Standing out from the crowd- An Inspector Calls
Although Section A of Literature Paper Two offers an interesting selection of texts for study and analysis, many English departments understandably return to those they know well and have a strong track record of teaching successfully. For many schools, this means J.B. Priestley’s An Inspector Calls.
I was not surprised therefore, whilst marking for AQA this summer, to see the vast majority of candidates respond to the question of selfishness in Mr Birling, or that of “responsibility” explored through “female characters.” The majority of students who answered these questions answered them well, writing explained, clear, and sometimes even thoughtful analyses.
However, I could not help but notice the rarity of responses that broke the ceiling of level 5 or 6*, and I would find myself inwardly rejoicing each time a candidate roamed on to the wilder shores of section A, with William Golding’s Lord of the Flies or Stephen Kellman’s Pigeon English. As well as breaking the monotony of marking the same response over and over again, it brought home once more the importance of writing essays that have something to say.
The very word “essay” traces back to Latin exageum- to weigh or to consider, and more recently to French and the verb essayer- to try or to attempt. Montaigne repurposed it in the 1590s in his famous collection of treatises on a life well-lived, and it has been used in English for almost as long to describe thoughtful, analytical and academic ideas in written form. The word therefore carries with it an obligation to be experimental, original, and organic in thought and expression. The problem with An Inspector Calls, then, may be the fact that it is so well-thumbed by English teachers and curricula, that there is little left that hasn’t already been said. Its familiarity makes the fundamentals easy, and most students can comfortably collect 15 of the 30 available marks by expanding on simple ideas, but it creates issues for students who are hunting grade 9.
Most responses look something like this:
“the titanic is unsinkable, absolutely unsinkable”- this example of dramatic irony shows that Birling, the symbol of capitalism, is wrong. Therefore, Priestley’s audience knows that capitalism is wrong.
Or
“These girls aren’t cheap labour, they’re people”- here, Sheila defies her parents, showing her increasing responsibility. She sees the workers in her father’s factory as people, and not simply machines for making money.
There is nothing inherently wrong with either point here, but they are limited in scope and depth, and they are regurgitated by almost every candidate who studies the play and writes a response. It is impossible to write an undeniably full mark essay by writing the same essay as every other candidate. So, as students generally do not choose the texts they study, they must make the most of the material they are presented with.
One way to do this is to flip the focus from the events and the characters, to the context and the theories. Firstly, look at the Marxist critique of capitalism in more than superficial detail. Although Marx attacked and vilified capitalists, he also pitied them. The School of Life does an excellent explainer video on Marx, perfectly pitched for GCSE students. The video neatly summarises Marx’s belief that capitalism made capitalists: anxious, competitive, conformist, and politically complacent. Let’s apply this fundamental critique to the characters:
1. Anxious:
Eric Birling= lost, drinker, hopeless.
Mr Birling= insecure about his class and his status, his family’s status
Sheila Birling= insecure about her appearance and her relationship with Gerald.
Gerald= commitment issues.
Mrs Birling= has married beneath her station, painfully aware of her husband’s vulgarity
2. Competitive
Mr Birling= obsessed with success and titles
Mrs Birling= no compassion despite “charitable” facade. She guards her name and status jealously.
Sheila= has Eva Smith sacked on a jealous whim.
3. Conformist
Sheila Birling= agrees to marry Gerald because her parents wish it (despite him neglecting her)
Mrs Birling= obsessed with etiquette and social convention, cliché of an upper-class woman
Eric/Gerald= following in fathers’ footsteps and blindly perpetuating the capitalist cycle. Neither are happy in this role.
4. Politically complacent
This is the most difficult concept to understand. It means that, despite benefitting from an education, capitalist citizens are disconnected from, and indifferent to, politics. Marx’s contention was that this suits the ruling classes perfectly, as it prevents rebellion or social change.
Sheila= initially ignorant of her socialist instincts.
This sets her up for a political awakening, facilitated by the Inspector. Priestley contrives the play to show her growing stature on stage as she becomes aware of her responsibility to fight injustice and inequality.
Through a more thorough understanding of context, candidates immediately signal that their essay is not of the usual sort. Even more nuance can be achieved by learning and understanding the feminist theory of objectification. See this summary from the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy:
instrumentality: the treatment of a person as a tool for the objectifier’s purposes; (Eric, Mr Birling, Gerald)
denial of autonomy: the treatment of a person as lacking in autonomy and self-determination; (Sheila’s spiteful jealousy)
inertness: the treatment of a person as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity;
fungibility: the treatment of a person as interchangeable with other objects; (Mr Birling hiring and firing, Gerald’s infidelity)
violability: the treatment of a person as lacking in boundary-integrity; (Eric’s assault)
ownership: the treatment of a person as something that is owned by another (can be bought or sold); (Mr Birling “selling” Sheila to Gerald for social advancement)
denial of subjectivity: the treatment of a person as something whose experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account. (all)
Between them, the Birlings systematically objectify Eva Smith, ultimately leading to her death. Each Birling (plus Gerald) objectifies her in different ways and for slightly different reasons.
This:
Priestley presents Mr Birling as selfish through his attitudes towards society and other people. When Birling says that “the Titanic is unsinkable, absolutely unsinkable”, Priestley uses dramatic irony because the audience knows that the Titanic did sink in 1912. This shows that Birling is foolish and cannot always be trusted. It also suggests that Birling is too confident in his own opinions and does not think about the consequences of his actions. Priestley presents Birling as a symbol of capitalism, showing that wealthy people who only care about money can be wrong and selfish. Therefore, Priestley uses Birling to criticise capitalist attitudes and encourage the audience to think about responsibility.
Becomes this:
One way Priestley contrives Birtling as a selfish character is through his treatment of Eva Smith. An interesting lens through which to view the Birlings’ behaviours and transgressions against Eva is feminist objectification theory. Between them, the Birlings (and Gerald) systematically objectify Eva Smith, selfishly disregarding her subjectivity and humanity for their own selfish purposes. Mr Birling treats Eva as a fungible, replaceable item, an asset that can be switched out and replaced in much the same way as parts can be discarded from a machine. This is a common critique leveled at capitalists, and perhaps not very surprising to the audience who know Priestley’s socialist tendencies. However, what is more shocking is how Birling treats his own daughter. He objectifies her through ownership, effectively selling her to the Croft family in a marriage that benefits him and his interests, “low costs and higher prices!” far more than it benefits Sheila.
Whatever question is presented in the exam next summer, a thorough knowledge of these ideas will allow a candidate to elevate their response and to stand out as a truly compelling piece of thoughtful analysis - an essay in its truest form.
