Exploring Social Responsibility in J.B. Priestley’s An Inspector Calls
Homework type: History essay
Added: today at 14:52
Summary:
Explore social responsibility in J.B. Priestley’s An Inspector Calls and learn how the play challenges class, morality, and collective duty in British society.
The Social and Moral Responsibility Explored in J.B. Priestley’s *An Inspector Calls*
J.B. Priestley’s *An Inspector Calls*, penned in 1945 yet set before the outbreak of the First World War, stands as a sharp critique of British society. The play, with its post-war perspective but Edwardian setting, interweaves two crucial periods in British history, harnessing their contrasts to scrutinise the shifting social values of the twentieth century. At its core, the narrative serves as a mirror, reflecting both the entrenched divisions and the stirring possibilities of social responsibility. By focusing on the Birling family’s confrontation with the mysterious Inspector Goole, Priestley exposes class arrogance, gender expectations, and the necessity of collective morality.
The purpose of this essay is to delve deeply into how Priestley utilises characterisation, dramatic technique, and cultural context to challenge complacency, highlight social iniquity, and, ultimately, argue for a more compassionate society. Through close scrutiny of the play’s characters, structure, and techniques, I will demonstrate how *An Inspector Calls* endures as a plea for social awakening—a message equally poignant today as during its first performance.
My central argument is that Priestley’s play harnesses the tensions of its dual timeframes to dismantle social barriers and implore audiences to embrace their shared responsibility for one another.
---
Historical and Social Context
The choice to set *An Inspector Calls* in 1912 is no accident. Edwardian Britain was marked by strict social hierarchy, where divisions between the upper, middle, and working classes coloured every relationship and opportunity. Arthur Birling, as a self-made industrialist, embodies the ambitious—and complacent—middle class, hungry for social affirmation yet willing to disregard those less fortunate. For women, the landscape was grim: marriage or servitude were often the only paths available outside the rare exceptions. Mrs Birling’s role as the matriarch upholding the class system, and Eva Smith’s fate as a worker easily discarded, illustrate these ugly realities.By writing in 1945, Priestley draws upon the social revolutions that followed two world wars, particularly the rise in women’s rights and the weakening grip of the old class system. The spectre of war hangs throughout the play, both as a dramatic irony (Birling’s misplaced confidence that war will not occur) and as a warning of the catastrophic consequences of selfishness. Priestley, a noted socialist and founding member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, had lived through the trauma and transformative energy of the mid-twentieth century; his play acts as a vehicle for his call for social progress. By anchoring his plot in a period just before the tides of change, Priestley underscores the dangers of social inertia and the potential of collective action.
The relevance of these themes persists. Even now, British society grapples with inequality, whether in economic opportunity, social mobility, or justice. Priestley’s play speaks to every era caught between what has been and what might yet be if empathy prevails.
---
Plot and Structure Analysis as Vehicles for Social Critique
The structure of *An Inspector Calls* is meticulously crafted to maximise tension and expose hypocrisy. The play commences with the Birlings celebrating Sheila’s engagement—a merger signalling their upward climb in social circles. The family’s self-satisfaction is immediately ruptured by the arrival of Inspector Goole, whose probing questions shatter their composure and force confessions.Priestley’s use of a continuous, one-act format—rare for its time—ensures an unrelenting focus on the unfolding drama. Events take place in real time, with no distraction from the claustrophobic setting of the Birling dining room. This intensifies the sense of entrapment: the family cannot escape the scrutiny of the Inspector any more than they can dodge moral responsibility.
Inspector Goole is more than a police officer; he acts as Priestley’s mouthpiece, dispensing uncomfortable truths and unmasking social pretensions. His methodical inquiry unmasks each character’s complicity in Eva Smith’s suffering. Yet the Inspector remains enigmatic—his name, ‘Goole,’ hints at the supernatural, suggesting he may be a symbol rather than a man. He compels not just the Birlings, but also the audience, to examine the consequences of individual actions.
---
Character Analysis and Their Representations of Social Attitudes
Mr Arthur Birling: The Selfish Capitalist
Arthur Birling typifies the prosperous businessman assured of his position. He speaks with authority—often ludicrously, as when he boasts that the Titanic is “unsinkable, absolutely unsinkable” or predicts there will be no war, declarations undercut by the audience’s knowledge of history. His motto, “a man has to make his own way,” frames his actions throughout the play: profit and reputation take precedence over compassion.When challenged about his treatment of Eva Smith, Birling refuses to acknowledge wrongdoing, insisting he acted “reasonably.” His intransigence and blindness to change ultimately serve as Priestley’s critique of those who refuse to adapt or empathise, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Mrs Sybil Birling: The Cold Matriarch
Sybil Birling is, if anything, even less receptive to self-examination. As a prominent member of the Brumley Women’s Charity Organisation, she embodies the paternalistic philanthropy common at the time: help is dispensed only to the “deserving,” by standards set by the privileged. Her refusal to aid Eva, whom she dismisses as undeserving due to her changing story and presumed immorality, solidifies her role as the embodiment of upper-class prejudice.Mrs Birling’s lack of empathy is matched by her disdain for her children’s attempts at moral discussion. Even presented with evidence of her complicity, she is unrepentant, insisting “I accept no blame for it at all.” This obstinacy is key to Priestley’s depiction of the inertia of privilege.
Sheila Birling: The Journey to Social Awareness
Sheila, initially depicted as frivolous and sheltered, quickly emerges as the most perceptive member of her family. Her remorse upon learning of her role in Eva’s sacking—“I’ll never, never do it again to anybody”—marks the beginning of her transformation. Sheila questions her family’s values and sides with the Inspector, challenging both her parents and fiancé.By the play’s conclusion, Sheila recognises the necessity of change: “the point is, you don’t seem to have learnt anything.” Priestley offers her as hope for the coming generation, capable of learning, changing, and refusing to repeat past mistakes.
Eric Birling: The Troubled Conscience
Eric, awkward and alienated, has clearly struggled in the shadow of his parents’ expectations. His insecurities surface early, as does his drinking, an unspoken symptom of familial tension. Eric’s liaisons with Eva culminate in disaster, yet his anguish is genuine: “the fact remains that I did what I did.”Eric’s admission of guilt is painful but honest, setting him apart from his parents. His recognition of shared responsibility signals the potential for redemption, should the next generation commit to learning from the past.
Gerald Croft: The Respectable Accomplice
Gerald is presented as the ideal match—a bridge between old money and new. Yet his relationship with Eva/Daisy, and his attempts to conceal the truth, reveal a self-interested streak. His charitable gestures towards Eva are undermined by the power imbalance their affair exposed.Gerald’s response to the Inspector’s revelations is measured: he feels guilt, but is quick to accept the family’s (illusory) reprieve after the Inspector’s departure. His partial acceptance of responsibility underlines the play’s central tension between recognition and denial.
---
Major Themes and Symbolism
At the heart of *An Inspector Calls* is the theme of social responsibility. Priestley insists, via the Inspector, that “we are members of one body.” The well-being of society hinges on mutual care; indifference yields tragedy.Class divides pervade every interaction, with Eva Smith—a working-class woman repeatedly failed by those above her—serving as the play’s moral centre despite her absence from the stage. Her story is a compilation of real sufferings, her anonymity a symbol for countless others crushed by the class system.
Gender’s role is equally potent. Eva’s vulnerability is doubled by her status as a woman, living at the mercy of capricious bosses and predatory lovers. Her fate starkly contrasts with Sheila’s, who is sheltered even when complicit.
Guilt and accountability pulse through the narrative. Where the younger Birlings grapple with shame, their elders resort to denial. Priestley places hope in self-awareness—the first step towards social progress.
The Inspector stands as a warning, uttering the ominous “fire and blood and anguish” to forecast punishment for those who do not heed the lesson. He is both judge and prophet, his interrogation a call for society’s self-examination.
---
Literary Techniques and Their Effects
Priestley employs dramatic irony throughout, most notably as Birling pronounces the impossibility of war and the durability of prosperity, both horrifically discredited by later events. This technique both piques the audience’s superiority and highlights the folly of those blinded by self-interest.Symbolism runs deep: the engagement ring, a device for consolidation rather than love; the dining room table, around which secrets unravel; the shifting light, which grows harsher as truths are exposed. Repetition of the Inspector’s refrain that “each of you helped to kill her” hammers home the theme of collective guilt.
Dialogue differentiates class and morality: Mr Birling’s verbose, pompous declarations contrast sharply with Sheila’s emotional candour. Priestly’s stage directions, sparing but instructive, lend the setting an air of stifling luxury, a microcosm of upper-middle-class insularity.
---
Impact and Message for Contemporary Audiences
Priestley’s moral intention blazes through: to prompt audiences to interrogate their own roles in societal structures. The play cautions against complacency, demanding that the privileged recognise their duty to support those without power.In modern Britain, the widening gap between rich and poor, ongoing struggles over gender equality, and heated debates about public morality prove the play’s continued relevance. Eva Smith’s story, pieced together from the indifference of many, could easily be retold in the world of zero-hours contracts and social exclusion.
Priestley’s final challenge is affirmative: to forge a more humane society through understanding and action. Education, far from being mere transmission of facts, is here recast as a means to nurture critical awareness and empathy.
---
Conclusion
Through a deft interplay of character, historical setting, and dramatic technique, *An Inspector Calls* lays bare the perils of selfishness and the hope of shared responsibility. Priestley’s vision is uncompromising: society thrives only when it learns from the past and commits to collective wellbeing. The play remains a powerful appeal—a call to rise above old divisions, to refuse moral blindness, and to embrace the duty we owe one another.In a world still marked by inequality, Priestley’s message endures: what matters, in the end, is not wealth or status, but the depth of our care for others.
Rate:
Log in to rate the work.
Log in