How does Priestley use the character of Eva Smith to present ideas about responsibility?
Grade 5+
‘An Inspector Calls’ is about how people should be more responsible. Priestley explores the theme of class through the treatment of working class Eva Smith by the wealthy Birlings and Gerald Croft when she is in different situations throughout the play.
During the inspector’s questioning, Priestley presents Arthur Birling as an irresponsible and selfish man. When the inspector questions Arthur Birling about Eva Smith’s request for a payrise, Priestley has Arthur Birling state ‘I refused, of course’. In other words, Arthur Birling is proud to admit that he denied Eva Smith a small pay rise. Priestley’s use of the words ‘of course’ not only indicate that Birling feels he was right to refuse a pay rise, but also that he doesn’t expect to be questioned about his actions. Later in the play, Priestley demonstrates that Arthur Birling is very selfish with his money by having him say ‘I’d give thousands’. In other words, Birling is happy to pay thousands of pounds to the inspector in order to keep him quiet about the scandal with Eva Smith. The contrast between the thousands of pounds that Birling is willing to pay and the small pay rise that Eva Smith asked for demonstrates how selfish and irresponsible Birling is because he clearly had the money to give the pay rise but only wants to use the money for himself. Priestley hoped his 1945 audience would feel angry towards selfish Capitalist businessmen like Arthur Birling.
During the inspector’s questioning, Priestley presents Sybil Birling as a selfish and prejudiced woman. When the inspector questions Sybil about how she knew Eva Smith, Priestley presents Sybil as prejudiced by having her refer to the working classes as ‘girls of that class’. Priestley’s use of the words ‘that class’ suggest that Sybil is snobbish and superior, looking down on the working classes. It is clear that she allows her prejudice to influence her decisions about who to help. Priestley uses Sybil Birling’s attitude to criticise private charities in 1912. He hoped his 1945 audience would feel angry that man wealthy people ran charities to make themselves look good, while denying help to people who needed it most. Priestley also hoped his 1945 audience would realise that they needed help from the welfare state, like the NHS, which would mean that the poorest people in society could access help when they most needed it.
During the inspector’s questioning, Priestley presents Eric and Sheila as guilty and ashamed. When Sheila is questioned by the inspector about the way she treated Eva Smith, Priestley makes clear she feels responsible by having her state ‘I started it’. In other words, Sheila admits that her actions triggered a chain of events that led to Eva Smith’s death. Similarly, Priestley has Eric refer to his actions as ‘hellish’, which suggests he feels extremely guilty about the way he forced himself upon Eva Smith while he was drunk. Whereas Sheila and Eric feel guilty and admit their part in Eva Smith’s death, Arthur and Sybil do not. During their dialogue with the inspector, Priestley has Arthur state ‘I can’t accept any responsibility’ and Sybil say repeatedly that she was ‘perfectly justified’. Priestley hoped his 1945 audience would feel surprised by the difference in attitudes between the older and younger characters and realise that they needed to behave more like Sheila and Eric in order to build a fairer, more equal society.
Grade 7+
‘An Inspector Calls’ is about how people should be more responsible. Priestley explores the theme of responsibility through the treatment of Eva Smith, a working class girl, to demonstrate the need for change in society. Through the character of Eva Smith, Priestley demonstrates the destructive nature of capitalism and encourages his audience to become more socialist.
Priestley explores the hierarchy between Arthur Birling, a wealthy businessman, and Eva Smith, a working class girl, to demonstrate the inequality of the class system in 1912 England. During the inspector’s interrogation of Arthur Birling, the audience learns that Eva Smith was fired from Arthur Birling because she asked for higher wages. By choosing to have the workers strike, something that was becoming increasingly popular in England, Priestley suggests that wealthy businessmen were not responsibly supporting their workers. During the questioning, Priestley has Birling reveal that he ‘refused of course’ to give his workers more money which implies Birling intends to pay his workers as little as possible so he has more profit. Priestley’s use of the words ‘of course’ in Birling’s speech convey that Birling believes he was justified and it was an obvious decision to make. They could also show that Birling had no intention of providing his workers with a pay rise and was determined to maintain power over them by refusing to give into their demands for more money. By having Birling appear so confident in his running of the business, Priestley might be implying many businessmen were irresponsible, favouring their own profit over fulfilling their duty to support their workers. As a capitalist, Arthur Birling, along with many other businessmen, believed that the key to success was hard work and looking out for yourself. Through his unfair treatment of Eva Smith and the rest of his working class workers, Priestley uses Birling’s character to demonstrate the consequences of this capitalist viewpoint and to convince his audience that socialism is the way forward.
Priestley’s portrayal of Sybil Birling as a snobbish and superior woman highlights the damaging effects of prejudice in an unequally divided society. During the questioning of Sybil Birling, Priestley suggests the preconceptions wealthy people had of the poor were irresponsible and led to the downfall of many working class people. While being questioned, Priestley has Sybil describe the working class as ‘girls of that class’ which immediately conveys the judgemental attitude Sybil Birling had towards the women of the working class, including Eva Smith. Priestley’s use of the noun ‘girls’ is derogatory and could imply that Sybil Birling views them as so inferior that they do not even deserve to be classed as women. This snobbish view is also expressed through the words ‘that class’ which implies Sybil views all of the working class as the same. Priestley suggests that Sybil is prejudiced against Eva Smith and all of the working class because she believes them to be immoral, a view that was common amongst wealthy people in England in 1912. Additionally, Sybil uses her superiority to determine which working class women are deserving of her help. Sybil uses her influence to refuse Eva help at the charity and believes she was ‘perfectly justified’ in this decision. Ignoring her responsibility to help all women who come to the charity, Sybil chooses to refuse Eva help based on her prejudiced view that Eva is lying and immoral. Priestley makes clear through the adjective ‘perfectly’ that Sybil is stubborn in the view that she was right to turn Eva away and, therefore, has no sympathy for Eva. By presenting Sybil in this way, Priestley could be encouraging his audience to consider whether it was right that wealthy people, who had no sympathy for the working class because they had no understanding of the difficulties they faced, were allowed to run the only charities available for the poor in 1912. Perhaps Priestley wanted to use Sybil’s character to criticise the wealthy people who ran charities to improve their status rather than helping the poor. He could also be emphasising the need to move forward towards organisations like the NHS.
Priestley uses Gerald and Eric, a representation of young wealthy men, to criticise the way working class women were taken advantage of. Both men met Eva Smith at the Palace Theatre Bar, a place where prostitutes go to find work from middle and upper class men. They meet her at a time when she is desperate and hungry as a result of being thrown out of her job with Mr Birling and at Milwards. Although Priestley implies Gerald had good intentions at first towards Eva, it is clear that Gerald used Eva’s vulnerability to his own advantages. While being questioned by the inspector, Gerald reveals that he felt ‘sorry’ for Eva Smith. Priestley has Gerald imply that he only gave Eva Smith money and a place to stay because he wanted to help her. However, it becomes clear that Gerald used his money and power in order to take advantage of Eva. By allowing his interactions with Eva to develop into an affair, Gerald becomes irresponsible because he knows the relationship cannot proceed any further. Priestley insinuates that Gerald knew by helping Eva, it would develop into something more which suggests that he intended to take advantage of Eva’s vulnerability. Unlike Gerald, Eric does offer to marry Eva but only when he realises that Eva is pregnant with his child which suggests he only offered in order to protect his reputation. Although Eric eventually takes responsibility for his actions, to begin with Priestly suggests Eric used his superior status to force himself on Eva. Priestley could be using Eric and Gerald to indicate that many wealthy gentlemen used their money and power to take advantage of working class women and then irresponsibly hide their actions. Perhaps Priestley wanted his audience to realise that wealthy gentlemen needed to take more responsibility for their actions and to recognise the devastating effects of taking advantage of working class women.
Priestley uses Sheila Birling’s character to criticise the sheltered lives wealthy young women were forced to lead. By having Sheila refer to her parents as ‘mummy’ and ‘daddy’ at the beginning of the play, Priestley conveys that Sheila is heavily influenced by her parents. Priestley insinuates that Sheila is only exposed to the capitalist and selfish viewpoints of her parents resulting in her also sharing these ideas. The nouns ‘mummy’ and ‘daddy’ could also show that Sheila looks up to her parents and respects their views. Priestley chooses to present Sheila as heavily influenced by her parents at the beginning of the play to demonstrate that Sheila, like many other wealthy young women at this time, has led a sheltered life and does not have an understanding of the difficulties faced by the working class. It is as a result of this sheltered life, that Sheila uses her power and wealth to have Eva Smith fired without realising the consequences of her actions. Pritely could be suggesting that bringing the younger generation up as capitalists influenced by their parents, society is only going to repeat its problems rather than getting better. Although Sheila mistreats Eva, she begins to realise the consequences of her actions and is willing to change. By the end of the play, Sheila states that she ‘started it’ conveying that she takes full responsibility for the way she treated Eva. The contrast from Sheila’s selfish nature at the beginning to the responsible woman she has become by the end of the play indicates that she has been influenced by the inspector’s socialist views. Priestley might have wanted to have Sheila’s character develop in this way to demonstrate that by allowing the younger generation to be influenced by others, they are more likely to inspire the need for change in society.
Through the questioning of these characters, Priestley encourages his audience to take responsibility themselves. Priestley chooses to have the Birlings and Gerald give their accounts of what happened with Eva to demonstrate they have the power in society because they are wealthy but use it irresponsibly. In contrast, he makes Eva Smith voiceless and powerless to convey the lack of power the working class had. Priestley makes clear that society is unequal and uses the terrible and unfair treatment of Eva Smith to encourage his audience to move towards a more responsible and socialist society where everyone is equal.