An Inspector Calls: Character Analysis and Social Themes
This work has been verified by our teacher: 4.02.2026 at 15:05
Homework type: Analysis
Added: 3.02.2026 at 5:42
Summary:
Explore key characters and social themes in An Inspector Calls to understand responsibility, privilege, and morality in J.B. Priestley’s classic play.
An Inspector Calls: The Function and Depth of Characters
J.B. Priestley’s play *An Inspector Calls*, first performed in 1945, remains a staple of the British curriculum due to its keen exploration of society through its characters. Set before the First World War, the play uses the microcosm of the Birling family to probe issues of responsibility, privilege, and social morality. In Priestley’s hands, characters are far more than participants in a domestic drama: they are intricately designed to communicate the author’s message about the need for greater collective responsibility. This essay will explore the ways in which the principal characters drive the action, reflect the period’s social hierarchies, and challenge the audience’s own assumptions about morality and justice.
---
Inspector Goole: Incarnation of Conscience and Change
Inspector Goole sweeps into the Birlings' celebratory evening as an unsettling presence, functioning not only as the agent of the narrative but as Priestley’s voice in the play. He is enigmatic from his very introduction: his name evokes the supernatural, almost as if he is a “ghoul” haunting his subjects. Though he resembles a police inspector, his knowledge surpasses that of an ordinary official, leading the audience to question if he represents a kind of collective conscience or a spirit of accountability.Goole’s authority is striking. When he says, “We are responsible for each other,” he echoes Priestley’s core belief in social interconnectedness—a far cry from the Birling family's self-serving delusions. His questioning proceeds methodically, each visit to a character revealing new layers of deceit and complicity. The Inspector wields chronology and patience, exposing how each family member’s action paved the way towards Eva Smith’s tragedy.
Importantly, Goole never loses composure. When faced with Arthur Birling’s attempts at intimidation or Sybil’s snobbery, he remains unwavering, invested only in searching for the truth. His moral seriousness and lack of personal agenda set him apart from those he interrogates. His final speech is almost prophetic, warning of "fire and blood and anguish" if people refuse to learn their lesson—a powerful reference to the wars and struggles that followed the era in which the play is set. This ambiguous blend of realism and surrealism destabilises the characters and the audience alike, ensuring that his questions continue to haunt the conscience long after the curtain falls.
---
The Birling Family: A Portrait of Arrogance and Evasion
Arthur Birling: Unflinching Capitalist
Arthur Birling, the patriarch, encapsulates the arrogance and ignorance of the Edwardian upper middle class. A self-made businessman, he holds progress and prosperity as personal achievements disconnected from social obligation. Early in the play he boasts “the Titanic...unsinkable, absolutely unsinkable,” making the audience acutely aware of his shortsightedness—Priestley’s use of dramatic irony exposes Birling’s flawed worldview. Birling’s resistance to the Inspector’s arguments about community—“a man has to mind his own business and look after himself”—stands as the antithesis to Priestley’s own socialist convictions.Arthur’s failure is not simply moral but intellectual; he is unable to shift his views even when confronted with mounting evidence of harm caused by his family. This obstinacy signals a broader condemnation of the capitalist class, whose comfort depends on maintaining social divisions and absolving themselves of responsibility.
Sybil Birling: Hypocrisy Disguised as Charity
Sybil Birling is, if anything, a more forbidding figure than her husband. She chairs a charity committee yet denies support to Eva Smith at her most dire moment, justifying her choice through arbitrary rule. Sybil’s actions reveal the hypocrisy lurking behind supposed philanthropy—a woman blind to suffering if it threatens her sense of superiority.Her language is cold, often referring to Eva only as “the girl,” refusing her even the dignity of a name. Sybil's inability to see her own faults, even when they are paraded before her, is symptomatic of the upper classes who do not see themselves as complicit in the social ills their privilege creates. Her constant refrain that “I accept no blame for it at all” nails her firmly to the wall of denial that Priestley wishes his audience to attack with fresh perspective.
Sheila Birling: The Journey from Innocence to Insight
Sheila, the engaged daughter, begins the evening as a typical, pampered young woman, concerned mainly with material enjoyment. Yet her capacity for empathy distinguishes her almost immediately; she is visibly shaken by the news of Eva Smith’s death and admits her own role in her downfall with painful honesty: “I know I’m to blame—and I’m desperately sorry.” Sheila’s readiness to examine herself contrasts with her parents’ refusal.What sets Sheila apart is her willingness to challenge not only herself but her family and Gerald as well. She becomes the audience’s vehicle, asking questions we might want to ask, and recognising the Inspector’s true purpose: “He’s giving us the rope—so that we’ll hang ourselves.” Her journey is a hopeful emblem for the possibility of moral progress, reflecting Priestley’s faith in the younger generation’s ability to change.
Eric Birling: Guilt, Weakness, and Hope
Eric is presented as a troubled, somewhat alienated figure, struggling both with a drinking problem and a sense of guilt. His relationship with Eva Smith was exploitative at times, yet he is the first among the men to admit profound remorse for his actions: “We did her in, all right.” Eric’s youth makes him susceptible to the influences of his upbringing, but it is also what enables him to feel guilt and, crucially, to want to atone.Unlike his parents, Eric accepts the need for social responsibility, making him another symbol of hope for Priestley’s “better society.” His journey, while not as assured as Sheila’s, suggests that redemption and recognition are within reach, even for the flawed.
---
Gerald Croft: Comfortably Caught Between Worlds
Gerald Croft occupies an uncertain position, being neither wholly of the Birling world nor entirely removed from it. Engaged to Sheila but the son of the socially superior Crofts, he acts as a bridge between two classes. His affair with Eva Smith further muddies any neat judgement; unlike the elder Birlings, he is capable of both charm and consideration, providing Eva with shelter and affection.Yet, Gerald’s desire to prove the Inspector a hoax at the end demonstrates the limits of his growth. He is more like the older generation than he cares to admit, eager to restore order and comfort rather than face the need for personal transformation. He complicates Priestley’s message, reminding the audience that some are always willing to defend the status quo if it means their security is maintained.
---
Thematic Interconnections
Responsibility and Consequence
The greatest divide between characters is in their readiness to accept blame. The Inspector’s investigation makes clear that even minor acts of carelessness can have devastating effects if left unchallenged. Sheila and Eric’s remorse, set against their parents’ steadfast denial, puts into sharp relief Priestley’s faith in reform and his criticism of those who refuse to learn.Class and Social Standing
Every character’s attitude towards Eva Smith is, in some sense, shaped by class. The Birlings and Gerald use their status to justify acts of dismissal, cruelty, or condescension. Eva, never seen but present throughout, is made a tool for Priestley’s critique of ingrained privilege. The audience is compelled to see how easily the marginalised are sacrificed for the comfort of the few.Generational Conflict
Priestley depicts a gulf between the outlook of the younger and older characters. Through Sheila and Eric’s willingness to embrace change, the play offers a solution to the stasis of the past. Arthur and Sybil, meanwhile, represent the dangers of complacency and refusal to adapt—a veiled warning to the audience about the perils of repeating history.---
Dramatic Purposes of Characterisation
Priestley crafts each character not simply as an individual but as a symbol: the stubborn businessman, the icy matriarch, the restless youth, the charming but indecisive suitor. Their interactions allow the tension to rise gradually, each confession peeling back further layers of respectability to expose uncomfortable truths. The living room itself—a symbol of comfort and privilege—becomes a site of reckoning.Secrets, lies, and the gradual dismantling of each character’s self-image not only progress the plot but animate Priestley’s underlying argument: society’s problems are perpetuated when individuals refuse to take responsibility for the lives of others.
---
Tips for Analysing Characters
For those writing essays on *An Inspector Calls*, it is crucial to situate characters within the play’s historical moment: a time when the chasm between rich and poor was at its height, and the call for reform was growing louder. Quoting significant lines (“We are responsible for each other,” “I did nothing I’m ashamed of”) can lend weight to points. Always pay attention to stage directions and shifts in dialogue, as Priestley carefully orchestrates moments of tension to reveal character development.Most importantly, consider what Priestley wants from his audience in each moment: are we meant to sympathise, judge, or reflect on our own potential complicity? Connecting these threads yields more nuanced and insightful analysis.
---
Rate:
Log in to rate the work.
Log in