inspector calls

Mr Birling thesis

through the character of Mr Birling, Priestley presents a potent critique of the self serving capitalist ethos prevalent in early 20th century Britain, exposing its inherent opposition to social responsibility and its detrimental impact on both the working class and familial relationships

Birling’s unwavering commitment to profit and social status blinds him to the interconnectedness of society and the emotional needs of his own family, rendering him as a symbol of the callous individualism Priestley vehemently opposes.

Ultimately, Birling serves as a cautionary figure, embodying the outdated and morally bankrupt values that Priestley urges his audience to reject in favour of a more compassionate and socially conscious future

Mrs Birling thesis

through the character of Mrs Birling, Priestley exposes the ingrained class prejudice and moral hypocrisy prevalent within the Edwardian upper class, revealing a women whose public persona of social responsibility masks a private adherence to rigid social hierarches and a callous disregard for the working class, particularly working class women like Eva Smith

Mrs Birling’s inability to acknowledge her ole in Eva’s tragic fate, coupled with her dismissive treatment of those she deems socially inferior underscores the systematic inequalities and moral blindness that perpetuate social injustice

ultimately, Mrs Birling serves as a potent symbol of the older generation’s resistance to change and their complicity in maintain a social order built upon exploitation

Eric thesis

through the character of Eric, Priestley critiques the damaging effects of affluent neglect and the abuse of power inherent in Edwardian England’s rigid class and gender hierarchies

Eric’s fractured relationship with her father, his exploitative treatment of Eva Smith and his struggles with toxic masculinity reveal the destructive consequences of emotional detachment, male entitlement and societal expectations that prioritize the needs of the privileged while marginalizing and disempowering the vulnerable

Ultimately, Eric embodies both the potential for redemption and the deep-seated societal flaws and necessitate change.

Sheila thesis

Sheila Birling of An Inspector Calls is defined by a compelling trajectory from an initial state of acquiescence to the patriarchal norms of Edwardian society to a fiercely articulated challenge against its inherent inequalities

her journey is marked by a growing awareness of social justice, fuelled by empathy for Eva Smith and a disillusionment with her parents entrenched conservatism, positioning her as a potent symbol of the younger generation’s potential to disrupt and ultimately dismantle the rigid social hierarchies of her time

Gerald thesis

Gerald Croft, though seemingly a beneficiary of Edwardian society's privileges, is constrained by the era's rigid expectations of upper-class masculinity, which demand a performance of stoicism and control that ultimately limits his emotional autonomy.

his relationships, including his engagement to Sheila and his involvement with Daisy Renton, reveal the societal pressures that shape his actions and highlight the performative nature of his social identity

Ultimately, Gerald's character exposes the complex ways in which societal structures, while granting privilege, can also restrict individual freedom and authentic self-expression.

Inspector thesis

The Inspector functions as the embodiment of social conscience and corporate social responsibility, directly opposing Mr. Birling's capitalist ideology and catalysing a moral awakening among the Birlings

his pronouncements and interrogations expose the interconnectedness of society and the ethical obligations of the privileged towards the vulnerable, challenging the Birlings' self-serving individualism

Ultimately, the Inspector represents a potent force for social change, demanding accountability and urging a fundamental shift in societal values.

Mr Birling vs Inspector: Social Responsibility - Corporate Social Responsibility (Birling)

Mr. Birling embodies a capitalist ideology fundamentally opposed to corporate social responsibility, a concept powerfully championed by, and indeed personified within, the Inspector, who is constructed as the embodiment of social conscience and the very principle of corporate social responsibility that Birling so readily dismisses.

Birling’s dismissive assertion regarding community, "as if we were all mixed up together like bees in a hive - community and all that nonsense," immediately reveals his individualistic and exploitative stance. The simile, comparing community to "bees in a hive," utilizes zoomorphism to belittle socialist ideals, portraying them as unnatural and chaotic.

The idiomatic noun "nonsense" further underscores Birling’s arrogant dismissal of any social model that prioritizes collective well-being over profit. Priestley uses Birling here as a microcosm for the archetypal capitalist employer of the early 20th century, whose prosperity was often directly built upon the exploitation of the lower classes, symbolized by Eva Smith.

Birling embodies this self-serving approach, viewing his workers as mere "labour costs" to be minimized, as he states, "It's my duty to keep labour costs down." The noun "duty" is employed ironically, highlighting his warped sense of obligation which prioritizes profit over the human cost.

Mr Birling vs Inspector: Social Responsibility - Corporate Social Responsibility (Birling) (Alternative view)

Alternatively, one could interpret Birling’s staunch individualism not merely as a rejection of corporate social responsibility, but as a sincere, albeit misguided, belief in the efficacy of free-market capitalism.

From this perspective, his focus on "labour costs" and profit maximization might be seen as his way of contributing to the overall economic prosperity of society, with the belief that a thriving business ultimately benefits everyone through job creation and wealth generation.

The noun "duty," while seemingly ironic, could be argued as representing his genuine commitment to this economic model, where his primary responsibility lies in ensuring the success and longevity of his business within a competitive market.

This interpretation suggests that Birling’s resistance to the Inspector’s collectivist ideals stems from a deeply ingrained faith in a different, arguably outdated, model of societal contribution, rather than outright malice.

Mr Birling: Class and Politics - Social Stratification (Birling)

Mr. Birling’s interactions with Edna, the family’s maid, starkly illustrate the entrenched social stratification of 1912, a system where status and power were rigidly determined by wealth and birth. Birling’s instruction, "Give us the port, Edna. That’s right," directed dismissively towards his social equals while including Edna as a mere functionary, immediately establishes his ingrained sense of superiority.

The imperative "Give us" highlights his expectation of immediate service, while the detached affirmation "That’s right," following Edna’s compliance, underscores her role as an obedient subordinate whose actions require his validation. Birling embodies the patriarchal head of a prosperous household, secure in his upper-middle-class status and the privileges it affords him, including the readily available service of those in lower social echelons.

Edna, in her largely silent presence, symbolizes the invisible foundation upon which the Birlings’ comfortable existence is built, a constant reminder of the hierarchical structure that dictates their interactions. Her lack of individual voice within the play underscores the power imbalance inherent in this social stratification.

Birling’s concern with avoiding "public scandal" further highlights his awareness of maintaining his position within this hierarchy; the noun "scandal" implies a threat to his social standing, revealing his investment in upholding the class distinctions that benefit him. He embodies the dominant class whose primary concern is the preservation of their elevated status.

Mr Birling: Class and Politics - Social Stratification (Edna)

In contrast, Edna embodies the working class, largely unseen and unheard, whose labor sustains the lifestyle of the Birlings. Her minimal dialogue and functional presence on stage highlight her lack of agency and the limited opportunities afforded to those in her social position.

She symbolizes the vast majority of the population whose contributions were essential yet often unacknowledged by the ruling classes.

The power dynamic between Birling and Edna exemplifies the inherent inequality of social stratification, where one class exerts authority and the other is expected to comply without question.

Mr Birling: Class and Politics - Social Stratification (Alternative View)

Alternatively, one could argue that Birling’s seemingly dismissive interactions with Edna are not necessarily malicious but rather a product of the deeply ingrained social norms of the time. His curtness might be interpreted as a reflection of the accepted distance between employer and domestic staff, a social code that dictated formal, rather than personal, interactions.

From this perspective, "Give us the port, Edna. That’s right," could be seen as a simple, efficient instruction within the established social framework, rather than a deliberate act of dehumanization. Birling, in this view, embodies the typical behaviour of a man of his class and era, acting within the confines of a social system he inherited and likely never questioned.

The lack of direct address to Edna beyond the functional request might simply reflect the customary social distance maintained between different strata of society at the time.

Mr Birling vs Eric: Younger/Older Generation - Affluent neglect (Birling)

The fractured relationship between Mr. Birling and his son, Eric, poignantly illustrates the concept of affluent neglect, where material comfort masks a significant lack of parental engagement and emotional support, impacting both father and son. Birling embodies a father figure whose preoccupation with business and social standing has seemingly blinded him to the emotional needs of his own son.

In contrast, Eric embodies the emotional vulnerability that can exist even within affluence, and his character reveals the potential consequences of such paternal detachment. Birling’s exasperated query regarding Eric’s behavior, "What’s the matter with that child?" delivered with irritation and a sense of detachment, encapsulates his superficial engagement with Eric’s struggles.

The use of "that child" rather than addressing Eric directly highlights Birling's emotional distance and his tendency to objectify his son, viewing him as a problem rather than an individual in need of support. He symbolizes a parent who prioritizes external appearances over internal well-being. Additionally, even when confronted with Eric’s confession regarding the stolen money, Birling’s primary concern remains the financial and reputational damage:

"You're the one I blame for this." The accusatory pronoun "you" immediately deflects responsibility and prioritizes his own standing over Eric’s moral culpability or well-being, further widening the emotional chasm between father and son. Eric, therefore, embodies the neglected child of affluence, yearning for genuine connection in a family focused on material success.

Mr Birling vs Eric: Younger/Older Generation - Affluent neglect (Alternative View)

Alternatively, one could argue that Birling’s seemingly harsh reactions to Eric stem from a traditional, perhaps outdated, view of paternal responsibility and discipline. His focus on financial accountability and his dismissal of Eric as "spoilt" might be interpreted as his attempt to instil responsibility in his son, albeit in a clumsy and emotionally distant manner.

From this perspective, his question, "What’s the matter with that child?" while lacking warmth, could be seen as an attempt to elicit a straightforward explanation and impose a solution based on his understanding of right and wrong. Birling, in this view, embodies a father figure operating within the norms of a more emotionally reserved era, where direct reprimand and emphasis on financial prudence were considered key aspects of raising a son, even if it lacked the emotional nuance we might expect today.

Conversely, Eric's actions could be viewed not solely as a consequence of neglect, but also as a manifestation of youthful rebellion against the rigid expectations and emotional constraints of his privileged upbringing.

Mrs Birling: Social Responsibility - Intersectional Feminism

Mrs. Birling embodies a privileged indifference to the plight of working-class women, a stark contrast to the vulnerable position of Eva Smith, highlighting the intersecting inequalities of gender and class that underpin the play. In direct contrast, Eva Smith embodies the tragic consequences of intersecting social inequalities, highlighting the specific vulnerabilities faced by working-class women in Edwardian society.

Mrs. Birling’s dismissive pronouncement regarding Eva’s pregnancy, "She came to you for help, at a time when she was in trouble," reveals a detached acknowledgment of Eva’s desperation without any genuine empathy. The phrase "in trouble" is a euphemism that downplays the severity of Eva’s situation as an unmarried, pregnant woman in a socially unforgiving era, a vulnerability compounded by her working-class status.

Mrs. Birling embodies the societal blindness of affluent women who fail to recognize the precarious position of those less fortunate, particularly when compounded by gender expectations.. Her initial refusal of stolen money, implied in Mrs. Birling’s incredulous tone, reveals a moral integrity that transcends her class, challenging the prejudiced assumptions of the upper classes.

Her subsequent assertion, "As if a girl of that sort would ever refuse money!" exposes her class prejudice, assuming an excessively greedy and desperate nature among working-class women, entirely disregarding individual circumstances and the desperation that might lead someone to refuse tainted money. The phrase "that sort" dehumanizes Eva, reducing her to a stereotype based on her class, thus ignoring the complexities of her individual moral compass.

Mrs. Birling, therefore, symbolizes the comfortable ignorance of upper-class women who fail to acknowledge the intersecting oppressions faced by those like Eva Smith.

Mrs Birling: Social Responsibility (Intersectional Feminism) (Alternative View)

Alternatively, one might argue that Mrs. Birling’s judgment of Eva Smith, while harsh, stems from a rigid adherence to the social and moral codes of her time. Her scepticism towards Eva’s motives and her insistence on personal responsibility could be seen as a reflection of the prevailing societal expectations placed on women, regardless of their class.

From this perspective, Mrs. Birling’s pronouncements, such as "As if a girl of that sort would ever refuse money!," might not solely be rooted in class prejudice but also in a belief in universal moral standards and a suspicion of those who deviate from them.

This interpretation suggests that Mrs. Birling operates within a framework of strict social and gendered expectations, which, while ultimately contributing to Eva’s demise, were widely accepted within her social milieu.

Conversely, Eva’s actions could be viewed not solely as a consequence of societal oppression but also as a series of choices, however limited, within the constraints of her circumstances.

Mrs Birling vs Sheila: Younger/Older Generation - Generational Conflict (Mrs Birling)

The burgeoning conflict between Mrs. Birling and Sheila serves as a microcosm for the wider generational schism Priestley explores, revealing fundamentally different attitudes towards social responsibility and the established social order.

Mrs. Birling, embodying the deeply ingrained conservatism of the older generation, struggles to comprehend Sheila’s burgeoning empathy. Her sharp, almost incredulous query, "What business is it of yours?" directed at Sheila’s compassionate questioning about Eva Smith, underscores her belief in maintaining strict social boundaries.

The possessive pronoun "yours" not only dismisses Sheila’s concern as irrelevant but also subtly reinforces the patriarchal notion that a young woman should not concern herself with matters deemed outside her social sphere.

Mrs. Birling symbolizes an older generation whose identity and social standing are inextricably linked to the rigid class hierarchy of Edwardian England, a hierarchy they see as natural and immutable. Her resistance to acknowledging any collective responsibility stems from a fear of disrupting this established order.

Mrs Birling vs Sheila: Younger/Older Generation - Generational Conflict (Alternative View)

Alternatively, one might delve deeper into the psychological underpinnings of Mrs. Birling’s resistance. Her adherence to social conventions and her dismissal of Sheila’s concerns could be interpreted as a defence mechanism, a way to maintain her own sense of security and superiority within a rapidly changing social landscape.

Her generation had benefited from the existing hierarchy, and acknowledging its flaws might threaten her own identity and privilege. In contrast, Sheila’s burgeoning empathy could be seen as a characteristic of youth, less burdened by the ingrained prejudices of the past and more open to ideals of social justice.

However, this idealism might also be viewed as naïve by the older generation, lacking the “practicality” they associate with experience and the need to maintain social stability. The generational conflict, therefore, becomes a complex interplay of ingrained beliefs, social anxieties, and the idealism of youth encountering the pragmatism (or perceived inflexibility) of age.

Mrs Birling: Class and Politics - Dual Self

Mrs. Birling’s character powerfully embodies the concept of the dual self, revealing a significant psychological split between her carefully constructed public identity as a respectable member of the upper class and her prejudiced private behavior and beliefs regarding those of a lower social standing. In public, particularly as the chairwoman of the Women's Charity Organisation, Mrs. Birling projects an image of social responsibility and moral rectitude.

However, her private interrogation of Eva Smith reveals a starkly contrasting self, one characterized by cold judgment and a rigid adherence to class distinctions. Her pronouncement, "I used my influence to have it refused," regarding Eva’s plea for help, exposes the ruthless exercise of her class power, a behaviour entirely at odds with the supposed charitable aims of her public role.

The noun "influence" highlights the insidious way in which social standing can be weaponized against the vulnerable, revealing a private self that prioritizes the maintenance of class boundaries over compassion. This duality is further evident in her condescending dismissal of Eva as "a girl of that sort," a dehumanizing generalization that she would likely never utter in a public setting.

The phrase "that sort" encapsulates her private prejudice, reducing Eva to a stereotype based on her class, a stark contrast to the benevolent facade she presents in her public life. Mrs. Birling, therefore, embodies the hypocrisy inherent in a social system that allows the privileged to maintain a respectable public image while privately perpetuating class inequalities.

Mrs Birling: Class and Politics - Dual Self (Alternative View)

Alternatively, one could argue that Mrs. Birling’s behavior is not necessarily a conscious exercise in duplicity but rather a manifestation of deeply internalized social norms and beliefs prevalent within her class. Her public acts of charity, however limited or judgmental, might genuinely be seen by her as fulfilling her social duty, while her private prejudices are simply the accepted way of viewing the lower classes within her social circle.

From this perspective, the split between her public and private self is not a deliberate deception but a reflection of the inherent contradictions within a social system that espoused charity while simultaneously upholding rigid class barriers. Her use of "influence" might be seen as her exercising what she genuinely believed to be her right and responsibility as a member of the upper class, and her dismissal of "a girl of that sort" could be interpreted as a reflection of the common class-based assumptions of her time, rather than a uniquely malicious personal trait.

The concept of a "dual self" in this context might then be seen not as a deliberate psychological split, but as the embodiment of the inherent hypocrisy embedded within the social and political structures of the era.

Eric vs Mr Birling: Younger/Older Generation - Affluent Neglect (Eric)

The fractured relationship between Mr. Birling and his son, Eric, poignantly illustrates the concept of affluent neglect, where material comfort masks a significant lack of parental engagement and emotional support, impacting both father and son. Birling embodies a father figure whose preoccupation with business and social standing has seemingly blinded him to the emotional needs of his own son.

In contrast, Eric embodies the emotional vulnerability that can exist even within affluence, and his character reveals the potential consequences of such paternal detachment. His "excitable queer moods" and descent into drinking are symptomatic of an underlying emotional turmoil, a silent cry for attention and understanding that has seemingly gone unheeded by his preoccupied father.

Eric symbolizes the younger generation within wealthy families who may experience a profound sense of emotional neglect despite material comfort, leading them to seek solace in destructive behaviours.

Even when confronted with Eric’s confession regarding the stolen money, Birling’s primary concern remains the financial and reputational damage: "You're the one I blame for this." The accusatory pronoun "you" immediately deflects responsibility and prioritizes his own standing over Eric’s moral culpability or well-being, further widening the emotional chasm between father and son.

Eric, therefore, embodies the neglected child of affluence, yearning for genuine connection in a family focused on material success.

Eric vs Mr Birling: Younger/Older Generation - Affluent Neglect (Eric) (Alternative View)

Alternatively, one could argue that Birling’s seemingly harsh reactions to Eric stem from a traditional, perhaps outdated, view of paternal responsibility and discipline. His focus on financial accountability and his dismissal of Eric as "spoilt" might be interpreted as his attempt to instill responsibility in his son, albeit in a clumsy and emotionally distant manner.

From this perspective, his question, "What’s the matter with that child?" while lacking warmth, could be seen as an attempt to elicit a straightforward explanation and impose a solution based on his understanding of right and wrong. Birling, in this view, embodies a father figure operating within the norms of a more emotionally reserved era, where direct reprimand and emphasis on financial prudence were considered key aspects of raising a son, even if it lacked the emotional nuance we might expect today.

Conversely, Eric's actions could be viewed not solely as a consequence of neglect, but also as a manifestation of youthful rebellion against the rigid expectations and emotional constraints of his privileged upbringing.

Eric: Gender - Lack of Autonomy

Eric Birling’s exploitative encounter with Eva Smith epitomizes a stark abuse of power rooted in the gender and class hierarchies of the time, significantly (depriving) Eva of her autonomy. His admission, "I insisted on her coming inside," though seemingly innocuous, reveals a coercive dynamic where Eric leverages his social and economic superiority to override Eva’s potential reluctance.

The verb "insisted" carries a subtle yet potent implication of pressure and the silencing of Eva’s agency, highlighting how societal structures afforded men like Eric the perceived right to impose their will upon working-class women. This initial act sets the stage for a relationship built upon inequality, where Eva’s autonomy is immediately compromised by Eric’s entitled assertiveness.

His subsequent confession, "I didn't even remember - that's the hellish thing," regarding the financial support he provided, underscores his casual disregard for Eva’s well-being and the precariousness of her situation. The adjective "hellish" points not only to his guilt but also to the devastating consequences of his thoughtless actions on Eva’s life, further eroding her control over her circumstances and forcing her into a position of dependence.

Eric embodies the insidious entitlement fostered by a patriarchal and class-based society, where his actions, born from a sense of male prerogative, directly contribute to Eva’s increasing lack of agency and her ultimate vulnerability. He symbolizes the destructive intersection of male privilege and class dominance that strips individuals of their fundamental autonomy.

Eric: Gender - Lack of Autonomy (Alternative View)

Alternatively, one could interpret Eric’s actions not solely as a deliberate act of exploitation but also as a manifestation of his own internal struggles and a misguided attempt to exert some form of control or intimacy. His “insistence” might stem from a sense of loneliness and a lack of genuine connection, albeit expressed in a harmful and entitled way.

However, this interpretation does not absolve him of responsibility for the impact of his actions on Eva’s autonomy. Similarly, while Eva is undoubtedly a victim of societal forces and Eric’s behavior, her decisions, such as seeking financial assistance from him, could be seen as attempts to regain some semblance of control within her constrained circumstances.

This perspective acknowledges the complexity of human interactions within unequal power dynamics, without diminishing the significant role Eric plays in undermining Eva’s autonomy.

Eric vs Gerald: Gender - Toxic Masculinity (Eric)

Both Eric Birling and Gerald Croft, despite their shared upper-class background, embody different facets of toxic masculinity, revealing the damaging constraints imposed upon men by societal expectations of dominance and emotional suppression. Gerald, seemingly the more socially adept and conventionally masculine of the two, initially presents an image of control and competence. In contrast,

Eric embodies a more overtly troubled manifestation of toxic masculinity, characterized by an inability to articulate his emotions and a propensity for impulsive, often aggressive behavior, particularly when under the influence. His stammered explanation, "I was in that state when a chap easily turns nasty," attempts to excuse his forceful encounter with Eva, attributing his actions to a generalized male state rather than taking personal responsibility.

The phrase "easily turns nasty" suggests a societal normalization of male aggression, a dangerous aspect of toxic masculinity that absolves men of accountability for their harmful behaviour towards women. Eric’s reliance on alcohol and his emotional volatility can be interpreted as symptoms of a restrictive masculine code that discourages emotional expression, leaving him with unhealthy outlets for his internal struggles.

Both Eric and Gerald, therefore, illustrate the damaging spectrum of toxic masculinity, one through a veneer of controlled dominance and the other through emotional ineptitude and impulsive aggression, both ultimately contributing to the exploitation and disempowerment of women like Eva Smith.

Eric vs Gerald: Gender - Toxic Masculinity (Alternative View)

Alternatively, one could argue that Gerald’s actions are more calculated and strategic, driven by a desire for social acceptance and the maintenance of his engagement to Sheila, while Eric’s behaviour stems from a genuine lack of maturity and self-control, exacerbated by his drinking.

Gerald’s attempt to rationalize his affair could be seen as a performance of expected masculine behaviour within his social circle, where discreet sexual encounters might have been tolerated as long as they didn't threaten social standing.

In contrast, Eric’s “nastiness” might be interpreted as a more visceral manifestation of his inner turmoil and a rebellion against the stifling expectations of upper-class masculinity. This perspective suggests that while both characters operate within a patriarchal framework, their individual motivations and the ways in which they embody toxic masculinity differ in their intent and execution.

Sheila vs Mrs Birling: Younger/Older Generation - Generational Conflict (Sheila)

The burgeoning conflict between Mrs. Birling and Sheila serves as a microcosm for the wider generational schism and intersectional feminism Priestley explores, revealing fundamentally different attitudes towards social responsibility and the established social order.

Mrs. Birling, embodying the deeply ingrained conservatism of the older generation, struggles to comprehend Sheila’s burgeoning empathy. Her sharp, almost incredulous query, "What business is it of yours?" directed at Sheila’s compassionate questioning about Eva Smith, underscores her belief in maintaining strict social boundaries.

Conversely, Sheila’s impassioned response, "But these girls aren't cheap labour - they're people," marks a decisive break from her mother’s entrenched worldview. The declarative statement, employing the emphatic plural noun "people," signifies a profound moral awakening and a rejection of the dehumanizing language prevalent within the capitalist system her parents uphold. Sheila embodies the nascent social conscience of the younger generation, increasingly attuned to issues of social injustice and inequality. Her use of "people" elevates the working class beyond their economic function, recognizing their inherent dignity and challenging the prevailing societal tendency to view them as a faceless workforce.

This generational divide is further emphasized by Sheila’s willingness to accept personal responsibility, contrasting sharply with her mother’s obstinate denial. Sheila’s moral evolution, spurred by the Inspector’s revelations, positions her as a symbol of hope for social progress, representing a generation willing to dismantle the outdated social structures that the older generation, like Mrs. Birling, tenaciously defend. The conflict between them is not merely a familial disagreement but a representation of the broader societal tension between clinging to established, unequal systems and embracing a more compassionate, egalitarian future.

Sheila vs Mrs Birling: Younger/Older Generation - Generational Conflict (Alternative View)

Alternatively, one might delve deeper into the psychological underpinnings of Mrs. Birling’s resistance. Her adherence to social conventions and her dismissal of Sheila’s concerns could be interpreted as a defence mechanism, a way to maintain her own sense of security and superiority within a rapidly changing social landscape. Her generation had benefited from the existing hierarchy, and acknowledging its flaws might threaten her own identity and privilege.

In contrast, Sheila’s burgeoning empathy could be seen as a characteristic of youth, less burdened by the ingrained prejudices of the past and more open to ideals of social justice. However, this idealism might also be viewed as naïve by the older generation, lacking the “practicality” they associate with experience and the need to maintain social stability.

The generational conflict, therefore, becomes a complex interplay of ingrained beliefs, social anxieties, and the idealism of youth encountering the pragmatism (or perceived inflexibility) of age.

Sheila vs Gerald: Gender - Lack of Autonomy (Sheila)

Furthermore, Sheila’s initial presentation vividly illustrates a profound lack of autonomy, deeply rooted in the patriarchal conditioning of the time. Her anxious question regarding the engagement ring, "Is it the one you wanted me to have?," starkly reveals her internalized prioritization of Gerald’s desires over her own. The possessive pronoun "you" highlights her conditioned reliance on male approval for validation, effectively subordinating her own preferences and desires.

This ingrained behavior underscores how women of her era were systematically socialized to find their identity and worth through their relationships with men, severely limiting their capacity for independent thought and action. Sheila embodies the societal expectation that women should be agreeable and deferential to male authority, a conditioning that actively stifled their autonomy and self-determination.

This lack of autonomy reflected the early 20th century context where women had limited legal and economic independence, their roles largely confined to the domestic sphere. Priestley, writing later, critiques these Edwardian values through Sheila's initial dependence, highlighting the restrictive impact of patriarchal structures on female agency, a theme that resonated with post-war shifts in societal expectations for women.

Sheila vs Gerald: Gender - Lack of Autonomy (Gerald)

Gerald Croft, while seemingly empowered by his gender and social standing within the Edwardian societal structure, also experiences a significant lack of complete autonomy, albeit in ways distinct from Sheila’s more overt constraints. His adherence to the rigid expectations of upper-class masculinity dictates a performance of stoicism and control, limiting his emotional range and compelling him to suppress any vulnerability.

His engagement to Sheila, while seemingly a choice, is also framed within the societal imperative for men of his status to secure advantageous marriages, suggesting a degree of obligation rather than pure personal volition. Gerald operates under the watchful eye of social decorum, where any deviation from expected masculine behaviour could jeopardize his reputation and standing.

His affair with Daisy Renton, far from being an unfettered exercise of autonomy, is conducted in secrecy, highlighting his awareness of the social repercussions should his actions become public. This need for concealment reveals a lack of true freedom, as his desires are circumscribed by the necessity of maintaining a respectable façade.

Gerald embodies a form of autonomy that is intrinsically linked to performing a specific masculine role, limiting his ability to express genuine emotions or pursue relationships that might transgress societal boundaries. He is conditioned to prioritize reputation and the appearance of control, even at the expense of authentic connection and emotional honesty. This societal conditioning, while granting him certain privileges, simultaneously imprisons him within a narrow definition of manhood, restricting his autonomy in expressing a fuller, more nuanced self.

Sheila vs Gerald: Gender - Lack of Autonomy (Alternative View)

Alternatively, one might argue that while Sheila initially displays a lack of autonomy, the events of the play serve as a catalyst for her to recognize and begin to challenge these conditioned limitations.

Her growing social conscience and eventual rejection of Gerald signify a burgeoning desire for independence, suggesting that her lack of autonomy is not absolute but rather a state she begins to overcome.

In contrast, Gerald’s autonomy, while seemingly absolute, might be viewed as a gilded cage, binding him to certain social expectations and limiting his emotional expression and genuine self-awareness.

Gerald vs Eric: Gender - Toxic Masculinity (Gerald)

Both Eric Birling and Gerald Croft, despite their shared upper-class background, embody different facets of toxic masculinity, revealing the damaging constraints imposed upon men by societal expectations of dominance and emotional suppression. Gerald, seemingly the more socially adept and conventionally masculine of the two, initially presents an image of control and competence.

His admission to Sheila, "I didn't install her there so that I could make love to her," attempts to rationalize his involvement with Eva Smith, yet the defensive tone and the need for justification betray an underlying awareness of societal judgment regarding his actions.

The verb "install," with its connotations of objectification and control, inadvertently reveals a patriarchal mindset where he perceives himself as having the power to place and utilize Eva according to his desires, highlighting a key tenet of toxic masculinity: the objectification of women. Gerald embodies a form of masculinity that prioritizes reputation and the appearance of control, often masking underlying insecurities and a capacity for callous behaviour.

Gerald vs Mr Birling: Class and Politics - Social Climbing (Birling)

The relationship between Arthur Birling and Gerald Croft is a complex interplay of class dynamics and political maneuvering, reflecting the intricate social stratification of Edwardian England. Birling, the ambitious industrialist, views Gerald not merely as a prospective son-in-law but as a crucial link to established social echelons, a connection that could significantly elevate his own standing.

His frequent pronouncements and subtle attempts to impress Gerald, particularly his emphasis on his local political achievements like being "Lord Mayor two years ago," reveal his deep-seated desire for validation from those born into higher social strata. The specific mention of his civic title serves as a conversational currency, a way for Birling to assert his importance and bridge the social gap he perceives between himself and the Crofts.

Birling embodies the striving middle class, leveraging political involvement and familial alliances to gain social capital and penetrate the seemingly impenetrable walls of the aristocracy. He seeks not just a personal connection with Gerald but a symbolic merging of his "new money" with Gerald's "old money" lineage, a transaction that carries significant social and potentially political weight within their community.

Gerald vs Mr Birling: Class and Politics - Social Climbing (Gerald)

Conversely, Gerald’s interactions with Birling are characterized by a polite yet subtly detached acknowledgment of Birling’s efforts. While he engages in the social pleasantries expected of a future son-in-law, there's an underlying awareness of his family’s superior social pedigree.

His references to his father’s knighthood and his family’s long-standing land ownership, though infrequent, serve as quiet reminders of this established status. Gerald’s relationship with Birling is less about personal admiration and more about a pragmatic alliance between two influential families.

The Croft family’s acceptance of the Birlings signifies a strategic recognition of the growing economic power of industrialists and the potential benefits of aligning their traditional status with this new wealth. Their relationship, therefore, is a carefully negotiated exchange, where Birling seeks social validation and upward mobility, while Gerald maintains his family’s power and influence in a changing social landscape.

Their dynamic highlights the intricate dance of class and politics, where personal relationships are often intertwined with broader social and economic considerations.

Gerald vs Mr Birling: Class and Politics - Social Climbing (Alternative View) (1)

Alternatively, a more nuanced perspective might consider Birling’s eagerness to impress Gerald not purely as a calculated act of social climbing but also as a reflection of a deeper insecurity stemming from his relatively recent social ascent. His persistent need to mention his achievements and align himself with the Crofts could be interpreted as a yearning for genuine acceptance into a social world he has worked hard to enter but still feels somewhat external to.

This interpretation adds a layer of psychological complexity to Birling’s character, suggesting his motivations are not solely strategic but also rooted in a human desire for belonging and validation from those he perceives as possessing inherent social authority.

Gerald vs Mr Birling: Class and Politics - Social Climbing (Alternative View) (2)

Similarly, Gerald’s polite detachment might not simply be an expression of upper-class reserve but could also indicate a pragmatic understanding of the evolving social landscape. His willingness to engage in the alliance with the Birlings, despite his family’s superior lineage, could signify a recognition of the increasing economic power held by the industrialist class.

This suggests a strategic adaptation by the established aristocracy to maintain their overall influence in a society where wealth is becoming as significant as birthright. Gerald’s behaviour, therefore, could be seen as a forward-thinking approach to preserving his family’s long-term standing by aligning with the ascendant economic force, rather than a condescending dismissal of Birling’s social position.

This alternative lens reveals a more intricate power dynamic where both men are navigating a shifting social terrain with their own distinct motivations and anxieties

Inspector vs Mr Birling: Social Responsibility - Corporate Social Responsibility (Inspector)

The Inspector is constructed as the embodiment of social conscience and the very principle of corporate social responsibility that Birling so readily dismisses. Mr. Birling embodies a capitalist ideology fundamentally opposed to corporate social responsibility, a concept powerfully championed by, and indeed personified within, the Inspector.

Acting as a catalyst for moral awakening, the Inspector's powerful declaration, "We are members of one body," uses the inclusive pronoun "we" to emphasize the interconnectedness of society, a direct and forceful challenge to Birling’s isolated individualism. Where Birling sees his responsibility ending at the factory gates and his personal wealth, the Inspector embodies a counter-ethos that demands businesses recognize their profound ethical obligations to the wider community and the individuals they employ.

He symbolizes the societal demand for accountability and the understanding that profit should not come at the expense of human dignity and well-being.

The Inspector, therefore, stands as a direct antithesis to Birling's self-serving capitalism, representing the burgeoning social consciousness that insists businesses are active participants in the well-being of communities, a concept Birling’s language and actions utterly reject.

Inspector: Social Responsibility - Ouspensky’s Time Theory

The Inspector, as Priestley’s didactic mouthpiece, embodies the antithesis of the Birlings’ self-serving individualism and serves as a catalyst for potential change, aligning with the cyclical nature of Ouspensky’s time theory. His persistent interrogation forces the Birlings to confront their individual contributions to Eva Smith’s demise, aiming to break their ingrained patterns of denial and self-absolution.

The Inspector’s pronouncement, "Each of you helped to kill her. Remember that. Never forget it," is a stark and direct indictment, emphasizing collective responsibility and the potential for learning from past mistakes to avoid future repetition. The imperative "Remember" and the absolute "Never forget" serve as a moral anchor, urging the family to internalize the consequences of their actions and disrupt the cyclical pattern of exploitation and denial that Ouspensky’s theory suggests humanity is prone to.

The Inspector’s very presence disrupts the Birlings’ comfortable, self-contained world, representing an external force necessary to initiate the possibility of breaking free from their destructive cycles of behaviour. He embodies the potential for humanity to recognize its errors and alter its course, a crucial element in transcending the repetitive nature of time as proposed by Ouspensky.

Inspector: Social Responsibility - Ouspensky’s Time Theory (Alternative View)

Alternatively, one might interpret the Inspector’s role not as a guarantee of breaking the cycle but rather as a stark warning about the consequences of failing to do so. His final ominous words, hinting at "fire and blood and anguish," suggest that if the Birlings, and by extension society, fail to learn from the cyclical patterns of injustice and irresponsibility, they are doomed to repeat them on a larger, more catastrophic scale.

In this view, the Inspector’s visit is not necessarily about the linear progression of change but about presenting a critical juncture, a moment of potential awakening that could either lead to the disruption of harmful cycles or a descent into further suffering. The Birlings’ final reactions – the younger generation showing remorse while the older cling to denial – highlight the internal struggle between recognizing the cyclical nature of their failings and the resistance to breaking free from them

Inspector: Social Responsibility - Marxist Theory

The Inspector, as a catalyst for truth and social justice, embodies key tenets of Marxist theory by exposing the inherent class struggle within the Edwardian society depicted in the play. His interrogation strategically dismantles the façade of bourgeois harmony, revealing the exploitative relationship between the wealthy Birlings and the working class, represented by Eva Smith.

The Inspector’s insistence that "there are millions and millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths still left with us" directly challenges the Birlings’ individualistic worldview, highlighting the systemic oppression faced by the proletariat under a capitalist regime. The repetition of "millions" serves to emphasize the sheer scale of working-class individuals vulnerable to the bourgeoisie’s exploitation, a central tenet of Marxist analysis.

The Inspector’s role as an external force, unburdened by the Birlings’ class prejudices, allows him to articulate the Marxist critique of capitalism, where the bourgeoisie’s pursuit of profit inherently leads to the suffering of the proletariat. He acts as a voice for the voiceless, bringing the class struggle into the Birlings’ comfortable dining room and forcing them to confront their role in this historical and ongoing conflict.

The Inspector, therefore, embodies the Marxist understanding of history as driven by the inherent antagonism between the ruling class and the oppressed workers.

Inspector: Social Responsibility - Marxist Theory (Alternative View)

Alternatively, one might argue that while the Inspector exposes class inequalities, his approach is more moralistic and socialist than strictly Marxist. His emphasis on individual responsibility and collective conscience transcends the purely economic determinism of some Marxist interpretations.

While he highlights the suffering of the working class, his ultimate goal appears to be instilling empathy and social responsibility within the Birlings, rather than advocating for a revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist system. In this view, the Inspector serves as a societal conscience, urging reform within the existing structure rather than explicitly calling for a Marxist revolution.

However, his exposure of the stark class divisions and the detrimental impact of capitalist exploitation aligns significantly with the core principles of Marxist thought, making him a potent symbol of the inherent class struggle within the play's social context.

Mr Birling conclusion

n essence, Mr. Birling symbolizes the entrenched and damaging ideology of profit-driven individualism that Priestley argues must be dismantled to foster a more humane society.

His consistent dismissal of collective responsibility, his exploitative treatment of the working class exemplified by Eva Smith, his rigid adherence to social hierarchies demonstrated in his interactions with Edna, and his emotionally detached relationship with Eric collectively paint a portrait of a man deeply invested in a system that prioritizes personal gain over communal well-being.

Consequently, Birling stands as a stark representation of the pre-war social order that Priestley implores his audience to learn from and move beyond. Through this flawed and ultimately unrepentant character, Priestley delivers a powerful message advocating for empathy, social responsibility, and a fundamental shift away from the selfish tenets embodied by Mr. Birling

Mrs Birling conclusion

In essence, Mrs. Birling’s public persona is carefully curated to uphold her social status and reinforce the existing class structure, while her private actions reveal a deep-seated prejudice that actively disadvantages those beneath her.

This duality allows her to navigate the social and political landscape of the time, maintaining her power and privilege without acknowledging the human cost of the class divisions she reinforces.

Eric conclusion

In conclusion, Eric Birling's journey from a neglected and irresponsible young man to someone capable of acknowledging his culpability highlights the corrosive impact of affluent neglect and unchecked privilege.

His actions serve as a stark indictment of a society where wealth and status insulate individuals from the consequences of their behaviour, particularly concerning those with less power.

While Eric's initial behaviour reflects the destructive aspects of toxic masculinity and entitlement, his eventual remorse offers a glimmer of hope, suggesting the possibility of personal and societal transformation.

Sheila conclusion

In conclusion, Sheila's development in An Inspector Calls is pivotal to Priestley's critique of Edwardian England.

Her transformation from a compliant participant in its social rituals to a vocal advocate for change underscores the possibility of individual awakening and the rejection of inherited privilege.

By the play's end, Sheila embodies a nascent social conscience, foreshadowing a rejection of the older generation's complacency and a demand for a more just and equitable society.

Gerald conclusion

In conclusion, Gerald Croft's character serves as a compelling exploration of the multifaceted nature of autonomy within a stratified society.

He embodies the contradictions of a system that rewards adherence to social norms, even as those norms constrict emotional honesty and genuine connection. His actions, driven by a desire to maintain his social standing, underscore the limitations of an identity predicated on external validation and the suppression of vulnerability.

Ultimately, Gerald's narrative reveals that even those who appear most empowered are, in their own way, subject to the restrictive forces of societal expectations.

Inspector conclusion

Alternatively, one might argue that while the Inspector exposes class inequalities, his approach is more moralistic and socialist than strictly Marxist. His emphasis on individual responsibility and collective conscience transcends the purely economic determinism of some Marxist interpretations.

While he highlights the suffering of the working class, his ultimate goal appears to be instilling empathy and social responsibility within the Birlings, rather than advocating for a revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist system. In this view, the Inspector serves as a societal conscience, urging reform within the existing structure rather than explicitly calling for a Marxist revolution.

However, his exposure of the stark class divisions and the detrimental impact of capitalist exploitation aligns significantly with the core principles of Marxist thought, making him a potent symbol of the inherent class struggle within the play's social context.

Social responsibility thesis

In An Inspector Calls, Priestley constructs a stark dichotomy between characters who embody self-serving individualism, like Mr. and Mrs. Birling, and those who represent a broader social conscience, such as the Inspector, to critique the systemic failures of Edwardian society to embrace corporate social responsibility and to expose the devastating consequences of prioritizing profit and privilege over human dignity and collective well-being, particularly concerning the plight of working-class women.

Social responsibility conclusion

In conclusion, Priestley uses the Inspector as a catalyst to expose the self-serving individualism of characters like Mr. and Mrs. Birling, highlighting their resistance to acknowledging their roles in a system that perpetuates social inequality and individual suffering.

The play serves as a didactic warning about the dangers of prioritizing economic success over ethical responsibility, underscoring the urgent need for a societal shift towards empathy and collective action.

Ultimately, An Inspector Calls argues that true social progress necessitates a fundamental transformation in both individual attitudes and systemic structures, moving away from self-interest and towards a recognition of our shared responsibility for the welfare of all.

Class and politics thesis

Through the contrasting relationships and behaviours of characters like the Birlings, Gerald Croft, and Edna, An Inspector Calls critiques the deeply entrenched class divisions and political maneuvering of Edwardian society, exposing how these forces perpetuate systemic inequalities, limit individual agency, and underscore the urgent need for social reform.

Class and politics conclusion

In conclusion, Priestley's An Inspector Calls offers a powerful indictment of the class-ridden and politically manipulative landscape of Edwardian England. The play reveals how social status dictates power dynamics, shapes personal interactions, and perpetuates a system where privilege is maintained at the expense of the vulnerable.

Ultimately, Priestley argues for a fundamental shift away from these self-serving structures towards a society grounded in social responsibility and a more equitable distribution of power.

Gender thesis

In An Inspector Calls, Priestley critiques the damaging impact of patriarchal structures and toxic masculinity on both men and women, illustrating how societal expectations of dominance and control limit male autonomy, perpetuate the objectification and disempowerment of women like Eva Smith, and reveal the complex ways in which gender inequality operates within the rigid social hierarchies of Edwardian England.

Gender conclusion

In conclusion, An Inspector Calls exposes the pervasive influence of patriarchal ideology in shaping the lives of its characters. The play demonstrates how rigid gender roles not only constrain women like Sheila and Eva, limiting their autonomy and agency, but also trap men like Gerald and Eric within destructive patterns of behavior and emotional suppression.

Ultimately, Priestley argues for a rejection of these harmful norms and a move towards a more equitable society that recognizes the full humanity of all individuals, regardless of their gender.

Younger/older generation thesis

Through the contrasting attitudes and behaviors of the older and younger generations in the Birling family, An Inspector Calls critiques the entrenched social attitudes and power structures of Edwardian society, highlighting the older generation's resistance to change and acceptance of responsibility, while positioning the younger generation as a potential catalyst for social progress through their growing empathy and willingness to challenge the status quo.

Younger/older generation conclusion

In conclusion, Priestley uses the generational divide within the Birling family to underscore the urgent need for a shift in societal values.

The older generation's adherence to self-serving individualism and rigid social hierarchies is juxtaposed with the younger generation's capacity for moral growth and their rejection of these outdated norms.

Ultimately, the play suggests that hope for a more just and compassionate future lies in the willingness of the young to learn from the past and embrace a greater sense of social responsibility.

Eva Smith: Younger/older generation - Generational Accountability

Priestley's didactic intention in "An Inspector Calls" is powerfully conveyed through the stark generational divide in accepting moral responsibility for Eva Smith's tragic fate, highlighting a potential pathway towards a more socially conscious future. The younger generation, exemplified by Sheila's immediate remorse, poignantly declares, "But these girls aren't cheap labour - they're people." The emphatic noun "people" signifies a fundamental shift in perspective, directly challenging the dehumanizing capitalist rhetoric prevalent in the older generation and marking a crucial step towards recognizing the inherent worth and dignity of the working class.

This burgeoning empathy contrasts sharply with the older Birlings' self-serving denial and Gerald's evasiveness, who desperately seek to protect their established social standing. Similarly, Eric's raw emotional distress and stammering admissions reveal a greater, albeit flawed, capacity for acknowledging his exploitative actions. He confesses, "My God—I’m not likely to forget," revealing a visceral and lasting impact of his actions, a stark contrast to his parents' attempts to dismiss the events.

Priestley masterfully employs these starkly contrasting reactions to the tragic and symbolic figure of Eva Smith to underscore a fundamental and ethically significant generational divide in the crucial realm of moral accountability and genuine social responsibility. 

This generational contrast underscores Priestley's hopeful message that the younger generation, less entrenched in the rigid Edwardian power structures, possesses a greater potential for moral awakening and a willingness to accept accountability for societal wrongs, offering a vision of progressive change.

Eva Smith: Younger/older generation - Generational Accountability (Alternative View)

Alternatively, one could interpret the generational divide not as an inherent moral superiority of the young, but rather as a consequence of their relative lack of entrenched power and social conditioning within the Edwardian system.

Sheila and Eric, still somewhat dependent on their parents and not fully integrated into the dominant capitalist ideology, may find it easier to express remorse without the same level of ingrained self-preservation that dictates the older generation's reactions.

Their willingness to accept responsibility could be seen as a temporary emotional response, potentially fading as they fully inherit the privileges and ingrained biases of their class. The older generation's resistance, while reprehensible, could be viewed as a more accurate reflection of the deeply embedded societal norms and power structures that Priestley critiques.

From this perspective, the play serves not as a hopeful prophecy of generational change, but as a stark warning about the enduring power of social conditioning and the difficulty of dismantling deeply entrenched systems of inequality, suggesting that true societal change requires more than individual remorse from the young.