Mrs. Birling is ‘her husband’s social superior’ and this is reflected in her speech and her movements. She disapproves of anything that can destroy her social status. Near the beginning of the play she reproachfully says to Mr. Birling that he is ‘not supposed to say such things-’ following his compliment of the dinner and he has asked his wife to tell the cook that it was ‘very nice.’ This implies that Mrs. Birling feels that it is wrong to praise the lower class and is an example of her prejudice towards the lower classes. The extreme example of her prejudice is shown when Eva Smith comes to her ‘charitable organisation’ asking for help. Mrs. Birling abuses her power to ensure that the girl’s case is dismissed and this is the trigger cause for her suicide. Mrs. Birling justifies her actions by saying that the girl was ‘claiming elaborate fine feelings and scruples that were simply absurd in a girl in her position.’ Here is another example of her prejudice towards a lower class and is strengthened by the existing class system. More importantly, she has no concept of morality, as the ‘scruples’ she is referring to are actually examples of morality. Eva Smith must have had morals as she refused to accept stolen money. Furthermore, she clearly has no social conscience, like her husband. Mrs. Birling is also a hypocrite as she is part of a ‘charitable organisation’ yet she refuses to help a poor girl who needed help and was carrying a child.
Neither parent carries any guilt of what they have done and refuse accept that between them they ‘helped to kill her’. However, they do feel ashamed of what they and their family have done and ‘accept no blame for it’, but not because they drove a girl to suicide. Instead, they are ashamed because there could be ‘a public scandal’ and Mr. Birling would be deprived of his chance of a knighthood. When they find out that the Inspector is not a real police inspector, they are delighted as they feel it makes ‘all the difference’ and it proves to them that they are good people. However, it does not prove this to the audience and we remain unconvinced as do Sheila and Eric. Another example of attitudes changing after a fact comes to light is when Mrs. Birling is condemning the father if the child Eva Smith was carrying. Before Eric’s entrance at the very end of Act Two, she says that the father ‘ought to be dealt with very severely’ and should make a ‘public confession of responsibility’. By shifting the blame to someone else, Mrs. Birling feels that she is no longer involved in the matter. However, when she discovers that the father of the child was Eric, she is shocked and she knows that she cannot change what she has just said.
Gerald has been brought up in what we can assume to be a similar environment as Sheila and Eric. He agrees with Mr. Birling’s speeches and comments that he makes and this implies that he is also a Capitalist.
‘I believe you’re right, sir.’
However, it is possible that he could be agreeing with Mr. Birling as he wants to make a good impression on his father-in-law to be, but it is quite unlikely as he is constantly agreeing with him. To agree with the extreme statements that Mr. Birling is making while not believing them would be an insult to oneself. We cannot blame Gerald entirely for his Capitalist nature as he has been brought up in a Capitalist environment. When asked by the Inspector whether or not Gerald feels that young women ought to be protected from ‘unpleasant and disturbing things’, he replies, ‘If possible, yes.’ This is a Capitalist view and is morally wrong and shows that he has been influenced, as the younger generation are generally more impressionable. There is evidence that Gerald does mature, as he says to Mrs. Birling, ‘And I don’t think it’s a very good idea to remind him,’ following her mention of Mr. Birling’s social status. He shows some awareness of the Inspector’s true identity and this is an example of his maturity, but it is not nearly as noticeable as Sheila’s. However, he seems reluctant to change as he would be putting his reputation at stake and his job would be jeopardised. Although changing would be better for society, Gerald appears to be intimidated by capitalists like Mr. Birling and Mr. Croft and appears to be generally content with his way of life.
When talking about his relationship with Daisy Renton, he tells the story without being prompted or forced into telling the truth. This shows that although he is sorry for what he did, he does not really have any regrets of the affair as he enjoyed the role he played in her life.
‘All right – I did [enjoy it] for a time. Nearly any man would have done.’
His honesty is a quality worth noting, and like Eric and Sheila, when he confesses, he feels partially responsible for her death. This shows that although he may be considered as a Capitalist, he does have a social conscience and is not afraid to show this to a certain extent. Men in this society are not allowed to show their emotions. This is why Gerald leaves the house as he has been through a harsh ordeal and wants to be alone. He asks if he may return and this is because he still loves Sheila and would like to marry her but he understands when she says that they ‘aren’t the same people who sat down to dinner’. As he understands this, he is mature.
Sheila’s relationship with Gerald does not appear to be based entirely on love, as they do not seem very affectionate towards each other. It is very likely that the two have been nudged together by their fathers to benefit the businesses.
‘We may look forward to the time when Crofts and Birling are no longer competing but are working together.’
This may be another reason for Sheila handing back the ring to Eric. At the beginning of the play she is very immature and childish; she does not really have any concept of the world, as she has been protected by her father. However, after the Inspector’s arrival, she becomes more aware of the world and of the things that happen in it. Perhaps this is a reason for her reaction towards the girl’s death; she has been so protected that she does not realise that things like this happen, so it comes as a tremendous shock to her when she realises that they do. She accepts responsibility for Eva Smith’s death but understands that other people are also to blame.
Sheila’s maturity increases rapidly and this is reflected throughout the play. The Inspector talks about ‘cheap labour’ and Sheila is horrified as she cannot understand how girls are cheap labour, as far as she is concerned ‘they’re people’. This demonstrates her compassion for other people regardless of their class. We can also tell that she has matured by looking at the change in her character from when she went to Milwards the previous year to when she is narrating the story. The girl who went to Milwards was indeed a ‘selfish, vindictive creature’ as she abused her power and did not think about what could happen to the girl after she was dismissed. However, the Sheila we know for the majority of the play stands up to her parents and Capitalist views and is genuinely very sorry for her actions in the past.. She says that she’ll ‘never, never do it again to anybody’ and we believe her as through her speech and the way in which she speaks, we can see that she is being very truthful. Her speech after Gerald’s confession is very calm and reflective and this is an excellent example of her development.
‘And it was my fault really that she was so desperate when you first met her. But this has made a difference.’
We can tell that Eric feels neglected by his parents and this is shown through his drinking and by a lack of interest from Mr. and Mrs. Birling. When told about his drinking habits, the parents are very shocked and refuse to believe it at first. ‘You must know it isn’t true’, she says to Gerald and is staggered when she says this. Mrs. Birling cannot have that much of an interest in her son as he was fairly ‘squiffy’ while at the dinner table and she still did not notice. We know from Eric that the relationship between himself and his father is not a good one as he accuses his father of not being the ‘kind of father a chap could go to when he’s in trouble’. This clearly indicates that their relationship is not a very good one. In one of Mr. Birling’s speeches near the beginning of the play, he says that ‘a man must look after himself and his family’ but he appears to be more concerned with looking after himself and his social status. He shows no compassion for Eric, as having heard Eric’s confession he begins shouting at his son calling him a ‘damned fool’ and a ‘hysterical young fool’. This again increases the audience’s dislike of Mr. Birling but also increases the audience’s sympathy towards Eric, as we can begin to understand his actions. Even worse, Mr. Birling shows some compassion to his daughter as he is evidently proud of her for choosing to marry Gerald Croft, regardless of whether or not it was entirely her choice. It may be interpreted as slight compassion when Mr. Birling finds ‘no reason why [his] daughter should be dragged into this unpleasant business’ and he does not want her to be involved. However, it can be argued that he does not want his family wrapped up in a scandal, but the latter may be untrue.
The Inspector is clearly a very important character within the play. He acts as Priestly’s mouthpiece, or is a representation of something, possibly truth, morality or Socialism. He ‘creates at once an impression of massiveness, solidity and purposefulness’ and this is important throughout the play. He is, as Eric points out, one of ‘those cranks’ that Mr. Birling was talking about, and the Inspector’s arrival is very timely. The doorbell rings as Mr. Birling is contradicting the Socialist views of people being members of one body and being responsible for each other. This is a big clue to the purpose of the Inspector’s visit, which is to demonstrate Priestly’s aim which was specified earlier. The Inspector deals with the characters in a way that ensures that they give the correct answers. Some characters like Gerald, Sheila and Eric do not need to be pushed to give an answer but both Mr. and Mrs. Birling refuse to give answers. Both think that their social statuses will protect them as during their first confrontations with the Inspector they give details of Mr. Birling’s qualifications; ‘Lord Mayor two years ago’ and ‘a magistrate’. However, when the Inspector shrugs these details off and attacks the characters, they are shaken. They both feel that someone of a lower class has no right to be involved with them and when the Inspector takes authority, they attack him as they feel that he is wrong. Nevertheless, the Inspector perseveres and he gets the result he intends to get. When Mrs. Birling refuses to answer his questions, he become more threatening and speaks ‘severely’. He is forced to treat her like a child, while she is describing Sheila as ‘a hysterical child’. This is ironic as we know that Sheila is much more mature than her mother but Mrs. Birling feels that Sheila is childish. The Inspector treats Sheila, Eric and Gerald with gentler tones, but he is still blunt in his speech. He clearly dislikes the parents and this may be a representation of the dislike of Capitalism by Socialism.
The pattern of the Inspector’s questioning is very important to the overall structure of the play. He only allows ‘one line of questioning’ at a time which makes it easier for both the audience and the characters to understand Priestly’s message. His questions are very blunt which ensures that the answers pull out basic facts and thus draw attention to the main point. The Inspector is more likeable than Mr. Birling as when answering questions, Eric replies to the Inspector and not to his father.
‘Mr. Birling: Where did you get fifty pounds from?
As Eric does not reply.
Inspector: That’s my question too.
Eric: (miserably) I got it – from the office-’
If the play were to end after the Inspector’s exit, the audience would be led to believe that everyone has changed. However, it is important to find out that the younger generation ‘who think they know it all’ do indeed know more than there parents who refuse to change as long as their images are not at stake. Gerald does not show anything that can decide whether or not he has changed. As the younger generation have changed, Priestly is saying that there is hope for the world, but we need to persevere.
The play is trying to warn us of the consequences of our actions and makes us think about the effects our actions have on others. It is important that within the play, the whole world is represented. This makes the play a success as everyone an relate to it. However, we must remember that it is only a play, and that it is not accessible to everyone. Therefore, it cannot have that much of an effect on people. People who watch the play may be affected by it, but there is no guarantee that everyone will react in the same way. As a modern audience, it was generally found that the play was effective and was shocking but it may not have the same effect on members of the older generation who are the people who are currently deciding our future. The play has not been successful, however, as there was another world war and there have been many wars since. At the moment, the world is on the brink of war. If the leaders of the opposing sides were to watch the play, they are unlikely to change their minds, as being members of the older generation, they are set in their ways.
By drawing attention to the potential consequences of actions and through exaggerated characters, Priestly achieves his aim. However, although the play is successful in shocking audiences, it has not been very successful in altering the course of the world. Attitudes have turned towards the Socialist viewpoint but there are strong elements of Capitalism in society today.