Eric Birling, the young, irresponsible son of the Birling family, is used by Priestley to represent the
upper middle classes younger generations during the early twentieth century. On one hand Priestley
uses his character to display the hope for younger generations to overtake the social hierarchy and
Capitalism as the audience witnesses his character mature across the play and reprimand his family’s
actions bringing about a more socialist outlook by the end. However it can also be argued that
Priestley has used Eric’s character as one that does not actually change and one that outlines typical
Capitalistic traits.
In his first appearance Priestley presents Eric’s character as a young,secretive and mysterious one
through the use of language and form. In the stage directions he is said to be in his “early twenties,
not quite at ease, half shy, half assertive.” The adjective “shy” has connotations of self-conciousness
and nervousness juxtaposing with the bold and confident connotations from the powerful adjective
“assertive” which brings about confusion and wariness this making him a suspicious character thus
presenting him in a negative light. This is reinforced through the noun “half” which denotes ideas of
unstableness and so perhaps refers to his unstable character highlighting his immaturity. In his
autobiography Priestley said that he the incompetence and apathy of British officers and soldiers of
higher ranks who would have most likely been the middle and upper class led to the deaths of
hundreds of thousands of allied soldier and so perhaps this is the reason why he portrays Eric who is
upper class in a negative manner at first. This can be further proven through Priestley’s words in one
of his letters from the trenches during World War 1 in which he fought as he left the army with a
strong sense of class injustice, which greatly influenced his life and his writing. ‘The British army
specialised in throwing men away for nothing’, Priestley said. ‘The tradition of an officer class,
defying both imagination and common sense, killed most of my friends.” This continues to prove his
hatred towards the British soldiers. Alternatively it could suggest Eric’s lack of self-understanding as
the noun could imply his lack comfort in a Capitalist environment thus foreshadowing his ability to
change by the end of the play and the hope for future generations to change. After the Second
World War ended it had affected millions of people, including their class system, in which the upper
class were given more advantages, which clashed as all classes were inclined to work together. This
brought about the notion that a change was needed in the system and Priestley could have used Eric
to present the hope for the change in the future. This is further conveyed when Eric shows oedipal
characteristics of challenging his father when he asks his father the question “Why shouldn’t they try
for higher wages?” at the start of the play. This line challenges his father’s Capitalistic views and so
could serve as a metaphor to represent the clash amongst the upper and lower classes and the older
and future generations.
At first Priestley portrays Eric in a negative light in order to voice his own Socialist opinions. This is
conveyed through Eric’s Capitalistic ideals that can be highlighted by his lack of responsibility and
regret over his own actions. He is dismissive towards Eva when he excuses his aggressive and
abusive behaviour through the adverbial phrase “when a chap easily turns nasty.” The verb “easily”
has disturbing and frightening connotations as it implies that this type of behaviour is almost
commonplace. Perhaps this is used to reduce the severity of his actions and guiltiness. In addition to
this he distances himself by refusing to use the personal pronoun “I” by using the noun “chap”
instead which addresses men in general. Thus he deflects the blame and so does not take any
responsibility for his actions. Priestley hoped for a world in which there is greater social equality,
where the most vulnerable are cared for and wealth is more evenly distributed. He believed that a
good Christian must care about the plight of others and not just focus on his immediate needs and
family. Most importantly, it is the responsibility of those who have to help those who have nothing.
Therefore Eric’s lack of responsibility contrasts with Priestley’s own belief thus portraying typical
Capitalistic ideas of every man’s duty to "mind his own business and look after himself". His
aggressive behaviour towards Eva could also serve as an extended metaphor showing upper classes
typically abusing working classes thus portraying Capitalism in a negative light in order to showcase
upper middle classes younger generations during the early twentieth century. On one hand Priestley
uses his character to display the hope for younger generations to overtake the social hierarchy and
Capitalism as the audience witnesses his character mature across the play and reprimand his family’s
actions bringing about a more socialist outlook by the end. However it can also be argued that
Priestley has used Eric’s character as one that does not actually change and one that outlines typical
Capitalistic traits.
In his first appearance Priestley presents Eric’s character as a young,secretive and mysterious one
through the use of language and form. In the stage directions he is said to be in his “early twenties,
not quite at ease, half shy, half assertive.” The adjective “shy” has connotations of self-conciousness
and nervousness juxtaposing with the bold and confident connotations from the powerful adjective
“assertive” which brings about confusion and wariness this making him a suspicious character thus
presenting him in a negative light. This is reinforced through the noun “half” which denotes ideas of
unstableness and so perhaps refers to his unstable character highlighting his immaturity. In his
autobiography Priestley said that he the incompetence and apathy of British officers and soldiers of
higher ranks who would have most likely been the middle and upper class led to the deaths of
hundreds of thousands of allied soldier and so perhaps this is the reason why he portrays Eric who is
upper class in a negative manner at first. This can be further proven through Priestley’s words in one
of his letters from the trenches during World War 1 in which he fought as he left the army with a
strong sense of class injustice, which greatly influenced his life and his writing. ‘The British army
specialised in throwing men away for nothing’, Priestley said. ‘The tradition of an officer class,
defying both imagination and common sense, killed most of my friends.” This continues to prove his
hatred towards the British soldiers. Alternatively it could suggest Eric’s lack of self-understanding as
the noun could imply his lack comfort in a Capitalist environment thus foreshadowing his ability to
change by the end of the play and the hope for future generations to change. After the Second
World War ended it had affected millions of people, including their class system, in which the upper
class were given more advantages, which clashed as all classes were inclined to work together. This
brought about the notion that a change was needed in the system and Priestley could have used Eric
to present the hope for the change in the future. This is further conveyed when Eric shows oedipal
characteristics of challenging his father when he asks his father the question “Why shouldn’t they try
for higher wages?” at the start of the play. This line challenges his father’s Capitalistic views and so
could serve as a metaphor to represent the clash amongst the upper and lower classes and the older
and future generations.
At first Priestley portrays Eric in a negative light in order to voice his own Socialist opinions. This is
conveyed through Eric’s Capitalistic ideals that can be highlighted by his lack of responsibility and
regret over his own actions. He is dismissive towards Eva when he excuses his aggressive and
abusive behaviour through the adverbial phrase “when a chap easily turns nasty.” The verb “easily”
has disturbing and frightening connotations as it implies that this type of behaviour is almost
commonplace. Perhaps this is used to reduce the severity of his actions and guiltiness. In addition to
this he distances himself by refusing to use the personal pronoun “I” by using the noun “chap”
instead which addresses men in general. Thus he deflects the blame and so does not take any
responsibility for his actions. Priestley hoped for a world in which there is greater social equality,
where the most vulnerable are cared for and wealth is more evenly distributed. He believed that a
good Christian must care about the plight of others and not just focus on his immediate needs and
family. Most importantly, it is the responsibility of those who have to help those who have nothing.
Therefore Eric’s lack of responsibility contrasts with Priestley’s own belief thus portraying typical
Capitalistic ideas of every man’s duty to "mind his own business and look after himself". His
aggressive behaviour towards Eva could also serve as an extended metaphor showing upper classes
typically abusing working classes thus portraying Capitalism in a negative light in order to showcase
