Responsibility

Remember that RESPONSIBILITY also means blame and throughout the play there is a returning question of who is most to blame for Eva's death. Each of the characters contributed, but who drove her furthest?

OR...

Some people might argue that Eva herself was most to blame - she must be held responsible for her own actions, after all:

Should she have taken the payrise Mr Birling offered her, and then worked hard to become a senior supervisor once Birling and Croft's merged?

Should she have played her cards differently with Gerald and then maybe he would have stayed with her?

Should she have pressured Eric into marriage? It would have been a scandal, but she could have joined the family, with a child to secure her place at the table.

Be careful arguing this as it is clearly so far from what Priestley wanted you to think. However, it is a thought that could be applied to the text so you could raise it if you think it's valid.

However, alongside the moral reasons for being responsible, the inspector's closing speech suggests something else:

At one point the inspector says: "I tell you that the time will soon come when, if men will not learn that lesson, then they will be taught it in fire and blood and anguish."

The key phrase here is "then they will be taught it" - and the key word is the modal verb "WILL." The inspector isn't saying that if we don't learn to be nice then we should suffer, or that we might suffer, he's saying that if we do not learn to live together then we will be taught the lesson. Essentially he - and Priestley - are saying that if we don't learn to work together then society will inevitably fall apart.

Again, there are interesting historical reasons for believing he might be right: the French Revolution (1789) and the Russian Revolution (1917) both came about when the inequality that the poor were suffering under became too much to bear; the rise of Fascism in Germany was also the result of the German economy crashing; while the current struggles in the US and the UK both came about when poor "forgotten communities" rose up and seized their chance at change while voting.

Priestley argues that unless we help support those in need, those in need will come back to haunt us later. If we argue that people should be allowed to keep all their earnings, without thought for other people's suffering, then the design of capitalism will mean that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer and this will inevitably lead so societal collapse. And, again, this is supported in evidence from around the world: countries where the gap between the richest and the poorest is smaller are less likely to fall to extremism, and enjoy more stability over the longer term.

In short: the inspector argues - and there is some historical evidence to support the idea - that being responsible for each other isn't just a nice thing to do, but that it is something we must to do in order to avoid societal collapse, either through war or revolution.

I can't accept any responsibility for everything that happens to everyone
At one point, Mr Birling claims that he “can't” accept any responsibility for what happens to other people. Here the modal verb “can’t” suggests that doesn’t feel that he doesn’t want to do this, but that he simply isn’t capable of doing it. The use of the adjective “any” reinforces this, as it isn’t just this particular responsibility it is any responsibility at all. It’s interesting to propose that this is as a result of Mr Birling’s provincial roots – he worked his way out of possible poverty and has earned what he now has. It is understandable that many people who have worked hard from lowly beginnings end up with a more selfish and unsympathetic approach to life later on.

Mr Birling: “Well, it’s my duty to keep labour costs down”– Mr Birling (Act 1)
He makes it seem as if he has a moral obligation to be rich, and stay upper class, as if capitalism, or his purist view on it, is what keeps society together. This is a common view of capitalists, and right wing people in general: that they have a responsibility to work for their own ends; that it is their duty to compete for the best, as it is through competition that society advances. Socialists think progress is achieved through cooperation, capitalists believe that progress is achieved through competition.

The inspector: "It's my duty to ask questions."
As a professional policeman, it is the inspector's duty to hold everyone in society to account. Mr Birling may like to think that he's allowed to duck out of trouble because he knows people in high places, but the inspector isn't going to let him get away with it. Birling thinks it's his duty to keep labour costs down; Mrs Birling thinks she did her duty when turning Eva away; and the inspector is doing his duty asking questions - even of the rich and powerful.

Mrs Birling: "I consider I did my duty."
Mrs Birling thinks that it is her duty - her responsibility - to interrogate the people who came to her looking for help. She clearly didn't look at Eva's case closely enough though as she missed the truth of what the poor girl was saying.

Mr Birling: “But the way some of these cranks talk and write now, you’d think everybody has to look after everybody else, as if we were all mixed up, together like bees in a hive – community and all that nonsense.” – Mr Birling (Act 1)
He’s calling socialists cranks - a kind of patronising term for mad people - and denounces the very ideas of socialism, by saying that the entire system is weak, annoying and subhuman (insect like, like bees.) Capitalists also attack socialism as they say it degrades human individuality, suggesting that socialists require us all to live like one enormous machine with no individual rights. Mr Birling’s comparison to bees supports this - he’s saying that if we were to live collectively, as the inspector wants, we’d be no better than a hive of insects.

With no welfare state, poor people often depended on charity. But wealthy people controlled the charity and used it to reward only those they thought "deserving." Here, Priestley shows that, again, the poor were at the mercy of the rich. The welfare state, which argues that you should be supported regardless of your circumstance reduces the power of judgement over people who are struggling.

Mrs Birling doesn’t take any responsibility and states “I blame the young man who was the father of the child she was going to have”, not knowing that her son Eric is the father. She even said the man responsible should turn himself in and take full responsibility. When she finds out her son is responsible she hypocritically attempts to cover the issue up.

Mrs Birling: I accept no blame for it at all
A refusal to accept any responsibility for what happened

Sheila is one of the only people in the play to really accept responsibility for the death of Eva Smith. At one point, she observes that “Between us we drove that girl to commit suicide.” Here, she acknowledges the collective responsibility of the group; she’s not feeling sorry for herself or blaming herself, and nor is she refusing blame – like her parents – but she is recognising what the inspector claims: “that we are responsible for each other.” In this quote, she is not just taking responsibility for Eva, but for the rest of her family. Also, the use of the verb “drove” makes it clear that they were actively involved in killing Eva and not just passive observers.

Eric: The girl’s dead and we all killed her
He accepts responsibility

The Inspector: (massively) “Public men, Mr Birling, have responsibilities as well as privileges.” (Act 2)
Inspector Goole is saying that ‘public men’, such as Mr Birling, who has societal responsibilities, have great responsibilities, due to their great power. This attitude could also be applied to celebrities today – they earn a lot of money and have a place in the public eye, but doesn’t that mean they also have a responsibility to behave in a socially responsible way?

The Inspector: “You see, we have to share something. If there’s nothing else, we’ll have to share our guilt” – Inspector Goole (Act 2)
The inspector is highlighting how the Birlings share nothing, but if they should share something, it should be their guilt over their actions, otherwise they wouldn’t be able to cope with it. He’s saying that the responsibility is not hers alone.

The Inspector tells the characters, "Each of you helped to kill her", showing that he wanted them all to accept and share responsibility for their actions. It suggests the idea that we are all bees in a hive and need to take care of one another, that the past generation has made mistakes and we cannot turn away from the suffering lower class.

The whole of the Inspector's closing speech, which is aimed at the audience as well as the characters:

“But just remember this. One Eva Smith has gone – but there are millions and millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths still left with us, with their lives, their hopes and fears, their suffering and chance of happiness, all intertwined with our lives, and what we think and say and do. We don't live alone. We are members of one body. We are responsible for each other. And I tell you that the time will soon come when, if men will not learn that lesson, then they well be taught it in fire and blood and anguish. Good night.”

The inspector’s final speech opens with a long, complex sentence that reminds us of all the “Eva Smiths and John Smiths” there are in the world, and which emphasises the extent to which the themes of the play are not specifically about this situation. Also, the warning travels across time – from 1912 to 1945 – and it is increasingly true again today after a decade of austerity has left the use of food banks and zero-hours-contracts rising. The use of emotive language “hopes and fears … suffering … chance of happiness” all twig at the audience’s heart strings while the use of polysyndeton – the repetition of “and” in the phrase “think and say and do” – allows the actor to emphasise the key point: that our thoughts and actions and words all help to create the world we share.

Priestley follows this with three simple sentences, which summarise his lesson. The use of the simple imperatives breaks up his main point and makes his lesson clear and concise – “we do not live alone… we are members of one body” – so that with the right delivery it seems too obvious to argue with. It also allows an actor to break between each point which would allow them to add gravitas to the performance – perhaps even looking out across the auditorium to remind the audience of their involvement in this sham.

The inspector goes on to make a prediction about what will happen if “men will not learn that lesson.” (Here, we have to assume that he is referring to “mankind” and not just “men,” though it’s worth noting the irony of the fact that the character in the play who learns the lesson most successfully is actually a woman.) But, he claims that if the lesson is not learnt then we will learn it in “fire and blood and anguish.” This is a reference to the decades of war that would be fought in the years between when the play was set and when the first performance occurred. In this respect, Priestley is using quite a cheeky strategy: he’s making the inspector prophetic – almost divine – in 1912, but only because Priestley knew what went on to happen. It’s also interesting, however, that Priestley is suggesting that disaster is inevitable if humans don’t change the way we behave - the use of the modal verb "will" be taught it, suggests that the lesson is inevitable. In this respect he is similar to Karl Marx, the founder of communism and a key socialist thinker, who argued that it the poor would inevitably rise up against the rich if equality wasn’t pursued. Both thinkers, Marx and Priestley, claim that change must happen or disaster will inevitably strike. For the audience the dramatic irony of the inspector’s prophecy would have been very powerful, while his use second use of polysyndeton makes the list seem longer and emphasises the extra item: “anguish.”

After this, almost as a joke, the inspector leaves with a courteous “Good night,” which could be seen as the Edwardian equivalent of a mic drop.