How does Priestley use the inspector to suggests ways that society can be improved:
Priestley uses the inspector to convey the consequences of what will happen if members of society do not change. He
states that should we as a society fail to rectify the evils and ignorance of our capitalistic society we will be “taught” to do
so in “fire and blood and anguish”. Priestley’s use of a triplet of nouns can be argued to act as metaphors for the two world
wars - the list of violent nouns create savage imagery designed to remind the post-war audience of 1945 of the suffering
that was inflicted upon them as a result of greed and hunger for power. Here, the inspector is conveyed as an omnipotent
being (as the play is set in 1912) thus heightening the threat of and the power behind his words even though the audience
would have been aware that the character was written somewhat recently. Priestley uses the inspector to make the
audience be fearful as they are persuaded to think that the inspector is a God-like character imposing judgement on
society. This will (in Priestley’s mind) persuade all audiences to change their actions and embrace socialist ideologies of
caring for other members of society which is what Priestley intended them to do. Moreover, the fact that these are the
inspectors final words to the Birling family is symbolic of the lack of room for argument that Priestley believes there to be
in this matter, again highlighting the necessity for change by insinuating that this is a final warning (to both the Birlings and
the audience) as, structurally, immediately after this the inspector ‘walks straight out’ which is then followed by the
Birlings revelation that he had revealed to them the details of Eva's death before they had actually occurred – as the
inspector acts as Priestley’s political mouthpiece, this can be interpreted Priestley himself warning the audience again of
the horrors to come should they not realise the errors of their ways. Furthermore, the inspectors absence in the final part
of the play could be reflective of Priestley's belief that in order to truly progress, society must make the decisions of their
own free will, improvement cannot be properly achieved when it is forced by an external party (in this case the inspector
would be said secondary force while the Birlings would act as a metaphor for society as a whole)
Priestley suggests that a pressing issue with the twentieth century society is that people are reluctant to take
responsibility for their actions thus inflicting misery on others without remorse. This view is encapsulated through the
use of the elder members of the Birling family, Arthur and Sybil – who refuse to accept any responsibility for their
actions towards Eva Smith. This, however, is thwarted by Priestley’s portrayal of the inspector. The Inspector states that
if we share nothing else, “we have to share our guilt”. Here Priestley uses the personal pronoun “we” to present his more
socialistic views through the words of the inspector by inferring that, despite the many protests of contrast between
themselves and the lower class (which it can be argued that Eva smith is a metaphor for) that have been repeatedly voiced
by the elder Birlings, all members of society can be classified under the same umbrella. ‘An Inspector Calls’ was set in 1912,
a time in which society was divided by not only by social class but by gender as well thus meaning that, here, Priestley’s
use of the inclusive pronoun is paradoxical, subverting the audience’s expectation about a divided society. This is
augmented by Priestley’s use of the imperative verb “have to”, literally, this is the inspector inflicting some power over the
arrogance of the Birlings (symbolic of Priestley's views that the evil consequences of a capitalistic society should be
vanquished by a socialist movement) , however metaphorically this is Priestley addressing the audience, persuading them
to take responsibility for their actions towards other members of their community in order for society to progress.
Alternately, Priestley’s use of the verb “share” could further reflect Priestley’s socialist ideologies that wealth should be
more even distributed within society, instead of the richer upper and middle classes being rewarded for their wealth with
more unnecessary finance. Priestley wants the middle and upper classes to transform from abusing their power to
dominate and exploit the working class to instead being more responsible for their actions and treating people more
sympathetically.
The character of the inspector is also used to reflect Priestley's belief that in order to further ourselves as a society we
must abandon out-dated, financial-based, hierarchical societal structures and progress towards a new future in which
the gap between different groups within communities is significantly less. Upon the discovery of both Arthur and Sheila’s
guilt, Gerald offers the desperate and defensive justification of because they (himself and the Birlings) are “respectable
citizens” (read: rich) that there isn’t the slightest bit of sense in the inspectors insinuation that they are “criminals”. In
response to this the inspector offers the philosophical insight that “sometimes there isn’t as much difference as you think.
Often, if it were up to me, I wouldn’t know where to draw the line” in a calm yet blunt manner, contrasting Gerald’s state of
disbelief and (near) anger. He implies at the lack of correlation between wealth and moral superiority though his metaphor
of ‘the line’ (and the lack thereof) which separates those in society who are truly deserving of the title ‘criminal’ from the
rest. This could both be interpreted as Priestley's comment on the needless persecution of members of the lower class
based on nothing but mere prejudice and equally as a indication as to the number of harmful acts committed by the upper
class which were simply ignored because of their status – both of which can be interpreted as his message on how “often”
society is near impossible to truly segregate (character wise) once money is removed from the equation thus highlighting
the pointlessness of the unfair distribution of wealth in society. This is furthered by the fact that inspector subliminally
informs Gerald that what “you think” is different to what he knows, this highlights the ignorance of the upper classes is
regards to the suffering of those deemed to be blow them in the social food-chain- thus presenting Priestley’s view that the
rich are undeserving of the power and money that they hold and are only preventing the improvement of society as a
whole.
, How does Priestley explore the issue of class in An Inspector Calls?
Class is arguably one of the central issues presented in the play, as it is due to her lower social status that Eva Smith is able to be so
badly exploited, which leads to her tragic suffering and eventual suicide. Along side this, We are exposed to the privileges that
upper and middle-class men and women have, as well as their ignorance to the fact that they have greater opportunities and
stability than most. As a socialist, Priestley certainly viewed the division between classes as a serious issue in his post-war society;
the play ultimately tries to convey his message of social responsibility in order to minimise these rifts between the different classes
while (subtly) placing blame on those higher up in society
Whilst Priestley exposes the problems with the upper classes in the play, he also draws equal attention to the plight of the lower
classes. This is primarily highlighted through the character of Eva Smith, who is arguably less of an individual person and more of an
everywoman or symbol for the exploited lower class workers: her name ‘Eva’ is a Biblical allusion to Eve, the first woman created,
and her surname ‘Smith’ is the most common surname in Britain, both of these factors subtly highlight that her character is used as
a metaphor for the underprivileged and underappreciated by implying her importance to society. The symbolism of Eva’s name also
shifts as her situation deteriorates; being forced out of work several times, she changes her name to ‘Daisy Renton’, the surname
perhaps suggesting the idea of a ‘rent girl’ or prostitute. Interestingly, the Inspector (Priestley's political mouth-piece) describes Eva
as a ‘young woman’; the concrete noun ‘woman’ implies his respect for her regardless of her lower-class position by acknowledging
her existence using an age-appropriate and more mature title when referring to her. In contrast, the other characters refer to her
using belittling or derogatory language, for example Sybil calls her a ‘wretched girl’, the adjective ‘wretched’ carrying connotations
of Eva being doomed but also repulsive due to her class, once again highlighting Sybil’s upper-class snobbery. Arthur Birling
similarly refers to her patronisingly as a ‘lively good-looking girl’ who ultimately ‘only had herself to blame’. Though the compound
adjective ‘good-looking’ could be interpreted as a compliment, the audience would feel that it is somewhat off-putting and
patronising coming from a character such as Mr. Birling, who is in such a position of authority and privilege relative to Eva being a
mere worker who is replaceable and expendable in his eyes. The concept of ‘blame’ is pushed increasingly away from the lower
classes as the play progresses when the Inspector, acting as a mouthpiece for Priestley’s own socialist views, exposes all of the
Birling family and Gerald too to be partially culpable, doing so through the prop of the ‘photograph’ which he shows, in turn, to
each family member before exposing their encounters with Eva. The fact that nobody sees the photograph at the same time
heightens the dramatic tension of the play, and its importance as a plot device is underscored at the end when Gerald points out
that ‘There were probably four or five different girls’, ironically failing to recognise that the statement is irrelevant as it still
demonstrates that each family member acted exploitatively towards a lower-class person, even if they were different people in the
end – it is interesting to note that Gerald, the most high-class character in the play, also refers to the supposed subjects of the
photographs using the plural noun ’girls’ thus highlighting that he (and therefore those of high class) view anyone below them as
being insignificant by refusing to acknowledge their growth, a fundamental factor of the human condition, thus suggesting he
doesn’t view them as people. Ultimately the Inspector’s final speech where he declares that there are ‘millions and millions of Eva
Smiths and John Smiths’ reinforces to Priestley’s audience the irrelevance of whether Eva is an individual or a symbol, as the point
remains that the continual exploitation of lower-class workers by upper and middle classes results in mass suffering and
oppression.
Priestley uses the tensions between classes as a way of promoting his wider anti-capitalist and pro-socialist political stance. As a
socialist, he believes that the typical views of a capitalist society where, as Arthur puts it, ‘a man must look after himself and his
own’ are outdated and damaging to the population as a whole, because individuals feel no greater sense of responsibility to the
wider community. The reflexive pronoun ‘himself’ and the possessive pronoun ‘his’ also underscore the selfishness that Priestley
feels is inherent within capitalism, as in his view it encourages an individualist and anti-collectivist mentality that rewards people for
selfish behaviour and discourages them from altruistic or compassionate behaviour. Structurally, the fact that this line is said almost
directly after his wildly confident boasts such as “the Germans don’t want war” would undermine these classist views and
encourage the post-war audience of 1945 to disregard birling’s words as foolish and ignorant and thus encourage a more socialist
viewpoint via the use of situational irony as war did in fact break out merely two years after the time period in which the play was
set, highlighting the absurdness of Arthur’s views as a whole – this selfish and ignorant mindset is what Priestley believes the upper
class to be like and so presenting Mr Birling as being wildly politically oblivious Priestley is commenting how how those of high
status are blinded by their privilege . To augment this, Arthur’s views are directly juxtaposed with the Inspector’s own, particularly
towards the end of the play when he becomes more forceful with his opinions. He concludes that ‘we are all members of one
body’, using the collective pronoun ‘we’ to reflect his universal perspective of being interconnected with all other individuals in
society. ‘An Inspector Calls’ was set in 1912, a time in which society was divided by not only by social class but by gender as well
thus meaning that, here, Priestley’s use of the inclusive pronoun is paradoxical, subverting the audience’s expectation about a
divided society. The metaphor ‘members of one body’ further reinforces his socialist perspective, as the use of the noun ‘body can
be interpreted in several ways. Firstly, it parallels the lifeless state of Eva smith, and since it can be argued that she acts as a symbol
for the lower-class, this could be Priestley’s comment on how should the classist divide continue it could lead society on a road to
self-destruction. Moreover, by comparing society as a whole to ‘one body’ priestly stresses the importance on interdependence
between classes by suggesting that failing to maintain the health of one sector of society would cause the metaphorical death of
society entirely.
Priestley’s audience themselves were less accustomed to socialist opinions, and many of them continued to uphold the pre-war
Edwardian and even Victorian attitudes of class separation, rather than wanting to create a progressive society that encouraged equality
between classes. By setting the play in 1912 but writing and performing it in 1945, Priestley also uses this time difference to
demonstrate that views such as Mr and Mrs Birling’s are outdated in the modern world, encouraging his audience to distance
themselves from a capitalistic mentality and instead embrace a more socialist and equalist approach to life. This double setting also
allows Priestley to highlight the cruelty with which the lower classes were treated with the hopes to ignite change by presenting those in
the upper-class that inflict the harm (be it intentional or not) as the villain of the story.
