How do the Birlings’ dinner table conversations frame the attitudes among many of the wealthy before WW1?

Mr. Birling is a class obsessed capitalist of the highest order. He believes he is inherently superior to much of the population. Birling believes that his name and wealth give him licence to exploit the working class. "We employers are at last coming together to see that our interests...are properly protected." His comments imply that he disregards the workforce he employs."

Mrs Birling is Birling's social superior, as she comes from a wealthier family and has higher social standards than him. One of the ways in which the dinner table conversation shows the attitude held by the weathy before WW1 is through Sybil's embarrassment in front of Gerald when she says, "(reproachfully) Arthur, you're not supposed to say such things-". The adverb 'reproachfully' is significant here as it shows Sybil's outburst of shock when she hears Birling compliment the cook in front of their guest, Gerald. Clearly, we can see that Sybil has higher standards than Birling and but more importantly, she corrects him when she thinks that he is not behaving the way an upper-class, wealthy business man should. We see a similar characteristic in Sybil when she refers to the Eva as "girls of that class". I believe she has the same reproachful tone when she says this; a tone which shows resentment of the working class and a stereotypical outlook on anybody from a similar background. Priestley is trying to show the audience the discriminatory acts of charity and throught the consequence of this (Eva's suicide) we are successfully told that this must be changed. Priestley wants a better England; one which does not discriminate anyone under any circumstances. Priesley's aim may be men and women from the working class due to his sympathetic perspective of these people who he saw working in horrible conditions in the factories of Belfast. This was followed by charitable work of his father, Jonathon Priestley (the headmaster of Green Lane Primary School-the first ever school to receive free meals) which hugely motivated Priestley in following in his father's footsteps. Lastly, Priestley's involvement in WW1 was too big of an influence as he was able to see young men being lied to by the higher officials to die for nothing!

This attitude is reflected in her rejection of charity to Eva and as we find out later in the book it comes with many consequences. Sybil, an arrogant, prejudiced woman who finds that she is unable to admit her wrongdoings and therefore acceps no responsibility for the plight of Eva Smith (the girl used by Priestley to symbolise the working class/women) later comes to the point where she is took control by the Inspector and admits refusing charity under her influence. She also comes to the point when she blames the father of the child and asks for him to be severely punished for his actions. Sybil is unable to understand that she is blaming her own son, Eric, showing the lack of interaction between mother and son. Priestley is could be showing us the lack of understanding between wealthy families before WW1 but I think he is showing us the overload of trust that their sons/ daughters would stoop so low as to 'rape' young women of a lower class. Priestley is telling the audience that families before WW1 were out-of-place; they had a lack of consciousness of each other and this then resulted in such consequences having to be faced by all members of the family. In other words, they would have all taken collective responsibility.