How does JB Priestley present the different generations in An Inspector Calls?

In JB Priestley’s An Inspector Calls, the conflict that arises between the “famous
younger generation” and the older, “hard-headed” characters is one of the main forces
driving the plot forward and enabling Priestley to openly criticise the flaws in both the
young and the old. An Inspector Calls is a well-made play; the majority of the action
takes place before the play starts, and the younger characters progress from ignorance
to knowledge.
Through the younger generation－that is, Eric and Sheila Birling－Priestley
demonstrates change and hope for the future. As the two of them begin to regret their
actions and pity Eva Smith, the Inspector’s attitude towards them, whilst remaining
stern and reproving, does indeed soften a little. “You see,” he tells the Birlings, “we
all have to share something. If there’s nothing else, we’ll have to share our guilt.” The
repetition of the verb “share” supports Priestley’s Socialist views, and through this
statement, he explains that the younger generation should not be burdened with the
guilt and consequences of an entire family. Neither Priestley nor the Inspector, who
acts as his mouthpiece throughout the majority of the play, wish anybody to shoulder
the responsibilities of anyone alone; meanwhile, the members of older generation are
all-too-quick to blame the youth entirely.
By the end of the play, both Eric and Sheila have thoroughly taken on Priestley’s
Socialist values. As early as Page Nineteen, Sheila declares to Birling: “But these
girls aren’t cheap labour–they’re people.”With this, she clearly draws the line
between the Capitalist beliefs held by her father and Gerald and the more Marxist
viewpoint of the Inspector; the dehumanising labelling of Eva and her friends as mere
“cheap labour”, for “lower costs and higher prices”, goes against the more people-
orientated, caring view which both she and Eric pick up under the watch of the
mysterious Inspector.
As the Inspector orchestrates the play’s action, the two members of the younger
generation go through a complete moral revolution and learn how to be socially
responsible for others. Although neither Eric nor Sheila took any responsibility for
their actions towards Eva Smith’s death during her life, Eric understands and takes on
the Inspector’s animadversions towards his parents: “You’re beginning to pretend as
if nothing’s really happened at all. And I can’t see it like that. The girl’s still dead,
isn’t she?” Whilst his referring to Eva Smith as “the girl” echoes his father, his
principles have been entirely inverted. He is anxious to redeem himself in the eyes of
the Inspector, at the risk of his parent’s disapproval, and it is this that truly shows the
moral strength gained throughout the course of the play. Sheila, likewise, answers for
her actions; in fact, she is the first to accept responsibility and take some of the blame.
This earns her the respect of the audience and the Inspector.
However, despite the Inspector’s deep impression on the younger characters, he
is not so successful with their parents. At the end of the play, Birling and his wife are
as narrow-minded, obstinate, remorseless, and Capitalist as they were at the
beginning. The lack of moral change in Mr and Mrs Birling prevents An Inspector
Calls from being an entirely well-made play. The use of a rather conservative genre,
as the well-made play is considered to be, may strike the audience and critics as odd,
considering Priestley’s Socialist views. However, much like Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s
House, Priestley transcends this genre by providing another plunge into chaos after
the return to normality. Both he and Ibsen dealt with themes of corruption and
selfishness in their respective works, with Priestley criticising the gap between
generations and Ibsen exploring how the generations are linked by corruption and
greed.
The relations and conflicts between the elder and younger characters comprise
one of the major themes of the play. Mrs Birling subtly controls and stifles her
daughter, embarrassing her in public. Sheila explains that her “mother had been
against” the dress which she wanted to try on, and out of sheer spite, Sheila had
insisted. This demonstrates the manner in which Mrs Birling suppresses Sheila and
how Sheila reacts; explaining, quite clearly, to the audience their relationship. Despite
this, Sheila is almost entirely obedient when with her mother and spends the majority
of her time with her, as would have been expected of middle-class women in the era.
The relation between Eric and his father is a far more tense and turbulent affair.
Whilst the two get on reasonably well at the beginning of the play, Mr Birling is
clearly less than impressed with his son, disparaging his “public-school-and-Varsity
life” and deeming him “spoilt” even in Act I. Despite this, he does allow Eric to work
with him, although whether this is merely due to social convention is unclear. It is
when the Inspector reveals Eric’s deeds that Birling entirely denounces his son,
declaring that he is the one he “blame[s] for this.” Birling does not care for his son’s
well-being, only for his reputation and his money, and now both are in jeopardy.
“You’re not the kind of father a chap can go to when he’s in trouble,” Eric counters,
pointing out Birling’s conditional attitude towards both of his children. The lack of
family values, despite Mr Birling’s insistence on how “a man… has to look after…
his family”, highlights the hypocrisy so evident in the Birling family.
Gerald Croft, Sheila’s fiancé and the son of Birling’s main rival in business,
occupies a peculiar position between the split of the generations. Mr Birling considers
him a ‘youngster’, referring to Eric, Sheila, and Gerald as “young people”, and whilst
Gerald is unmarried and not particularly old, he tends to side with the older Birlings’
Capitalist views. This is perhaps influenced by his father and his business, or by his
aristocratic roots. The Inspector’s Socialist ethics would not protect his own interests,
and whilst he tries to play the “wonderful Fairy Prince” in Eva Smith’s life, he easily
gives in to his own desires. This demonstrates the infidelity and fickleness which is
typical of youth but also mirrors the carelessness and self-absorption of the elder
characters.
Mr Birling’s speech at the beginning of the play typifies his views. He claims he
speaks as a “hard-headed, practical man of business” and arrogantly assumes that
every statement he makes is correct. When Eric tentatively mentions the looming
prospect of war, he dismissively waves it away, proclaiming that “the world's
developing so fast that it'll make war impossible.” The audience, watching the play in
1946, would know perfectly well that in two years, the Great War would break out;
this use of dramatic irony makes the audience lose trust in Birling’s character, and
deem him ignorant and self-important.
By contrast, the Inspector’s speech at the near end of Act III is prophetic, without
the arrogance which infiltrates Birling’s monologue. “And I tell you that the time will
soon come when, if men will not learn that lesson, then they will be taught it in fire
and blood and anguish,” he predicts ominously. The nightmarish semantic field in this
speech perhaps reflects Priestley’s own experiences in the Great War, but despite the
hellish imagery that surely will have deeply affected all audiences, the majority of the
Birling family are seemingly untouched by his words. Birling and his wife
immediately turn on Eric, who is still reeling from his questioning and the speech, and
blame him for the whole ordeal. It is Sheila who is left alone to consider the
Inspector’s words, and she is the first one to consider the Inspector’s validity,
believing whole-heartedly in his omniscience.
The main contrast between the generations which Priestley draws on in his work
is the willingness to answer for their actions. Mr and Mrs Birling refuse to accept the
blame for any of the links in the “chain of events” leading up to Eva Smith’s death,
whilst Eric and his sister quickly take on their own responsibility, as well as
considering Priestley’s Marxist values. Although Mr Birling criticises the
“impressionable” young people, it is this willingness to adapt and accept more
humane morals, both identifying, understanding and making an effort to correct one’s
own mistakes, which offers the younger generation an opportunity for redemption.