Essay 4

INTRODUCTION

In An Inspector Calls, J.B. Priestley presents poverty not simply as an economic condition but as a deeply moral and political concern, exposing its devastating effects on individuals through the character of Eva Smith.¹ Although she never appears on stage, Eva functions as a powerful dramatic device,² symbolising the exploited working class in Edwardian Britain. By constructing her story through the fragmented testimonies of the upper-class Birlings and Gerald Croft, Priestley critiques the systemic injustices of the time and challenges his post-war audience to reconsider their social responsibility. Hence, Priestley uses Eva Smith to foreground the vulnerability, dehumanisation, and moral dignity of the poor, ultimately advocating for greater social equality.³

1. Formal contention is clearly stated: Priestley uses Eva Smith to criticise poverty and class inequality.

2. Calling her a dramatic device highlights Eva’s function as a constructed character by Priestley rather than pretending she is a real person, showing strong textual understanding.

3. This introduction has a good balanced focus, touching on structure, character function, and political message. It also directly engages with the essay question by using the ‘impact of poverty’ as the starting point for a discussion on themes of “vulnerability, dehumanisation, and dignity.”

PARAGRAPH 1

Priestley presents Eva Smith as a symbolic representation of the working-class population, whose lives were often invisible and undervalued in early 20th century Britain. Her surname, “Smith,” was one of the most common in the country, deliberately chosen to suggest that her suffering is not unique but representative.⁴ This is confirmed by the Inspector’s final speech, which references the “millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths left with us.” The repetition of “millions” reinforces the scale of the problem, while the listing of “hopes and fears [...] sufferings [...] chance of happiness” humanises these nameless individuals, emphasising their emotional depth and dignity.⁵ By aligning Eva with the masses, Priestley challenges his audience to see the working class not as a faceless entity but as real people deserving empathy. Furthermore, Eva’s initial portrayal through Mr Birling, who describes her as a “good worker,” reveals how the upper class reduces individuals to their economic utility. Mr Birling’s lack of personal detail about her suggests a wilful indifference, symptomatic of a capitalist system that prioritises profit over people.⁶ Through this symbolic construction, Priestley critiques how industrial capitalism dehumanises the working class, urging his audience to adopt a more compassionate, collective ethic.⁷

4. Name analysis: Explores “Smith” as a symbol – excellent close textual focus.

5. Quote analysis of “millions and millions. . . ” is unpacked through repetition and listing. You don’t always have to link a quote to a particular literary device, but it can be helpful to use this kind of metalanguage in order to explain its effect.

6. Here, we integrate historical insight to situate the treatment of workers in Edwardian industrial society, linking the ideas of individual suffering and collective suffering.

7. Strong concluding sentence: Returns to the idea of audience reflection and ethical reform.

PARAGRAPH 2

Furthermore, Priestly explores the impact of poverty through Eva Smith’s suffering, which unfolds as a gradual descent into destitution. Her transformation from an industrious employee to a woman “desperately hard up” reveals the fragility of working-class stability.⁸ The adverb “desperately” conveys not only financial need but emotional despair, reflecting how economic hardship strips individuals of autonomy and dignity. The structure of the play in unveiling Eva’s story backwards highlights the cumulative damage inflicted by repeated social failures. Each stage of her decline – job loss, homelessness, hunger, and unwanted pregnancy – exposes how poverty is not an isolated event but a relentless cycle. Yet, even in her suffering, Eva retains moral integrity.⁹ She refuses to accept Eric’s stolen money, insisting she “won’t take any more,” a decision that underscores her dignity despite her desperation. Through this, Priestley challenges the stereotype that poverty equates to moral weakness. Instead, he presents Eva as a morally upright figure, victimised not by her character but by a society that denies her support.¹⁰ By foregrounding her resilience and ethical stance, Priestley encourages the audience¹¹ to reject prejudiced views of the poor and instead consider the systemic roots of suffering.

8. Topic sentence clearly addresses “impact of poverty” through Eva’s decline, noting how Priestley constructs her downfall chronologically.

9. This introduces some nuance to the discussion by considering the moral contrasts – Eva is shown to be principled even when she is maltreated and desperate, whereas most of the other characters are not even when they are in a position of privilege.

10. Challenge to stereotype: Priestley reframes poverty as structural, not personal failure. Our argument is that the text shows poverty to be cyclical and inescapable within current systems.

11. Always pair descriptive analysis (what happens to Eva) with interpretative analysis (what Priestley wants us to think or feel about it).

PARAGRAPH 3

Eva Smith’s interactions with the upperclass characters expose how poverty is perpetuated by social prejudice.¹² Mr Birling dismisses her demand for higher wages by warning of the working class “asking for the earth.” This hyperbolic metaphor reduces her reasonable request to irrational greed, revealing Birling’s inability to comprehend working-class struggles.¹³ His fear of redistribution reflects the selfinterest of the capitalist elite, who see any challenge to profit as a threat to social order. Similarly, Mrs Birling’s refusal to assist Eva at her charity is laced with moral superiority. Referring to Eva as “a girl of that sort” implies a judgemental dismissal rooted in classist assumptions about respectability.¹⁴ The phrase generalises and dehumanises, showing how poverty is viewed not as misfortune but as a moral failing. These moments of prejudice demonstrate how systemic inequality is upheld not only by economic structures, but by attitudes that devalue the poor. By exposing the callousness of the Birlings, Priestley implores his audience to reject such dismissiveness and recognise the need for empathy and structural change.¹⁵

12. Topic sentence directly connects class prejudice to Eva’s suffering.

13. Quote unpacked well: “Asking for the earth” is interpreted as hyperbole and elitism.

14. Moral language: “moral superiority” and “judgemental dismissal” clearly convey social critique.

15. When writing about social prejudice, focus on both language and ideology – what does the character say, and what does it reveal about their worldview. Focus on attitude as well as action: Prejudice is not just what they do, but how they think.

CONCLUSION

Through the character of Eva Smith, Priestley powerfully critiques the social structures and attitudes that sustain poverty in Edwardian Britain. Her symbolic role, moral strength, and mistreatment by others work collectively to expose the deep injustices faced by the working class. By giving a voice to the voiceless and framing her story as a collective moral failure, Priestley compels his audience to reflect on their own responsibilities within society. An Inspector Calls ultimately becomes a call to action, urging for compassion, systemic reform, and the creation of a fairer, more humane world.¹⁶