The Inspector's Role
Who — or What — Is Inspector Goole?
The Inspector’s identity is the play’s central mystery. Gerald discovers that “there is no Inspector Goole” on the local police force. The family rings the Infirmary and learns that no girl has died. For a few moments, it seems the entire evening was a fabrication. But then the telephone rings, and a real girl has died, and a real inspector is coming. So who was Goole? Priestley deliberately refuses to answer. The ambiguity is the point: what matters is not who the Inspector is, but what he represents.
His name is a crucial clue. “Goole” is a homophone of “ghoul” — a spirit associated with death and the grave. This links the Inspector to the supernatural and to Eva’s death. It also echoes the idea that the Inspector is a figure from beyond the natural world, sent to deliver a moral warning. Other interpretations include: a time traveller who knows the future (he predicts the phone call), an angel or divine messenger (his speech has biblical authority), or a manifestation of the Birlings’ collective guilt.
The Inspector has been interpreted as: (1) a ghost or ghoul (his name, his knowledge of Eva’s death), (2) a time traveller (he predicts the phone call), (3) a divine/moral agent (his speech echoes 1 Corinthians 12:27), (4) a dramatic device (he exists to deliver Priestley’s message). In the exam, the strongest approach is to acknowledge the ambiguity and argue that Priestley keeps his identity open precisely because it does not matter — the message matters.
The Inspector as Socialist Mouthpiece
The Inspector’s views align exactly with Priestley’s. His assertion that “Public men have responsibilities as well as privileges” directly challenges Birling’s capitalist creed. When he tells Sheila that factories always know where to look for “cheap labour”, she answers him — “these girls aren’t cheap labour — they’re people” — and the exchange makes a socialist point about the dignity of labour. And his final speech — “We are members of one body. We are responsible for each other” — is Priestley’s manifesto for the post-war Welfare State.
Priestley used the Inspector in the same way he used his BBC Postscripts broadcasts: to speak directly to the British public about social justice. The Inspector’s authority comes not from his police credentials (which turn out to be false) but from the moral force of his argument. He is a dramatic mouthpiece — Priestley’s voice on stage — and his words carry the weight of the playwright’s own experience of war, class inequality, and social injustice.
The phrase “We are members of one body” echoes 1 Corinthians 12:27: “Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.” This biblical allusion gives the Inspector’s speech a prophetic, almost religious authority. It suggests that social responsibility is not just a political idea but a spiritual duty. For a 1945 audience — many of whom were churchgoers — this language would have resonated deeply.
The choice of “body” is also significant. A body is an interconnected system: if one part suffers, all parts suffer. This is Priestley’s argument against Birling’s individualism. You cannot amputate the working class from society and expect the body to function. The metaphor makes the abstract concept of social responsibility concrete and physical.
The Inspector as Moral Force
The Inspector is described in the stage directions as creating “an impression of massiveness, solidity, and purposefulness.” This description is not physical — it is moral. He is not a large man, but his presence fills the room. He speaks “carefully, weightily,” and he cannot be deflected, charmed, or bullied. When Birling tries to intimidate him by mentioning his friendship with the Chief Constable, the Inspector is unmoved. When Mrs Birling tries to dismiss him with upper-class condescension, he persists. His authority does not come from his rank — it comes from the truth he represents.
Priestley makes the Inspector the only character who sees Eva Smith as a complete human being. While each Birling reduces Eva to a function — worker, shop assistant, mistress, charity case — the Inspector insists on her full humanity. He speaks of the “hopes and fears” of people like her, and of their “suffering and chance of happiness.” He is the play’s everyman figure — the conscience that every society needs but that the privileged try to ignore.
The Inspector’s authority is moral, not institutional. He speaks “carefully, weightily” and creates “massiveness, solidity, and purposefulness.” His power comes from truth, not from police credentials (which are false). Priestley shows that moral authority outweighs social status — the Inspector, regardless of who he is, is the most powerful person in the room because he is right.
The Inspector’s Methods: Control and Revelation
The Inspector controls the investigation with precision. He shows the photograph to only one character at a time, preventing them from comparing notes and constructing a joint defence. He insists on dealing with “one line of enquiry at a time,” which forces each character to face their guilt individually before the group dynamic can dilute it. This method is also a structural device: it allows Priestley to build the revelation gradually, with each confession raising the stakes.
His questioning technique is direct and uncompromising. He does not use the polite, deferential language the Birlings expect from a social inferior. When Birling tries to deflect (“I was quite justified — I don’t see that it’s any concern of yours”), the Inspector cuts through: “It might be, you know.” This calm, understated authority is more powerful than any shouting. Priestley gives the Inspector a controlled register that contrasts with Birling’s bluster and Mrs Birling’s condescension.
Every Birling reduces Eva to one dimension: Birling sees a troublesome worker, Sheila sees a rival, Gerald sees a pretty mistress, Mrs Birling sees a dishonest applicant, Eric sees a girl he used. Only the Inspector sees Eva as a whole person, with “hopes and fears” of her own. His final speech insists on the millions of “Eva Smiths and John Smiths” whose lives are “intertwined with our lives.”
This is the play’s deepest moral point. The Birlings’ failure is not just that they exploited Eva — it is that they never saw her as fully human. Each person treated her as an object: labour, customer, possession, nuisance, problem. The Inspector demands that the audience see her — and everyone like her — as complete human beings with the same right to dignity, safety, and happiness as the Birlings themselves.