birling - the uncaring mother

Priestley portrays Eric as lacking a caring and maternal mother. Mrs Birling has greater concern for the way in which Eric and Sheila present themselves as upper-class citizens, rather than their own wellbeing.

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.

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. ”

Mrs Birling expresses her disappointment in her son as “Eric I’m absolutely ashamed of you” .

Here, it is clear Mrs Birling still hasn’t accepted any responsibility and more importantly Mrs Birling shows no remorse.

It is important to note that Mrs Birling only expresses this after the Inspector’s leave, as 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 as “I don’t blame you (Mrs Birling)” for being “ashamed” .

Mrs Birling remains unsympathetic towards Eric despite denying aid to her to-be-granddaughter’s mother and effectively provideing the final blow to Eva before committing suicide.

Sheila

Both Eric and Sheila are portrayed as appreciating the importance of the Inspector’s message. In aligning the two characters, Priestley is clearly showing the difference between the younger generation and the older generation in their attitudes towards others.

Both of the younger-generation characters are in opposition (or at least appear to be) 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.

Even if their ideas are different, it is imperative to still work together in order to reach this goal.

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 (spreading).

Does he change as much as Sheila?

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]”.

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.

The influence of a lot of alcohol must also be taken into account, as Eric’s speech is tainted with intoxication his degree of seriousness is thrown into doubt. This altered state of consciousness may lead to Eric not accepting socialism once sober and calm.

Priestley leaves the play on a dramatic cliff-hanger, leaving the audience to predict the characters’ response to the second death of a mysterious girl.

Maybe Priestley does this to force the audience to consider how they, themselves, would respond to the death and question whether their response would be moral. This will then reflect onto their own life decisions and prompt questions on how they live their lives.

Priestley encourages the audience to consider the consequences of different attitudes held by different characters in the play.

Arguably, he intends for the audience to compare their own attitudes to that of the characters in the play - causing the audience to view the physical manifestations of their own set of beliefs.

Eva

Priestley’s portrayal of Eric’s relationship with Eva goes against tradition, due to its inter-class nature. It is important to understand why Priestley deliberately chooses this affair to be inter-class and what social impact this has.

Eric’s abuse of Eva and violence towards her is not explicitly revealed, as Eric uses euphemisms when referring to their relationship (and potential rape) such as “that’s when it happened” ,“I was in a state where a chap easily turns nasty” and he “threatened to make a row” . This deliberate use of vague euphemistic language hides the true extent of Eric’s immoral behavior.

Eric’s vague language implies that it is likely to be rape as his euphemisms reveal his guilt and desire to avoid facing what he did. However, this doubt over what Eric actually did allows Eric to remain redeemable, in the eye of the audience. He can be used by Priestley as an example for the audience of accepting greater social responsibility and as evidence that they can change their ways to make up for their past immorality.

Their sexual relationship takes an unconventional turn as Eva’s role evolves, essentially from partners to a more maternal relationship as “In a way she treated me – as if I were a kid. Though I was nearly as old as she was. ” Eva realises Eric’s immaturity and ignorance to the societal conventions of 1912 British society, which essentially forbids inter-class relationships.

Therefore, she felt obliged to “refuse (Eric’s stolen) money” as she did not belong to Eric’s class and their relationship could not be public. This refusal of Eric’s money contradicts the lower-class stereotype of immoral scavengers, which Mrs Birling propagates as she exclaims “as if a girl of that sort would ever refuse money” .

Eric’s relationship with Eva

Eric’s treatment of Eva is symbolic of the abuse the working-class are subjugated to by the upper-class.

The Inspector’s “line of enquiry” finishes with Eric where his offence is shown to have pushed Eva over the edge, resulting in her suicide. Priestley makes Eric’s offence against Eva the most severe and least forgivable. The other characters abused Eva indirectly and therefore seem less responsible for her suicide. This is exemplified through Mrs Birling and Sheila using their intangible influence to cause Eva to lose her job and be refused charity, respectively. Then she was abused emotionally through removing their companionship.

Eric combines these offences in an offence that is both physical and emotional as he abuses Eva using his social influence and physically overpowers her. He uses physical force to gain entry into Eva’s house despite “she didn’t want me to go in” . Then Eric continues to emotionally harm Eva as he proceeds to “turn nasty” .

It is the combination of these wrongdoings that causes his actions to be perceived by the audience as excessively immoral. However, it is also this explicit immorality that offers hope for the audience. If Eric can change his ways and redeem himself, then there is a possibility for everyone in the audience to do the same.

Eric quote bank by theme

Responsibility

Quote

“you killed her – and the child…your own grandchild”

Analysis

Priestley encourages the audience to sympathise with Eric. Despite the Inspector’s attempts to enlighten the Birling family that they are all jointly responsible, Eric’s accusation of blame upon his mother is tantamount (equivalent) to Mrs Birling’s blame of the “father” . By merely placing all the blame upon his mother, with “you killed her,'' Eric attempts to absolve himself from any blame.

Quote

“You don’t understand anything. You never did. You never even tried”

Analysis

Eric continues to undermine himself as he berates his mother “You don’t understand anything. You never did. You never even tried” . Priestley’s use of repetition and hyperbole creates a parody of the sweeping statements we might expect a teenager to use in an argument with their parents.

Gender inequality

Quote

"[Suddenly guffaws] I don't know - really. Suddenly I felt I just had to laugh.”

Analysis

Priestley’s use of the stage directions to portray Eric as he “suddenly guffaws” occurs directly after Gerald tells Sheila that he will “be careful” after she has told him that she is suspicious of Gerald’s time away from her in the summer. Perhaps this sudden “guffaw” indicates that Eric knows that Gerald is routinely unfaithful. Eric would certainly see this first hand as they both attend the Palace Bar specifically with the intention of picking up women or prostitutes.

Quote

“She wasn’t the usual sort” “She didn’t know what to do”

Analysis

Priestley reveals Eric’s previous experiences with prostitutes, as Eva “wasn’t the usual sort” . The adjective “usual” implies that visiting prostitutes is the norm for Eric. Eric’s observation that “she didn’t know what to do” implies both that he is attracted to Eva’s innocence, and also that he might realise that she is a woman he can exploit because of her ignorance.

Quote

“I hate these fat old tarts”

Analysis

Eric’s proclaimation of “I hate these fat old tarts” reveals his disgust at his own hypocrisy in frequenting the palace bar, looking for sex. Priestley implies, through Eric, that - for all men - it is a social norm to pay for sex. The upper-class’ use of prostiution symbolic of their exploitation of the female lower-class, who are the prostitutes that are abused by high-class men.

Guilt

Quote

“I insisted – it seems”

Analysis

On Eric’s visit to Eva’s lodgings: “I insisted – it seems” . Priestley’s use of the verb “insisted” implies that Eric may have physically overwhelmed Eva’s resistance. Priestley’s use of the ambiguous verb phrase “it seems” reveals Eric’s attempt to forget his immoral actions, and distance himself from his guilt.

Quote

“in that state when a chap easily turns nasty”

Analysis

Priestley demonstrates Eric’s subconscious attempts to distance himself from his actions by switching from first person to third person as he refers to himself as “a chap” rather than ‘I’ . Eric’s trivialisation of such violence of a possible rape, through the colliquial use of “a chap” is an attempt by Eric to soften the harshness of his actions.

Quote

“I threatened to make a row”

Analysis

Eric’s violent language, “I threatened”, is softened through the euphemistic use of “a row” . Priestley demonstrates Eric’s attempts to convince himself that his actions were to a lesser extent of immorality than they actually were.

Morality

Quote

“(Involuntarily) My God!”

Analysis

Eric’s emotional response to the news of Eva’s death as Priestley demonstrates his innate rectitude (morality) through the stage directions. Priestley’s use of the adverb “involuntarily” demonstrates the moral nature of Eric as he could not suppress his emotional reaction; it is involuntary. Eric would not choose to reveal his emotions, within a patriarchal society which condemns feminine traits, such as excessive emotion.

Capitalism vs Socialism // Class

Quote

“[not too rudely] Well, don’t do any. We’ll drink to their health and have done with it.”

Analysis

Eric is eager to be done with talk of their engagement as he realises the ridiculousness of the toasts for a marriage which is merely a transaction. Eric disapproves, however, he is powerless to do anything. This is aptly demonstrated by Priestley through the stage directions as Eric interrupts “[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.

Quote

“Why shouldn’t they try for higher wages?” “you said yourself she was a good worker”

Analysis

Eric questions “why shouldn’t they try for higher wages?” as he believes that the capitalist system ought to be fair to both employers and employees. He puts forward a moral form of capitalism, pointing out to Birling, “you said yourself she was a good worker”, implying that she should be financially rewarded for this.