How does Priestley present the differences between the older and
younger generations?
30/30
In his morality play, Priestley elucidates the constant disparity between the
younger and older generations to emphasise the dire need for society to
change. He masterfully presents the younger generation as being more
malleable and receptive to his didactic, socialist message of greater social
responsibility. In contrast, the older generation is portrayed as remaining
stagnant in their antiquated beliefs as they continue to uphold the status quo
and allow the systematic oppression of the working classes. Thus, Priestley
presents the Birling household as a microcosm in the wider microcosm of
Edwardian society to suggest that these divisions between the older and
younger generation are prevalent throughout society and are an indication of
the transmogrification of society into an egalitarian one.
From the exposition of the play, it’s evident that the younger generation are
unconvinced about their thoughts and power. This is patent in the “half shy
half assertive” Eric, who shrewdly recognises Birling’s unscrupulous treatment
of his employees (and his subsequent abnegation of civic responsibility) but,
crucially, lacks the conviction to act upon these thoughts: he’s “half shy”.
Perhaps he’s been suppressed by Birling (a caricature of the upper echelons of
Edwardian society) and has thus resorted to alcoholism as a method of
escapism and coping. In addition, Sheila and Eva are both objectified women,
described and referred to by physical beauty: they’re both “pretty”, which
reinforces rigid patriarchal values present in Edwardian society. Eva’s physical
inability to do anything about this evokes a sense of pathos and helplessness,
which reiterates how hopeless she felt, unconvinced that anything good would
ever happen to her after being insidiously exploited by propagators of the
patriarchy. Sheila is also suppressed: she has been sheltered from the reality of
society and enjoyed a cloistered upbringing, her “right to know” anything has
been forfeited by her parents’ upbringing of her. Interesting to note is that
Sheila’s speech is short in Act 1 and, coupled with Birling’s dismissive “run
along” imperative, elucidates the true extent of her, and other women’s,
disenfranchisement. In addition, Sheila’s perhaps implicit referral to her “right”
, to know is perhaps a play on words of her and, by extension, of women’s
rights. Crucially, Eva breaks this visions cycle and takes a decisive stance
against the obnoxious capitalist ideology as she becomes emblematic of the
Suffrage movement when demanding higher pay for all workers. In the
microcosm of the play, Eva endeavoured to pave the foundation for a more
egalitarian, equitable society as she attempted take back her power and
realised the power of workers, who had caused the infamous General Strike.
In contrast, the older generation remain steadfast and are, in flamboyant
shows of dramatic irony, convinced of their beliefs. Mr Birling, the notorious,
self-righteous megalomaniac Birling, convincingly calls the Titanic “unsinkable,
absolutely unsinkable”. The repetition of the adjective “unsinkable” reinforces
how erroneous the belief is of the upper class, older generation are, since the
audience is agonisingly aware of the Titanic’s sinking. This predisposes an
audience to reject the older generation’s beliefs as they appear ludicrous,
creating an antagonistic relationship between the older Birlings and the
audience. Moreover, perhaps metaphorically, this quotation delineates how
robust Mr Birling viewed his family to be: he was assured of this veneer of
aristocracy as he emulated aristocrats but was also complacent about the
morality of his family. Yet, importantly, the Inspector “(massively)” cuts
through the metaphorical Titanic, as solid and immovable as an iceberg since
he is the firm, moral bedrock on which the play is founded. This reinforces the
idea of how ironic and erroneous the older generation’s beliefs are not only on
world affairs but perhaps, by association, on most things, which portrays them
as untrustworthy, not least because of their abandonment of responsibility.
Furthermore, the younger generation are presented as being more malleable
and receptive to change. This is evident towards the end of the play, where
Sheila has transmogrified into a proxy for the Inspector, amplifying his didactic
message as she becomes ashamed of her family’s ability to absolve themselves
of responsibility. Moreover, she rejects the accepted infidelity and
philandering behaviour of upper-class men through her symbolic returning of
the ring, which is a metonym for materialism. In returning the ring, Sheila
rejects the patriarchal views that women ought to be subservient and obey
their husbands, clearly demonstrating how she would not allow herself and
