In his didactic play, an Inspector Calls Priestley constructs the aspect of social responsibility as imperative, structuring it as the framework to a well-functioning and morally upright society. He echoes the detrimental consequences of a society severed from accountability through the Birling’s whose self-importance and lack of regard mobilize the tragic downfall of Eva Smith, Priestley portrays their actions as symbolic. Representing the immoral behaviors of society and transforming the normalized perception of such into a political and social diatribe used to transform conscience and incite collective responsibility.

Firstly, Priestley purposefully structures the lighting’s to surround the Birling’s self-imposed facade of wealth and status, using it as a social forcefield against morality, this is emphasized through the “pink and intimate” lighting which portrays a deliberately crafted, fleeting sense of warmth which ultimately constructs a personal rose-tinted lifestyle specifically cultivated to socially isolate themselves from classes they deem below them. Thus, they wrongfully misuse their wealth as an excuse for lack of responsibility. However this is quickly diminished through the inspectors enigmatic arrival which is presented as “brighter and harder” revealing their perceptively forged lifestyle will be disrupted by both truth and justice. This could be used to perhaps convey that all actions undoubtably result in consequences which is reinforced by “harder” implying that the result of the Birling’s ignorance will be detrimental. whilst simultaneously could be introducing the aspect of judgment day, a Christian belief employed by Priestley to force the Birling’s to accept a society outside of their false world and face their sins against humanity. Priestley not only uses the lighting as an element to foreshadow the Birling’s downfall however reflects it against his audience who are physically experiencing the shift. This could also be warning them, that all actions will come to light. Thus, it is wise to indulge in accountability to cleanse themselves of spiritual and social ruin like that of the Birling’s.

Priestley introduces the immoral caricature of Arthur Birling to theatrically represent the normalized cruelty of wealthy edwardians. Established through Birling’s detached economic remark of “a man has to mind his own business and look after his own” which conveys his self-centered views surrounding society, Birling explains his indifference towards others and deems them justifiable due to them not being his “own” which is conveniently repeated further framing his concept of responsibility being negligible. Ironically Birling’s speech firstly states “business” employing the idea of him viewing profit and economic reward above his own family which follows unfortunately after. Thus, highlighting his lack of accountability for others and strictly juxtaposing the inspectors central message of “we are members of one body” whilst simultaneously portraying his ill-morality as he willfully places status above people. Priestley presents this as fundamentally-wrong and later depicts the further consequences of ignorance toward responsibility.

Secondly, Priestley constructs Eric as a moral foil to his father, as he is structured to serve as an opposition to Birling and further highlight his wrongdoings. This idea is employed through Eric’s rhetoric towards his fathers cruel depiction of how a business should function, his query “why can’t they try for higher wages, we try for the highest prices possible” which confronts the injustice of the double standards upheld by Birling which punishes employees for requesting higher wages whilst applauds businessmen who exploit them to exceed in profit. Preistley constructs this father-son dynamic not to solely contrast the two characters, However to expose the facade and morally-incorrect notion of capitalism which is comedically unrecognizable to a child nurtured beneath its authority. Moreover, Birling euphemistically states that he “let go” of Eva which conveys his inability to recognize the severity of his actions, Birling has begun “the chain of events” which he refuses to accept. Priestley uses this to incite reform, urging audiences to reject capitalism and indulge in the Labour Party, which promotes both social justice and adopts a moral obligation and responsibility for lower classes.

Priestley finalizes his ideas surrounding responsibilty through Sybil Birling, a characters whose actions are symbolic, upholding a profound capability to incite change through her position of co-founder in the “Bromley women’s organization”, Mrs Birling can promote charity and influence both through power and influence, yet she uses her social statues to exempt Eva of hope and purpose. Cruelly reducing her to “girls of that class” and refusing her aid due to her indoctrinated and ill-willed strength in capitalism. Ironically, charities such as this are constructed to obliged and assist the suffering of the poor this unjust display of power dynamic that can physically refuse individuals necessary help conveys the systematic issue of society that organizations structured to provide aid are both selective and actually worsen circumstances. Consequentially, Mrs Birling’s delusion and hubris toward social classes eventually results in her demise when she comes to the realization that the unborn child and mother she denied of help is ironically her family. Juxtaposing Birling’s earlier statement of a “man has to look after his own” instead Sybli deserts her “own” by cruelly severing her grandson from potential life. Priestley perhaps installs this familial dynamic to promote the inspectors central theme of “we are members of one body” Eva and Sybil being related is deliberate and establishes the importance of responsibility as society itself is a family.

Sybil’s actions are further broadened through Eric’s appalled exclamation to his mother’s cruelty, “you killed her” a short sentence, yet powerful line which encapsulates the severity of her actions, she did not only catalyze her suicide. However, willingly contributed to murder. This immense sin is placed upon not just Sybil but each Birling. As Priestley summarizes such an outcome as a “chain of events” which contradicts Eric’s speech, perhaps framing Eric as irresponsible through his quick response to shift the blame and fault upon his mother rather than partake in collective guilt. Priestley could be conveying this to illustrate the requirement for collective responsibility the sole concept that actively incites social reform. Priestley suggests that the lack of responsibility within both Eric, his father and his mother purely a deficit in accountability which is reinforced by the cyclical nature of the play which canonically results in once again another telephone call. Symbolizing the detrimental outcome of a society who either accepts no responsibility or even partial responsibility both do not equate to a change outcome. Thus, Priestley echoes the requirement for a cooperative redemption displaying that it is the only hope for genuine societal development.

To conclude, Priestley constructs social responsibility as a fundamental requirement for society, if this need is not met societal damage will be inevitable and deaths such as Eva’s will extend far from a symbol and instead will serve as a sick reoccurring aspect of life that eventually erodes away society. Thearatically reinforced through the Inspector’s repetition of “millions and millions” which foreshadows the deaths of many if change does not prevail, finalized by his warning to man that reformation has to endure or man will once again suffer in “fire,blood and anguish”.