Intro to Inspector Calls Themes

J.B. Priestley’s An Inspector Calls is more than a mystery or a period drama — it is a thematically rich social critique that interrogates the moral and ideological fabric of early twentieth-century Britain. Through the lens of a single tragic event — the death of Eva Smith — Priestley explores the consequences of selfishness, class prejudice, and denial of responsibility. The themes of the play are not confined to the drawing room of the Birling family; they resonate far beyond, forming Priestley’s urgent call for social reform and moral accountability in a post-war world.

Responsibility and Collective Guilt

Arguably the most dominant theme in the play is responsibility. Priestley examines the extent to which individuals and society as a whole are accountable for the welfare of others. The Inspector acts as the moral compass of the narrative, urging the Birlings to acknowledge their part in Eva Smith’s downfall. His famous pronouncement — “We are members of one body. We are responsible for each other” — stands in stark contrast to Arthur Birling’s earlier assertion: “A man has to mind his own business and look after himself and his own.”

Each character is implicated in Eva’s demise, yet their reactions to this revelation vary. Sheila and Eric accept responsibility and express remorse — “It’s the only time I’ve ever done anything like that, and I’ll never, never do it again to anybody” (Sheila) — while Mr and Mrs Birling deny any fault. This difference underscores Priestley’s central message: true moral progress requires acknowledgment of shared responsibility.

The structure of the play reinforces this theme. Eva’s story is gradually revealed, layer by layer, showing how a series of seemingly minor actions from different people can accumulate into tragedy. This reflects Priestley’s belief that no action is isolated — that individual choices have communal consequences.

Class and Social Inequality

Class is an ever-present theme in An Inspector Calls, influencing how characters see themselves and others. The Birlings, as wealthy industrialists, represent the complacent upper middle class of Edwardian England. Their treatment of Eva Smith — a working-class woman with no social power — exposes the cruelty and indifference with which the lower classes were often treated.

Mr Birling’s dismissal of Eva for leading a strike — “She had a lot to say – far too much – so she had to go” — reveals a patronising and authoritarian attitude towards his workers. Similarly, Mrs Birling refuses help to Eva (who has now taken the name “Mrs Birling”) out of a sense of moral superiority: “As if a girl of that sort would ever refuse money!”

The repeated references to “girls of that class” and the assumption that lower-class people are inherently less respectable reflect the rigid class hierarchies of the time. Priestley attacks the hypocrisy of this mindset, especially when the characters who claim the moral high ground — like Sybil Birling — are exposed as lacking empathy and integrity.

Eva Smith functions symbolically as the voice of the working class: faceless, voiceless, and vulnerable. Through her, Priestley highlights the injustice of a system that values profit over people and status over solidarity.

Generational Conflict

Another crucial theme is the conflict between generations, especially concerning moral values and the willingness to change. Mr and Mrs Birling represent the older generation — stubborn, self-justifying, and resistant to criticism. Mr Birling’s confident declarations — “The famous younger generation who know it all” — are tinged with sarcasm and a refusal to adapt.

By contrast, Sheila and Eric undergo significant transformations. Sheila’s early flippancy gives way to deep introspection: “Between us we drove that girl to commit suicide.” Eric, too, moves from recklessness to remorse: “You’re beginning to pretend now that nothing’s really happened at all.”

The younger generation are open to the Inspector’s message, which suggests that Priestley saw hope in the future. This theme reflects the historical context of the play’s post-war audience, where younger voters were embracing the Labour Party’s platform of social reform, while older, wealthier citizens often remained aligned with more conservative values.

Priestley uses this divide to suggest that social progress depends on generational change — and on the willingness of the young to confront uncomfortable truths rather than deny them.

Gender and the Role of Women

Gender roles and expectations are repeatedly interrogated in the play. Eva Smith suffers not only due to her class but also her gender. Her dismissal from Millwards (at Sheila’s instigation) and her vulnerability to Gerald and Eric’s advances highlight how women were subjected to the whims and desires of those in power.

While Mrs Birling appears to hold a position of authority — as a member of the Women’s Charity Organisation — she uses this role to enforce class distinctions rather than challenge them. She speaks of Eva with disdain and suspicion, claiming she lacked the “fine feelings” of a respectable woman.

Sheila, however, evolves into a more assertive and empathetic character, beginning to question the very structures that benefit her. Her assertion that “These girls aren’t cheap labour — they’re people” is one of the most powerful lines in the play, challenging both classism and sexism simultaneously.

By exposing the ways in which society restricts and devalues women, Priestley advocates not only for economic justice but also for gender equality — a progressive stance in an era still shaped by patriarchal norms.

Time, Hindsight, and Dramatic Irony

The theme of time operates both structurally and symbolically. The play’s 1912 setting allows Priestley to employ dramatic irony — the audience, watching in 1945 or later, knows that Mr Birling’s predictions will be proven disastrously wrong. When Birling proclaims “The Titanic…unsinkable, absolutely unsinkable” and that “there isn’t a chance of war”, the audience recognises his ignorance and arrogance.

Time is also manipulated through the Inspector’s arrival and his methodical investigation. Each revelation seems preordained, as though the characters are being judged not just for what they did but for what they represent. The play unfolds in real time, enhancing its sense of inevitability and moral pressure.

The cyclical structure — ending with a phone call announcing that a real inspector is on the way — suggests that unless the characters (and society) change, they will be forced to relive the consequences of their actions. Time, then, becomes a vehicle for moral reflection and transformation.

Truth, Guilt and Denial

Closely linked to responsibility is the theme of guilt — and how characters respond to it. Priestley explores the human tendency to avoid blame and shift responsibility. Mr and Mrs Birling consistently deny any wrongdoing, relying on excuses and social status to shield themselves. “I accept no blame for it at all,” declares Mrs Birling, even after being shown her role in Eva’s suffering.

Gerald, too, is eager to distance himself once he realises that the Inspector may not be legitimate. “Everything’s all right now, Sheila,” he says, offering her the engagement ring again — as if nothing has changed. His eagerness to restore the status quo shows how the illusion of innocence can be more attractive than the discomfort of guilt.

In contrast, Sheila and Eric grapple honestly with their actions. Their guilt becomes a catalyst for growth. “It frightens me the way you talk,” Sheila tells her parents, appalled at their lack of remorse. This clash between denial and moral reckoning is central to Priestley’s argument: that ethical maturity requires acceptance of guilt, not avoidance of it.

Social Change and the Need for Reform

Priestley’s ultimate goal in An Inspector Calls is not simply to expose moral failure, but to demand social change. His play is a call to action, written in the wake of the Second World War and the election of a Labour government committed to building a welfare state. The Inspector, who may be seen as Priestley’s mouthpiece, expresses this urgency: “There are millions and millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths still left with us.”

The characters’ responses to the Inspector determine whether they are capable of contributing to a better society. Those who change — Sheila and Eric — are offered a chance at redemption. Those who resist — Mr and Mrs Birling — are warned that their refusal to change will result in further suffering.

The final twist — a second inspector is coming — reinforces the idea that social justice cannot be avoided. It will come, one way or another. Priestley implies that Britain must choose between a future of compassion and equality, or one of repetition, violence and division.

Conclusion

The themes of An Inspector Calls are rich, layered, and powerfully interwoven. Priestley uses the microcosm of the Birling family to explore broad societal issues: the dangers of individualism, the brutality of class division, the gendered nature of power, and the urgency of social reform. Through themes of responsibility, time, guilt, and generational conflict, the play transcends its setting and speaks directly to every audience, regardless of decade.

Ultimately, the play insists that change is not optional — it is essential. Only by recognising our interconnectedness and owning our responsibilities to one another can we hope to avoid “fire and blood and anguish.” It is a message that remains just as urgent today as it was in 1945.