Priestley uses the character of Sheila to explore the power of the individual in a biased
society, and to challenge ideas about gender.
In the opening moments of the play, Priestley presents Sheila as an immature, materialistic
character. Despite the stage directions telling us that she is ‘in her early twenties’,
Sheila refers to her parents as ‘Mummy’ and ‘Daddy’, an infantile, immature mode
of address which is reciprocated by
Mr and Mrs Birling, who refer to Sheila as both a ‘child’ and ‘childish’. Sheila’s
comment about the engagement ring and how she will ‘never let it go out of my sight’
presents her as materialistic, as does the comment from Eric that Sheila and Mrs Birling
are ‘talking about clothes’ when they retire to the drawing room in Act One.
We see numerous examples where Priestley presents other characters treating Sheila as inferior.
Early in Act One, Gerald enquires of Sheila, ‘I’ve been trying long enough, haven’t
I?’, but it is Mrs Birling who interrupts and replies in Sheila’s place, telling Gerald
‘Of course she does’. Later, Gerald tries to have Sheila removed from the room during
his interrogation, telling the inspector in the opening of Act Two, ‘I think Miss Birling
ought to be excused’. Yes, it is clear early on that Sheila is not treated as an equal
as inferior to men. I mean, just take a quick look at Eric—he is undoubtedly more immature
than Sheila, but he isn’t treated like a child in the way she is. Sheila’s treatment
by others reflects how women were considered as having an inferior role within a male-dominated
society. This attitude to women as inferior is, it can be argued, one of the causes of
Eva Smith’s death. Like Eva, Sheila is treated as inferior because of her gender. However,
because she is middle class, she is more protected and less vulnerable than Eva Smith.
After the inspector’s interrogation, Sheila begins to change as a character. Her words
to Gerald of ‘you fool – he knows’ demonstrate a dramatic shift in her personality: the little
girl who was cooing over a ring has gone, and her passivity has been replaced with a
fiery indignation. The sarcastic ‘you're forgetting I'm supposed to be engaged to the
hero’ cuts through Gerald’s attempt to romanticise the story of his interactions
with Eva. Furthermore, the maturity behind her cool returning of the ring, as opposed
to her tantrum at the end of Gerald’s confession, implies to the audience that this is a woman
who is now not governed by her emotions – but by logic and reason.
Priestley seems to be suggesting that the audience should aspire to be like Sheila:
they should own the mistakes they’ve made and make others accountable for their own
mistakes too.
Priestley presents Sheila as a character who quickly learns the inspector’s message of
social responsibility, unlike her parents who, when they think they’ve got away with
it, laugh and encourage their children to do the same, complaining, ‘they can't even
take a joke’. The contrast between Sheila and her parents can been interpreted as Priestley
criticising the behaviour of the older generation, who are fixed in their ways.
To signify this change in Sheila’s character, we see a shift in the terms of address she
uses with her parents. In Act Two, Sheila addresses Mrs Birling as ‘Mother’ and
Mr Birling as ‘Father’– a symbol of how she has matured from the childlike Act
1 address of ‘Mummy’ and ‘Daddy’.
Also in Act Two, Sheila interrupts and answers a question directed at Mrs Birling, telling
the inspector ‘Yes, she is. Why?’ when the inspector asks Mrs Birling if she is a
member of the Brumley Women’s Charity Organization.
This is a dramatic turnaround from the start
of the play where it was Mrs Birling interrupting and answering for Sheila. The change in Sheila
is dramatic and serves as an example to the audience of how they too can dramatically
change for the better.
With the inspector’s final exit in Act Three, Sheila can in some ways be seen to take on
his role. We saw a hint of this at the end of Act One, when it was Sheila who forced
a confession out of Gerald whilst the inspector
went off stage with Eric. Following the inspector’s
departure in the third act, Sheila interrogates her family and Gerald, asking a series of
questions. Through this use of questioning, Priestley is showing how Sheila has taken
on the interrogating role of the inspector.
Priestley also uses repetition as a technique, with Sheila mirroring the language used previously
by the inspector when she talks about ‘Fire and blood and anguish’ – the exact words
previously spoken by the Inspector Goole. This mirroring of language is Priestley’s
way of showing us how Sheila has not only learned the Inspector’s valuable lesson,
but she has in some way taken on the role of the Inspector himself. Yes, she realises
her own fault in the matter, but she also wants to ensure that others do too.
Through his presentation of Sheila, Priestley encourages the audience to challenge conventional
thinking and to question the behaviour of others – holding those to account who have
power over us, even if that means rejecting those who are close to us and rethinking our
own world views. If Sheila can so dramatically transform from a selfish, shallow character
to one who now challenges others and cares about social responsibility, then everyone
in the audience can also transform in the same way.