SOCIAL
DISCRIMINATION AND CLASS DIVISIONS IN J.B. PRIESTLEY’S AN INSPECTOR CALLS: A TIMELESS CRITIQUE OF INEQUALITY
P. Sowmiyarajan,
II M. A. English,
Sona College of Arts and Science,
Salem.
&
Dr. P. Mohana,
Assistant Professor of English
Sona College of Arts and Science,
Salem.
Abstract:
J.B. Priestley’s An
Inspector Calls offers a profound exploration of social discrimination
and class divisions in early 20th-century Britain, critiquing the
rigid hierarchy and societal inequalities of the time. The play, set in 1912
but written in 1945, examines the moral failures of the privileged upper
classes through the tragic downfall of Eva Smith, a working-class woman.
Priestley uses the Birling family as a microcosm of capitalist exploitation,
highlighting the indifference and complicity of the wealthy in perpetuating
social injustice. The mysterious Inspector Goole acts as a moral arbiter,
compelling the characters and the audience to confront the consequences of
their actions. Through dramatic irony and tension, Priestley critiques the
arrogance of capitalism, as embodied in Arthur Birling’s misguided predictions,
and underscores the importance of collective responsibility. The cyclical
structure warns of history’s repetition unless societal lessons are learned. By
addressing themes of inequality, exploitation, and social responsibility, An Inspector Calls remains a timeless
and urgent call for addressing systemic injustices.
Keywords: Social discrimination, Class divisions,
Collective responsibility, Capitalist critique, Inequality, Dramatic irony
J.B.
Priestley’s An Inspector Calls, first performed in 1945, is a powerful
critique of the entrenched class and gender inequalities of Edwardian Britain.
The play, set in 1912, revolves around the Birling family’s interactions with
the mysterious Inspector Goole, who investigates the circumstances leading to
the suicide of Eva Smith, a working-class woman. Priestley exposes the stark
divide between the upper and lower classes, illustrating how wealth and
privilege breed arrogance and moral blindness. Additionally, the play
highlights gender discrimination, showing how women, particularly from lower
social classes, are subjected to both economic and sexual exploitation.
This
paper examines how An Inspector Calls critiques social class divisions
and gender discrimination. It explores the ways in which Priestley uses
dramatic techniques, characterization, and historical context to expose these
injustices. The analysis argues that Priestley’s message of social
responsibility and equality remains relevant in modern discussions about class
and gender inequality.
One of
the play’s central themes is the exploitation of the working class by the
wealthy elite. Arthur Birling, a prosperous businessman, epitomizes capitalist
self-interest. His dismissal of Eva Smith for requesting a fair wage underscores
the dehumanization of the working class under capitalism (Priestley 25).
Birling’s prioritization of profit over human well-being reflects the
exploitative nature of industrial society.
The
play contrasts the privilege of the Birlings with Eva Smith’s vulnerability.
Unlike the Birlings, who enjoy economic security, Eva is disposable within a
capitalist framework. Her struggle for fair wages and dignity represents the
broader struggles of the working class, illustrating how systemic inequalities
trap individuals in cycles of poverty and oppression (Taylor112).
MR. BIRLING. The Titanic—she’s all right, though, this
time, I’m sure. The way they talk about it, you’d think they had to prove
something. But of course, I’m not a fool.
INSPECTOR GOOLE. The Titanic… is an example of something
like that which can be very easily dismissed. I think you’ll find that things
aren’t always as certain as you might believe. (Priestley 21)
Inspector
Goole’s interrogation exposes the moral failures of the upper class. His warning
— “We are members of one body. We are responsible for each other”
(Priestley56)—directly challenges the capitalist individualism espoused by Mr.
Birling. The Inspector embodies Priestley’s socialist ideals, advocating for
collective responsibility and social justice (Bloom 89).
Dramatic
irony further reinforces the critique of capitalism. Mr. Birling’s confident
assertions — such as his claim that the Titanic is “unsinkable” and that there
will be no war —are absurdly incorrect (Priestley 8). This irony highlights his
ignorance and positions him as a symbol of outdated capitalist arrogance.
Priestley suggests that without social change, history will continue to repeat
its failures.
While
the play’s primary focus is on class struggle, it also examines gender
discrimination. Eva Smith’s experiences reveal the double oppression faced by
working-class women, who are marginalized both economically and socially.
Unlike upper-class women, who have some degree of protection due to wealth,
women like Eva lack both financial and social security, making them
particularly vulnerable to exploitation.
Sheila
Birling’s role in Eva’s downfall highlights the complicity of upper-class women
in perpetuating gender-based discrimination. Sheila’s jealousy and privileged
position lead her to have Eva dismissed from Milwards, showing how class
privilege can blind even women to the struggles of those beneath them
(Korte142). However, Sheila’s character development is significant—unlike her
parents, she acknowledges her mistakes and expresses genuine remorse,
suggesting the potential for change.
Gerald
Croft’s treatment of Eva underscores the exploitation of working-class women by
upper-class men. His affair with her, while initially framed as an act of
kindness, ultimately reinforces patriarchal power dynamics. He offers Eva
financial support only as long as it suits him, abandoning her when the
relationship becomes inconvenient (Hay 65). This dynamic mirrors broader
societal patterns in which wealthy men exercise control over vulnerable women.
The
most egregious example of gender-based violence is Eric Birling’s assault on
Eva. Eric’s actions reflect the entitlement of privileged young men who exploit
women without considering the consequences. His eventual remorse contrasts with
his parents’ stubbornness, reinforcing the idea that societal change is
possible if individuals accept responsibility (Bloom 90).
Priestley’s
portrayal of Eva Smith as a silent victim serves as a powerful critique of how
women, especially those from lower social classes, are denied agency. Her
tragic fate symbolizes the countless women who suffer due to both economic
exploitation and patriarchal oppression.
Priestley employs various dramatic techniques
to emphasize his critique of social and gender inequalities.
As
mentioned earlier, dramatic irony exposes the ignorance of the upper class. Mr.
Birling’s misguided predictions not only make him appear foolish but also serve
as a warning against complacency and blind faith in capitalism. This irony
builds tension, making the audience more receptive to Priestley’s socialist
message (Taylor 113).
The
play’s structure also heightens tension. The Inspector’s systematic
interrogation reveals the characters’ gradual unraveling, forcing them to
confront uncomfortable truths. This tension keeps the audience engaged while
reinforcing the moral lessons of the play.
Eva
Smith is a symbolic figure rather than a fully developed character. Her common
name (“Eva” reminiscent of “Eve,” symbolizing all women, and “Smith,” a common
surname) suggests that she represents the struggles of all working-class women
(Korte 143). Her suffering is not unique but emblematic of broader systemic
injustices.
The
cyclical structure of the play, ending with another phone call announcing a
real inspector’s arrival, reinforces the idea that history will repeat itself
unless people learn from their mistakes. This serves as a warning against
social complacency and highlights the urgency of Priestley’s message.
Despite
being set over a century ago, An Inspector Calls remains profoundly
relevant. Economic disparities and gender inequalities persist in modern
society, making Priestley’s call for social responsibility as urgent as ever.
The play’s critique of capitalism resonates with contemporary debates about
wealth inequality, labor rights, and corporate ethics. Similarly, its portrayal
of gender discrimination aligns with ongoing discussions about gender-based
violence and workplace harassment.
Thegenerational
divide in the play, Mr. and Mrs. Birling’s refusal to change versus Sheila and
Eric’s moral awakening, reflects ongoing tensions between conservative and
progressive ideologies. Priestley suggests that true change comes from younger
generations rejecting the prejudices of the past.
J.B.
Priestley’s An Inspector Calls is a timeless critique of social class
and gender discrimination. Through the tragic fate of Eva Smith, Priestley
exposes the moral corruption of the upper class and highlights the systemic
oppression of women. His use of dramatic irony, symbolism, and tension
reinforces his socialist ideals, urging audiences to embrace collective
responsibility. The play’s enduring relevance underscores the persistence of
social injustice, making its message as powerful today as it was in 1945. By
challenging audiences to reflect on their own responsibilities, An Inspector
Calls remains an essential work for understanding and addressing systemic
inequalities.
Works
Cited
Bloom, Harold. J.B. Priestley’s An
Inspector Calls. Chelsea House, 2008.
Hay, Peter. Theatrical Anecdotes: An
Inspector Calls and Other Plays. Oxford University Press, 2010.
Korte, Barbara. The Discourse of Class in
British Literature. Routledge, 2014.
Priestley, J.B. An Inspector Calls.
Heinemann, 1945.
Taylor, John Russell. Anger and After: A
Guide to the New British Drama. Methuen, 1977.