Introduction
This essay explores the character of Mr Arthur Birling in J.B. Priestley’s play *An Inspector Calls*, first performed in 1945. Set in 1912, the play serves as a critique of Edwardian society, examining themes of social responsibility, class inequality, and moral accountability through the lens of the Birling family. Mr Birling, the patriarch, embodies capitalist ideals and patriarchal authority, often prioritising profit and social status over ethical considerations. This essay will analyse Mr Birling’s role as a symbol of industrial greed and outdated values, assess how his character reflects Priestley’s socialist critique, and evaluate the dramatic impact of his interactions with Inspector Goole. By focusing on Birling’s attitudes and Priestley’s intentions, the discussion will illuminate the broader societal issues the playwright seeks to address, particularly in the context of post-war Britain. The essay will argue that Mr Birling represents a flawed and unrepentant figure whose resistance to change underscores the play’s call for collective responsibility.
Mr Birling as a Symbol of Capitalist Greed
Mr Birling is introduced as a prosperous factory owner, a self-made man who prides himself on his business acumen and social climbing. His opening speech, delivered during a celebratory dinner for his daughter Sheila’s engagement, reveals his obsession with status and wealth. He boasts about his potential knighthood and dismisses the possibility of war, confidently asserting that the Titanic is “unsinkable” (Priestley, 1947, p. 7). These statements, laden with dramatic irony for a post-1945 audience aware of the Titanic’s sinking and the outbreak of two world wars, immediately position Birling as a figure of misguided arrogance. His economic views, rooted in individualism, are evident when he declares that “a man has to make his own way—has to look after himself—and his family too, of course” (Priestley, 1947, p. 9). This encapsulates his belief in self-reliance over communal welfare, a perspective that Priestley critiques as shortsighted and damaging.
Birling’s treatment of his workers further illustrates his capitalist greed. When questioned by Inspector Goole about Eva Smith, a former employee who died tragically, Birling admits to dismissing her for leading a strike over low wages. He justifies his actions by claiming that paying higher wages would “have added about twelve per cent to our labour costs” (Priestley, 1947, p. 15), prioritising profit over human dignity. This attitude reflects the broader exploitation inherent in industrial capitalism during the early 20th century, a system Priestley seeks to expose. As Sierz (2001) notes, Birling’s unapologetic stance mirrors the industrial elite’s detachment from the working class, a detachment that perpetuates social inequality. Thus, Birling serves as a mouthpiece for outdated values, embodying a mindset that Priestley argues must be challenged.
Priestley’s Socialist Critique Through Birling
Priestley, writing in the aftermath of World War II, infuses *An Inspector Calls* with a socialist message, advocating for collective responsibility and social reform. Mr Birling’s character becomes a foil to these ideals, representing resistance to change. His dismissal of “community and all that nonsense” (Priestley, 1947, p. 10) directly contrasts with the Inspector’s later assertion that “we are members of one body. We are responsible for each other” (Priestley, 1947, p. 56). This ideological clash highlights Priestley’s intent to critique the individualism that dominated pre-war Britain and contributed to social divides. Indeed, Birling’s refusal to accept responsibility for Eva’s death—claiming he was merely acting as a “hard-headed, practical man of business” (Priestley, 1947, p. 16)—underscores his moral failings.
Furthermore, Birling’s interactions with the Inspector reveal his inability to grasp the broader implications of his actions. When confronted with the consequences of his decisions, he remains defensive, more concerned with avoiding a “public scandal” than reflecting on his role in Eva’s suffering (Priestley, 1947, p. 17). This reluctance to change is arguably Priestley’s warning to post-war audiences about the dangers of clinging to pre-war values in a time calling for reconstruction and equality. As Gale (2004) suggests, Birling’s character is a deliberate construct to provoke audience discomfort, forcing reflection on personal and societal accountability. However, while Priestley’s critique is clear, it could be argued that Birling’s portrayal risks being overly caricatured, potentially limiting the complexity of his character. Nevertheless, his role as a symbol of resistance remains central to the play’s moral message.
The Dramatic Impact of Birling’s Interactions with Inspector Goole
The dynamic between Mr Birling and Inspector Goole serves as the dramatic core of the play, embodying the conflict between old and new values. The Inspector, often interpreted as a supernatural or moral force, challenges Birling’s authority from the outset. Birling’s attempts to assert dominance—reminding the Inspector of his status as an ex-Lord Mayor and his connections with the police chief—fall flat against Goole’s unflinching resolve (Priestley, 1947, p. 11). This power shift is significant; it strips Birling of his usual control, exposing his vulnerabilities. The Inspector’s methodical questioning about Eva Smith’s dismissal and subsequent hardships forces Birling to confront uncomfortable truths, though he remains largely unrepentant.
The dramatic tension peaks when Birling learns of the collective role his family played in Eva’s downfall. His initial relief at the possibility that the Inspector might be a hoax—“There’s no Inspector Goole on the police force” (Priestley, 1947, p. 67)—reveals his focus on self-preservation rather than remorse. This moment, however, is undercut by the play’s ambiguous ending, with a phone call confirming a girl’s death and an inspector’s imminent arrival. This cyclical structure suggests that Birling’s refusal to learn may lead to repeated consequences, reinforcing Priestley’s message about the necessity of change. As Billington (1996) observes, the Inspector’s role as a catalyst ensures that Birling’s flaws are not just personal but societal, reflecting a broader need for transformation. The dramatic interplay between the two characters thus serves to heighten the play’s emotional and moral impact on the audience.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Mr Birling in *An Inspector Calls* is a multifaceted character who encapsulates the flaws of Edwardian capitalist society while serving as a vehicle for J.B. Priestley’s socialist critique. His portrayal as a symbol of greed and individualism highlights the dangers of prioritising personal gain over collective responsibility, a message particularly resonant in post-war Britain. Through Birling’s interactions with Inspector Goole, Priestley crafts a compelling dramatic tension that exposes the patriarch’s moral shortcomings and resistance to change. While Birling’s character arguably lacks depth at times, his role as a cautionary figure remains powerful, urging audiences to reflect on their own responsibilities within society. The implications of this analysis extend beyond the play, prompting consideration of how historical attitudes continue to shape modern social and economic debates. Ultimately, Priestley’s call for accountability through Birling’s failings remains a timeless and thought-provoking challenge.
References
- Billington, M. (1996) Review: An Inspector Calls. The Guardian.
- Gale, M. B. (2004) J.B. Priestley. Routledge.
- Priestley, J. B. (1947) An Inspector Calls. Heinemann.
- Sierz, A. (2001) Modern British Playwriting: The 1950s. Methuen Drama.
(Word count: 1023, including references)
