Critical Interpretations: An Inspector Calls
Aristotelian Tragedy: Priestley deliberately uses Aristotle's dramatic
unities of time, place, and action to create a sense of intense
claustrophobia and pressure. Their hubris is best demonstrated in the
Birlings who demonstrate an excessive sense of pride, recognising why
they did not experience a moral awakening (anagnorisis) as did their
children. Each member of the family creates a different component of the
tragic hero who experiences its downfall due to hubris, whilst we still
encounter the true tragic hero who is only a victim of the hubris of others.
The reversal of fortune (peripeteia) inverts any sense of relief the Birlings
may have faced, as the final phone call generates a lingering dread that
denies the audience a simple emotional catharsis, as the cyclical structure
of the plot enforcing the cycle of harm to continue if actions go
unchanged.
Freudian theory: Viewing the play through Freud’s theory of dreams, it
could be argued that the Inspector is used as a manifestation of the
characters’ inner guilt and taboo behaviour. The Inspector functions like a
dream analyst, uncovering the Birling family's hidden guilt, social
prejudices, and a collective responsibility that they try to ignore.+The
play can be seen as a societal "dream" or "vision" where the Inspector's
appearance functions as a catalyst to bring the community's collective
unconscious guilt to the surface, much like Freud's theory of dreams
being meaningful rather than random.
Marxist theories: Priestley’s play is a critique of capitalism through the
stark contrast between the exploitative bourgeoisie (represented by the
Birling family) and the oppressed proletariat (symbolized by Eva Smith).
Interpreting the play from a Marxist perspective, it could be argued that
Priestley uses the theme of social inequality to demonstrate that society
would be improved by abolishing the class system which would, in turn,
