Mr.Birling:
Thesis
In J.B Priestley’s didactic and allegorical whodunit, ‘An Inspector Calls’, Mr.
Birling serves as a powerful symbol of capitalism and social hypocrisy. He
embodies greed, self-interest and class obsession, prioritising business and
reputation above morality and even family. Mr Birling seems to be a prime
example of the bourgeoisie, with his dismissal of Eva Smith purely derived from
her request for higher wages reflecting a reality of Edwardian society. Through a
Marxist lens, Priestley explores the flaws of the bourgeoisie with Mr.Birling as a
model. As a character, Mr.Birling is presented as arrogant, insecure and resistant
to change. His persistence of capitalism and failure to learn from the Inspector
mirrors the person the audience will become if they too, fail to learn from social
responsibility. Birling’s character allows Priestley to criticise the older
generation’s traditional perspectives and refusal to take social responsibility,
particularly in contrast with the younger generation. His role perhaps reflects
Priesltey’s desire to promote socialistic values and warn the 1945 audience
about the dangers of repeating past mistakes.
Paragraph 1
Mr.Birling is primarily presented as a pompous and materialistic character who is
desperate to please anyone he believes as socially superior. Through earlier
stage directions, Mr.Birling is described to be “rather portentous”, an adjective
related to self importance and a lack of self awareness. Despite his financial
success, Mr Birling is “provincial in his speech”, implying that he is of middle
class, therefore aspires to aristocracy, clear in his flattering behaviour towards
Gerald Croft. During the engagement dinner, he remarks, “Finchley told me it's
the exact port your father gets from him”, a shallow attempt to connect and
associate with Gerald’s upper class family. The adjective, “exact” almost
intensifies Birling’s desire to fit in with the aristocrats, revealing that he is not
insecure regarding his social status but obsessed with the class hierarchy.
Priestley perhaps intends for the audience to feel embarrassed for Mr.Birling as
his attempts to flatter Gerald are painfully obvious, allowing them to recognise
the irony contained within the class hierarchy. Furthermore, Priestley heavily
criticises Mr.Birling’s capitalist standing as he prioritises money over morality and
,even family, seen in the mention of “lower costs and higher prices” even through
his own daughter’s engagement dinner. Discussing business through a
celebratory dinner not only emphasises his materialism, but an emotional
detachment from his daughter, Sheila, exposing the twisted patriarchal truth that
Edwardian women could only be used as trading tokens for wealth or social
status. Interestingly, Birling constantly refers to himself as “a hard-headed,
practical man of business”, the repetition suggesting that his self worth is entirely
tied to financial status, furthering his egotism and lack of emotional depth. The
mantra Mr.Birling proudly recites to proclaim his identity could be ironically be an
echo of Sir Stanley Baldwin’s manifesto for the labour party, “hard-faced men
who look as they’ve done very well out of the war”, deliberately scripted by
Priestley to remind the post war 1945 audience of the belief that it was the
capitalism ideology that had caused the second world war. Priestley makes it
obvious that it is Mr.Birling’s capitalist views which cause him to objectify and
dismiss others. For example, he views the dismissal of Eva, a proletariat, as a
necessary business decision. He is incapable of seeing beyond profit margins
and does not consider the human consequences of his actions, as such he
perhaps represents greed from the 7 deadly sins. In this way, Priestley explores
flaws of the bourgeoisie and almost presents the character of Mr.Birling as an
antithesis of social responsibility.
Paragraph 2
Furthermore, Priestley continues to criticise Mr.Birling’s capitalist beliefs not only
through dramatic irony in his dialogue, but establishing a temporal threshold
between 1912, when the play was set, and 1945, when the play was performed,
exposing the arrogance of his character as the audience recognise the
foolishness in their past actions. Mr.Birling confidently remarks to Eric and Gerald
that, “the Germans don’t want war”, and that the Titanic was “unsinkable,
absolutely unsinkable”. This would’ve had a profound impact on the 1945
audience, as they have been through two world wars, with the second world war
recent, hence the consequences of war would’ve still been relevant. The
audience also has the knowledge that the Titanic did indeed sink in 1912,
causing them to view Mr.Birling as an ignorant and egotistical character. Through
his dramatic irony, Priestley discredits Mr.Birling’s judgement and implies that his
capitalist worldview is both outdated and dangerous. The metaphor of the Titanic
is extremely significant here as it serves almost as a microcosm of the Edwardian
, social hierarchy. In the Titanic, class divisions were literal, as the upper class
lived in the top decks, whereas the working class could only stay in the bottom
decks. Perhaps Priestley intended to convey the message that as the Titanic had
sank, so will the Edwardian class system,despite Mr.Birling’s stubborn protests. It
is interesting that Priestley also mentions in Mr.Birling’s speech, “Russia who will
always be behind naturally”, for the audience would know clearly that the
Russian Revolution in 1917 modernised Russia. Moreover, the first performance
of the play was in Moscow, adding to the sardonic and ironic tone in Birling;s
dialogue. Through his portrayal of Mr.Birling as ignorant and hubristic, Priestley
explores capitalism negatively, manipulating the audience’s emotions of
impatience and mourning for the dead soldiers to cast hatred towards the
character of Mr.Birling.
Paragraph 3
Lastly, unlike the younger generations, Mr.Birling refuses to change and has no
character development throughout the play. While it is clear that the Inspector
has left a profound impact on Sheila and Eric, who have begun to accept their
roles in Eva’s death and feel genuine remorse, Mr.Birling is adamant in his claim
of not being involved, rejecting any accountability. When ideas spark that the
Inspector may not have been real, Mr.Birling is quick to celebrate, “The whole
story’s just a lot of moonshine”. The colloquialism is almost a crack in Birling’s
aristocratic image, emphasising his excitement as he believes the visitation of the
Inspector as something false and deceptive. It is evident in his quick dismissal of
Eva’s death that the working class is of no importance to him, rather he is more
concerned about social status and reputation. Moreover, Mr.Birling seems to be
more disturbed about Eric’s theft than the loss of his grandchild, revealing the
flaws of his cold, business orientated mindset. In the process of defending
himself, Birling argues “There is every excuse for what me and your mom did”,
refusing any responsibility. However, the noun “excuse” almost reflects an innate
acknowledgement of the immorality of his actions, but the benefits that capitalism
brings simply outweigh the negative indulgence in exploitation. Priestley seems
to take inspiration from Russian philosopher Ouspenky’s theory of eternal
recurrence towards the end of the play as the telephone rings again, telling of an
Inspector’s visit, teaching the audience that if individuals like Birling do not
change and accept social responsibility, mistakes will be repeated and a society
as a whole must suffer together, effectively conveying that if capitalism is not
Thesis
In J.B Priestley’s didactic and allegorical whodunit, ‘An Inspector Calls’, Mr.
Birling serves as a powerful symbol of capitalism and social hypocrisy. He
embodies greed, self-interest and class obsession, prioritising business and
reputation above morality and even family. Mr Birling seems to be a prime
example of the bourgeoisie, with his dismissal of Eva Smith purely derived from
her request for higher wages reflecting a reality of Edwardian society. Through a
Marxist lens, Priestley explores the flaws of the bourgeoisie with Mr.Birling as a
model. As a character, Mr.Birling is presented as arrogant, insecure and resistant
to change. His persistence of capitalism and failure to learn from the Inspector
mirrors the person the audience will become if they too, fail to learn from social
responsibility. Birling’s character allows Priestley to criticise the older
generation’s traditional perspectives and refusal to take social responsibility,
particularly in contrast with the younger generation. His role perhaps reflects
Priesltey’s desire to promote socialistic values and warn the 1945 audience
about the dangers of repeating past mistakes.
Paragraph 1
Mr.Birling is primarily presented as a pompous and materialistic character who is
desperate to please anyone he believes as socially superior. Through earlier
stage directions, Mr.Birling is described to be “rather portentous”, an adjective
related to self importance and a lack of self awareness. Despite his financial
success, Mr Birling is “provincial in his speech”, implying that he is of middle
class, therefore aspires to aristocracy, clear in his flattering behaviour towards
Gerald Croft. During the engagement dinner, he remarks, “Finchley told me it's
the exact port your father gets from him”, a shallow attempt to connect and
associate with Gerald’s upper class family. The adjective, “exact” almost
intensifies Birling’s desire to fit in with the aristocrats, revealing that he is not
insecure regarding his social status but obsessed with the class hierarchy.
Priestley perhaps intends for the audience to feel embarrassed for Mr.Birling as
his attempts to flatter Gerald are painfully obvious, allowing them to recognise
the irony contained within the class hierarchy. Furthermore, Priestley heavily
criticises Mr.Birling’s capitalist standing as he prioritises money over morality and
,even family, seen in the mention of “lower costs and higher prices” even through
his own daughter’s engagement dinner. Discussing business through a
celebratory dinner not only emphasises his materialism, but an emotional
detachment from his daughter, Sheila, exposing the twisted patriarchal truth that
Edwardian women could only be used as trading tokens for wealth or social
status. Interestingly, Birling constantly refers to himself as “a hard-headed,
practical man of business”, the repetition suggesting that his self worth is entirely
tied to financial status, furthering his egotism and lack of emotional depth. The
mantra Mr.Birling proudly recites to proclaim his identity could be ironically be an
echo of Sir Stanley Baldwin’s manifesto for the labour party, “hard-faced men
who look as they’ve done very well out of the war”, deliberately scripted by
Priestley to remind the post war 1945 audience of the belief that it was the
capitalism ideology that had caused the second world war. Priestley makes it
obvious that it is Mr.Birling’s capitalist views which cause him to objectify and
dismiss others. For example, he views the dismissal of Eva, a proletariat, as a
necessary business decision. He is incapable of seeing beyond profit margins
and does not consider the human consequences of his actions, as such he
perhaps represents greed from the 7 deadly sins. In this way, Priestley explores
flaws of the bourgeoisie and almost presents the character of Mr.Birling as an
antithesis of social responsibility.
Paragraph 2
Furthermore, Priestley continues to criticise Mr.Birling’s capitalist beliefs not only
through dramatic irony in his dialogue, but establishing a temporal threshold
between 1912, when the play was set, and 1945, when the play was performed,
exposing the arrogance of his character as the audience recognise the
foolishness in their past actions. Mr.Birling confidently remarks to Eric and Gerald
that, “the Germans don’t want war”, and that the Titanic was “unsinkable,
absolutely unsinkable”. This would’ve had a profound impact on the 1945
audience, as they have been through two world wars, with the second world war
recent, hence the consequences of war would’ve still been relevant. The
audience also has the knowledge that the Titanic did indeed sink in 1912,
causing them to view Mr.Birling as an ignorant and egotistical character. Through
his dramatic irony, Priestley discredits Mr.Birling’s judgement and implies that his
capitalist worldview is both outdated and dangerous. The metaphor of the Titanic
is extremely significant here as it serves almost as a microcosm of the Edwardian
, social hierarchy. In the Titanic, class divisions were literal, as the upper class
lived in the top decks, whereas the working class could only stay in the bottom
decks. Perhaps Priestley intended to convey the message that as the Titanic had
sank, so will the Edwardian class system,despite Mr.Birling’s stubborn protests. It
is interesting that Priestley also mentions in Mr.Birling’s speech, “Russia who will
always be behind naturally”, for the audience would know clearly that the
Russian Revolution in 1917 modernised Russia. Moreover, the first performance
of the play was in Moscow, adding to the sardonic and ironic tone in Birling;s
dialogue. Through his portrayal of Mr.Birling as ignorant and hubristic, Priestley
explores capitalism negatively, manipulating the audience’s emotions of
impatience and mourning for the dead soldiers to cast hatred towards the
character of Mr.Birling.
Paragraph 3
Lastly, unlike the younger generations, Mr.Birling refuses to change and has no
character development throughout the play. While it is clear that the Inspector
has left a profound impact on Sheila and Eric, who have begun to accept their
roles in Eva’s death and feel genuine remorse, Mr.Birling is adamant in his claim
of not being involved, rejecting any accountability. When ideas spark that the
Inspector may not have been real, Mr.Birling is quick to celebrate, “The whole
story’s just a lot of moonshine”. The colloquialism is almost a crack in Birling’s
aristocratic image, emphasising his excitement as he believes the visitation of the
Inspector as something false and deceptive. It is evident in his quick dismissal of
Eva’s death that the working class is of no importance to him, rather he is more
concerned about social status and reputation. Moreover, Mr.Birling seems to be
more disturbed about Eric’s theft than the loss of his grandchild, revealing the
flaws of his cold, business orientated mindset. In the process of defending
himself, Birling argues “There is every excuse for what me and your mom did”,
refusing any responsibility. However, the noun “excuse” almost reflects an innate
acknowledgement of the immorality of his actions, but the benefits that capitalism
brings simply outweigh the negative indulgence in exploitation. Priestley seems
to take inspiration from Russian philosopher Ouspenky’s theory of eternal
recurrence towards the end of the play as the telephone rings again, telling of an
Inspector’s visit, teaching the audience that if individuals like Birling do not
change and accept social responsibility, mistakes will be repeated and a society
as a whole must suffer together, effectively conveying that if capitalism is not
