An Inspector Calls: Key Characters and Major Themes Explored
This work has been verified by our teacher: 15.01.2026 at 18:33
Homework type: Essay
Added: 15.01.2026 at 17:49
Summary:
A detailed analysis of *An Inspector Calls*: explores characters, themes like social responsibility & class, and Priestley’s call for empathy and change.
An Inspector Calls – Character Profiles and Themes
I. Introduction
J. B. Priestley’s *An Inspector Calls* has become a mainstay within the UK education system, not least as a prominent text studied at GCSE level. Written in 1945 yet set in 1912, the play forms a compelling bridge between the Edwardian era’s rigid class divisions and post-war Britain’s mounting drive towards social reform and the dismantling of entrenched inequalities. Priestley provides a powerful critique of capitalism and social irresponsibility through the microcosm of the Birling family, wielding his drama as both a mirror and a warning to society. The play’s didactic undercurrents and bold use of dramatic techniques urge audiences—particularly young people—to interrogate their own beliefs and the structures holding up modern British society.This essay will examine the main characters in *An Inspector Calls*, unpacking the ways Priestley uses their relationships and development to bring core themes to the fore. Carefully considering the figures of Inspector Goole, Arthur Birling, Sybil Birling, Sheila Birling, Eric Birling, and Gerald Croft, the analysis will tie individual choices and perspectives to more sweeping themes such as social responsibility, class dynamics, generational conflict, and the Inspector’s role as moral arbiter. Ultimately, the aim is to uncover how Priestley’s creation continues to press for justice, empathy, and self-reflection.
---
II. Plot Overview
Priestley arranges the action across three tightly constructed acts. Act One begins with the Birlings—a successful industrialist family—celebrating Sheila’s engagement to Gerald Croft, the son of a wealthy competitor. Their gathering is interrupted by the enigmatic Inspector Goole, who announces that a young woman, Eva Smith, has died a gruesome death after drinking disinfectant. It emerges that each member of the household, as well as Gerald, is connected to Eva’s downfall.Act Two delves further into these connections. Gerald confesses to a romantic involvement with Eva, then known as Daisy Renton, while Sybil Birling admits to having rejected Eva’s plea for help from her charity, coldly deeming her undeserving. Tensions escalate, particularly as suspicions start to gather around Eric, the Birlings' son.
In Act Three, Eric’s clandestine relationship with Eva and his theft from the family business are revealed. The Inspector delivers his iconic speech, imploring all present to accept collective responsibility for one another’s welfare. Following Goole’s abrupt exit, the family is left in turmoil, only for a telephone call at the play’s end to announce that a real inspector is on his way. The play closes on a cliffhanger, forcing both characters and audience to reflect. Techniques such as the Inspector’s mysterious presence, the cyclical return to crisis, and the steadily intensifying suspense all ensure the story’s social message is vividly delivered.
---
III. Character Profiles
A. Inspector Goole
The Inspector is neither simply a policeman nor an ordinary man. Instead, he seems to operate as Priestley’s surrogate—a mouthpiece for socialist ideas and the moral conscience of the play. He enters with an “impression of massiveness, solidity and purposefulness," immediately commanding respect in a household where status is everything. His methodical questioning and calm authority unravel the family’s self-satisfied narrative. Significant is his rule: “One person and one line of enquiry at a time. Otherwise there’s a muddle.” Here, he imposes order and ensures that each character cannot hide behind the confusion of collective guilt.Notably, Goole’s name echoes “ghoul,” hinting at something beyond the ordinary, and his knowledge often borders on the supernatural. He serves as a constant check on the Birlings’ evasions; at one point, we hear the “sharp ring of a front door bell,” a stage direction that underlines his role as an unsettling disruption. In the climactic finale, his assertion—“We are members of one body. We are responsible for each other”—fuses moral imperative with social critique. The ambiguity surrounding his identity at the close deepens his symbolic weight, leaving both the Birlings and the audience to grapple with unresolved questions about justice, conscience, and consequence.
B. Arthur Birling
Arthur Birling epitomises the Edwardian industrialist, with limitless confidence in his own opinions and a profound investment in class and capital. His speech in Act One, which dismisses the likelihood of war—“The Germans don’t want war. Nobody wants war”—is heavy with dramatic irony, exposing both his ignorance and Priestley’s own critical stance towards his class. Mr Birling’s sacking of Eva Smith after her involvement in strike action represents the ruthless side of unbridled capitalism.Throughout, Birling refuses to accept responsibility for Eva’s fate, making statements such as “I can’t accept any responsibility.” His disregard for the Inspector’s message and his ultimate relief upon believing the investigation to be a hoax reveal his superficial concern solely for reputation and profit. He stands in stark contrast to the play’s younger characters, suggesting the necessity of moving beyond such entrenched attitudes for any social progress.
C. Sybil Birling
Sybil Birling, presiding over a local women’s charity, exacts a cold, self-righteous view of social need. Her refusal to assist Eva—whose case is, poignantly, made under a fabricated name "Mrs Birling"—demonstrates her mindless commitment to propriety over compassion. She is quick to deflect blame, insisting, “I did nothing I’m ashamed of,” even when confronted with the chain of Eva’s suffering.Sybil’s actions lay bare the hypocrisy underlying so-called charitable institutions rooted in class prejudice. Her certainty in the "deserving" versus "undeserving" poor—producing a harsh verdict on Eva while wilfully ignorant of her own family’s role—epitomises the moral blindness Priestley seeks to critique. Her eventual shock, in learning that the “drunken young man” she condemns is her own son, highlights both the insecurities and the failures of moralistic, upper-class respectability.
D. Sheila Birling
Sheila’s journey is the most significant in the play. At first frivolous and self-absorbed, she soon displays acute remorse for her jealousy-driven role in Eva’s sacking from Milwards: “I know I’m to blame—and I’m desperately sorry.” Unlike her parents, Sheila is willing to face uncomfortable truths, challenging her mother’s indifference and her father’s blustering. As the Inspector presses, Sheila emerges as an advocate for the values Priestley wants to endorse: introspection, compassion, and accountability.Sheila’s transformation represents hope for change, especially among the younger generation. Her recognition that “these girls aren’t cheap labour—they’re people” contrasts sharply with her father’s commodification of workers. In this way, Priestley elevates Sheila as a symbol of new social consciousness and a prototype for the audience’s own moral development.
E. Eric Birling
Eric is at once pitiable and culpable. His immaturity and heavy drinking hint at deeper unhappiness lurking beneath the family’s respectable façade. His relationship with Eva is revealed as exploitative, deeply shaming him. Still, his attempts to support Eva financially and his open remorse in Act Three—“We did her in all right”—set him apart from his parents.Eric’s actions exemplify the devastating effects of secrecy and hypocrisy among the privileged, highlighting wider issues of male irresponsibility, poverty, and the stigmatisation faced by women like Eva. His final confrontation with his mother forces a reckoning within the family, laying bare the play’s greater theme: that no public image of decency can efface personal wrongdoing.
F. Gerald Croft
Gerald, Sheila’s fiancé, embodies a more complex form of upper-class entitlement. While initially likeable and honest about his affair with Eva/Daisy, he does not display the same capacity for change as Sheila and Eric. Although he helps Eva in her time of need, his withdrawal from the relationship demonstrates the limits of his sympathy. Gerald’s final efforts to question the Inspector’s authority and rationalise away the evening’s events suggest a willingness to maintain the status quo.Gerald thus stands between the older and younger generations—a link to both privilege and, momentarily, to empathy. Yet ultimately, he remains part of the system that enabled Eva’s exploitation, underlining the moral limits of even the most seemingly “decent” men of his class.
---
IV. Major Themes
A. Social Responsibility and Collective Guilt
Priestley’s central message is encapsulated in the Inspector’s speech: “We are responsible for each other.” Every character, in their own way, has contributed to Eva Smith’s ruin, whether through action or inaction. The play thus shows that ignoring mutual responsibility can have tragic results. The timing of the play’s premiere, just after the Second World War, aligns closely with Britain’s movement towards social justice—most notably, the founding of the NHS and the welfare state under the Labour government. Priestley calls on audiences to reflect on their own impact on those around them and to think in terms of collective, not just individual, morality.B. Class and Social Hierarchy
Class is both foregrounded and interrogated in every interaction. The Birlings and Gerald sit comfortably atop social hierarchies, their lives seemingly insulated from consequence. In contrast, Eva Smith’s marginalisation exposes the brutal effects of poverty and the indifference of the elite. Mrs Birling’s rejection of Eva on the grounds that she was “claiming elaborate fine feelings and scruples that were simply absurd in a girl in her position” is particularly damning. Priestley’s portrayal of Eva as both ordinary and heroic ensures the working class are not rendered invisible, but instead take centre stage in the moral narrative.C. Generational Conflict
A generational divide runs like a fault line through the play. While Mr and Mrs Birling remain set in their ways, Sheila and Eric display the willingness and ability to change—a hope, perhaps, for a more equitable future. Sheila’s declaration, “If all that’s come out tonight is true, then it doesn’t much matter who it was who made us confess” highlights the moral independence of the younger characters. This reflects Priestley’s faith in post-war youth, tasked with building a fairer society.D. Power and Control
The power dynamic shifts repeatedly: from Mr Birling’s blustering dominance, to the Inspector’s methodical authority, to Mrs Birling’s attempts to wield social prestige. The Inspector’s technique of quietly undermining his subjects’ defences reveals the ultimate power of truth and conscience. Throughout, the illusion of control by the rich is exposed as hollow, particularly in the face of collective moral reckoning.E. The Role of Women and Gender Expectations
Sheila’s evolution and Eva’s tragedy starkly illustrate the position of women in Edwardian England. While Mrs Birling clings to traditional ideals of propriety, Sheila breaks the mould—her voice growing in assurance and compassion as the play progresses. Eva’s vulnerability, exacerbated by poverty and the lack of support for single mothers, underlines the gendered inequalities deeply embedded in both class structure and everyday life.---
V. Dramatic Techniques and Their Effects
Priestley’s style is marked by his use of dramatic irony—most notably Mr Birling’s unfounded optimism about the Titanic and European politics—which renders his pomposity ridiculous in the eyes of the audience. Tension and suspense are continual, driven by the Inspector’s interrogation and the secrets each character holds. The cyclical structure, ending as it began, brings home the urgency of social reform and the risks of complacency. Symbolically, the ring of the doorbell at the start and the final telephone call both act as reminders that moral accounting is inescapable. Dialogue and staging highlight generational and ideological divides; the formal, defensive tone of the elder Birlings contrasts starkly with Sheila and Eric’s growing openness and distress. All this draws the audience into complicity: we, too, are challenged to look inward and outward for change.---
Rate:
Log in to rate the work.
Log in