The telephone and calls
The multitude of calls within the text are the symbolic triggers for action, interrupting the equilibrium and creating a space for the truth to come to the forefront. Through the calls, the outside world seeps into the world of the play: whilst the theatre has often been used as a medium of escapism, this allows Priestley to remind the audience that they are subject to the same moral responsibilities as the characters onstage. They are not allowed to forget their lives and their realities, instead being confronted with universal decisions and behaviours, re-affirming that there are “millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths” and that this scenario could happen to anyone.
The Inspector’s physical call acts as the catalyst for the play’s action to unfold: without this visit, the characters in the text may never have been forced to confront their moral failings. The group is ‘called’ to answer for their behaviour, called almost to a metaphorical witness stand where they must recount their past and face the reality of what their actions have brought into being. Truth is revealed through the telephone calls, symbolic of a modern and innovative world which can be juxtaposed with the archaic and insular behaviour of the upper classes. The calls again link the dining-room scene to the outside world: both Mr Birling and Gerald make calls in order to establish the truth, confirming whether the Inspector was a real police officer and whether a girl had died by suicide in the infirmary. At the end of the play, having dismissed the evening as a hoax, Mr Birling receives a final call on the telephone, disrupting the order once more, and learns a new inspector is about to arrive following the real death of a young girl. Through his dramatic twist, Priestley emphasises the inescapable nature of truth and reality, with the private lives of the characters once more infiltrated by their social and moral responsibility.
Alcohol
Throughout the text, alcohol consumption is a recurring motif. The play begins with the family drinking, making a toast to Sheila and Gerald’s engagement. The champagne they have had during dinner and the port they use afterwards for the toast references their desire to celebrate the evening. There is even a suggestion that Mrs Birling doesn’t drink as much as the others, with Mr Birling having to persuade her as it is a “special occasion.” This again plays into the Victorian ideals of sobriety, something the upper-class Sibyl clearly adheres to. During the play, however, it becomes clear that Eric is a much heavier drinker than the rest of the characters. At the opening, he is silent until he abruptly laughs, leading Sheila to surmise that he is “squiffy.” When it is revealed later that Eric has a drinking problem, his mother is shocked by the revelation and her disapproval is evident, speaking to Sheila “bitterly,” as if resentful for being told the truth. Priestley also evidences the dangers of alcohol through Eric’s interaction with Eva Smith: Eric admits that he was “in that state where a chap easily turns nasty,” therefore critiquing not only the negative impacts of alcohol. Eric’s excessive drinking highlights actions and events he’d rather forget, which is replicated when several of the characters charge their glasses upon the realisation that they’ve been “had” by the Inspector, forgetting the importance of what they’ve gone through and beginning to “pretend” again.
Rope/Hanging
Though a very small mention, the motif of the rope is a significant one. The image of the noose to “hang” the Birlings is symbolic of judgement and guilt, the ultimate consequence to their actions. With the death penalty only abolished in the UK in 1965, this punishment for the most severe of crimes such as murder would be a known aspect of the judgment system within both the Edwardian and post-war contexts of this play. It also acts as a physical link, much like the “chain of events,” between Eva Smith and the other characters, something inescapable which they only worsen through their inability to accept their parts in her death. Sheila notes to her family that the Inspector is “giving us rope – so that we’ll hang ourselves.” This categorises him as the moral executioner, using the Birlings’ own behaviour to confront them with their guilt, slowly tightening the vice of responsibility, one by one, as he carries out his exposing investigation. Ultimately, the family do hang themselves with their own actions with the final call confirming the death of a girl by suicide, unable to escape their moral responsibility and the consequences of their actions.
Rudeness
A recurring notion within the text, rudeness is used as a motif by Priestley to critique social expectations and etiquette and reinforce the themes of responsibility and community. Mr Birling often patronises the Inspector and is dismissive of the working class, revealing his arrogance and capitalist mindset. Mrs Birling, in turn, whilst openly detesting “impudence,” is rude in her cold and distanced attitude towards others, often condescending in her tone. Her deep-rooted class prejudice towards characters like Eva Smith, calling her a girl “of that class,” evidences her lack of empathy and judgmental attitude.
The motif is one of the ways in which Priestley explores the hypocrisy of the Birlings: the family pride themselves on their respectability whilst ultimately concealing actions of disrespect, cruelty and ignorance. Where the family view Inspector Goole’s directness as rude, his blunt approach to his investigation purposefully uncovers the truth and forces the family to confront their actions. He refuses to obey the traditional power structures, inverting what is expected of him and challenging the assumed entitlement of the upper class elite. Through this motif, Priestley advocates for social change, highlighting the façade of etiquette within the class divide.
The engagement ring
Sheila’s engagement ring symbolises not only romantic love within the play, but the materialism of the upper classes. When first given the ring, Sheila is in awe of its beauty and becomes fixated upon it, calling it “perfect.” Indeed, both the ring and Sheila at this point represent the epitome of what women in the Edwardian period were expected to desire: marriage to a wealthy, handsome man of a prominent social standing. After the revelations of Sheila and Gerald’s interactions with Eva Smith, Sheila calls off their engagement and returns the ring to Gerald. The ring, and by extension the idealism of marriage, has been tainted by the truth of their characters and their actions. Sheila sees this more clearly than Gerald, noting that “you and I aren’t the same people who sat down to dinner here.” In the final section of the play, Gerald (having convinced Mr and Mrs Birling that the whole evening was a hoax) attempts to give Sheila the ring back, saying “Everything’s alright now,” but Sheila refuses, telling him it’s “too soon.” Whilst to Gerald the ring is now returned to its original status, Sheila (having matured) now rejects this symbol of materialism and control.
Disinfectant
It is no coincidence that Priestley chooses swallowing disinfectant as Eva Smith’s method of suicide. Typically used as a cleaning product, this conjures associations with cleanliness and sanitized objects. The tragedy of this image is simply that, in the eyes of Edwardian society, Eva Smith has become ‘unclean’ through her affairs and illegitimate pregnancy. By this logic, the disinfectant she swallows should restore her to her original purity; however, instead it destroys her in the most brutal and painful way.
The Titanic
The “unsinkable” Titanic is mentioned only briefly at the start of the play, but is important nonetheless. As previously mentioned, the dramatic irony of Mr Birling openly praising this feat of ingenuity will never be lost on an audience who knows the fate of the Titanic’s maiden voyage. The ship can also however arguably be seen as a symbol for the destructive nature of capitalism: the catastrophic loss of life when the Titanic sank was partially due to the lack of lifeboats on board the ship, as the ships’ owners deemed it displeasing and not in-keeping with the aesthetic to have the decks littered with lifeboats. Even in this small way, Priestly is subtly demonstrating a contempt for the capitalist way of life and thinking which governed both the Edwardian and post-war era.
