In ‘An Inspector Calls’, Priestley showcases how guilt can transform an emotionally transform an individual through the concept of learning life lessons. This is evoked through how Sheila and Eric both change throughout the play as they use increasingly emotional language to convey their increasing ability to empathise and sympathise with Eva. However, Priestley contrasts this with Sybil’s stubbornness and self-interested character, which showcases how Priestley suggests that, within society, there is a generational divide between the young (Eric and Sheila), and the old (Sybil). Firstly, in ‘An Inspector Calls’, Priestley uses Sheila as a proxy for how the younger generation are able to learn life lessons, as Sheila changes by the end of the play, as her character ‘grows’ at the start – through her immaturity and how she’s merciless – to how she isn’t over-reliant on her parents, and is empathetic towards Eva, by the end of the play. This is exemplified through the use of juxtaposition, as, at the start of the play, she argues that she would show greater care towards Eva’s death “if she was some plain, miserable little creature […]”. The use of the noun “creature” debilitates Eva, making it seem as if Sheila believes she is above Eva. This is because the noun “creature” has connotations with a chain of species in an animal kingdom. Therefore, as this language strips Eva of her human identity, it’s as if Sheila feels it’s below her to care and show sympathy for Eva. As a result, this shows how Priestley is using Sheila as a symbol of carelessness for your actions – especially as she was in-part responsible in the effort “to kill her” as she got her fired from the Millwards. Nevertheless, this is juxtaposed by the end of the play as she states, “she felt rotten about it all the time, and now I feel even worse”. The use of the adjectives “rotten” and “worse” evoke Sheila’s remorse through how she feels emotionally altered and scarred almost by Eva’s death. Therefore, this makes her seem more open-minded as it’s as if she can’t forget the death of Eva, indicative of the hyperbolic statement “now I feel even worse”. Overall, we can gather that Priestley uses Sheila as a proxy for how the younger generations are able to learn life lessons as we can clearly see, through this more emotional language, that Sheila is able to realise the far-reaching consequences of her actions (clearly validating the idea where she states: “[we] aren’t the same people who sat down to dinner here”). Secondly, Priestley uses Eric as a proxy for paternal and maternal relationships, as Eric becomes more rebellious against his parents and their infantilised view of him as he realises his unborn child died. This is evident through how, at the end of the play, he seems emotionally and psychologically disoriented through the revelation that his child has died, as he argues with his mother as he learns she turned her away from her charity: “she came to you to protect me – and you turned her away – and yes, you killed the child she’d have too – my child – your own grandchild – […] damn you, damn you!”. The repeat use of dashes in this compound sentence increases the pace of the text as we are given little time to breathe; therefore, perhaps this mimics the increasing realisation of the permanence our actions can have (within Eric) – which is indicative of the verb “killed”. Furthermore, this increasing use of dashes could also fragments the sentence, which could echo how Eric feels lost in his life due to these revelations, almost as if this pace represents the effects of the physical, permanent ‘fragmentation’ between him and his now dead grandchild. Nevertheless, this juxtaposes the playful and careless language he conveys at the start: “I was in a state when a chap easily turns nasty”. The dichotomy between the noun “chap” (which has care-free connotations), and this idea of his disoriented state therefore shows how Priestley uses Eric as a proxy for realising the permanence of our actions because the child in this case represents how those innocent (and who have no say) within society can be harmed by Capitalism, and the divides between the bourgeoise and proletariat (therefore illustrating the unintended consequences of Eric’s actions). Lastly, Priestley uses Sybil as a proxy for the morally inept upper-class within the bourgeoise, and how some people are unable to take responsibility for their actions. This is evoked through how Sybil is persistently stubborn throughout the play, mimicking the idea of isolationism, and how “a [person] has to […] look after himself”. This is conveyed through how she claims Eva, at her charity, was “claiming elaborate fine feelings”. The juxtaposition between the verb “claiming” and the emotional language with the abstract noun “feelings” illustrates how Sybil does not trust Eva, as if she believes Eva “had herself to blame”. This is because this juxtaposition makes Eva’s claim to charity seem tactical and manipulative, as if she was using her awful situation as a claim for support rather than because of it. As a result, we can gather that Sybil’s “prejudiced” behaviour is a symbol for the inadequate welfare state during the Edwardian times, and how Eva’s vulnerability (compared to Sybil’s judgemental behaviour) is used by Priestley (as a socialist) to solidify the demands for a welfare state for the poor (offered by Clement Attlee’s Labour party at the time). Finally, as she ends the play by stating: “I was the only one of you who didn’t give into him”, we can gather that her boastful behaviour illustrates how she believes avoiding the Inspector’s message of helping others - there being “millions and millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths” – was inferior to being unscathed by line of questioning, and ‘giving in’. Therefore, Priestley uses Sybil as a proxy for being emotionally repressed, as her inability to change represents the incompetence of the upper classes (from Priestley’s view) within Edwardian society, as the inability for Sybil to learn from her mistake represents the misplaced power within society (especially as only land-owners could vote during the time: the poor weren’t given a voice), as if Sybil is bound to make the same mistake again (with other destitute people – “millions and millions and millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths”). In conclusion, in ‘An Inspector Calls’, Priestley showcases how guilt disproportionately affects some to reflect the generational divide. Moreover, we can gather that Priestley does this to suggest that some within Capitalist society are corrupt, and merciless, as the contrast in guilt between Sybil, Eric and Sheila illustrates how some people are too ‘far gone’ to learn life lessons, therefore symbolising how sometimes, we have to remove the power some wield, which is mirrored through Labour leader at the time Clement Attlee, and Priestley’s socialist ideas of the ‘redistribution of wealth’.