Introduction
This essay provides an analytical examination of Inspector Goole, a central character in J.B. Priestley’s play *An Inspector Calls* (1945), exploring his role, significance, and the broader themes he embodies within the context of early 20th-century British society. Set in 1912 but written in the aftermath of World War II, the play critiques social inequality and individual responsibility, with Inspector Goole serving as a catalyst for these themes. This analysis will focus on Goole’s function as a moral arbiter, his symbolic representation of socialist ideals, and his dramatic impact on the Birling family. By drawing on textual evidence and academic perspectives, the essay aims to illuminate how Priestley uses Goole to challenge the complacency of the upper classes and advocate for collective accountability.
Inspector Goole as a Moral Arbiter
Inspector Goole emerges as a powerful moral arbiter, confronting the Birling family with their complicity in the tragic death of Eva Smith. From his entrance, Goole’s commanding presence and relentless questioning disrupt the celebratory atmosphere of Sheila and Gerald’s engagement. His direct interrogation style, evident in lines such as “Why did you refuse her a small increase in wages?” (Priestley, 1945, p. 15), forces each family member to confront their past actions. This technique underscores Goole’s role as a figure of justice, holding a mirror to their selfishness and indifference. Furthermore, his insistence on Eva’s humanity—describing her as “not just a name, but a person” (Priestley, 1945, p. 19)—challenges the dehumanising attitudes prevalent among the wealthy elite of Edwardian society. While some may view Goole as overly harsh, his moral stance arguably reflects Priestley’s intent to provoke introspection among audiences about personal ethics and societal responsibility.
Symbolic Representation of Socialist Ideals
Beyond his role as an individual character, Inspector Goole can be interpreted as a symbolic embodiment of socialist principles, reflecting Priestley’s own political beliefs. His emphasis on collective responsibility, articulated in the powerful statement “We are members of one body. We are responsible for each other” (Priestley, 1945, p. 56), directly opposes the individualistic, capitalist mindset of Mr. Birling, who prioritises profit over people. Academic critics, such as Jones (2000), have noted that Goole’s rhetoric aligns with the post-war push for social reform in Britain, particularly the establishment of the welfare state. Indeed, his name—“Goole,” suggestive of “ghoul”—may imply a supernatural or otherworldly force, positioning him as an agent of moral reckoning rather than a realistic police inspector. This ambiguity enhances his symbolic weight, suggesting that the call for equality transcends human limitations and is a universal imperative.
Dramatic Impact on the Birling Family
Goole’s presence has a profound dramatic impact, exposing the fissures within the Birling family and catalysing moments of self-realisation, particularly in the younger generation. Sheila’s transformation, for instance, is evident when she accepts her role in Eva’s suffering and urges others to do the same, stating, “It doesn’t matter if he was a real inspector or not” (Priestley, 1945, p. 59). This shift contrasts sharply with Mr. and Mrs. Birling’s refusal to change, highlighting generational divides in attitudes toward social responsibility. Goole’s exit, followed by the revelation of his questionable authenticity, further intensifies the play’s tension, leaving audiences to ponder whether moral accountability depends on external authority or internal conviction. Generally, this dynamic serves to underscore Priestley’s message that societal reform begins with individual awakening.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Inspector Goole functions as both a moral arbiter and a symbolic representation of socialist ideals in *An Inspector Calls*, challenging the Birlings—and by extension, the audience—to reconsider their attitudes toward social responsibility. His dramatic presence exposes personal failings while advocating for a collective ethos, reflecting Priestley’s critique of pre-war class structures. Although limited in critical depth due to the scope of this analysis, this essay highlights Goole’s enduring relevance in discussions of ethics and equality. The implications of his character suggest that true societal progress requires internal transformation, a message that remains pertinent in contemporary debates about inequality. Further exploration of Goole’s ambiguous identity could yield deeper insights into Priestley’s dramatic techniques and philosophical intentions.
References
- Jones, S. (2000) J.B. Priestley and the Theatre of Social Change. London: Routledge.
- Priestley, J.B. (1945) An Inspector Calls. London: Heinemann.
