HOW DOES PRIESTLEY PRESENT INEQUALITY IN ‘AN INSPECTOR

CALLS’?

Priestley presents inequality as not just one problem, but a collection of

them, all of which are seen to be perpetrated by the Birlings, to highlight
their narrow view on the world. He presents inequality towards the lower
class and upper class, women and men, and even the upper class
against themselves, in order to highlight the self-destruction of a house,
and allegorically a society, divided against themselves, to challenge the
audience’s political views, using the different characters’ reactions and
attitudes as hints of how to and how not to act.

Priestley uses contrast to portray the power upper class people, such as
the Birlings, hold over others as superficial and without compassion. A
clear way this is shown is through the contrast in appearances between
Mr Birling and Inspector Goole. Arthur is said to be heavy-looking,
implying opulence, substance, and mass, which would have been
caused by a luxurious and self-indulgent lifestyle, whist the Inspector is
shown to “not be big, but creates an impression of massiveness”.
Goole’s “massiveness”, unlike Birling’s, is purely internal. He is not in a
position of status, but yet he holds power over the members of the
household. This is done to criticise the rose-tinted lens the upper class of
the early 20th century saw the world through; a point shown literally in the
“pink and intimate” lighting on the stage. Priestley solidifies this by using
irony, such as by making Mrs Birling head of a charity, despite her being
anything but. This indicates the exploitation of the power people of the
upper class had over others, as well as showing that their status and
power is external and at face-value, whilst characters like Goole and Eva
maintain their own moral power, which Priestley shows to be more
important in society. Eva’s moral tone is highlighted when she “refuses”
to take any more money from Eric, when she found out it was stolen.
Eva’s morality, despite her being in a position of low status, contrasts
with people like Eric, who wastes the money he has through gambling
and drinking, or Birling, who is willing to “pay thousands – thousands!” in
order to keep Goole quiet. This shows the carelessness and lack of
gratitude upper class people have, despite their elevated position in
society. Priestley presents the lower class characters as more moral
than the Birlings, which helps to indicate how the upper class do not
have power over the lower class, internally speaking.
This explains why Priestley presents the inequalities between classes as
the result of the face-value power richer people hold being abused. For
example, Gerald’s money and status was what caused Eva to become
his mistress; Mr Birling wanted to keep as much money as possible so
fired Eva from her job. It is clear that all of the bad things that have
happened to Eva are directly caused by the upper class, due to them
feeling the need to prove this power they feel they have over others,
rather than by earning it – an idea possibly expressed when, in retort to
Birling mentioning how some people “ask for the earth”, the Inspector
accuses him of “taking” it, showing the disrespect social elites of the
early 20th century had when it came to assuring their dominance over
others.

There are also inequalities seen in the sexes within the play, but the
attitudes held by the different characters towards this is different. Birling
dehumanises Eva – He calls her one of the “several hundred young
women” he has employed. This shows his aforementioned sense of
dominance he feels over others, particularly women, by
compartmentalising them into just being one of the “several hundred”,
and then by boasting about it. He, and the other characters in the play,
also judge women, especially Eva, on their appearances, calling her
“pretty” and “good-looking”. This reflects what people thought a woman’s
expectations were in these times, namely, to be beautiful and little else.
Interestingly, this could be seen to be further proof of the mindset of the
upper class – superficially seeing things for how they appear at the
surface. The concept of sexism in Edwardian England is solidified by the
fact that the men exhibit the misogynistic attitudes most, with Eric calling
her a “good sport”, seeing her as a sexual object. The language they use
to talk about her heightens the audiences view of them as selfish and
free from compassion, as well as them acting as perpetrators of the
widely accepted sexist attitude of the time. Alternatively, the women of
the family also accept, and somewhat exhibit, these stereotypes. Birling
mentions how “clothes mean something different to a woman”, calling
them a token of “self-respect”. Whilst this is a generalising statement,
Sheila is seen to show this attitude; when she sees Eva wearing the
dress she wanted, she sees it as a personal attack. This was done by
Priestley to show the herd mentality of the upper class, and how the
stereotypes they see are commonplace among them. Alternatively,
Priestley could have been commenting on the helplessness many
women of all classes would have felt when it came to their ‘role’ in
society. Sheila does not know any other way of life than the one she
lives, wherein she is expected to get married and live the life her
husband chooses for her, a common lifestyle of the time, whilst Eva is
able to stand up to what she believes in, such as the strike she initiates,
perhaps due to her having not as much to lose. It is made clear that
Sheila does not want to live like this, such as when she calls her ring
“perfect. Now [she] really feels engaged”, which could be seen to
indicate that she did not feel as if she was getting married until she had
something physical to prove for it. This shows that she values the object
more than the concept of marriage, conveying her as someone willing to
break the norm of women at the time. All of this raises the argument that
perhaps the upper class didn’t know any better, because the life they led
was so sheltered and 2-dimensional. This is why Priestley introduced
Goole; he acts as a tool to show that even the most stubborn of minds
can, and should, change. The attitudes of women towards other women
shows this further. Mrs Birling calls Eva’s “scruples” “simply absurd for a
girl in her position”, showing how even the women of the time had been
raised to think in this backwards way. This contrasts with Sheila, who,
whilst previously was materialistic and arrogant, recognises her father’s
workers “aren’t cheap labour. They’re people” – another attitude differing
to the deindividualising views shown by the other members of her family.
This further proves how Priestley wanted to show not only that things
can change, but how they can, by contrasting the attitudes of different
people, all of whom hold different ideas of this particular form of
inequality, despite being within the same (allegorical) household, and in
so doing encouraging progression and a questioning of the blindly
accepted beliefs many capitalists follow.

The inequality between the upper class and other figures of similar
stature is shown and criticised. Despite the Birlings being a family
(allegorically referring to the capitalists, who, like a family, share each
other’s philosophies), they speak “bitterly” to one another, are “ashamed”
of one another, and reside in a house (or a political system) that isn’t
“cosy and homelike”. These all help to illustrate the fractures which exist
even between those who benefit from the capitalist system. This is why
Lady Croft “does not approve” of the engagement, despite both families
being of a highly elevated status. The fragmentation of the capitalists is
further highlighted between the relationship between Eric and the other
family members. He says how Arthur “isn’t the type of father” he can go
to for help, and remains “separated” from the others on stage, indicating
the lack of connection and trust between the family members, and
showing the infighting within the house. The dining room is a metaphor
for the capitalist view on the world; small, with a focus on opulence and
wealth, it is small and sheltered; a concept explored in some productions
of the play, such as in Stephen Daldry’s, where the room is shown on
the stage, but it is more like a set designed within a set, and it takes up a
very small amount of space. The separation and disconnection from not
only the upper class and the lower classes, but the upper class and
themselves, is explored by Priestley to show how if the people who are
in a position of wealth cannot trust or get along with each other, then
capitalism will have the same effect, deeming it dangerous and illogical.
This concept is rejected by the capitalists, however, with Mr Birling
dismisses any chance of something happening due to the differences
between the rich and the even richer, when he mentions the “silly little
war scares”. This is why Priestley makes Sheila and Eric more
progressive, as they are representative of the emerging young
generation of socialists, and people who are self-aware of the damage
they are causing, such as when Sheila says how they aren’t “nice
people”. They represent the chance of change within the elites. Gerald is
somewhere in between; he is older than Sheila and Eric, but younger
than Mr and Mrs Birling, and this is reflected in his beliefs, as he adopts
ideas from both generations, due to pressure from his family. When
Birling toasts the engagement for “lower costs and higher prices”, Gerald
responds saying he’s “sure [his] father will [drink to that] too!”. He is here
representing the upper-class desire to continue the way things are, for
fear of losing their power, as mentioned earlier. It also links to the
previously mentioned concept of the herd mentality of the rich, and the
way they raise their children to accept the way things are, even if it isn’t
right. By portraying the different conflicts and power dynamics within
upper-class society, Priestley not only criticises the self-absorption of the
social elites, but conveys the correct mindset people in their position
could adopt to make the world, and themselves, better.