a.

Explore another moment elsewhere in the play where there is conflict

between characters (20 marks).
By creating an ideological and societal conflict between the characters of Mr Birling and the Inspector,
Priestly presents a dichotomy of attitudes in society and therefore encourages the audience to shift their
inclinations to the Inspector's socialist beliefs. This is seen especially in Act 1

At the start of Act 1, we see early signs on conflict through a power struggle as the Inspector resists Mr
Birling’s assertions of authority and attempts of intimidation when Birling boasts, “I was an alderman for
years - and Lord Mayor two years ago - and I’m still on the Bench.” Here, Mr Birling attempts to use his
social status to intimidate the Inspector and retain some authority by referencing his irrelevant roles as
well as to intimidate him and he continues to do this throughout the play. Structurally, this is further
highlighted through the repeated use of the personal pronoun “I” to emphasize his class superiority over
the Inspector as he is used to getting his own way, and cannot accept that the Inspector does not ‘respect’
their authority. Therefore, Priestley suggests that people use their reputation to evade responsibility and it
is the Inspector’s role to change Birling’s character.
Another way in which the Inspector challenges the class divide is through some of his opening lines, as
introduces the Birlings to the crime at hand. He says, “Two hours ago a young woman died in the Infirmary.
She’d been taken there this afternoon because she’d swallowed a lot of strong disinfectant. Burnt her
inside out, of course.” The Inspector’s graphic, emotive description of Eva Smith’s death, using phrases
such as “great agony” and “burnt her inside out” contrasts with the upper classes’ euphemisms - such as
“go on the streets” “horrid business” and ignorance. This blunt, straightforward way of speaking
foreshadows his blunt methods of getting to the truth. It also suggests a high level of empathy and
compassion. It combats the way the upper classes try to distance themselves from the lower classes and
dehumanise them, pretending they don’t suffer or feel pain.

Structurally, we see conflict through a shift in dialogue control, and therefore authority, as Priestley places
the Inspector and Mr Birling up against each other in order to establish the ideological debate between
capitalism and socialism. Birling has the large majority of the dialogue at the start, ardently preaching
capitalism until the Inspector arrives. Here, the Inspector interrupts the capitalist narrative of Mr Birling by
seizing all control of the dialogue, which is, perhaps, an extended metaphor for socialism ending the
precedence of capitalism in the new era after war, foreshadowing a greater sense of social responsibility
felt by all.
Furthermore, Birling is portrayed as very resistant to the socialist teachings and judgment of Inspector
Goole when he says, “Still, I can’t accept any responsibility. If we were all responsible for everything that
happened to everybody, we’d had anything to do with, it would be very awkward, wouldn’t it?” Here,
while he admits that the inspector’s proposition is likely, he refuses to change his ways. In this way, Birling
is a static character. This is shown through the use of the modal verb “can’t” implies there’s something in
his capitalist nature that stops him from taking responsibility - perhaps his privilege or entitlement – while
the adjective “awkward” shows how he chooses not to care for others merely because it is an
inconvenience for him. As a results, the Inspector is inclined to treat him harshly, creating conflict, as he
demands mutual respect when in a conversation, something absent in Birling’s capitalist character.

By using the Inspector as his mouthpiece and the incompetence of Birling, Priestly effectively portrays the
numerous flaws in the capitalist system but also presents us an alternative socialist viewpoint that is
ethical and aspirational.
Explore another moment in the play where a character goes against
expectations (20 marks).
In Act 1 of An Inspector Calls, Sheila goes against her expectations as a woman in the family as she
dismisses her father’s ignorance towards the struggles of the proletariat. Firstly, Priestly uses juxtaposition
to illustrate Sheila’s socialist tendencies when she openly questions her father and says “but these girls
aren’t just cheap labour – they’re people” highlighting that she is adopting a humanist point of view
whereby she understands that girls like Eva Smith are also valuable members of society. The passionate
language used when Sheila states that Mr Birling’s workers are “people” provokes empathy for Eva and
encourages us to begin to admire Sheila’s increasingly outspoken nature. It would be surprising to see a
daughter of the 1912 upper classes openly question and criticize the patriarchal control within her family.
Furthermore, Sheila continues to defy her parents, who symbolise the static and stubborn older
generation, by sticking to her moral principles. Here, she says, “It's you two who are being childish - trying
not to face the facts.” Here, she clearly recognises but also blatantly points the mistake out to her parents,
who would have found it immensely disrespectful for their younger daughter to defy them. This is
supported through the use belittling adjective “childish” which strips the elder Birlings of their supposed
knowledge, strength and integrity which would have been incredibly surprising, considering daughters
were often the property of their fathers before marriage.

Sheila also goes against societal expectation through her interactions with her husband to be, Gerald, as
she continually questions his summer disappearances when she says, “Yes – except for all last summer,
when you never came near me, and I wondered what had happened to you.” Here, we see a clear
resentment as well as curiosity on the part of Sheila about Gerald’s absence during that period of time.
While this mysterious disappearance was due to Gerald’s infidelity to her by having an affair with Eva
Smith and also the eventual death of Eva Smith, society would not have frowned upon upper class men
having affairs before marriage, which meant that the wife was not meant to questions her husband’s
behaviour.
Priestley also explores the superficial nature of Sheila’s engagement with Gerald and the transactional
purpose of their relationship to present her authority, through her character development. At the
beginning of the play, Sheila’s questions Gerald: “Is it the one you wanted me to have?” reveals the control
Gerald has over Sheila, in the beginning of the play. Marrying Gerald is symbolic of Sheila accepting the
corruption, gender and class inequality of society. However, by the end of the play Sheila ends their
engagement and returns the ring; rejecting Gerald extends to the rejection of the ideas he represents - the
individualist school of thought. Therefore, this rejection is Sheila putting principle and morality but goes
against expectations, as men would have full control over their partner is Edwardian England, to the extent
that they were objectified so her speaking out emphasizes the generational shift in ideas.