How does Priestley use the character of the Inspector to suggest that society needed to change?
5+
An Inspector Calls is about responsibility. Priestley uses the inspector to expose the lack of responsibility that many people took for the working classes. He hopes his audience will realise that they need to take action to build a fairer and more equality society for everyone.
During the inspector’s questioning of Arthur Birling, Priestley makes clear wealthy men in 1912 needed to change. 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 his workers 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 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 of Sybil Birling, Priestley makes clear wealthy women in 1912 needed to change. 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 of Sheila and Eric, Priestley presents younger characters as willing to learn. 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.
Throughout the play, Priestley presents the inspector as powerful and moral. Within the stage directions, Priestley makes clear how powerful the inspector is by writing that he should ‘cut in massively’ over the Birlings. This demonstrates that the inspector is not afraid of the Birlings simply because they are a higher class than him. Priestley uses the inspector to cut through traditional class barriers and show that people should be treated equally. As a socialist, this is what Priestley believed. During the inspector’s dialogue with the Birlings, Priestley has the inspector state ‘we are all members of one body. We are all responsible for each other’. Priestley’s repetition of the word ‘we’ indicates that he believes that people should not only think about themselves. Priestley’s use of the word ‘we’ also contrasts Arthur Birling’s use of the words ‘him’ and ‘himself’, demonstrating the difference between Birling’s selfishness and the inspector’s morality. Priestley’s use of the words ‘one body’ demonstrate that he believes everyone should work together. The inspector acts as Priestley’s mouthpiece, offering the Birlings and Gerald ideas about a new society, in which everyone takes responsibility for each other in an effort to reduce inequality. Priestley hoped that his 1945 audience would realise that they needed to take more responsibility for others.
7+
‘An Inspector Calls’ is about how people should be more responsible. Priestley uses the Inspector as his mouthpiece, to challenge the selfish capitalist views of many of the middle and upper classes and to promote his belief in greater equality for everyone. Through the Inspector’s questioning of each of the characters, Priestley demonstrates how a lack of responsibility for others can have tragic consequences. Eric and Sheila’s ability to take responsibility for their actions conveys Priestley’s belief in the chance for a better society for the future.
The Inspector’s questioning of Arthur Birling reveals how poorly some of the working classes were treated by wealthy business owners. Early in the play, Arthur Birling proudly boasts that ‘a man has to mind his own business, look after himself and his own’. Priestley makes it clear that Arthur Birling prioritises his own interests above the interests of his workers. When questioned by the Inspector about how he responded to his workers’ request for a payrise, Birling responds with the words ‘I refused of course’. The words ‘of course’ demonstrate the arrogance in Arthur Birling’s character; he feels entirely justified in behaving in the way he did and does not wish to be questioned by the Inspector. The fact that Birling ‘refused’ without even discussing the payrise with his workers, and went as far as firing the person leading the strike, demonstrates how few rights the working classes had in 1912. Priestley deliberately presents Arthur Birling as a character who is unable to accept any responsibility for his actions and who remains concerned with his own reputation throughout, even offering the Inspector ‘thousands’ in order to keep quiet. Priestley does this in order to demonstrate to his audience that society will only improve if wealthy business owners like Arthur Birling admit their mistakes and try to take more responsibility for their workers.
Priestley uses the Inspector’s questioning of Sybil Birling to demonstrate the need for a welfare system to help the working classes. When questioned about her actions, Priestley makes it clear that Sybil Birling was prejudiced towards Eva Smith. Priestley has Sybil refer to the working classes as ‘girls of that class’ and ‘of that sort’, which demonstrates that she is snobbish and looks down on the working classes. He also has Sybil proudly say she was ‘perfectly justified’ in doing what she did, admitting that she was prejudiced against Eva Smith due to her ‘impertinent’ use of the Birling name. Priestley deliberately chooses to have Sybil Birling run a private charity as he is able to use her character to suggest that charities run by wealthy people would never offer the help that society needed. Priestley wanted to make the case for a welfare state, which would offer more help to the working classes. Many of Priestley’s 1945 audience would have voted for the Labour Party, who came into power in 1945 and established the NHS, thus would have felt equally critical of Sybil Birling’s actions.
Through the Inspector’s questioning of Sheila and Eric, Priestley demonstrates that the younger generation may be able to change society for the better. Whereas Sybil and Arthur Birling are relieved and delighted when they realise the Inspector wasn’t real, Sheila and Eric remain guilty and remorseful for their actions. Eric challenges his parents for pretending that ‘nothing really happened at all’, which highlights the difference in the way the characters take responsibility for their actions. Priestley wanted to propose to the audience that the younger generation, many of whom may have voted for the recently elected Labour Party in 1945, would be able to change society for the better, as they were more willing to recognise their mistakes.
The Inspector is Priestley’s mouthpiece throughout, challenging capitalist views and proposing different ways of thinking. Priestley uses stage directions to indicate that the inspector is willing to interrupt the Birling’s capitalist views by having the inspector cut ‘in massively’ while the Birlings are talking. Whereas Sybil and Arthur Birling believe themselves to be superior, Priestley makes clear it is in fact the inspector that is more powerful. Priestley’s choice to have the inspector ‘cutting in’ on Birling’s and Sybil’s speeches conveys that the inspector is not intimidated by their superior class. Priestley could have decided to have the inspector cut in on the Birlings to show that capitalist viewpoints deserve to be interrupted and ended. Furthermore, the adverb ‘massively’ demonstrates that what the inspector has to say is more important than what the Birlings have to say. The audience is therefore encouraged to trust the Inspector and to believe the things he is saying to the Birlings. Priestley has the Inspector promote socialist ideals when he says to the Birlings ‘We are all members of one body. We are all responsible for each other’. Priestley’s repetition of the pronoun ‘we’ when the Inspector talks contrasts with the way Arthur and Sybil Birling speak, as they more often say the word ‘I’, seeming more preoccupied with their own interests. This demonstrates Priestley’s belief in the clear distinction between socialism, which focuses on the many, and capitalism, which focuses on self-interest.