How does Priestley use the character of the inspector to suggest ways that society could
be improved?
In Priestley’s enigmatic morality play, “An Inspector Calls”, Priestley purposely depicts
society as stratified, unjust and ruled by exploitative capitalists such as the Birling family.
The Birlings are archetypal aristocrats who symbolise the many middle- and upper-class
people who chose to be ignorant to the suffering that their avaricious and dehumanising
views caused. Although set in 1912, the didactic play was written in 1945, arguably as a
piece of socialist propaganda to embrace the socialist views becoming more prevalent in
society in place of capitalism. The seemingly omniscient, righteous character Inspector
Goole is employed as a moral mouthpiece to encourage both the audience and characters
to improve their own societies as he coerces them towards accepting a sense of collective
responsibility.
The most fundamental character in the play is the Inspector who conceivably embodies the
socialist views of Priestley himself. Deliberately, Priestley uses the opening stage directions
to present the inspector as significant and enlightened. Structurally, the Introduction of the
Inspector is very significant. Mr Birling’s long-winded speech about how “a man has to…
look after himself” is cut short by “a sharp ring of a doorbell”: The Inspector’s arrival.
Clearly, this is used to convey the superiority of the Inspector and his ideas, and therefore
show the inferiority of the pompous Mr Birling – who embodies capitalism in the play. Upon
his arrival, the lighting changes from “pink and intimate… then brighter and harder” to
reflect how massively the Inspector’s suggestions will impact the family’s lives. Here, the
adjectives “pink and intimate” exude a warm atmosphere and covey the sheltered bliss that
the family’s wealth has allowed them to become accustomed to. Potentially, being bathed
in “pink” light is a reference to the idiom ‘rose tinted glasses’, implying that prior to the
Inspector’s arrival, the Birlings experienced a dreamy and idealistic view of the world.
Subsequently, the “brighter and harder” lighting has an accusatory feel, in direct contrast to
the previous description. This highlights the way that the Inspector’s interrogation will
challenge the Birling’s false reality. Arguably, Priestley uses precise stage directions create a
purposely unnerving undertone for the Birlings as he felt that society could be improved if
the affluent were unable to shirk their responsibilities any longer. A post war audience
would feel contented that this entitled bourgeois family’s behaviour is finally being brought
into question.
Throughout the play, the Inspector acts as Mr Birling’s literary foil; His mostly short, factual
statements directly contrast Mr Birling’s verbose orations. The inspector’s final speech at
the end of the play expresses that “we are all members of one body”, affirming that “we are
all responsible for one another”. With the collective pronoun, “we”, he implies that it is our
mutual duty to look out for “one another”. Furthermore, “members of one body” is a
biblical allusion makes the inspector seem morally enlightened so “we” as the audience are
inclined to agree with his suggestion of caring for one another to improve society. In 1912
there was no welfare state in Britain. The impoverished were often forced to depend on
charity, which was usually controlled by the wealthy. Priestley wanted to encourage people
to take the opportunity the end of the war had given them to rebuild a more caring,
, integrated society. Priestley’s direct address to the audience – the core message of the play
– diametrically opposes the key message of Mr Birling’s pompous speeches: “every man for
himself”. This stark contrast reiterates Priestley’s criticism of the selfishness of capitalism
and the way that it prevents society from improving.
Priestley’s messages of social responsibility and rejecting capitalism encourage social
revolution. Cleverly, the Inspector’s final prophetic speech sends an ironic warning to the
characters of the consequences of failing to make an effort to improve society: “blood and
fire and anguish”. Here, repetition of the conjunction “and” makes the polysyndetic list of
repercussions seem dire and extensive. His warning of “Blood and fire and anguish” can be
interpreted as dramatic irony, foreshadowing the two approaching world wars and thus
forewarning both the audience and the characters of the dire consequences of accepting or
ignoring injustices and the need for social conformity. Alternatively, these distressing nouns
could be an indirect reference to hell (the penalty of sin and failing to repent), which only
serves to increase the gravity of Priestley’s admonition.
In conclusion, Priestley’s use of pathos through the plight of Eva Smith and strong
arguments by the inspector make the audience consider the way they can improve their
own society, perhaps through considering the consequences of their own actions and
embracing social responsibility. An audience in 1945, having suffered two world wars, would
be increasingly receptive to this more socialist ideology. It is clear to see how these
messages are still relevant in contemporary Britain; We still live in a society where there is a
significant gap between the wealthy and the disadvantaged. Priestley’s use of a cyclical
structure reiterates his warning against repeatedly making the same mistakes and presents
a simple, socialist solution: accept responsibility.
How far does Priestley present Eric as a character who changes his attitudes towards
himself and others during the play?
In Priestley’s enigmatic morality play, “An Inspector Calls”, Eric is presented as a transitional,
remorseful and passionate character who is used as a device to promote socialism and
highlight the changing values of the younger generation. Despite beginning the play as an
unstable and irresponsible, Eric’s character develops as he gradually becomes repentant and
mature during and following the Inspector’s interrogation. Through his honest portrayal of
Eric Birling, Priestley intends for the audience to reflect on their own behaviour in the hope
that awareness and acceptance of responsibility will create a more thoughtful and
integrated society. Although the play is set in 1912, the play was written in1945 and so his
post war audience – having suffered serious hardships – would be willing to embrace a more
caring culture.
In the opening stage directions, Eric is described as being “in his early twenties, not quite at
ease, half shy, half assertive”. At this point, it seems that Eric being a young man is less of a
source of hope for a brighter future, and more as a justification for his immaturity. It is likely
that his age and status as a wealthy man have allowed him to become accustomed to his
poor behaviour being overlooked and allowed. Priestley’s repetition of the adjective “half”
