EVA Flashcards
(18 cards)
Eva Smith Essay Plan:
- The Patriarchy
- Prejudice towards lower classes
- Name Parallels
Eva as a symbol of all lower classes - and by extension all working women
“There are a lot of young women living that sort of existence in every city and big town in this country” - Her narrative is a microcosm of all working class women’s suffering in the Edwardian era.
“girls of that class”
Her name Smith - common English name
Eva - homophone to Eve - Eve is viewed as the mother of womankind.
Mr. and Mrs. Birling view the lower classes as a “hegemony,” meaning they believe in their inherent superiority and the natural order of society, where the working class is subjugated to the upper class. Mr. Birling’s reference to Eva Smith as a “girl in her position” and Mrs. Birling’s comment about “girls of that sort” reflect their dismissive and prejudiced attitudes toward working-class people, particularly women. They see the lower class as a homogeneous group, undeserving of empathy or advancement. Priestley uses these attitudes to criticize the class system and highlight the ignorance and moral complacency of the upper class, urging the audience to question and challenge these harmful societal norms. The Birlings’ views represent the entrenched class inequalities that Priestley sought to expose and challenge.
Sheila’s use of “girls” and Mr and Mrs Birling’s use of “girl”
Sheila, as the play progresses, begins to realise the parallels between her own narrative, and Eva’s - she recognises that Eva is similar to her in identity, a girl in her twenties silenced by society, and thus her use of “girl” is a signifies of her sympathy for Eva.
Conversely, the Mrs Birling’s use “girl” highlights the same infantalisation that we see with Sheila, as Mrs Birling views Eva as immature and unworthy of serious attention. Furthermore, she uses “sort” and “position” alongside “girl” to demonstrate her view of the working class as a hegemony, rather than understaning Eva’s personal narrative - she views workers collectively as an undeserving, inferior group, Through a Marxist lens, the Birlings’ dismissive language toward Eva reflects the bourgeoisie’s dehumanization of the proletariat, illustrating how capitalist power structures sustain class oppression and justify exploitation.
- “impertinent”
The upper classes justified their poor treatment of the lower classes by labelling them as impolite or inadequete. Shows that the upper classes believed themselves to be inherently superior. Demonstrates the learned nature of prejudice as this word is used by Mrs Birling also. Ironic since it is salient to the audience that the real impertinence lies in the Birling’s actions.
- “she had a lot to say - far too much - she had to go”
Mr Birling’s capitalist ideals breaking down under the presence of the Inspector is ellucidated through the deployed dashes.
reveals the capitalist fear of an empowered working class, as Eva’s attempt to voice her rights challenges the dominant bourgeois authority, threatening the status quo that keeps the proletariat obedient and exploitable.
“had to” - highlights the immediate action capitalism takes in the face of a threat - the working classes are by under no means given any autonomy.
“too much to say” - establishes Mr Birling’s patriarchal view on Eva Smith.
“But these girls aren’t cheap labour - they’re people”
While this is an axiomatic statement for Sheila and a truism for a contemporary audience, this is completely contradictory to Mr Birling’s view of business “for lower costs and higher prices” - this is employed as irony - lower material costs and higher profits for Mr Birling results in lower costs for him but higher prices for his workers, as they sacrifice their very human rights are sacrificed for these lower costs.
The dash symbolises how far away these ideas are for Sheila.
Sheila begins to see that Eva is just an ordinary girl, and someone similar to herself in many ways.
“She was claiming elaborate fine feelings and scruples that were simply absurd for a girl in her position”
This demonstrates the way in which the upper classes try to control and confine the lower classes in all aspects, as they even undermine Eva’s emotional capacity: even her feelings are invalid, simply a “claim” to something far too elaborate for someone of the lower class. “Position” immediately works to position mrs birling as above the lower classes, looking down on Eva. This prejudice prevents her from understanding Eva’s true position, as poor, hurt and pregnant, as she is far too absorbed by the idea of class.
As I already mentioned, Mrs Birling wants to oppress Eva’s emotions, and cast them aside, so that she does not have to be in contact with a member of the lower classes. She doesn’t think she deserves the same emotions or moral standards as people in higher classes.
The baby theory
The baby could have symbolised a forming bridge between the upper and lower classes, and since it was Eric’s who like Sheila, demonstrates the evolving younger generation, this makes sense. however, the Birlings, by leaving Eva in desperate need, specifically Mrs birling, destroy the baby. they prevent this connection between their family and someone of the lower classes. Could be metaphorical for the savage extents the upper classes would go to maintain their superiority.
Mrs Birling destroys Eva’s baby because it is a bridge between the lower classes and upper classes. Perhaps this underscores her need to define herself as separate from those of lower classes. However, of course she didn’t know that the baby was erics, but the fact that she did this without being aware of this, could show the subconscious way in which the upper classes relentlessly want to remain superior in every way.
“as if a girl of that sort would ever refuse money”
proves that the Birlings don’t really understand people of the lower class cos their society is so polarised and their view of the lower class is based on fiction and prejudice, thus allowing them to justify their own avarice and poor treatment of the lower classes.
Eva does in fact refuse the money, because she is a good natured person - her class does not inherently make her fit into a stereotyypical view.
Once again hegemonic view.
Reveals the Birling’s own obssession with money as that is the only aspect of the narrative they are paying attention to.
- “pretty”
Even Sheila is fixated on Eva’s physical appearance. This could be because all her life she has been measured in this way as well so regardless of its implications for herself as well,s he has adopted this as second nature. Demonstrating the way in which the patriarchy can plot women against one another. Not only are men objectifying women, women are objectifying women. The deeply rooted values of a patriarchal society.
Sheila’s behaviour towards Eva can be explained through the fact that she was jealous of Eva - because she believed that Eva outshined her on the one aspect that Sheila is regarded by society - reveals the way in which the patriarchy pushes immoral actions.
- “young and fresh”
Positions Gerald as a predator - he knew that Eva was “wedged into a corner” vulnerable at the hands of other men due to her position, and took advantage of this.
“fresh” - commodification of women in the eyes of the patriarchy - clearly referencing Eva’s virginity - in the Edwardian era, taking a woman’s virginity was seen as a testament to a man’s masculinity - Gerald uses Eva to enhance his own power, and make himself feel superior.
also indicates that He was simply looking for something new and amusing to entertain himself with, indifferent to how Eva was feeling and the awful state she was in - normalisation of a man’s disloyalty to his wife.
“she lived very economically on what I allowed her”
The Birlings and Gerald can only provide aid to Eva through economic means, because they view everything through a business oriented lens - they do not understand concepts such as kindness and advice, as listed by the Inspector - once again underlines the damaging nature of capitalism to humanity.
Gerald’s relationship with Daisy is deeply marked by a significant power imbalance. Although on a surface level, he provides her with money and a place to stay seemingly out of sympathy, he positions himself as her benefactor and creates a dependency, where Daisy is not only reliant on Gerald but also almost in debt to him.
He explains that “she lived very economically on what I allowed her” proving his immediate social superiority over her. Much like Mr Birling, Gerlad inevitably exposes a more selfish side to himself as he uses language of business and finance to describe his relationship with Daisy, as Priestley repeatedly depicts the way that an Edwardian aristocrat’s life revolves around his business persona. The verb “allowed” suggests authority and that Gerald uses his wealth to control Daisy, which is predatory behaviour. To add to this, Gerald ultimately turns Daisy into a prostitute, as he pays for her needs and hints that she was “intensely grateful” in return.
- “wonderful fairy prince”
Highlights the parallels between the betrayal of Sheila and Eva by men in their society - as this is about Eva but said by Sheila.
“prince” - by positioning him as superior to her, and making her dependent on him, Gerald inherently held power over her.
sarcasm - Gerald used this image of a hero, to justify his exploitation of her.
His goodness can only be mythlogical - his sinister intentions shine through - like Sheila, Eva cared about Gerlad, and viewed him as her prince, demonstrating her youth and naivety, yet the reality and sinister nature of the patriarhcy broker her innocent view.
“Aldermand Meggart (…) wedged her into a corner”
metaphorical for the way in which the patriarchy entrapped her and forced her to her death - Gerald replaces Aldermand Meggarty - foreshadows that his role will not be all that different as he too exploits Eva.
Considering her name to understand how each member of the Birling family viewed her
- Mr Birling viewed her as “Eva Smith”, because she was a worker, a commoner, one of many people like her that he comes across.
- To Gerald he was Daisy Renton, because she was “young and fresh”, and a prostitute.
- To Mrs Birling, she was Mrs Birling - When Eva Smith tells Mrs Birling that her name is also “Mrs Birling”, Priestley creates a moment of intense irony and symbolic threat. At this point in An Inspector Calls, Mrs Birling is already feeling morally exposed, and Eva claiming her name directly challenges her social identity and superiority. For someone of Sybil Birling’s upper-class status, her name is tied to reputation, respect, and social power. So, for a working-class girl to assume that same identity feels to Mrs Birling like an intrusion into a space she believes only she belongs to. This moment symbolises how the rigid class boundaries the Birlings rely on are beginning to break down. Eva – a representative of the working class – metaphorically becomes Mrs Birling, suggesting that the lower classes are not only equal in humanity but also could, in a more just society, mix with the upper classes - has Eric’s baby. This frightens Mrs Birling, which is why she dismisses Eva so coldly, revealing her fear of losing her power and social position. Priestley uses this interaction to expose the fragile foundations of the upper classes’ authority and to show how the threat of social equality is perceived as dangerous by people like Mrs Birling.
Eva as a moral contrast
- Eva as a Moral Contrast
Eva is arguably the most morally strong character, despite her social status.
She maintains her dignity—she refuses stolen money from Eric and doesn’t accept Gerald’s charity once she realises the affair is wrong.
In contrast, the Birlings, who are wealthy and “respectable”, act selfishly and irresponsibly.
Grade 9 Insight: Priestley uses Eva to challenge assumptions about morality and class, showing that ethics are not tied to wealth or status.
Her death as a catalyst for change
Priestley uses this to argue that social change only comes when we face uncomfortable truths.
“Burnt her inside out… she was in great agony”
Eva is never seen
We never see Eva on stage. This absence represents how the working class is ignored and dehumanised by those in power. Her life is pieced together by others — yet no one truly knew her. Priestley does this to force the audience to think about the unseen lives affected by selfish decisions.
