CLASS IN AN INSPECTOR CALLS
The morality play “An Inspector Calls” written by Priestley explores the
chain of events caused by the exploitations and selfish actions by the
upper-class Birling family which leads to the demise of Eva Smith, a
working-class woman. Preistley uses the Inspector as a mouthpiece for his
socialist views which encourage social equality. Perhaps, Priestley has
utilised a class divide in this play to criticise the social class divide in 1945
society which was causing many in the working class to suffer like Eva
Smith and hoped to encourage his audience to embrace socialism and
vote for the socialist part in the 1945 Uk election.
Firstly, Priestley explores the exploitations of upper-class men like Mr
Birling towards lower classes like Eva Smith. In Act 1, when Mr Birling is
being interrogated for his involvement in Eva Smith’s suicide, he states “it
is my duty to keep labour costs down” which shows how he continues to
keep wages low despite it condemning his workers to a life of poverty and
hardship. This reveals how he lacks empathy and social responsibility for
those in lower classes which reflects the capitalist ideology to prioritise
personal gain. By using the noun “duty” it could imply that he views
protecting profits as a moral obligation. This is ironic as the Inspector
promotes social duty whilst Mr Birling sense of duty is tied self-interest,
not social responsibility. Moreover, the phrase “labour costs” to refer to
the workforce is dehumanising and shows how he views them as
economic figures, lacking any real value. Moreover, in Act 1, when Mr
Birling states that workers can go to a different job as it is a “free country”
Eric responds with “It isn’t fair if you can’t go and work somewhere else”.
This could suggest that Mr Birling works with other businesses like the
Croft businesses as a cartel by making wages low and restricted in every
company, so workers are not able to work in another company for a pay
rise. However, this is an illegal activity which demonstrates how upper-
class capitalist businessmen abuse their power and capitalist system to
make profit whilst exploiting and causing suffering for the working class
which Priestley may have wanted to expose to the audience.
In the denouement of the play, the exploitation and selfishness of upper-
class capitalist businessmen like Mr Birling is emphasised as he tries to
sell out his daughter to Gerald Croft. In Act 3, after Shelia calls out the
wedding, Mr Birling states “I’m not defending him, but you must
understand”. Mr Birling is juxtaposing himself as he is clearly “defending
him” although Gerald cheated on his own daughter. It shows how he is a
victim of capitalism and prioritises wealth over his own family. It could
imply that he is ready to sell out his own daughter just to be “partners”
with the Croft business and produce more profit. The imperative “must”
The morality play “An Inspector Calls” written by Priestley explores the
chain of events caused by the exploitations and selfish actions by the
upper-class Birling family which leads to the demise of Eva Smith, a
working-class woman. Preistley uses the Inspector as a mouthpiece for his
socialist views which encourage social equality. Perhaps, Priestley has
utilised a class divide in this play to criticise the social class divide in 1945
society which was causing many in the working class to suffer like Eva
Smith and hoped to encourage his audience to embrace socialism and
vote for the socialist part in the 1945 Uk election.
Firstly, Priestley explores the exploitations of upper-class men like Mr
Birling towards lower classes like Eva Smith. In Act 1, when Mr Birling is
being interrogated for his involvement in Eva Smith’s suicide, he states “it
is my duty to keep labour costs down” which shows how he continues to
keep wages low despite it condemning his workers to a life of poverty and
hardship. This reveals how he lacks empathy and social responsibility for
those in lower classes which reflects the capitalist ideology to prioritise
personal gain. By using the noun “duty” it could imply that he views
protecting profits as a moral obligation. This is ironic as the Inspector
promotes social duty whilst Mr Birling sense of duty is tied self-interest,
not social responsibility. Moreover, the phrase “labour costs” to refer to
the workforce is dehumanising and shows how he views them as
economic figures, lacking any real value. Moreover, in Act 1, when Mr
Birling states that workers can go to a different job as it is a “free country”
Eric responds with “It isn’t fair if you can’t go and work somewhere else”.
This could suggest that Mr Birling works with other businesses like the
Croft businesses as a cartel by making wages low and restricted in every
company, so workers are not able to work in another company for a pay
rise. However, this is an illegal activity which demonstrates how upper-
class capitalist businessmen abuse their power and capitalist system to
make profit whilst exploiting and causing suffering for the working class
which Priestley may have wanted to expose to the audience.
In the denouement of the play, the exploitation and selfishness of upper-
class capitalist businessmen like Mr Birling is emphasised as he tries to
sell out his daughter to Gerald Croft. In Act 3, after Shelia calls out the
wedding, Mr Birling states “I’m not defending him, but you must
understand”. Mr Birling is juxtaposing himself as he is clearly “defending
him” although Gerald cheated on his own daughter. It shows how he is a
victim of capitalism and prioritises wealth over his own family. It could
imply that he is ready to sell out his own daughter just to be “partners”
with the Croft business and produce more profit. The imperative “must”
