Priestley uses his play to carry a didactic message that the wealthy capitalist bourgeoisie must accept social responsibility for those they employ and exploit, including women for profit and satisfaction. He constructs the Birlings to show the corruption of a capitalist society so that his 1945 audience would vote for a socialist government and reject capitalist ideals that had catapulted Britain into two world wars. Initially, Priestley implements his ideas of social responsibility by undermining Mr Birling, constructing him as a stubborn man unwilling to change. This is shown in Mr Birling’s conversation with Gerald and Eric where he exclaims, “the Germans don’t want war.” His shortsightedness and arrogance make him appear deluded and ignorant to the audience. Priestley sets the play in 1912, just before WW1, to make Mr Birling’s views seem ridiculous. This dramatic irony suggests that wealthy upper-class men are clueless and untrustworthy, as their judgement is flawed. Furthermore, Priestley links Mr Birling directly to capitalist ideals when he says, “a man has to mind his own business.” This anti-socialist statement, paired with his comical predictions, would likely make both contemporary and post-WW2 audiences believe a capitalist-led society is bound to fail due to the stubbornness of the bourgeoisie. Priestley carefully selects the noun “business” to highlight how deeply materialism clouds the judgement of the upper class, urging his 1945 audience to support socialism and collective responsibility. As the play progresses, Priestley emphasises the need for social responsibility by portraying the suffering capitalism causes, especially for women. This is illustrated through the Inspector’s remark about “these young women counting their pennies.” Priestley elicits emotional imagery of working-class women struggling under “hard-headed men of business” like Mr Birling. The mention of “pennies” underscores the demeaning wages many endured due to the absence of social responsibility in Edwardian society. This suffering is intensified by the patriarchal values of the time, as shown by Gerald’s remark that he “hates those hard-eyed dough-faced women.” This illustrates how women were judged solely on appearance, with no ability to rise based on merit. In Edwardian England, a woman’s value was often defined by her looks—those deemed unattractive had little chance of marrying into wealth or escaping poverty. Such quotes would likely make a 1945 audience feel compelled to support a socially responsible government, while a contemporary audience might feel disgust at the injustices endured by women due to a lack of compassion and responsibility. Near the end of the play, Priestley continues to promote social responsibility by portraying the upper class as untrustworthy and resistant to change. This is shown through Eric, who stole “fifty pounds” from his father’s business and later pleads that he “intended to give it back.” To a 1945 audience, “fifty pounds” would represent a significant sum, and given Eric’s lack of employment, his claim would raise doubts about his sincerity, highlighting the deceitful nature of the bourgeoisie. This may lead the audience to question whether the upper class can truly change. Priestley also uses Sheila to show that even those most likely to change may not follow through. When Gerald offers her the ring again, she replies “not yet.” The adverb “yet” suggests she will eventually return to the engagement, mirroring the lack of lasting change following WW1 that failed to prevent WW2. By the End of the play, Priestley uses the inspector to depict the necessity of society that is driven by social responsibility through the construct of the Inspector who leaves shortly after warning the Birlings of the “blood and fire and anguish” that will follow if they fail to learn their lesson. This violent imagery would resonate with a 1945 audience, as a clear reference to WW2, which had ended only months earlier. Priestley may have used this to suggest that the capitalist upper class’s refusal to change had led to the repeated suffering of the working class. He implies that if social responsibility had been embraced before WW2, the war might have been avoided—just as the Birlings might have avoided a second phone call if they had accepted responsibility for Eva’s death the first time. This comparison would likely convince a 1945 audience of the urgent need for a more socially responsible, socialist government. In conclusion, Priestley highlights the theme of social responsibility in An Inspector Calls by showing the necessity of a society in which people care for one another. Through portraying the pain and suffering caused by selfish capitalism, he persuades the audience to reject individualism and embrace collective responsibility.