Question “How does Priestley present ideas about money and wealth in An Inspector Calls?”

Overall

Overall argument

Priestley presents wealth as a source of social and economic power, but also as something that can encourage selfishness and distance from the suffering of others. The Birlings’ wealth gives them security and status, while Eva’s lack of wealth leaves her vulnerable to exploitation. Ultimately, Priestley challenges the belief that wealth makes people more valuable or successful, arguing instead that society should measure itself through collective responsibility rather than individual prosperity.

P1

Paragraph 1 — Wealth creates security and confidence

“Unsinkable, absolutely unsinkable”

Main argument: Priestley associates Birling’s wealth and social position with his excessive confidence in the stability of his world.

• Repetition of “unsinkable” → absolute certainty.

• “absolutely” → extreme confidence; Birling believes his judgement is unquestionable.

• The Titanic can symbolise the wealth and prosperity of the upper-class capitalist world Birling represents.

• To Birling, technological and economic progress suggest that his society is becoming increasingly secure.

• Dramatic irony → audience knows the Titanic sank, immediately undermining Birling’s confidence.

• This can symbolically suggest that wealth and prosperity do not make a society invulnerable.

• Birling’s wealth gives him security that people like Eva do not possess.

• Therefore, Priestley exposes the illusion that financial success automatically means stability or wisdom.

Question link: Wealth gives Birling confidence and social authority, but Priestley demonstrates that material security does not guarantee moral or intellectual superiority.

P2

Paragraph 2 — Wealth creates class divisions

“Girls of that class”

Main argument: Priestley shows that wealth creates social divisions which allow the privileged to distance themselves from poorer people.

• “girls” → reduces working-class women to an indistinguishable group.

• “that” → demonstrative adjective creates distance.

• “class” → reduces Eva’s identity to her socioeconomic position.

• Mrs Birling’s language shows that wealth is not simply about money — it creates a social hierarchy.

• Because Mrs Birling sees herself as belonging to a superior class, she feels entitled to judge Eva.

• This demonstrates how wealth can become connected to assumptions about human worth.

• Eva’s poverty makes her vulnerable because she doesn’t possess the economic power that the Birlings have.

• Priestley therefore challenges the idea that people deserve greater respect simply because they have greater wealth.

Question link: Priestley presents wealth as a force that can create social distance and prejudice, rather than simply providing material comfort.

P3

Paragraph 3 — Wealth should not determine people’s value

“We are members of one body”

Main argument: The Inspector provides Priestley’s alternative to a society divided by wealth: collective equality and responsibility.

• “we” → inclusive pronoun; everyone is included.

• “members” → suggests each person has an important role in society.

• “one body” → extended metaphor presents society as interconnected.

• The metaphor challenges the idea that wealthy people are somehow more important than poorer people.

• If everyone is part of the same “body”, Eva is not less valuable because she has less money.

• This directly contrasts with Mrs Birling’s “that class”.

• It also contrasts with Birling’s individualistic capitalist belief in looking after “himself and his family.”

• Priestley therefore suggests that a healthy society should prioritise human value and collective responsibility over financial status.

Question link: Priestley ultimately presents wealth as irrelevant to a person’s fundamental value: everyone is part of the same social body.

P4

Paragraph 4 — Wealth encourages selfishness

“A man has to make his own way—look after himself and his family”

Main argument: Priestley links Birling’s pursuit and protection of wealth to his individualistic attitude towards society.

• “has to” → makes individual success sound like an absolute obligation.

• “himself” → focuses on individual self-interest.

• “his family” → responsibility is restricted to his own household.

• The phrase reflects capitalist values: individuals are expected to secure their own financial success rather than rely upon or support wider society.

• But Priestley exposes the consequences of this attitude because people who lack wealth, such as Eva, have far fewer opportunities to recover from hardship.

• Birling can protect his own family’s financial security; Eva cannot protect herself in the same way.

• Therefore, wealth gives the Birlings power and choices that Eva does not have.

• Priestley challenges the idea that poverty is simply the result of individual failure because the play demonstrates how unequal access to money creates unequal opportunities.

Question link: Priestley presents wealth as something that can create privilege and power, while extreme individualism prevents the wealthy from recognising their responsibility towards those without it.