Historical and Social Context of An Inspector Calls

J.B. Priestley’s An Inspector Calls, though set in 1912, was written in 1945 and first performed in the Soviet Union that same year. This temporal distance between setting and composition is crucial: Priestley uses dramatic irony and hindsight to expose the failures of early twentieth-century British society. He crafts a narrative that critiques capitalism, class inequality, and individualism, while advocating for socialist ideals, collective responsibility, and social reform. The play is deeply rooted in its historical context, shaped by the devastation of two world wars, the rise of the Labour movement, and post-war calls for systemic change.

Capitalism vs. Socialism

At the heart of An Inspector Calls lies the ideological battle between capitalism and socialism. Priestley, a committed socialist, wrote the play in the aftermath of the Second World War, a moment when Britain stood at a crossroads. The wartime experience had exposed the inadequacies of individualism and capitalism, and Priestley — along with many others — believed that the only way forward was through collective responsibility and a more equitable society.

Arthur Birling embodies capitalist values: he is self-serving, profit-driven, and dismissive of social responsibility. His assertion that “a man has to mind his own business and look after himself and his own” encapsulates the isolationist mentality Priestley aims to critique. In contrast, Inspector Goole delivers a socialist message, urging the characters — and by extension the audience — to consider the moral consequences of their actions: “We are members of one body. We are responsible for each other.”

The character dynamics within the play mirror wider societal divisions. The older generation (Mr and Mrs Birling) cling to conservative, capitalist ideologies, while the younger characters (Sheila and Eric) show an openness to reform, change, and moral growth. This generational divide reflects Priestley’s hope for a post-war Britain led by progressive youth rather than entrenched elites.

The World Wars and the Shadow of 1945

Although the play is set in 1912, just before the outbreak of the First World War, it was written in 1945 — immediately after the Second World War. This choice of setting allows Priestley to exploit dramatic irony for critical effect. Mr Birling’s confident proclamations — “The Germans don’t want war” and “The Titanic…unsinkable, absolutely unsinkable” — are proven wrong by history, making him appear foolish and out of touch. For the 1945 audience, who had lived through two catastrophic global conflicts, such statements would have resonated as more than mere dramatic irony: they were a scathing indictment of short-sightedness and upper-class hubris.

Priestley, who had served in the First World War and witnessed the suffering it caused, was deeply affected by the experience. He believed that the war had resulted from the selfishness of ruling elites and the failure to address deep-rooted social inequalities. The Second World War further cemented this belief, and in 1942 he co-founded the Common Wealth Party, which campaigned for common ownership, public accountability, and social justice.

An Inspector Calls, then, emerges not just as a critique of the Edwardian past, but as a moral reckoning intended for a post-war audience. The play warns that if society fails to learn from its mistakes, it will be condemned to repeat them — a message encapsulated in the Inspector’s ominous prophecy: “If men will not learn that lesson, then they will be taught it in fire and blood and anguish.” This line draws clear parallels between moral ignorance and the horrors of war.

Industrial Action and Unionisation

Another crucial element of the play’s context is the rise of industrial action and the labour movement in the early twentieth century. In 1912, the year the play is set, Britain experienced a surge in strike activity. Workers were increasingly organising through trade unions to demand fair wages, reasonable hours, and safer working conditions.

The plight of Eva Smith — dismissed for participating in a strike at Birling’s factory — highlights the vulnerability of working-class women and the exploitation inherent in unchecked capitalism. Mr Birling refers to the strike as if it were an affront to social order: “They wanted the rates raised. I refused, of course.” His disdain for collective action reflects the fear of the working class gaining power and disrupting the status quo.

Priestley’s portrayal of Eva Smith — though she never appears on stage — turns her into a symbol of the oppressed working class. Her lack of a voice underscores how women and the poor were silenced by structures of class and gender. The Inspector acts as her proxy, holding the Birlings to account on her behalf, as a representative of the social justice that Priestley championed.

By 1945, unionisation had become far more entrenched in British society, and the Labour Party, with strong ties to the unions, won a landslide victory in the general election that same year. The play’s critique of employer arrogance and its sympathy for working-class struggle would have aligned well with the sentiments of a newly empowered labour movement.

The Beveridge Report and Calls for Reform

The play also responds to calls for sweeping social reform in the wake of the Second World War, particularly the publication of the Beveridge Report in 1942. Authored by Liberal economist William Beveridge, the report identified five “giant evils” plaguing British society: Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor, and Idleness. It proposed the creation of a comprehensive welfare state — including a National Health Service — to address these systemic issues.

This vision directly informed the social policies of the post-war Labour government, which sought to eradicate poverty and improve the lives of ordinary citizens. Priestley’s play, with its emphasis on collective responsibility and the need to care for the vulnerable, is deeply aligned with the spirit of the Beveridge Report.

The Inspector’s assertion that “public men, Mr Birling, have responsibilities as well as privileges” directly confronts the selfishness and complacency that had allowed social injustice to flourish in pre-war Britain. The message is clear: if society is to move forward, it must prioritise compassion, fairness, and equality over status and profit.

Gender, Class and the British Establishment

Beyond economics and ideology, An Inspector Calls engages with issues of gender and class. The Birlings’ treatment of Eva Smith reflects the intersection of these forces: she is doubly disadvantaged by being both poor and female. Mrs Birling’s cold dismissal of her plea for help — “She was claiming elaborate fine feelings and scruples that were simply absurd in a girl in her position” — illustrates how entrenched class prejudice dehumanised the poor, even among those supposedly tasked with helping them.

The play also explores the complicity of women in perpetuating class hierarchies. While Mrs Birling lacks sympathy for Eva, Sheila represents a more progressive stance, one that grows in self-awareness and critical thinking. Priestley thus suggests that social reform requires a re-evaluation not only of economics but of gender roles and assumptions.

Furthermore, the engagement between Sheila and Gerald Croft symbolises the consolidation of power among the upper classes. Gerald’s family owns a rival business, and the union of the two families through marriage is framed as a strategic alliance. This underscores the interdependence of capitalism and social stratification — something Priestley is keen to dismantle.

Priestley’s Vision for the Future

Priestley’s intentions in writing An Inspector Calls were not merely literary; they were deeply political. In the closing months of World War II, he addressed the British public through his immensely popular “Postscripts” broadcasts, where he advocated for unity, fairness, and post-war reconstruction. His work, both fictional and non-fictional, consistently argued that society must be rebuilt on principles of justice and equality, not greed and privilege.

The timing of the play’s first performance — in 1945, the same year the Labour government under Clement Attlee took power — is significant. Priestley’s optimism about the future is tempered by a warning: if Britain does not learn from its past, it risks repeating it. The reappearance of a second, “real” Inspector at the end of the play is a symbolic reckoning — a call for accountability that can no longer be delayed.

Conclusion

An Inspector Calls is not merely a drama about a tragic suicide — it is a carefully constructed political critique rooted in its historical moment. Priestley uses the 1912 setting to highlight the failures of capitalism, the dangers of individualism, and the suffering of the working class. Against the backdrop of two world wars, rising unionism, and the dawn of the welfare state, the play calls for a new social order grounded in collective responsibility.

Through hindsight and moral urgency, Priestley delivers a timeless warning: social injustice, left unchecked, leads to “fire and blood and anguish.” But equally, he offers hope — that through introspection, education, and empathy, society can be transformed. The play remains a powerful reminder that history is not just something to be studied — it is something to be learned from.