The Birling family and the Inspector are two characters in J.B. Priestley’s drama An Inspector Calls that closely examine the issue of responsibility. Every character exemplifies a distinct attitude toward accountability, demonstrating how their deeds have profound effects on other people.

Priestley emphasizes the value of social responsibility in society through their relationships, particularly when considering privilege and class.

Mr. Arthur Birling

The family patriarch, Mr. Arthur Birling, is a prime example of the idea that self-interest and individualism are important. With his insistence that “a man has to make his own way,” he embodies the capitalist philosophy of the era.

Because of this viewpoint, he refuses to take accountability for the death of Eva Smith, a working-class lady who was harmed by his activities. When Birling says, “That’s the trouble with socialists,” his contempt is clear. They believe that everyone must take care of everyone else.

His inability to accept responsibility for Eva’s predicament exposes his lack of empathy and selfishness.

Birling refuses to back down when Inspector Goole confronts him because he thinks he did nothing wrong. His persona serves as a critique of individuals in positions of authority who deny responsibility for their impact on the underprivileged.

Priestley illustrates how such attitudes can sustain societal injustice and suffering by using Birling’s haughtiness.

Sheila Birling

Sheila Birling is an example of a newer generation that is more accepting of change and responsible than her father was. She comes across as naive and self-centered at first, as seen by her admission that she was jealous and had Eva fired from her position at Milwards.

Sheila, however, experiences substantial growth during the play. She says, “I know I’m to blame – and I’m desperately sorry,” in an attempt to apologize for what she did. This epiphany represents a sea change in her personality, demonstrating her increasing understanding of her obligations to other people.

Sheila’s readiness to own up to her mistakes contrasts sharply with her father’s reluctance. This contrast highlights the play’s point that accepting responsibility is essential to both social transformation and personal development.

As Sheila comes to realize how her actions affect people around her, her character development offers promise for a more compassionate future.

Eric Birling

The son of Mr. and Mrs. Birling, Eric Birling, exemplifies an alternative viewpoint on accountability. He struggles with shame and guilt for his part in Eva’s death, making him a tormented and conflicted character. “I didn’t love her,” Eric says, expressing regret for his actions after confessing to having an affair with Eva.

She was attractive and a good athlete, so I liked her. Since he acknowledges the repercussions of his acts, his acknowledgment demonstrates the depth of his character.

Eric exhibits the ability to grow and reflect, in contrast to his father. In the end, he admits his wrongdoing, saying, “We did her in all right.”

This admission of his remorse emphasizes how crucial it is to take ownership of one’s actions, even if doing so causes discomfort. Moving toward a more compassionate society requires acknowledging one’s involvement in societal concerns, as seen by Eric’s character growth.

Gerald Croft

Sheila’s fiancé, Gerald Croft, struggles with the idea of accountability as well. He first makes an effort to justify his behavior and shield himself from the Inspector’s pointed queries. In the end, he treated Eva more like an object than a person, even if he did assist her by giving her a place to live.

Gerald’s attempt to disassociate himself from the problem by stating, “I don’t know what happened to Eva Smith,” demonstrates his unwillingness to embrace his duties in their entirety.

Gerald does, however, exhibit remorse when the Inspector continues to question him, but he continues to hold onto his privilege. His persona highlights the conflict between moral obligation and self-interest, illuminating the intricacies of responsibility among the privileged classes. Gerald eventually puts his reputation and social standing ahead of true responsibility, even in the face of occasional regret.

Inspector Goole

The moral core of the drama is Inspector Goole, who stands in for Priestley’s ideas on social duty. His presence compels every character to examine their deeds and the effects they have on other people.

The Inspector’s remarks, like “We are responsible for each other,” perfectly capture the play’s main point, which is that society ought to look out for its members, especially the weaker ones.

Priestley challenges the Birling family’s views on social problems and reveals their hypocrisy through the Inspector’s interrogation. He pushes characters like Sheila and Eric to acknowledge their responsibilities, acting as a catalyst for transformation.

The Inspector’s character also challenges the audience to consider their own roles and duties by highlighting the necessity of social accountability.

Through the varied viewpoints of the Inspector and the Birling family, Priestley examines the issue of responsibility in An Inspector Calls. The moral ramifications of each character’s acts are highlighted by their representation of various perspectives on societal duty.

Gerald’s unwillingness to fully accept responsibility highlights the complexity of privilege, while Mr. Birling’s self-serving attitude stands in stark contrast to Sheila and Eric’s developing grasp of accountability. The moral authority of Inspector Goole challenges the Birlings and promotes a more comprehensive view of societal duty. Priestley uses these characters to convey a strong message about how society is interwoven and how people must accept responsibility for their acts. In the end, Priestley challenges the audience to think about their own roles in fostering a more compassionate and just world.