Grade 9 An Inspector Calls Essay on Age – IGCSE English Literature Example

How does JB Priestley present the theme of age in An Inspector Calls?

Writing in 1945 after the destruction of WW2, J.B. Priestley saw an opportunity to rebuild Britain in a more empathetic, socialist and socially responsible manner. In An Inspector Calls, Priestley uses the theme of age not only to contrast the rigid, self-serving values of the older Edwardian generation with the open-mindedness of youth but also as a broader metaphor for Britain’s potential moral growth. Priestley therefore saw the younger generation as the best hope for establishing social democracy in the UK, and thus presents his younger characters as more open-minded and capable of learning from past mistakes. Ultimately, Priestley uses the theme of age to advocate for social change and offers the youth as the best hope for reforming Britain into a more equal and empathetic nation.

Priestley uses the older Mr Birling to critique the capitalist and classist status quo entrenched in pre-war Britain. Mr Birling is immediately dislikeable, prone to monologuing, self-satisfaction and self-importance, forming a caricature of a fat cat capitalist. Priestley ensures that the audience loathes this character through the use of dramatic irony, notably when Mr Birling arrogantly claims that “war will never come to Europe” – a remark that would be laughably ignorant to a contemporary audience of 1945 as they were exiting the Second World War. Nevertheless, Mr Birling speaks with declarative sentences, suggesting complete certainty, throughout Act 1, dominating his family with his capitalist ideals. However, his claims that a man “has to look after himself – and his family too” speak volumes. The syntax highlights that Birling considers himself first and his family second, an idea echoed throughout the play as Birling is ignorant that his son is perpetually “squiffy” and his daughter has endured prolonged infidelity within her relationship. Though he is the elder patriarch of the family, the audience is not encouraged to see Birling as a source of guidance. Indeed, he better represents the outdated and selfish attitudes of the past, attitudes that Priestley aims to persuade his contemporary audience to reject now. By the end of the play, Birling accepts no responsibility and learns nothing, as he refuses any guilt in Eva Smith’s suicide and is “triumphant” when he believes the Inspector is a fake. This stage direction is significant, as the term “triumph” implies victory over others, which encapsulates the essence of capitalism, where there are clear winners and losers. Priestley reveals that the older generation lacks the capability for reflection or change, so the audience must turn to the younger generation for a more hopeful message for Britain’s future.

Sheila and Eric repent and become a mouthpiece for the Inspector’s socialist agenda. Both of the younger Birlings begin the play spoiled, naïve and cruel: Sheila provokes Eva’s dismissal due to petty jealousy that Eva is “pretty”, and Eric uses Eva as a disposable sex object and then abandons her when she falls pregnant with his child. Despite this, both characters regret their actions and express remorse – something neither of their parents ever did. Sheila’s realisation that the working class are not “just cheap labour” but “people” may seem laughably obvious to the Inspector and audience. However, for a sheltered upper-class girl, it marks the beginning of genuine moral growth. Sheila’s transformation is complete when she rejects the engagement ring at the end of the play. This ring symbolises privilege, not just financially, as it is a diamond ring, but also the protection that marrying into a wealthy family like the Crofts might bring. Her rejection of this privilege marks a generational shift: unlike her parents, Sheila is no longer willing to accept security at the cost of complicity. Likewise, Eric also repents his treatment of Eva, scolding his family not to “pretend that nothing’s happened at all” when the older Birlings evade responsibility for their actions. Eva and Eric’s unborn baby symbolises the death of innocence caused by capitalist cruelty represented by the older Birlings; when the baby dies, the potential bridge between the upper and working classes is destroyed. Thus, it is now the responsibility of the younger generation to effect the change they wish to see in the world around them. Priestley encourages his audience to see that they, like Sheila and Eric, can learn from their past mistakes.

This message of personal growth becomes a metaphor for Britain itself, as Priestley argues that, like the younger Birlings, the nation must evolve — moving beyond class divisions to rebuild a more empathetic and equal society. Priestley believed that Britain, fresh out of two world wars, must learn from its mistakes, particularly as a class-based, hierarchical and capitalist nation. This lesson becomes apparent in the Inspector’s final speech, in which he warns that if we do not learn that we “are all responsible for each other”, we will be “taught it in fire, and blood, and anguish”. The imagery of hellfire might also reference the devastation of wars, a fearful reminder that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it to a nation barely out of war. Indeed, from this point in the play, Eric and Sheila fully embrace the Inspector’s socialist stance and interrogate their family’s beliefs in his absence for the remainder of Act 3. Through the theme of age, Priestley urges his 1945 audience to recognise the younger generation as agents of social reform, while the older generation, if left unchallenged, threatens to drag Britain back into past mistakes.

Ultimately, the theme of age is only superficially about the characters within the play and more of a moral imperative for the audience to reflect upon their maturing attitudes. Priestley utilises a circular structure at the end of the play, which begins and ends with an Inspector calling. The imminent arrival of the second Inspector presents the older Birlings with a conundrum: Will they learn from their mistakes? Will they reflect on the harm they have caused in society? Or will the second interrogation repeat shirked blame, deflection and denial? Priestley does offer some hope in the final stage directions of the play by stating that “they stare guiltily and dumbfounded” with the use of the pronoun “they”, suggesting that the guilt encompasses all the Birlings – both older and younger. Now, irrespective of age, the Birlings and Gerald must choose whether to repeat their past mistakes or do better, be better. The audience faces the same moral crossroad as the ultimate target of Priestley’s didactic play, now compelled to reflect upon their contributions to societal suffering. The war’s end offered a chance to start again, mature, learn with age and experience, and rebuild anew. Priestley asks his audience, through this circular structure, if they will reflect upon how their small cruelties can contribute to a broader system of oppression. Will the audience realise that “we are all responsible for each other”?

Priestley presents age as a lens through which moral responsibility is examined. While the older generation remains rigid and self-serving, the younger characters are willing to change. Through this contrast and the play’s cyclical structure, Priestley argues that progress depends not on age but on the capacity to learn from the past. His message is clear in the wake of war: Only by accepting collective responsibility can society hope to rebuild a fairer future.