Priestley wrote his play ‘An Inspector Calls’ to show how the society before the two world wars were much different to the society that was watching the play for the first time in 1945. He shows how different characters in the play claim different levels of responsibility and links it deeply with age. he illustrates how the younger generation are more understanding of the situation as they fully claim their responsibility. However, the older generation are more fixated on class and status which means they have little remorse for the role in Eva’s death or the lower class as a whole. Priestley presents how Mr Birling, a stubborn capitalist, doesn’t claim any personal responsibility. He beliefs that his actions which caused a domino effect should be morally accepted in society and he feels zero guilt in the death of Eva Smith. Mr Birling is stubborn with high views as he clearly shows that he “can’t accept any responsibility.” This sentence acts as a strong rhetorical device and it highly reflects Mr Birling’s remorseless attitude to the lower classes and their situations. This claim to no responsibility gives Priestley the opportunity to critique the bourgois and it shows regression in moral growth of the Birlings at that point in the play. Another idea to take into account is the fact that these actions within British, Edwardian society was heavily palpable and there was no act to try and cover up the corruptness of the bourgois as they had the leverage over the lower classes which were their power and status. Mr Birling’s rejection of any personal responsibility would be not only frowned upon. but also mocked by the socialist audience of 1945 as they are more understanding of equality and the socialist people know the importance of not indulging in extreme power and taking moral and personal responsibility when required is one of the most important things in the modern world. Priestley presents Eric as a foil to his father, Mr Birling as the play goes on and one key way in which he manages to show this is by showing the difference in personal responsibility in the two characters. While Mr Birling stagnates and it could be argued that he regresses to, Eric only progresses as the play goes own even though the truth of his actions are revealed to his family and the audience. even if The Inspector wasn’t a real inspector, Eric outlines that “The girl’s still dead, isn’t she?” Here, Priestley has used the technique of the alienation effect to emotionally draw the audience away from the emotional side of the matter just for a minute in order to show the magnitude of the issue. Eric understands that no matter what happens after that point, Eva Smith will not come back to life and the actions will be irreversible from that point onwards. The removing of emotional shows the seriousness of the issue of Eva’s exploitation and this acts as an allegory for Priestley’s intentions as it depicts the effects of class systems. Here, Priestley is hinting at the actions of the bourgois have a forever lasting consequence like the two world wars which he implies is caused from the bourgois upper classes. These events are still known to scar the world today. Priestley illustrates how Sheila has progressed as a character in the play as she goes from a materialistic, childish person to a matured, post-war women who sets an example of what women should be like in society. By the time Sheila realises her actions, she feels a great deal of remorse to Eva as she promises “I’ll never, never do it again to anybody.” this repetition of the word ‘never’ highlights Sheila’s clear transformation and emancipation from the oppressive and remorseless capitalist family of the Birlings to a socialist lady who is a great example for the post-war audience of 1945 as they can see how the world had transformed to an emancipated one which is free from unscrupulous people who only care for money, status and power. Priestley uses Sheila as a mouth piece in some points of the play by outlining things that Sheila says that clearly align with his modern, socialist views. Sheila’s transformation could sprout from the idea that women were often undervalued in Edwardian society and Sheila sees the economical and gendered exploitation which helps her realise her responsibility in causing Eva’s death. Finally, Priestley conveys the overall message through The Inspector which sums up the little ideas that have been highlighted throughout the play as a whole. Priestley uses The Inspector the articulate his views and opinions by outlining that not all hope is lost and if we can a society of one body, can all accept our personal responsibility then society will be able to flourish and events like world wars will have a smaller chance of happening again. The Inspector reminds the Birlings and the audience that “there are millions and millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths still with us.” In this unique case, the names Eva and John have been chosen as they were highly common names which were given to people in the lower classes of the Edwardian class system. It indicates that there is still hope for society to redeem itself as a whole and just because mistakes have been made in the past, the future doesn’t have to be embodied by unscrupulous behaviour and ideologies which do more harm than good. The anaphora in ‘millions and millions and millions’ highlight the upper classes’ previous remorseless actions to the masses which damaged the world socially. This quote could also be emblematic to warn people that still have these misanthropic views that if people are not held accountable for their personal responsibility then the world will be doomed. This idea could be linked to that fact that the Russian revolution of 1917 exposed the severe dangers of a divided society where no one takes responsibility for their actions which lead into the lower classes being exploited. Overall, Priestley presents personal responsibility in his play ‘An Inspector Calls’ but showing how some characters progress in morality whereas some character stayed stagnant or regress in. morality. Priestley rounds this idea up by explaining the effects that uneven spread of responsibility has and the potential issues and damnation that this could cause to future generation unless responsibility isn’t taken and spread between the body of society evenly between the masses and the minorities.