The Importance of Money in Priestley's "An Inspector Calls"
Submitted for GCSE English Literature, November 2020
‘An Inspector Calls’ is a play that explores a number of themes, including social responsibility, age and generational divides, gender and class. The latter of these is perhaps the most evidently linked with money, but this essay will explore the extent to which the concept of money, as well as wealth, is used to convey a message about the themes, as well as being a major contributor to the attributes of each character, including Inspector Goole.
It should be noted when approaching ‘An Inspector Calls’ that its playwright, Joseph Priestley, was an advocate of socialism, and wrote this play partly in this capacity. It was written shortly after the end of World War II, shortly before the defeat of Winston Churchill in the 1945 general election; some might claim that the greatest factor in Labour’s decisive win was their social reform policy, including the introduction of the welfare state. Priestley was very strong advocate of the welfare state, and over the course of the play, he uses the titular Inspector as a proxy for his socialist views. An Inspector Calls is a morality play, and its purpose is to teach people the difference between right and wrong, and emphasises the objective nature of that decision – it is clearly wrong to judge people for their circumstances that they had no control over, and especially wrong to have the wealth distribution of a society or community to be asymmetrical to the point that while some are at real risk of starving, others have more money than they know what to do with. It is important to note in regard to money then, that the Inspector’s character is in large part crafted to fit his function as Priestley’s mouthpiece, and therefore serves as the voice regarding what ought to be done with money and taxes. Considering the context and the Inspector’s declarations – “We don’t live alone. We are members of one body. We are responsible for each other.” – we may then deduce that the point of the Inspector’s character is to make a political statement: how governments should go about redistributing wealth. In this way, we can see that money and the evils that come with it are central to the Inspector’s character, and the message about socioeconomic responsibility that he represents.
The Birlings are a family who have attained great wealth and power, and this is illustrated predominantly in their material assets, possibly so it is made evident to viewers of the play how well-off they are. The stage directions describe them as having a ‘fairly large suburban house’, with ‘good solid furniture of the period’. Explicitly, the effect is described as ‘substantial’ though not ‘cosy and homelike’. The choice of adjectives show that the Birlings are not especially concerned with using their affluence for their convenience, but prefer to maintain appearance and show off their social class and privilege, both of which are overarching themes in the play. The Birlings are a privileged and classist family. At one point, Gerald reveals that one of the Birlings’ friends, Alderman Joe Meggarty, is ‘a notorious womaniser as well as being one of the worst sots and rogues in Brumley’, and they are disbelieving that their upper-class friends could behave in such a way. Moreover, when Mrs Birling refers to Eva Smith, she says, ‘as if a girl of that sort would ever refuse money!’, which shows that she has erroneous preconceptions about the substandard morals of the working-class. This degradation of the lower class and the poor by the rich aristocracy is an important theme throughout the play, and Priestley communicates that money is the source of this oppression. Furthermore, over the course of the play, it comes out that they all used their social superiority to disempower Eva Smith. Because this perceived inherent superiority comes from their being rich, Priestley demonstrates that corruption and evil are implicit in a capitalist society where large amounts of money are concentrated within a small percentage of the population, which necessarily leads to the subjugation of everyone else. Towards the end of the play, as Sheila and Eric accept responsibility for the role they have played in Eva Smith’s murder, while Mr and Mrs Birling do not (while Gerald straddles the generational divide), it shows that money is blinding and corrupting, and causes the rich to behave immorally. In this way, it is implied that such an unfairness would not arise in a socialist society with shared wealth and social responsibility.
Mrs Birling’s character in particular appears to serve as an antithesis of everything Priestley believes we should be like. She is described as ‘a rather cold woman and her husband’s social superior’. She is upper-class and supercilious, telling her husband ‘reproachfully’ that he isn’t supposed to compliment their cook. Her contribution to the death of Eva Smith was that she refused to offer any monetary support to her while she was desperate. She is shown to be cold-hearted, and shows no remorse for her actions – she even goes as far as to say that it was ‘her duty’ to turn her down, partly on the grounds that she ‘didn’t like her manner’. The petty motivations that caused her to hold this opinion stems from the class divide, which is shown when she says ‘I don’t suppose for a moment that we can understand why the girl committed suicide. Girls of that class-.” She acts both ignorantly and snobbishly, acting like she could not possibly understand Eva Smith because she was of a lower class, and so in her eyes, essentially subordinate. Even during casual conversation in her own home, she criticises her own family members for their behaviour, like when she said, “What an expression, Sheila! Really, the things you girls pick up these days!” These exclamatory fragments demonstrate that she has snobbish opinions on the way people should speak and behave, making it very clear that she looks down upon them. As her character is representative of the immorality of the upper class, this also shows that an imbalance of money, wealth and power creates unnecessary social boundaries which in turn leads to a social hierarchy that neglects the poor. Though money and class are not the same thing, as is demonstrated by Mr Birling’s character, they are strongly correlated, and the way Mrs Birling’s privilege to have been raised as an upper class woman, before marrying rich has caused her to be prejudiced, selfish and opposed to collective responsibility is a further criticism of the nature of the class system, and the way money is distributed under capitalism. It should be noted that Mrs Birling’s family is unlikely to be in possession of greater money than her husband eventually came by, and though her crime involved not allowing Eva Smith some money that would help her, it is her social position that allowed her to have the final say – the Inspector clarified with her that it was ‘owing to her influence’. Therefore, Mrs Birling’s transgression, as well as her coldness and arrogance, are derived primarily through her class and social status, which is not equivalent to monetary riches.
While Mrs Birling represents the upper class, her husband is upper-middle class. Money is a lot more important to Mr Birling’s character than to Mrs Birling, because though he is not of as high a class of his wife, he is very rich: he is a factory owner, a pompous, overconfident, stubborn social climber. After not recognising Eva Smith’s picture, he says, “Well we’ve several hundred young women there, y’know, and they keep changing.” This assertion, as well as his casual, condescending tone (further exemplified by the contraction ‘y’know’) shows that he doesn’t actually care about his employees, and by extension the lower class, because they are replaceable considering their lack of power. Furthermore, the fact that they ‘keep changing’ potentially suggests that the working conditions and pay are not ideal. Mr Birling later says, “Well it’s my duty to keep labour costs down.” This demonstrates that he is indifferent to his duties about caring for his employees as well, choosing instead to be entirely self-serving and focus on the company, as he perceives the poor people who work for him to be disposable. He is a self-proclaimed ‘hard-headed business man’, and his main concern is making money, so much so that he is unobjectionably a greedy character, which in Priestley’s view, epitomises capitalists. This is demonstrated in the fact that he sees his daughter’s engagement as a chance to make a business proposal – he says, “we may look forward to the time when Crofts and Birlings are no longer competing but are working together – for lower costs and higher prices.” It is interesting, though not surprising that the playwright also chose to portray Birling as ignorant and short-sighted. He makes long arrogant speeches filled with dramatic irony. For instance, he claims that ‘there isn’t a chance of war’ and describes the Titanic as ‘unsinkable, absolutely unsinkable’. Though the play was set in 1911, it was written in 1945, and viewers will be well aware that the Titanic sunk on its maiden voyage and that the following years held the horrors of not just one, but two devastating world wars. In this way, Priestley sets the stage to show that the wealthiest in society are improvident, ignorant and short-sighted. He later says to the Inspector, “We were paying the usual rates and if they didn’t like those rates, they could go and work somewhere else. It’s a free country, I told them”. This declaration that it’s a free country and that they could simply go and find work somewhere else shows that Birling does not understand how hard it is for people like Eva Smith to find work in the first place. Thus Birling’s character, and by extension his greedy actions in firing Eva Smith, setting off the chain of events that led to her death, is driven solely by money, and from a viewership’s perspective, Priestley uses him to represent the sheer stupidity and arrogance that he holds is ubiquitous among the rich – essentially further proliferating his socialist message by saying that you cannot both succeed and be a good person in a capitalist society.
These two characters – Mr and Mrs Birling – are often referred to as the older generation. They are both unrepentant about Eva Smith’s death, preferring to avoid taking responsibility and being more concerned about the effect that it might have on their reputation. Mr Birling shows no remorse when refusing monetary aid to Eva Smith, saying that she was ‘perfectly justified in advising [her] committee not to allow her claim for assistance’. She is stubborn and unmoved. Mr Birling in his turn said of his firing of Eva Smith ‘obviously it has nothing whatever to do with the wretched girl’s suicide.’ His choice of adjective in particular emphasises his utter lack of guilt or remorse, showing that he stands by his decision to have fired Eva Smith and ruined her life for the good of his company. Part of the reason that the older generation are presented in such a negative light is to portray to the audience that they are stubborn and fixed, but part of it is also that they are now beneficiaries to the system under which they have done well, and emerged near the top. This is a message about the proprietorial nature of money, how it is all-consuming in great quantities, and yet another reminder that no individual or family should be hoarding such massive wealth while people like Eva Smith are driven to suicide from destitution.
Gerald Croft does not fit firmly into either generational bracket. His family are upper-class business owners, and he certainly is involved with at least some aspect of the business, but he is getting engaged to Sheila, who is unequivocally of the younger generation. At the beginning of the play, he is presented as being very confident and generally suave. This is shown by the coolness with which he makes an ironic joke to Birling about his chances of receiving a knighthood: “Sure to be, unless Eric’s been up to something.” Gerald was born rich and into the upper-class which Mr Birling so desperately aspires to be in. He is described as an ‘attractive chap’ and ‘well-bred’. Though money does not appear to have much of an impact on his motivations, this is because he has always been so affluent and privileged that it is not really a concern for him, and this certainly contributes to his air of confidence. At the original dinner party, he says to Sheila, ‘I insist upon being one of the family now.’ Upon not receiving a reply, the stage directions posit that he tries again, ‘with more insistence’. Priestley uses Gerald to show that despite the outward appearances of the upper-class, these people are still capable of questionable behaviour. When he it comes out that he has had an affair with Eva Smith (though she went, by this point, as Daisy Renton), he is evasive about it, saying, “All right. I knew her. Let’s leave it at that.” These blunt concessions show that he wants the topic to move on as quickly as possible. Though it is clear that to an extent, he felt some pity for her, when the Inspector clarified with him that Daisy Renton became his mistress, he described it as ‘inevitable’. He blatantly took advantage of her and relished being her saviour, so to speak, instead of helping her out in some other way that was undoubtedly available to him. His offer of assistance to her was entirely predicated on him ‘installing her’ at his friend’s vacant flat as his ‘intensely grateful’ kept mistress, rather than getting her a job at his company. This shows that he certainly thinks of himself as above the problems of the working-class. Gerald is the class that Mr Birling aspires to, and it is clear from the start that Birling is seeking to impress him, boasting nonchalantly that he might earn ‘just a knighthood’ on the next Honours list. Gerald appears very comfortable with the wealth and class status that he was born with, which is one of the things that separates him from Birling, who of course, was merely upper-middle class and had to earn his money (though he was a lot better off than the likes of Eva Smith). When the Inspector reveals that Sheila played a role in Eva Smith/Daisy Renton’s death, she says to him, “All right Gerald, you needn’t look at me like that. At least I’m trying to tell the truth. I expect you’ve done things you’re ashamed of too.” This shows that Gerald is being judgmental of Sheila, though he has not yet taken responsibility for his own actions. It is undisputable that the money that he was born into contributes in large part to his personality and actions: how spoiled, entitled and privileged he is. While the Inspector acts as a catalyst for the perceived moral growth of the ‘younger generation’ – Sheila and Eric – Gerald is instead more concerned about protecting his reputation and good name. He, more so than any other character, is especially concerned with proving that Inspector Goole was not a real inspector, in order to relieve himself of any responsibility, even lying to a police sergeant, ‘saying I’d been having an argument with somebody’, upon having inquired of him whether a man of the Inspector’s description was in the force. Though some might argue he redeems himself in part by being honest about his affair and his mistakes in Act 2, it is clear by the end of the play that preposterous amounts of money have corrupted his character and led him to feel unearned privilege and superiority in society, and all in all, he failed to learn from his mistakes.
As far as the younger generation are concerned, then, Sheila was the first character in the play to show compunction for her actions. At the beginning of the play, she was presented as naïve, childish and materialistic. The childishness is shown when she says to Mr Birling, “I’m sorry Daddy actually I was listening”, being quick to apologise, showing that she is keen to behave well. She also refers to him as ‘Daddy’ a childish diminutive. When Gerald presents her with a ring (though it had some significance that we as the audience are not privy to, as she asks, ‘is it the one you wanted me to have?’), she shows it to her mother and asks, ‘isn’t it a beauty?’. These questions shows that she is less excited about what the ring represents, namely the planned marriage, but about how it pleases her aesthetic senses. She got Eva Smith fired from her job, and though she says that she ‘felt rotten about it at the time’, she had clearly forgotten until the Inspector mentioned it – even when the name of the shop was mentioned earlier, she had no reaction but to playfully tell Gerald she’d been there to buy him something. This revelation sets the stage for her transformation however, showing that unlike Birling, who fired her and other workers without a second thought, Sheila did feel some guilt from having unfairly made use of her higher social status and family’s reputation in forcing Eva Smith out of her job. It is noteworthy also that neither Sheila’s nor Mrs Birling’s mistreatment of Eva Smith stemmed directly from money, but from their superiority as a result of their class, whilst the men’s transgressions in the play are generally more explicitly linked with money, the best example of this being Mr Birling firing her for being a ringleader among a group asking for better wages. Gender is a key them in ‘An Inspector Calls’, and Priestley no doubt wanted his audience to question stereotypical gender roles. Mrs Birling earlier said that, “When you’re married you’ll realize that men with important work to do sometimes have to spend nearly all their time and energy on their business.” She fulfils old-fashioned female roles here, and could not think to speak out against her husband – she believes that this is wrong as a matter of principle. As well as this, she defers to him as the provider, the businessman. This is particularly relevant because Eva Smith is a young woman who died due to poverty. Priestley wants to show us that there should be social justice and equality for women in society. For this reason, Sheila simply responds, “I don’t believe I will.” This furthers Priestley’s portrayal of Sheila to be the young generation of hope, those who are not yet dependent and thriving on the current economic system. This is part of the reason that her character arc is so important throughout the play, as she becomes more assertive, using phrases such as ‘I tell you’ because the Inspector has made her understand that all actions have consequences.
The only other character who showed genuine remorse is Eric Birling, who also belongs to the younger generation. Priestley uses his character in much the same way he uses Sheila’s, to suggest that the young people of a post-war Britain would be the answer to a hopeful future. He is the most emotionally affected of all the characters, and this is shown in the stage directions when his words are ‘bursting out’ and he asks, ‘what’s the use of talking about behaving sensibly.’ This shows that he is clearly distressed and bothered by the result of his actions. He was aggressive, and actually raped Eva Smith while he was drunk. Priestley used Eric’s character in this way to show the problems with drinking and casual relationships, and general immoral behaviour, to show that although the younger generation represent hope for the future, we still need to be careful about acknowledging them. Sybil Birling for the most part completely refuses to admit Eric’s drinking problem, and Arthur sees it as a sign that he has been spoiled. However, with regard to money, he was in some ways the most generous. Gerald simply ‘allowed her’ some money, though he and his family are very rich, and he could easily have allowed her to live a better life in any number of ways. Eric, however, knowing that Arthur is ‘not the kind of father a chap could go to when he’s in trouble’, stole money to give to Eva Smith until she refused to accept anymore – about fifty pounds total. As Eric was the last character to get interviewed by the Inspector, it is in some ways fitting that his attitude to money prior to the visit came closer to Priestley’s ideals, with the rich losing some of their money to sustain the poor until such a point when there is no rich and poor.
Therefore I believe that money, functioning alongside broader ideas of wealth and power, was a very important part of ‘An Inspector Calls’. Priestley identified what he considered to be numerous problems with society, and the economic system and the lack of any social safety net was one of them. His ideas about what should be done with our economic system, as well as the responsibility of those with a lot of money to those without it were made very explicit in the play, and it functions very well as a concept among numerous other themes, often assimilating itself as a key component of many of them, as has been explored in this essay. Though the older Birlings remain proud of their social and economic position, the younger generation grow ashamed of their ability to use the influence their money brought them immorally; both of these groups begin to contend with each other, with an unchanged Arthur Birling still aspiring to an aristocratic position and a knighthood. Overall, the message about money dominated the overarching themes of the play, and while it was certainly more prevalent in some characters and themes than in others, I conclude that money as a concept, along with ideas about greed for money and how money should be used, was one of the most important parts of ‘An Inspector Calls’.
Result
Mark: 100%
Feedback on first draft (presumably fixed in the above):
This is an impressive piece of work, equivalent in many ways to an A Level essay. For the sake of hitting full marks, can you include the notion of a morality play in your analysis – perhaps as the appropriate vehicle for Priestley’s didactic purpose? Also, you need to focus a few times on literary features/parts of speech in your …