Example Essay: Age

How does Priestley explore the difference in attitudes between older and younger generations in An Inspector Calls?

Grade 5+:

‘An Inspector Calls’ is about responsibility. Priestley purposely contrasts the responsibility of the younger generation and the irresponsibility of the older generation to suggest the younger generation are the hope for the future.

Priestley presents the attitude of older characters through the character of Arthur Birling. Before the Inspector arrives, Arthur Birling boasts to Gerald and Eric that ‘a man has to mind his own business, look after himself and his own’. Arthur Birling appears proud of his selfish business model. The use of the words ‘his’ and ‘himself’ shows that Birling only wants to protect his own interests and does not take responsibility for his workers. Priestley also has him state ‘I refused of course’ which demonstrates that Birling is proud that he refused his workers a pay rise. The words ‘of course’ suggest that Arthur Birling believes it was an obvious decision and that he acted in the right way. Priestley makes clear that Arthur Birling accepts no blame for his actions. Additionally, he conveys that Arthur Birling is more concerned about his own reputation by having him offer the inspector ‘thousands’. Priestley demonstrates that Birling has lots of money but still refuses to give his workers a pay rise which indicates that he only uses his money for selfish reasons. Priestley could have been criticising the selfish attitudes of the wealthy.

Priestley also presents the attitude of older characters through the character of Sybil Birling.. When questioned by the Inspector, Sybil states that she was ‘perfectly justified’. The word ‘perfectly’ suggests that she feels she did absolutely nothing wrong and is surprised to even be questioned about her actions. Priestley has Sybil say the word ‘justified’ more than once, to emphasise how right she feels she was in denying help to Eva Smith. Priestley also presents Sybil as prejudiced when she describes Eva Smith as one of many ‘girls of that class’. The words ‘that class’ conveys Sybil looks down on the working class and believes they are all bad people. Perhaps Priestley put Sybil in charge of a charity in order to criticise wealthy people who used charities to make themselves look good rather than helping the poor.

Priestley presents the difference between older and younger characters through the character of Sheila. It is clear that, before the Inspector’s arrival, Sheila is immature and selfish. She is extremely ‘pleased’ with herself at the start of the play because she is engaged. When the Inspector arrives, Sheila takes responsibility for her actions and admits she had Eva Smith fired. However, when the Inspector questions Sheila, Sheila goes as far as to say ‘I started it’. Priestley makes clear that Shiela immediately accepts responsibility, unlike her father, who was the one who started it by refusing to give Eva a pay rise. Priestley contrasts Sheila with Sybil, who says ‘I was perfectly justified’ and Arthur, who says ‘I can’t accept any responsibility’. Whereas Sheila, a guilty character, acknowledges her mistakes, Arthur and Sybil refuse to admit that they did anything wrong. Through Sheila’s character, Priestley suggests the younger generation are more responsible and will bring change to society.

Priestley also presents the difference between older and younger characters through the character of Eric. When questioned by the Inspector, Priestley makes clear Eric feels guilty by having him describe his actions as ‘hellish’. The word ‘hellish’ shows Eric regrets his actions and takes responsibility. Priestley also presents Eric as responsible when he has him say ‘you’re beginning to pretend that nothing really happened’. These words show Eric is angry with his parents because unlike him they will not take responsibility. Priestley contrasts Eric, a guilty and ashamed man, with Sybil, who says to the inspector ‘go and look for the father of the child’. Priestley’s use of dramatic irony when Sybil says these words reveals how little Sybil understands about her son’s actions. Priestley uses Eric to contrast the older generation because he realises that he should still feel guilty but his parents are happy to forget their actions.

Grade 7+

How does Priestley explore the difference in attitudes between older and younger generations in An Inspector Calls?

In ‘An Inspector Calls’, Priestley exposes the lack of responsibility among the middle and upper classes and offers a cry for change, commanding his 1945 audience to show greater compassion for the working classes and promote greater social responsibility in British society. Priestley uses the contrast between older and younger characters in the play to reveal the chasm between traditional classist attitudes and more progressive socialist ideals, hoping that the transformation of his younger characters will propel his audience on the same trajectory and build a fairer, more equal society for all.

Priestley uses the character of Arthur Birling to exhibit the selfish, capitalist attitudes of many wealthy businessmen in the 1900s. Before the Inspector arrives, Arthur Birling boasts to Gerald and Eric that ‘a man has to mind his own business, look after himself and his own’. Priestley’s repetition of the words ‘his’ and ‘himself’ emphasise how much Arthur Birling protects his own interests, and how little responsibility he takes for others outside of his own family. This becomes even clearer when Arthur Birling states ‘I refused, of course’ in response to the Inspector’s questions about Eva Smith. Birling ‘refused’ to give a very small pay rise to his workers because he is more interested in his own profits than their welfare. The words ‘of course’ suggest that Arthur Birling is arrogant, and is surprised to even be questioned about his actions, which he clearly feels were justified. Priestley uses the Inspector’s arrival to challenge the way the Birlings behaved. While some of the characters respond well to the Inspector’s questioning, Arthur Birling accepts no blame for his part in Eva Smith’s death. He is more concerned about his own reputation and tries to pay off the Inspector, offering ‘thousands’ if the Inspector will keep quiet about his involvement. The fact that Birling can afford ‘thousands’, yet ‘refused’ a small pay rise to his workers, demonstrates his lack of responsibility for others. Priestley could have been criticising capitalist values through presenting Arthur Birling in this way.

Priestley’s presentation of Sybil Birling as prejudiced and unsympathetic reveals the ineffectiveness of private charities as a means of support and welfare for the working classes in 1912. When questioned by the Inspector about why she influenced others in her charitable organisation to refuse help to Eva Smith, Sybil states that she was ‘perfectly justified’. The word ‘perfectly’, a bit like the words ‘of course’ when Arthur Birling explains himself, suggest that she feels she did absolutely nothing wrong and is surprised to even be questioned about her actions. Priestley has Sybil say the word ‘justified’ more than once, to emphasise how right she feels she was in denying help to Eva Smith. It is clear that, although Sybil should be always looking to help others, she is too judgemental to offer help to the working classes. She describes Eva Smith as one of many ‘girls of that class’. The words ‘that class’ have a very snobbish tone, suggesting that Sybil Birling sees herself as superior and looks down on the working classes. It is clear that she thinks the working classes are not deserving of help and should accept responsibility for the trouble they find themselves in. This is highly hypocritical, given that she is supposed to be working for an organisation that will help them. Priestley could have deliberately put Sybil in charge of a charity in order to criticise private organisations run by wealthy individuals, who were less interested in the people they were helping, and more interested in how it made them look. Perhaps he was proposing that the only way people would be able to get the help they needed was through government run organisations, such as the NHS, which was established in the same year that he wrote the play.

Priestley contrasts Sybil and Arthur’s unsympathetic attitudes with Sheila’s guilt. It is clear that, before the Inspector’s arrival, Sheila is immature and selfish. She is extremely ‘pleased’ with herself at the start of the play because she is engaged to a respectable gentleman, and the entire family are celebrating her engagement. When the Inspector arrives, Sheila is forced to face up to the fact that she selfishly had Eva Smith fired from her job at Milwards because she was jealous of her good looks. It is clear, therefore, that Sheila had quite willingingly misused her parents’ account at Milwards to get what she wanted. However, when the Inspector questions Sheila, Sheila goes as far as to say ‘I started it’. The audience knows, in fact, that it was Arthur Birling who started it but, unlike Sheila, Arthur Birling feels no sympathy and no guilt. Through Sheila’s character, Priestley offers hope to his audience that the younger generation will be more socially responsible, and will take actions that benefit others.

Priestley contrasts Arthur and Sybil’s double standards with Eric’s guilt. When the family learn that Eric is the father of Eva Smith’s unborn child, both parents are shocked; they could never have imagined that their son would have got himself involved with a working class girl in this way. However, as soon as they learn from Gerald that the Inspector isn’t real, they are happy to return to the way things were, feeling confident in the knowledge that Eric’s actions won’t damage their reputation. In this sense, they display double standards. Arthur Birling was highly critical of Eva Smith for stepping out of line in asking for a pay rise, yet seems happy to ignore and forget the irresponsible behaviour of his son. Sybil looks down on ‘girls of that class’ for getting themselves into difficult situations, yet is also happy to return to the celebratory mood in spite of the fact that it was her own son who contributed to Eva Smith’s situation. Eric, on the other hand, feels terrible guilt for his actions. When questioned by the Inspector, he describes the circumstances in which he met Eva Smith as ‘hellish’. It is clear that he regrets drinking too much and forcing himself upon her. He cannot believe it when his parents are prepared to go back to the way things were, accusing them of ‘beginning to pretend now that nothing really happened at all’. Priestley uses Eric’s confrontational attitude to highlight the extreme difference in the thoughts and behaviour of the older and younger characters and to suggest that the younger generation will need to be forceful in order to change the bad habits of the older generation.

Priestley challenges traditional age roles in the play. In 1912, it would have been expected that young people respected and obeyed their elders. By the end of the play, however, Sheila and Eric begin to challenge their parents’ values, giving hope that society can change for the better. The Inspector has activated their conscience and, through displaying this, Priestley hopes to activate his audience’s conscience too. Perhaps he hoped the audience would leave feeling proud that a new socialist Labour party had been voted in earlier that year, and were set to make changes that would create greater equality for all.