How does Priestley use the Inspector to suggest the ways society should change?
Priestley uses the Inspector to powerfully critique Edwardian Britain’s capitalist, class-based society
and to urgently call for a society which is more equal, humane and responsible.
Priestley ensures that the Inspector carries weight and authority right from his entrance, ensuring
that he is a credible moral voice and that we will take his message on board. The ‘sharp ring of the
doorbell’ that signals his arrival interrupts and cuts off Mr Birling in the middle of his lecture on the
merits of individualism (a central component of capitalism), symbolising that the Inspector will be
challenging these views. At the same time, the sharpness of the ring implies how robustly he will do
this. The interruption undercuts the authority of Birling’s speech – he is left hanging in mid air.
Priestley contrasts this with the strong rhetorical power of the Inspector’s own speech, with its
antithetical message, later in the play, implying that the Inspector’s message is one of greater force
and substance than Birling’s. The interruption sits within a wider patterns of Priestley using the stage
directions repeatedly describe the Inspector as ‘cutting in’ on the other characters as he forcefully
insists that they face up to the consequences of their selfishness. This reflects the didactic nature of
this morality play: Priestley’s message of social responsibility is the heart and soul of the play, and he
is determined that we learn it.
Indeed, throughout his time on stage, the Inspector is crafted as an antagonist who questions,
contradicts and challenges Mr Birling and his wider philosophy of individualism. Beyond simple
entertainment, it seems that the ongoing conflict between the characters of the Inspector and Mr
Birling is used to symbolise the wider triumph of socialism over capitalism. When Mr Birling justifies
his firing of Eva as a matter of necessity because if the working class are not silenced, ‘they’d soon be
asking for the earth.’ Here Priestley places one of the Inspector’s many challenges to Birling,
manipulating his own words against him, with the retort that ‘It’s better to ask for the earth than to
take it.’ In this way, the Inspector’s quick response catches Mr Birling off guard and invites the
audience to crack a wry smile at the Inspector’s ability to catch him out. The implication is that
people like Mr Birling in fact have ‘taken the earth’ themselves without asking, the ‘earth’ being a
metaphor for the power and wealth that make the world go round. As a voice of moral authority in
the play, here the Inspector is used to expose the absurdity that people like Mr Birling have the
audacity to believe that they are the gatekeepers of ‘the earth’, that they in fact own it and for some
reason, get to decide who gets what in life. But more importantly, in having this power, they choose
to use it to keep people in their place. So here, the Inspector’s challenge is not only a symbolic
challenge to capitalist assumptions, but Priestley also crafts it as a humorous moment which invites
the audience to view capitalist assumptions with ridicule.
The Inspector is also used to show the effect that capitalist society has on the working class, as part
of his argument for the need for change. Centrally this is achieved through his narration of the
Birlings’ destruction of the life of Eva Smith, who is symbolic of the working class. But he also
comments more widely on the condition of the working class, pointing out that there is not just one
Eva Smith, and referring to ‘these young women in their dingy little back bedrooms’. This bleak
image emphasises the lack of dignity of working class lives: the adjectives ‘dingy’ and ‘little’
emphasise the poor quality of their living conditions, while back bedrooms reminds us of the
physical limitations of their lives in their rented rooms. They are reduced to ‘counting their pennies’
which shows their economic impoverishment and lack of dignity – they are constantly having to live
under financial stress. It is a stark contrast to the sense of wealth that pervades the Birlings’ home
environment. A post-war audience would be alive to this injustice. After the working classes had
sacrificed so much in two World Wars, there was a strong feeling that they deserved a better quality
Priestley uses the Inspector to powerfully critique Edwardian Britain’s capitalist, class-based society
and to urgently call for a society which is more equal, humane and responsible.
Priestley ensures that the Inspector carries weight and authority right from his entrance, ensuring
that he is a credible moral voice and that we will take his message on board. The ‘sharp ring of the
doorbell’ that signals his arrival interrupts and cuts off Mr Birling in the middle of his lecture on the
merits of individualism (a central component of capitalism), symbolising that the Inspector will be
challenging these views. At the same time, the sharpness of the ring implies how robustly he will do
this. The interruption undercuts the authority of Birling’s speech – he is left hanging in mid air.
Priestley contrasts this with the strong rhetorical power of the Inspector’s own speech, with its
antithetical message, later in the play, implying that the Inspector’s message is one of greater force
and substance than Birling’s. The interruption sits within a wider patterns of Priestley using the stage
directions repeatedly describe the Inspector as ‘cutting in’ on the other characters as he forcefully
insists that they face up to the consequences of their selfishness. This reflects the didactic nature of
this morality play: Priestley’s message of social responsibility is the heart and soul of the play, and he
is determined that we learn it.
Indeed, throughout his time on stage, the Inspector is crafted as an antagonist who questions,
contradicts and challenges Mr Birling and his wider philosophy of individualism. Beyond simple
entertainment, it seems that the ongoing conflict between the characters of the Inspector and Mr
Birling is used to symbolise the wider triumph of socialism over capitalism. When Mr Birling justifies
his firing of Eva as a matter of necessity because if the working class are not silenced, ‘they’d soon be
asking for the earth.’ Here Priestley places one of the Inspector’s many challenges to Birling,
manipulating his own words against him, with the retort that ‘It’s better to ask for the earth than to
take it.’ In this way, the Inspector’s quick response catches Mr Birling off guard and invites the
audience to crack a wry smile at the Inspector’s ability to catch him out. The implication is that
people like Mr Birling in fact have ‘taken the earth’ themselves without asking, the ‘earth’ being a
metaphor for the power and wealth that make the world go round. As a voice of moral authority in
the play, here the Inspector is used to expose the absurdity that people like Mr Birling have the
audacity to believe that they are the gatekeepers of ‘the earth’, that they in fact own it and for some
reason, get to decide who gets what in life. But more importantly, in having this power, they choose
to use it to keep people in their place. So here, the Inspector’s challenge is not only a symbolic
challenge to capitalist assumptions, but Priestley also crafts it as a humorous moment which invites
the audience to view capitalist assumptions with ridicule.
The Inspector is also used to show the effect that capitalist society has on the working class, as part
of his argument for the need for change. Centrally this is achieved through his narration of the
Birlings’ destruction of the life of Eva Smith, who is symbolic of the working class. But he also
comments more widely on the condition of the working class, pointing out that there is not just one
Eva Smith, and referring to ‘these young women in their dingy little back bedrooms’. This bleak
image emphasises the lack of dignity of working class lives: the adjectives ‘dingy’ and ‘little’
emphasise the poor quality of their living conditions, while back bedrooms reminds us of the
physical limitations of their lives in their rented rooms. They are reduced to ‘counting their pennies’
which shows their economic impoverishment and lack of dignity – they are constantly having to live
under financial stress. It is a stark contrast to the sense of wealth that pervades the Birlings’ home
environment. A post-war audience would be alive to this injustice. After the working classes had
sacrificed so much in two World Wars, there was a strong feeling that they deserved a better quality
