How is responsibility present within An Inspector Calls?
With the distortion of responsibility by Capitalist individuals contrasting the Inspector as the raisonneur of social obligation,
Priestley projects the motif of responsibility as vital for the benefit of the collective and ultimately complex, intertwined and
inseparable in society.
Through the skewed Capitalist perspective of Mr. Birling, Priestley makes way for his message of socialism in Act 1. Mr. Birling
states “my duty” is to “keep labour costs down”. This suggests that as a “hard-headed businessman”, he has an obligation to always
aim for “lower costs and higher prices”, even at the expense of the working class. It implies that he views Capitalism as a sort of
responsibility and therefore fulfils it by treating the working class as mere dispensable commodities that “keep changing “. He also
discloses individualistic attitudes where a man has to “take care of himself- and his family too”. This portrays Mr. Birling- and
therefore to an extent some middle-class individuals as egotistic due to their political orient because they believe individuals in a
society are only responsible for themselves. The fragmented sentence further highlights his self-interests as even his family appear
to be an afterthought, linking to how Sheila and Gerald’s relationship is of “tremendous” value to him due to it being a tool for
him to climb the social ladder and of monetary gain, again taking no responsibility for even the well-being of his daughter.
Alternatively, Priestley undermines Mr. Birling and his individualism when he repeatedly makes controversial predictions of the
future, such as “There is no chance of war” because “there is everything to lose and nothing to gain”. By attempting to reinforce
his authority through a supposedly astute assessment of the future, he ironically exposes his own ignorant hubris as his rigid
perspective of Capitalism bars him from viewing the world beyond monetary gain. The insensitive use of dramatic irony would
have especially had a significant impact on the 1946 audience who had most likely knew and lost someone from the above
tragedies. Therefore, Priestley characterises Capitalistic hubris as unreliable and paves the way for the Inspector’s didactic socialist
message of collective responsibility.
At the start of the extract, taken from act 2, twisted views of responsibility from the Upper-middle classes are also presented. Mrs
Birling- an Upper-class “prominent member” of a charity organisation absolves herself of any responsibility as she claims Eva’s
truthful plea for help had been [“impertinent”], so she had “[done] nothing” she is “ashamed of”. Mrs Birling, claiming Eva’s
“[impudence]” excuses total personal responsibility from her death on the basis of respect largely presents how privilege and pride
completely distorts her sense of morality under the power disparity between social classes. Priestley again criticises the cruel
“cold” nonchalance of the Upper-classes when Mrs Birling states “I consider I did my duty”. This suggests that she believes she
has fulfilled her responsibility to decide if charity cases are deserving. Alternatively, the noun “duty” highlights how for individuals
of Upper-classes , responsibility is limited to upholding procedure and perhaps even inter-class power disparity, with no
consideration towards morality. In addition, her adamance to her “perfectly justified” decision also sets a sinister tone which
reflects how responsibility bestowed on Edwardian Upper-class women in charity organisations was problematic at times as they,
although had the privilege to play God and decide the fate of impoverished “girls of that sort”, totally lacked the ability to
empathise with their plight. Priestley here presents their nonchalance under a hyperbolic light to urge the audience to reflect and
acknowledge society as a whole has to start taking up responsibility for the working class.
With the distortion of responsibility by Capitalist individuals contrasting the Inspector as the raisonneur of social obligation,
Priestley projects the motif of responsibility as vital for the benefit of the collective and ultimately complex, intertwined and
inseparable in society.
Through the skewed Capitalist perspective of Mr. Birling, Priestley makes way for his message of socialism in Act 1. Mr. Birling
states “my duty” is to “keep labour costs down”. This suggests that as a “hard-headed businessman”, he has an obligation to always
aim for “lower costs and higher prices”, even at the expense of the working class. It implies that he views Capitalism as a sort of
responsibility and therefore fulfils it by treating the working class as mere dispensable commodities that “keep changing “. He also
discloses individualistic attitudes where a man has to “take care of himself- and his family too”. This portrays Mr. Birling- and
therefore to an extent some middle-class individuals as egotistic due to their political orient because they believe individuals in a
society are only responsible for themselves. The fragmented sentence further highlights his self-interests as even his family appear
to be an afterthought, linking to how Sheila and Gerald’s relationship is of “tremendous” value to him due to it being a tool for
him to climb the social ladder and of monetary gain, again taking no responsibility for even the well-being of his daughter.
Alternatively, Priestley undermines Mr. Birling and his individualism when he repeatedly makes controversial predictions of the
future, such as “There is no chance of war” because “there is everything to lose and nothing to gain”. By attempting to reinforce
his authority through a supposedly astute assessment of the future, he ironically exposes his own ignorant hubris as his rigid
perspective of Capitalism bars him from viewing the world beyond monetary gain. The insensitive use of dramatic irony would
have especially had a significant impact on the 1946 audience who had most likely knew and lost someone from the above
tragedies. Therefore, Priestley characterises Capitalistic hubris as unreliable and paves the way for the Inspector’s didactic socialist
message of collective responsibility.
At the start of the extract, taken from act 2, twisted views of responsibility from the Upper-middle classes are also presented. Mrs
Birling- an Upper-class “prominent member” of a charity organisation absolves herself of any responsibility as she claims Eva’s
truthful plea for help had been [“impertinent”], so she had “[done] nothing” she is “ashamed of”. Mrs Birling, claiming Eva’s
“[impudence]” excuses total personal responsibility from her death on the basis of respect largely presents how privilege and pride
completely distorts her sense of morality under the power disparity between social classes. Priestley again criticises the cruel
“cold” nonchalance of the Upper-classes when Mrs Birling states “I consider I did my duty”. This suggests that she believes she
has fulfilled her responsibility to decide if charity cases are deserving. Alternatively, the noun “duty” highlights how for individuals
of Upper-classes , responsibility is limited to upholding procedure and perhaps even inter-class power disparity, with no
consideration towards morality. In addition, her adamance to her “perfectly justified” decision also sets a sinister tone which
reflects how responsibility bestowed on Edwardian Upper-class women in charity organisations was problematic at times as they,
although had the privilege to play God and decide the fate of impoverished “girls of that sort”, totally lacked the ability to
empathise with their plight. Priestley here presents their nonchalance under a hyperbolic light to urge the audience to reflect and
acknowledge society as a whole has to start taking up responsibility for the working class.
