Equality (/ɪˈkwɒlɪti,iː-/) - the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.

Everything is constantly changing. Fashion comes & goes and technology is at its best,  Literature is also growing and growing, and although its becoming more modern, its still proves important in learning about the past and the present.

As this blog is studying An Inspector Calls, it probably wouldn't be appropriate to see how we now have computers as thin as paper, but one theme that stands out in An Inspector Calls is class. As social attitudes have changed, audiences from different eras would be affected differently by the message of the play.

1947

The type of audience is something you have to consider in this era. Going to the theatre was more seen as an event or occasion, rather than 'something to do.' Therefore I suspect that mainly middle and upper class members of society would have been able to afford to watch this production. This was key for Priestley as its these type of people that he wanted to get his message across to. In the play, he doesn't convey that working class people were in the wrong at any point, so it's in the playwright's favour that the majority of his audience are the type of people who he is accusing.

So class evidently is a theme that is consistent throughout the play, and its not class itself, but the discrimination of one class on a lower class. Of course, as the Birling's fall under the middle class sector, the majority of them despise Eva as a working class member, but Mr Birling kisses the ground that the Crofts walk on because they have been a long-term member of the higher class. The audience would know the difference between the classes and immediately see the contrast between Eva and the Birling's. However, I expect that people in the 1940s would have had mixed opinions towards the attitudes of the Birling's. I can imagine that some members of the audience would praise Arthur and Sybil for not accepting responsibility for Eva, as thats how they think people of their class should react in that situation. This type of audience can relate and empathise with these characters and not have a doubt that they are wrong. But, Priestley didn't like this system. He didn't like that people were treated differently just because of their social status. This - along with issues like racism - categorised people by how much money they had and how much they could afford, and An Inspector calls displays that Arthur Birling was a hard working man who worked his way up to being socially accepted. I imagine that some members of the audience would see through Arthur's class and come to the realisation that the Birling's are basically using their power to their own advantage. They would be able to realise that Arthur is not a iconic character and his actions should not be mimicked. This character portrayal could have potentially re-evaluated peoples viewpoints on the class system.

One of the other themes in An Inspector Calls is discrimination of women. Eva is the prime victim of both discrimination against sex and class. Female members of the audience would have more likely related to Eva and empathised with her and the situation she was stuck in. She also experienced heart break which is what a lot of women in the audience may have experienced therefore allowing the theme of discrimination against women to be further contemplated and questioned. However, in the 1940s, I would not be surprised if some women in the audience agreed with the attitude of male domination because that is the society they are used to. As I live in the 21st century where this type of discrimination isn't as common, I can't say that their opinion is wrong because although thats not the society I'm used to, it's what they were familiar with. On the other hand, I don't think many of the men would have felt sympathetic because of their domination of both class and sex seemed to be superior in relation to the fictional character of Eva Smith. If they were put in Arthurs situation, I think the majority of them would have dealt with it in a similar way.

The first showing of the play had mixed reviews: some enjoyed it and some didn't. Of course thats down to personal opinion and engagement of the audience, but could it be also be down to the audience not agreeing with the attitudes of the characters, or not accepting the message being put across by Priestley? Maybe the audience were in denial that that's how their society was functioning, so after watching their social situation from an external perspective, they instantly didn't want to accept that this was how they lived. Who knows?

2014

Ok, so 67 years into the future, times have changed dramatically.

There is no longer the class system, the NHS is available to virtually anyone in the country and education is accessible for free for everyone under the age of 18 - so prejudice and discrimination no longer exist, right? 

Of course not. Despite the legal equalities that we have access to, everyone is still exposed to discrimination, which is why An Inspector Calls can still teach people life lessons in this century. 

Again, sexism is still an issue. Although women in the workplace is more acceptable and some a lot are more successful than the men, women are still being prejudged. One of the classics is that women 'belong in the kitchen,' which displays that men still feel more dominant over women. An audience watching a film version of this play, or even the play in the theatre (if people still do that??) would be more familiar with the way society was in the past, and would think that times have changed dramatically. This may result in ignoring the fact that sexism is still around, and focus on the fact that its not as bad as it was. Of course sexism isn't as bad as it was, but there is still a lot of room for improvement. 

Suicide is an issue that seems to come up in the news quite frequently, especially as it occurs amongst younger people. Cyberbullying has become a major issue which wasn't around when the first production of An Inspector Calls was performed. People in the audience who suffered similar dilemmas to those that Eva faced would be able to empathise with Eva, in a similar way that people in the audience of the 1947 production would. In my opinion, society have become more aware of the impacts of suicide in comparison to the society in the 1940s. Personally, I see suicide as quite a selfish act. This one person ends their life to end their sufferings, which in turn causes family, friends and other associations to suffer. In the play, only Sheila and Eric take responsibility for her suicide. As Eva supposedly didn't have any family, we can allow Sheila and Eric to resemble close family, who mourn her death. Sheila and Eric may never forgive themselves for what they contributed to cause her to commit suicide, which I think may have more of an impact on the audience of 2014. The rest of the cast who do not accept responsibility, I think ,would also have a bigger affect on the 2014 audience as opposed to the 1947 audience as human rights and justice has become a part of our lives. We learn about social justice from quite a young age and the human rights movement is more practiced now that it was in 1947. Therefore I think people understand Evas death more and have more of an emotional impact on the audience in 2014, and the suicide itself would have less of an impact on the audience in 1947.

To conclude attitudes of the play from audiences in 1947 and 2014, I think the play would impact both but differently. In 1947, it would mostly strike the social status factor, and in 2014 the reaction to the suicide would be more important.

The Sunday Times' James Agate said "It's not until you leave the theatre that you ask yourself by what magic dullness has been kept away from this modern morality in which nobody does anything but talk."

2081

Instead of analysing reviews that have already been made, what can we expect/predict attitudes towards this play to be like in another 67 years time?

Let's imagine that in 67 years time, there is no discrimination what-so-ever, and everyone was treated equally with the same status, rights and opportunities. All I can say about An Inspector Calls is that audiences brought up in this type of society would be able to understand the attitudes from the past, but would not be able to sympathise and relate to the characters in the same way that the audiences from the other 2 eras did. I cannot imagine the audience even enjoying the plot if its not relatable. It will not have the same impact.

I don't want to encourage discrimination and prejudice, but I think its important that people have differences. If everyone was treated equally, there would be no status, and no leadership. For example, I wouldn't be sitting here writing this blog post because there wouldn't have been a teacher (someone with a status who I treat with more respect and authority) to instruct me to do it. Therefore I think its important that there is authoritative figures such as teachers. What I don't agree with, which we can apply to Arthur Birling, is when an authoritative figure abuses their status and uses it in a way that does not benefit people. Arthur fired Eva just because, basically she annoyed him, but he doesn't consider the hard work she put in that contributed to his company, and doesn't praise her for her positive attributes. 

It is difficult to come to a conclusion as to which type of audience would appreciate Priestley's attitudes and themes in An Inspector Calls the most, but assuming that one day there may be a society where there is no discrimination, I think that Priestley's play would not be appreciated at all in relation to that kind of society. They wouldn't be able to learn any lessons from it, only the lessons that us in the 20th and 21st century have had to learn. I think what can't be dismissed is the fact that everyone has their own opinion, and although some opinions slot into one way of living more than the other, it is safe to conclude this with the fact that anyone is capable of learning a lesson from this play, and as the inspector says: 

"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 will be taught in fire and blood and anguish"