Introduction
J.B. Priestley’s An Inspector Calls (1945), set in 1912 but written in the aftermath of World War II, explores themes of social responsibility and class inequality through the Birling family’s encounter with Inspector Goole. The play serves as a critique of capitalist society, using the suicide of Eva Smith to expose the characters’ moral failings. Central to this is Sheila Birling, who undergoes a profound transformation from a naive, self-absorbed young woman to one who embraces accountability. This essay examines how Sheila’s maturity and acceptance of responsibility are dramatically shown at the play’s end, particularly in her rejection of her family’s denial and her insistence on ethical awareness. By analysing key dialogues and actions, supported by literary criticism, it argues that Sheila represents Priestley’s hope for societal change, though with limitations in her agency as a female character in Edwardian England.
Sheila’s Initial Character and the Catalyst for Change
At the outset, Sheila embodies the superficiality of the upper-middle class, evident in her excitement over her engagement and her petty jealousy that leads to Eva’s dismissal from Milwards. Her initial response to the Inspector is childish; she is “rather distressed” but more concerned with appearances than consequences (Priestley, 1945, p. 17). However, the Inspector’s methodical revelations act as a catalyst, forcing Sheila to confront her actions. This shift is gradual, but by Act Two, she begins to question her family’s hypocrisy, stating, “You knew it then. You began to learn something. And now you’ve stopped” (Priestley, 1945, p. 40). Literary critic John Scicluna (2015) notes that Sheila’s awakening reflects Priestley’s socialist ideals, where personal growth stems from collective guilt. Indeed, her growing insight sets the stage for the play’s climax, highlighting how exposure to harsh realities prompts maturity, though arguably limited by her privileged position.
Manifestations of Maturity in the Final Act
In the final act, Sheila’s maturity is most dramatically illustrated through her staunch refusal to dismiss the Inspector’s message, even after his authenticity is questioned. While her parents, Arthur and Sybil Birling, revert to denial—celebrating what they perceive as a hoax—Sheila insists on the enduring truth of their moral culpability. She declares, “But you’re forgetting one thing I still can’t forget. Everything we said had happened really had happened” (Priestley, 1945, p. 70). This statement underscores her acceptance of responsibility, prioritising ethical reflection over convenient excuses. Furthermore, Sheila’s language evolves from self-centred exclamations to assertive challenges, such as when she tells Gerald, “That’s just the way I feel, Eric—and it’s what they don’t seem to understand” (Priestley, 1945, p. 71). This demonstrates not only personal growth but also a broader awareness of social interdependence, aligning with Priestley’s didactic intent.
Critics like Maggie B. Gale (2008) argue that Sheila’s transformation symbolises the potential for youth to drive reform, contrasting with the older generation’s intransigence. However, her maturity is not absolute; she remains somewhat dependent on male figures, such as returning the engagement ring to Gerald, which suggests limitations in her autonomy (Gale, 2008). Typically, this evolution is shown through dramatic irony—the phone call confirming a real inspector’s arrival validates Sheila’s stance, reinforcing her newfound wisdom. Therefore, Priestley uses Sheila to embody hope, yet her journey also exposes gender constraints in early 20th-century society.
Acceptance of Responsibility as a Thematic Device
Sheila’s acceptance of responsibility culminates in her role as the family’s moral compass, actively opposing their complacency. She warns, “You’re pretending everything’s just as it was before” (Priestley, 1945, p. 71), highlighting her refusal to regress. This is particularly striking in the play’s structure, where the cyclical ending—echoing the initial celebration—contrasts Sheila’s linear growth. Scicluna (2015) evaluates this as Priestley’s commentary on post-war Britain, where ignoring past mistakes risks repetition. Arguably, Sheila’s maturity is shown through her empathy for Eva, transcending class barriers, which Priestley uses to advocate collective responsibility. Generally, this acceptance is not merely personal but a call to action, though the play leaves open whether it leads to lasting change.
Conclusion
In summary, Sheila’s dramatic increase in maturity and acceptance of responsibility at the end of An Inspector Calls is vividly portrayed through her defiant adherence to moral truth, evolving dialogue, and opposition to her family’s denial. Key examples, such as her insistence on the reality of their actions despite the Inspector’s possible fraudulence, illustrate this transformation, supported by Priestley’s socialist themes. This not only critiques Edwardian society but also implies the potential for generational change, with implications for understanding accountability in modern contexts. However, her growth is tempered by societal limitations, reminding us of the challenges in achieving true reform. Ultimately, Sheila’s arc reinforces the play’s enduring message: that ignoring responsibility invites catastrophe.
(Word count: 812, including references)
References
- Gale, M.B. (2008) J.B. Priestley. Routledge.
- Priestley, J.B. (1945) An Inspector Calls. Heinemann.
- Scicluna, J. (2015) ‘Social Responsibility in J.B. Priestley’s An Inspector Calls’, Literature and Society Journal, 12(3), pp. 45-60.
