Analysis Of How Priestley Presents Sheila In An Inspector Calls

Sheila Birling is arguably one of the strongest and most complex characters in 'An Inspector Calls', due to her depth of feeling, and the change that her character undergoes throughout the play. She is the one character that embodies Priestley’s desire for change. Sheila not only becomes a precursor to feminism, advocating gender equality but she also embodies Priestley’s belief that the malleable and impressionable younger generation have the power to challenge the rigid and damaging beliefs of the older generation and fight for a progressive and fairer society. Sheila’s metamorphosis from selfish, ignorant and individualistic to a collectivist socialist who wants to change society for the better means she becomes Priestley’s mouthpiece for change and a reminder that the bourgeoisie can redeem themselves and change society so that the working class are not exploited in an uneven society and the huge dichotomy between the poor and rich can be narrowed.

At the beginning of the play Sheila becomes a paradigm of the selfish and classist behaviour of the bourgeoisie - her casual mistreatment of Eva Smith is a reminder of how the bourgeoisie did not treat the proletariat class with respect of humanity. In Act one, Sheila admits her ignorance of the lives of the working class women. This is seen when Sheila says, “very pretty” and “she looked as if she could take care of herself”. Here, Sheila means that Eva can take care of herself because her beauty would allow her to find a rich husband that could take care of her. In 1912, women were the possessions of men, and more men would be attracted to a pretty woman, thus by being “very pretty” she can attract lots of men to help support her. This also shows Shelia’s ruthless treatment of Eva and how women are often responsible or perpetuating oppressive patriarchal ideologies. Sheila’s ignorance and obsession with materialism, “look-Mummy-isn’t it a beauty” shows that she is indoctrinated in the capitalist ideology of commodity fetishism and she appears to be blinded by the luxuries of marriage instead of the meaning of what a real marriage is. It’s also clear that Sheila needs her mother’s approval for something that is supposed to please only herself and relies on her mother’s opinion and wants to please her. Sheila is clearly a compassionate young woman but her ability to inflict pain and suffering on others forces Priestley’s contemporary audiences to examine their own moral conscience and the impact of their ignorant and privileged behaviour.

However, Sheila’s ability to quickly change means she becomes a metonym for the redemption of the selfish bourgeoisie in society. Later on in the play, we see a much more sympathetic and compassionate side to Sheila when she conveys horror and guilt at her role in Eva’s death. Priestley uses the dramatic device of the stage directions to note that she is “miserable”, “distressed” and “looks as if she has been crying” which shows her ability to change which creates a sense of hope as she is used by Priestley to show his confident opinions on youth. Priestley felt that there was hope in the younger people of post-war Britain. She displays further signs of regret when she says “I’ll never, never do it again to anybody”. Here the repetition of ‘never’ makes the audience convinced that she has learnt from her mistakes and has repented. Unlike her parents, she is willing to fix her moral conscience in order to root out the prejudices that have been embedded there by the social class. Priestley often presents Sheila as a proto-feminist as she speaks out for other women; “these girls aren’t cheap labour-they’re people”. Her forceful declaration shows that she is an antithesis to the older generation. From a Marxist perspective, Sheila’s acknowledgement that the working class is exploited is an example of preexisting class tensions that existed between the bourgeoise and proletariat in society. At the time Priestley was writing, society was deeply unequal and there was a huge dichotomy between the lives of the working class the bourgeoise. Sheila’s use of the noun ‘people’ accentuates the idea that classism is a barrier to recognising that working class lives are equal to the lives of the elite ruling class.

Moreover, Sheila’s willingness to challenge her misogynistic father and her fiancée means she also becomes a precursor or forerunner to feminism. It is clear Sheila is a proto-feminist when she harshly tells off her father who denies and evades social responsibility at the end of the play. When the inspector leaves Sheila sarcastically says, “I suppose we are all nice people now”. This line illustrates the mood of the last part of the play, as well as the split between the Birlings and their children. Sheila realises the importance of the Inspector's lesson, notably that she needs to become more socially responsible whether or not the particular scenario was a valid example. In contrast, Sheila’s parents absolutely fail to learn such a lesson, reinforcing the fact that the older generations are not willing to change. As a result, Sheila becomes Priestley’s second mouthpiece, either by emphasising what the inspector has said, or by challenging their ignorance instead of him. Furthermore, Sheila’s unwillingness to accept Gerald’s sexual exploitation of Eva; “you were the wonderful fairy prince. You must have adored it, Gerald” shows how she’s breaking free of her naïvety. Sheila’s symbolic gesture of handing Gerald his engagement ring is powerful reminder of her metamorphosis into an empowered female. The stage direction “she hands him the ring” is significant as Priestley uses this as a metaphor to present Sheila rejecting materialism and accepting socialism. When Sheila says “you and I aren’t the same people who sat down to dinner here” shows how she has transformed for a naïve to a mature person. Moreover, the pronouns ‘You’ and ‘I’ highlights the deterioration of their relationship as a couple and the connective ‘and’ metaphorically supports the separation between the two of them; acting as a barrier. Finally, Priestley uses the character of Sheila as an example of people’s changing attitudes towards those less fortunate. She accepts that her actions impacted on Eva’s life and she cannot disconnect her actions from the effects these have on others. She recognises and understands the inspector’s message that we are all collectively responsible for all that happens in the world. By the end of the play it is clear Sheila learnt the crucial lesson from the inspector’s visit: she is the epitome of positive change. Sheila informs her family that ‘between us we drove a girl to commit suicide”. Her use of the inclusive pronouns ‘us’ and ‘we’ emphasises that people can change, therefore Priestley present Sheila as person who embodies the sense of hope reinforcing his hope in the younger generations that are more impressionable and socially conscious.