J. B. Priestley’s An Inspector Calls, first performed in 1945 but set in 1912, functions as a powerful moral critique of Edwardian class stratification. The play examines social class through the Birling family’s arrogant adherence to capitalist individualism, the Inspector’s socialist didacticism, and the tragic emblematic figure of Eva Smith. Priestley employs dramatic irony, character foils, and a cyclical structure to argue that class prejudice is not merely a personal failing but a systemic injustice requiring collective responsibility. This essay analyses how the dramatist presents class divisions through the interplay of character ideology, dramatic technique, and historical context. For students preparing A Level essays on this text, structured guidance is available in resources such as 
and 
.
The Birling Family as Emblems of Upper-Class Complacency
Priestley immediately establishes Mr Birling as a self-made capitalist who prioritises profit over people. His opening speech about the “unsinkable” Titanic (Priestley, 1945, Act 1) uses dramatic irony to reveal his arrogance, as the audience knows the ship will sink. Mr Birling’s obsession with “lower costs and higher prices” (Act 1) reflects a utilitarian view of workers as disposable resources. This aligns with the historical context of the Edwardian era, where class stratification was rigid and the wealthy felt entitled to exploit the poor. Mrs Birling embodies snobbery; she dismisses Eva Smith as a “girl of that class” (Act 2), revealing her belief that poverty is a moral failing. Their united front against the Inspector’s questioning highlights their refusal to accept social responsibility. This critique of class echoes the concerns raised in other literary texts, such as The Great Gatsby’s examination of the American Dream; for a comparative analysis, see To What Extent Does F. Scott Fitzgerald Present ‘The Great Gatsby’ as a Critique of the American Dream?.
The Inspector as a Socialist Crusader
The Inspector, Goole, functions as Priestley’s moral compass. His name suggests a ghostly presence, symbolising a force that exposes hidden truths. He systematically dismantles the Birlings’ justifications, insisting that Eva Smith is “a young woman who deserves to be treated with respect” (Act 3). Through the Inspector, Priestley articulates the socialist view that society is interconnected: “We are members of one body. We are responsible for each other” (Act 3). This speech is the play’s thesis, directly challenging the individualistic ethos of the upper classes. The Inspector’s cross-examination forces each character to confront how their class prejudices contributed to Eva’s suicide. As critic Gareth Lloyd Evans (1985) argues, the Inspector “is the embodiment of a collective conscience, a dramatic device to articulate Priestley’s political vision” (p. 112). The play’s ending, with the phone call announcing a real inspector, suggests that the lesson is cyclical and that class inequity remains unresolved.
Eva Smith as the Victim of Class Prejudice
Eva Smith is never seen on stage, yet her presence dominates the narrative. She represents the voiceless working class, and her multiple identities—Smith as a common surname, Eva as a symbol of Eve—make her an everywoman figure. Each member of the Birling family plays a part in her downfall: Mr Birling fires her for striking for higher wages, Sheila gets her sacked from Milward’s out of jealousy, Gerald uses her for an affair, Mrs Birling denies her charity, and Eric impregnates and abandons her. Priestley shows that class prejudice dehumanises the poor. Eva’s transition from “a lively good-looking girl” (Act 1) to a desperate suicide demonstrates how economic powerlessness erodes agency. Critical scholar Joan Templeton (1998) notes that “Priestley’s Eva Smith is a metaphor for the systemic exploitation of women within a patriarchal and class-bound society” (p. 45). This intersection of class and gender is also explored in other works, such as Carol Ann Duffy’s The World’s Wife; for further reading, see In What Ways Does Carol Ann Duffy Challenge Traditional Representations of Gender in ‘The World’s Wife’?.
Gerald Croft as the Moral Ambiguity of the Upper Class
Gerald Croft represents the upper class’s potential for reform, yet he remains self-serving. He admits his affair with Eva (whom he called Daisy Renton) but shows no genuine remorse, only embarrassment at being exposed. Priestley uses Gerald to illustrate how the upper class can acknowledge wrongdoing without changing their behaviour. Gerald’s final line, “Everything’s alright now” (Act 3), reveals his desire to return to the status quo. He is the antithesis of the Inspector’s message. This characterisation suggests that social change requires more than guilt; it demands action. The play’s ambiguous ending—the possibility that Eva never existed—further complicates the theme of class, as the Birlings can dismiss the lesson as a hoax. However, the final phone call reinstates the reality of their culpability.
Sheila and Eric as the Hope for Generational Change
Sheila and Eric represent the younger generation’s capacity to learn. Sheila immediately accepts responsibility, crying “I’ll never, never do it again” (Act 2). Her transformation from a frivolous, privileged girl to a socially conscious adult mirrors the play’s moral arc. Eric, too, admits his failings and rejects his father’s capitalist values, declaring “You’re not the kind of father a chap could go to when he’s in trouble” (Act 3). Priestley suggests that the youth can break the cycle of class oppression if they embrace collective responsibility. However, the play ends before their conversion is tested. Critics have debated whether Priestley’s optimism is naive; as Alan Bold (1975) puts it, “the younger generation’s enlightenment is perhaps too swift, serving the playwright’s didactic purpose rather than psychological realism” (p. 87). Nonetheless, this generational divide reinforces the theme of class as an inherited ideology that must be actively rejected.
Dramatic Form and the Presentation of Class
Priestley uses the well-made play structure to intensify the critique of class. The single setting—the Birlings’ opulent dining room—symbolises their insularity and comfort, contrasted with the poverty outside. The Inspector’s arrival disrupts this domestic space, forcing the characters to confront external realities. Dramatic irony (e.g., the Titanic) and the cliffhanger ending keep the audience critically engaged. Priestley also employs the morality play tradition, with the Inspector as a prophet-like figure. This technique aligns with the medieval morality play Everyman, where the protagonist is held accountable for his deeds. A comparative study of morality play elements can also be found in Shakespeare’s Hamlet; see To What Extent Is Hamlet’s Delay in Taking Revenge the Central Focus of Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet’?.
Conclusion
In An Inspector Calls, Priestley explores social class through a tightly constructed moral drama that condemns the complacency of the upper classes and advocates for collective social responsibility. The Birling family’s resistance to change, the Inspector’s socialist rhetoric, and Eva Smith’s tragic fate combine to create a powerful indictment of Edwardian class inequalities. While the younger generation offers hope, the play’s cyclical ending suggests that class prejudice is deeply entrenched. Priestley’s message remains relevant, urging audiences to recognise their interconnectedness. For students aiming to produce analytical essays on this text and other A Level English Literature topics, comprehensive study guides can be invaluable; consider Conquering the College Admissions Essay in 10 Steps for essay structure techniques, though adapted to the UK academic context.
Reference List
- Bold, A. (1975). J. B. Priestley: The Political Dramatist. Oxford University Press.
- Evans, G. L. (1985). J. B. Priestley: The Dramatist. Penguin Books.
- Priestley, J. B. (1945). An Inspector Calls. Heinemann.
- Templeton, J. (1998). “The Female Victim in An Inspector Calls”. Modern Drama, 41(1), 40-52.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the Inspector represent in terms of social class?
The Inspector represents a socialist conscience, challenging the upper-class individualism of the Birlings and advocating for collective responsibility.
How does Eva Smith’s character highlight class inequality?
Eva Smith, as an unseen working-class woman, symbolises the voiceless poor whose exploitation by the wealthy leads to her death. Her multiple names and experiences show how class and gender intersect to oppress.
Why does Priestley end the play with a phone call?
The phone call reveals that a real police inspector is coming, suggesting the lesson is not over. This cyclical ending implies that class injustice is ongoing and must be confronted repeatedly.
How does the younger generation’s response differ from the older generation?
Sheila and Eric accept responsibility and show remorse, while Mr and Mrs Birling deny their guilt and return to their class prejudices. Priestley suggests that hope for social change lies with the future generation.
