Hello, Mr. Barnsley here.

Thank you for joining me as I'm gonna guide you through today's learning as we take a deeper dive looking at the themes around masculinity in "An Inspector Calls." This shouldn't be the first time that you have explored the text.

We are going to be revisiting, revising some of the characters.

So I will be expecting some prior knowledge.

You're also gonna need a copy of the text at the ready.

So let's get started.

So let's have a look at today's outcome.

By the end of the lesson, you are gonna be able to explain how characters in "An Inspector Calls" conform to or challenge gender expectations.

So five key words that can be really useful today.

We want to keep an eye out for them and try and use 'em in our own work.

The first is masculinity.

And this is qualities or attributes regarded as very characteristic behaviour of men or boys.

The verb to assert means to behave or speak in a really confident and forceful manner.

Authority is the power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behaviour.

To conform means to behave according to a group's usual standards and expectations.

So if you conform to behaviours of masculinity, you are behaving in the way that we would expect men or boys to behave.

And then to critique means to examine something carefully and evaluate its strengths and its weaknesses.

Often when we're critiquing something, we are expressing disapproval, and we're gonna be looking today at Priestley's critiques of masculinity.

So there are two learning cycles in today's lesson.

First, we're going to be exploring how masculinity has been presented in Priestley's play.

And then we'll be evaluating the impact that these societal expectations have on characters.

So let's start by exploring the presentation of masculinity, shall we? So over to you, to kick us off, we're gonna start with a discussion question.

How would you define gender stereotypes in the Edwardian period? And particularly what were the societal expectations of men? So if you are working with a partner or in a small group, you can discuss this idea with them.

But don't worry if you're working by yourself, you can just think through this question independently, maybe even make a couple of notes.

Alright, time to pause the video.

Let's get thinking about some of these key ideas that are gonna appear in today's lesson.

Press play when you have finished.

Welcome back.

I'm sure you had lots of ideas there.

This might not be the first time you've thought about expectations of gender in society.

Our Oak pupils gave this task a go at the same time, and I want to have a look at some of the ideas that they had and then you can compare them to the discussions or the thoughts you were having.

As I share with these with you though, I want you to really think about who you agree with most and why.

Can you see any similarities in the discussions you were having? So Lucas said that arguably men were expected to be strong, rational, and authoritative.

They were considered the providers and the decision makers in their families whilst maintaining a firm public image.

I really like how Lucas used that word arguably there.

I think it can be very dangerous, particularly when we are analysing to speak in really broad brushstrokes and say all men behave like this.

This was the expectation for all men.

But arguably we could say this was a common expectation.

Andeep says in the upper classes, society expected men to display authority.

One of our key words there, and status, they were expect to manage businesses or estates.

And Sofia said, society demanded men show dominance and leadership.

They were supposed to avoid expressing emotions publicly and focus on upholding their family's reputation and stability.

Why don't you just take a moment then to reflect on these three ideas, think about which were similar to yours, and if there's anything here that you didn't discuss but you think, I really like that idea, that's great and I want to make a note of it.

Now's the time to do so.

So pause the video, take a moment to reflect and press play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, so we are gonna be focusing on the male characters in "Inspector Calls," and predominantly we're gonna be thinking about Arthur Birling, Eric Birling, and Gerald Croft.

Now, which of these characters do you think most conform to these stereotypical ideals of masculinity and why? So think about all the things that we said were expectations, stereotypical ideals and masculinity in Edwardian society.

Who conforms, who do we see most matches these and why? And do you think any of these characters challenge those expectations that we've just discussed? Overdue to do this one, to think about this.

If you've got a partner or a small group, you can discuss with them.

Otherwise you can just think through this independently.

Pauses video, have a think and press play when you've got some ideas.

Welcome back, great to think, to see you having different ideas and seeing that all characters don't all fit these stereotypes in exactly the same way.

Again, our Oak pupils gave this a go.

So let's have a look and see what they said, shall we? So Sam said, Mr. Birling asserts authority, so he pushes authority, prioritises business and he dismisses responsibility.

And this dominance of his really reflects Edwardian ideals of male power.

So this expectation that men should show dominance, should be powerful.

Sam saying that Mr. Birling, actually we see this throughout the text.

Jacob talks about Eric and says that Eric struggles with these ideals of masculinity.

So already a contrast to his father there.

He's initially presented to being shy, although we do hear about his aggressive behaviour with Eva, and we could say that this is him showing his attempt to assert his dominance like his father asserts dominance.

However, unlike his father, we see guilt, and this guilt could reveal this internal conflict of his expectations of him to assert his dominance, but actually his shame in the way that he asserted his dominance towards Eva.

So Jacob seems to be suggesting that Eric is a character who is similar to his father in some ways, but also dissimilar in his shame, his guilt, his regret, which all show this internal conflict.

Really interesting points from Jacob there.

Izzy talks about Gerald, and she says that Gerald's confidence and dominance embody traditional masculinity.

His affair shows entitlement.

But his remorse at the end also reflects some of that internal conflict, but that we see in Eric.

But perhaps we see it more clearly in Eric.

I wonder if you agree.

So let's look at these three statements about these three characters.

Do you agree with what our Oak pupils saying? Do you agree to a certain extent? Do you disagree with anything they've said? Why don't you pause the video, and if you've got a partner you can discuss with them.

If you are working by yourself, you can just think about whether you agree or disagree with any of these Oak characters.

And of course if there's any of their ideas that you like, now's the time to make a note of them as well.

Alright, pause video, give it a go and press play when you think you're done.

Okay, welcome back.

Let's check to see how we're getting on then so far in today's lesson.

So true or false, arguably the character of Eric shows a complex relationship with societal expectations of gender.

So the expectations that are placed on him as a man that we discussed at the beginning of the lesson.

Do you think Eric has a complex relationship with him? Does he struggle with those? Is that true or false? Pause video, have a think, make, pick your response, but also think about why you chose that response.

Alright, press play when you're ready to continue.

Welcome back.

Did you say true? I hope you did.

Why might you said true? Well, Priestley initially describes Eric as both being shy and assertive.

These two things seem slightly juxtaposed here, and that establishes him as quite a complex character.

We know that Eric is aggressive towards Eva.

Okay, which shows you could argue quite stereotypical dominant behaviours here, but the guilt that follows suggests this internal conflict.

And we could say that internal conflict is, you know, represents the complexity of Eric as a character.

Well done if you've got that correct.

Okay, another definition for us to think about now, patriarchal society, how might you define that? Why don't you pause the video, have a think with a partner or by yourself and press play when you think you've got a definition, over to you.

Welcome back.

I wonder if any of these ideas came to the fore when you were trying to come up with a definition.

Did you talk about how a patriarchal society asserts male authority, prioritises male authority, and when men dominate decision-making both in public and private lives.

So in law, in society, in jobs, but also in the home.

So this means families, workplaces, politics, all of these are areas where men are expected to assert their authority, and they will dominate decision-making.

I wonder if you also mentioned that a patriarchal society, men are seen as natural leaders.

They have the skills, they are less emotional, they're more rational, so they make natural leaders.

And these social structures, these structures in society really reinforce their control.

Okay? Laws and policies are being designed so that men have the power.

So not only does this put them into roles as leaders, but it also limits women's opportunities as well.

So yes, we're focusing on the male characters today, but we've got to never lose sight that a patriarchal society, whilst raising men up, not always for the positive, okay? This doesn't always have a positive impact on men, but by raising them up, but by raising them up, we see patriarchal societies do limit women's opportunities at the same time.

Well done if you said anything similar to that when thinking about what a patriarchal society might mean.

So in a patriarchal society we can say that stereotypes of masculinity uphold societal structures of power and authority.

So again, we want to be really clear that we're not using broad brushstrokes and speaking too generally that all men behave this way.

And you know, all men were dominant, all men were assertive.

These are stereotypes of masculinity, but it is these stereotypes which create these social structures of power and authority.

Okay, so you know, we talked about in patriarchal society men have the power and authority, and they have the power and authority because they are expected to be assertive and dominant.

Is that clear? I hope so.

So let's think about how this relates to the text then.

In "An Inspector Calls", where do we see examples of male characters asserting their dominance, their power, their authority, and what do you think Priestley might be suggesting? So whenever we're analysing a text, we always want to take it back to the writer, the author, the playwright's message.

So let's think about what do we see? Where do we see the male characters asserting their power and authority? But let's have that second question in mind.

What is Priestley trying to tell us as an audience? Alright, over to you.

Think about this question in pairs or by yourself.

Pause the video and press play when you think you're done.

Really juicy question there.

I hope you were thinking of some really great ideas, starting to link this wider ideas about masculinity back to the play.

Again, our Oak pupils have given this a go.

So let's have a look at what they were saying.

So Jun said that Eric asserts power over Eva during their encounter, and he uses aggression to control the situation, arguably, again, slightly tentative language there.

So we're not saying this is definitely what Priestley's saying, but this is Jun's interpretation.

Arguably Priestley uses Eric's actions to highlight the damaging effects of societal expectations.

So an interesting point from Jun here saying that if we have these expectations of men in society, they can be damaging.

Most obviously here they are damaging to Eva as a woman in society, but also we know that Eric does feel guilt, shame, remorse, regret from his actions.

So we can see that these expectations have damaged him as well.

Eva being the kind of the primary victim.

But Eric being a secondary victim here.

Laura talks about Gerald and said Gerald exerts authority over Eva by rescuing her, but only to exploit her vulnerability.

So we might argue that, you know, Gerald's authority or use of authority over Eva is positive.

You know, he rescues her, you know, he saves her or appears to be saving her from poverty.

But actually we know Gerald's behaviour is quite exploitative.

You know, there is a power imbalance there.

And you know, this affair that this leads to actually doesn't, you know, it might feel like the short term positive for Eva that she's kind of rescued from poverty, albeit briefly, but actually Gerald holds so much power and authority in this situation that when he's done with Eva, he can cast her aside.

So again, here we see examples of, you know, authority being expressed, but Eva being a victim of this, and Eva could be, you know, we can see Eva as an an individual here, or we could see her as a representative of working class women as a whole.

And Alex talks about Mr. Birling and says he asserts power during family discussions.

And we see this, not the memories of things that happened before the play, we see this as the plays existing where he dismisses the inspector's views as nonsense.

And I think here we could argue that Priestley is emphasising his reliance on authority.

He does this because he wants to uphold these capitalists, these patriarchal ideas.

Really interesting ideas from our Oak pupils.

Again, let's take a moment before we move on to pause and think, do you agree with what our Oak pupils are saying? Do you like their ideas? Are there any ideas that you would like to make a note of now so you've got them for future? Alright, pause the video, have a think, have a reflect and press play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, welcome back.

Let's do another check to see how we're getting on.

So one way that Mr. Birling asserts his authority is through the dismissal of ideas like social responsibility.

What word does he use though to do this? Is it A ridiculous, B absurd, or C nonsense, A, B, or C? What do you think? Pause the video, select your answer, and press play when you're ready to continue.

Well done if you said C nonsense.

Now we do have another male figure in the play and that is the inspector.

And we could definitely describe the inspector as being dominant, assertive, powerful, authoritative, all those adjectives that we've used that we could link to the stereotypes of masculinity.

However, do you think the inspector challenges any ideals around masculinity and patriarchal power at all? So yes, we could argue that his behaviour is also associated with the stereotypical ideals of masculinity, but does the inspector challenge those ideals at any point? Why don't you pause the video.

If you've got a partner, you can think through this with them, otherwise you can just think through this independently.

Press play when you're ready to continue.

Really interesting discussions there and interesting to think about how the inspector contrasts to some of the other male characters.

So Lucas said about the inspector, he said, well despite conforming to, you know, in following some of these stereotypes.

So despite conforming to masculine ideals of power and authority, we do see the inspector challenging patriarchy because he uses his more dominant presence in a positive way.

He advocates for equality, he advocates for social responsibility.

So perhaps we could argue that Priestley, he uses the inspector to critique traditional male roles.

But he's doing that in a really progressive way.

He's saying, look, actually you can, you know, we can use these traditional male stereotypes, if you will, for good, for positive.

And the inspector is an example of where this happens.

Sofia says that actually the inspector goes even further, they subvert, they almost turn on its head, gender expectations because they use their authority for moral rather than personal gain.

So if we compare this to Mr. Birding who seems to use his authority for personal gain, for upholding kind of capitalist viewpoints, the inspector uses his authority for moral reasons.

So yes, he's firm, but he's also empathetic.

And this approach really contrasts with the selfishness of other male characters, specifically Mr. Birling.

And he offers this alternative vision of power, and the inspector's vision of power is really rooted in justice, not in personal wealth and gain.

So really interesting ideas there from Lucas and Sofia about, yes, the inspector does seem to meet some of these stereotypes of masculinity, but isn't it really interesting about how he uses authority for good, for moral good, for justice? And we can dig a bit deeper.

Like Lucas does start thinking, okay, well, what do we think Priestley is then trying to say to his audience about how we use power and how we use authority? Alright, let's see if we can bring together everything we have learned so far in today's lesson with a discussion activity.

If you've got a partner or you've got small group, you can work with them.

Really good for you to share ideas, but do not worry if you're working by yourself.

You can just make a few notes or think through this independently.

So two questions I would like you to discuss.

The first is, how far can the male characters in "An Inspector Calls" be viewed as products of their time? Okay, so products of their time means, you know, we see their behaviour reflects the time that they've been brought up in and therefore, you know, arguably it's not necessarily their fault, they are just behaving in the way that is expected of them.

Question number two, how far can Eric Birling and Gerald Croft be seen as complex characters who both on one hand conform to and on the other hand struggle against the expectations placed on men in Edwardian society? So two questions that are really gonna challenge you to bring everything we've discussed so far in today's lesson together.

Alright, pause the video, give this a go and press play when you are ready to continue.

Right, welcome back.

Let's have a look at one of our Oak characters, Aisha, what she said and see if they are similar to the ideas you were having.

So for the first she said that the male characters really do reflect the patriarchal norms of Edwardian society.

We see Birling's arrogance, we see Eric's, sorry, Gerald's entitlement, and Eric's internal conflict, show how their behaviours are shaped by societal expectations of power, control, and gender roles.

However, she also says that Eric and Gerald both conform to traditional masculinity through their actions.

But Eric's guilt and Gerald's remorse reveal that they do have internal struggles, and I think we could, she starts to think about what Priestley might be saying there, and saying, well, actually he could be using these complexities to critique the damaging impact of societal norms. So it says that actually, yes, Eva is the predominant victim here, she's the victim of Eric and Gerald's kind of battle with masculinity.

But she's not the only victim.

Both Eric and Gerald suffer at the hands of the expectations placed on them by society to behave in a certain way.

So why don't you think for a moment two things you're gonna do for me before we move on.

You're gonna pause the video, think about whether you agree with Aisha's answers.

If you like any of the Aisha's answers, you can make a note of them.

But you're also gonna go a step further and see if you can find, using your copy of the text, any examples, quotations, ideas from the text that you could use to support Aisha's ideas further.

Alright, pause the video, give this a go, and press play when you're ready to continue.

Hello there, welcome back.

Right, let's move on to the second learning cycle in today's lesson where we're gonna evaluate the impact of societal expectations.

So I want you to consider this interpretation that Priestley is critiquing social structures like gender and class.

Okay, that's the argument we are gonna be making that Priestley uses his technique because he wants to be critical of societal structures like gender and class.

And that's really interesting, 'cause what we're saying here is the idea of gender and the idea of social class are things that have been created by society.

You know, gender is this idea that men and women must behave differently just because they were born into different sexes.

And class is also something that has been created by society.

This idea that people should be treated differently, should behave differently just because of the amount of money or the type of work they do or the kind of families that were being born into.

Priestley is critiquing this idea that society creates structures like gender and class.

So therefore we're gonna take this a little bit further.

If Priestley is critiquing these ideas, therefore it could be argued that the characters that he creates are victims or products of these of societal expectations and the ideals of masculinity.

So if he's saying that society creates these ideas at the top, then he's also arguing that his characters are victims, are products of these ideas that society has created.

Alright, do you agree with that though? Do you agree with this interpretation? It is just an interpretation.

What are your initial thoughts, how do you feel about that, that these characters are therefore victims because society has created these ideas? So two levels for you to think about, are these ideas created by society, and therefore if they are, are our characters victims of them? How do you feel, or any complex interpretation here? And I want to know what you think about it.

So pause the video, think through with your partner or in a small group or just by yourself and press play when you're ready to continue.

That was a really tricky question.

So really well done for giving that a go.

Let's have a look at what some of our Oak pupils said, and you can compare your ideas to them.

So Lucas says, I agree.

Priestley critiques how societal norms shape characters reflecting these patriarchal power dynamics with their actions largely driven by class and gender expectations.

So saying that these societal norms, these particularly these norms of a patriarchal society, are driven by ideas of how people should be behaved because of their class or gender.

Andeep says that he thinks some characters show, that characters show some agency, yet the societal expectations influence their choices.

So they're not complete products, they're not complete victims, they make their own decisions, but often these decisions are influenced by society's expectations.

So Priestley, particularly through characters like Gerald and Eric, highlights internal struggles.

Yes they are, they made these decisions themselves, but we can see that those decisions that they make were perhaps influenced by the society they live in, therefore, complex characters.

And Sofia disagrees with this statement.

She says that the characters are not victims, it's too easy to call them victim.

And Priestley shows their choices expose moral flaws indicating that they have agency in how they treat others.

And Sofia could perhaps argue the difference in the response between Mr. Birling and his son Eric in showing, hang on, they've both been brought to in the same society, but they do have kind of different responses to their guilt and that exposes kind of greater moral flaws, arguably in Mr. Birling.

So who do you agree with most and why? Any ideas that you like? Take a moment to note them down as well.

Pause the video, take a moment to reflect and press play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, we're gonna develop this interpretation further, and one way we can do that is to consider these kind of ideas.

So we can consider how sympathetically or unsympathetically the characters are presented.

We can think about how different audiences might perceive them, and we can evaluate and critique those interpretations.

Now, one way that we can be really critical is use tentative and evaluated phrases, so tentative language, things like could, may, might, perhaps, arguably, possibly, these, this tentative language all goes to show that there is not just one way of interpreting this, and this might be our view, but someone else might have a different view.

We can also aim to be evaluative and start thinking about the effectiveness of Priestley's characters and how he presents them.

So we can use phrases like, saying whether something is effective or successful or not.

We can talk about whether something is convincing to us as an audience or engaging to us as an audience, or whether it is thought-provoking and what it encourage us to think about.

So I want us to really try as we kind of come towards our final task in this lesson, to use this kind of language in our work to say, look, we're gonna, you know, we are looking at interpretation here.

It's not the only interpretation, but we are going, so we're gonna be tentative about it, and we're gonna be evaluate how kind of how, how much we agree with this interpretation.

So let's look at an example paragraph on Mr. Birling.

It's found on the next slide.

Let's read it through together.

So Mr. Birling could be seen as a product of the societal expectations of his time, particularly in his belief in capitalism and social hierarchy.

However, most audiences would struggle to view him simply as a victim of these values due to his arrogance, his lack of empathy, and his refusal to accept responsibility.

So first part we're saying Mr, you know, some people might argue Mr. Birling is a product of society, but we're gonna critique that and say, ah, but he's not that sympathetic.

So it's really difficult to see him as a victim.

Priestley successfully portrays him in this way, perhaps to critique how these I outdated values are harmful and to encourage audiences to challenge them.

So here we're saying, yeah, this is a deliberate idea to present Mr. Birling as unsympathetic, because it makes us as the audience be very critical of him and think, hang on, his views and values are outdated and actually we should be challenging views and values like that.

For an example, the dramatic irony in Berlin's optimistic statements about the future, such as his belief in the unsinkable Titanic, this really highlights his misguided sense of certainty and reinforces his unsympathetic nature.

So let's think then, how has this successfully developed on that initial interpretation? Pause the video, have a think, see if we can find, pick out some examples in that paragraph and press play when you've got some ideas.

Yes, welcome back.

I wonder if you kind of picked out anything you can say highlighted there.

You can see that develops and critiques that interpretation, considers how the audience will perceive kind of this interpretation, but also using that tentative and evaluative phrases that we saw on that previous slide.

So quick check then.

Which of these is not an example of tentative language? Is it A perhaps, B might, C undoubtedly, or D arguably, A, B, C, or D? Pause video.

Make your choice now.

Well done if you said C, undoubtedly, very confident there.

All the other show that kind of tentative nature.

So I want you to read the following extract, focusing on the character of Gerald.

This is act two from where Gerald says "all" to, and ends where Gerald says "go." The page number's there, you can see of the Heinemann version of this.

Obviously if you have a different version, you're gonna want to find that example, that extract yourself.

And I want you to think about how far does Priestley present Gerald as a victim of societal expectations, and what evidence from the text and what ideas from the text could challenge and develop that interpretation.

Alright, over to you.

Text at the ready.

You can do this independently or in pairs.

Start trying to think about how far Gerald is presented as a victim of societal expectations.

Press play when you're ready to continue.

Alright, welcome back.

It was great to see you finding lots of evidence from the text there, well done.

Sam, one of our Oak pupils gave this a go, and she said, Gerald's claim that his affair with Eva was inevitable, suggests he sees himself, he sees himself as a victim of societal expectations.

However, this view oversimplifies his character and his role as an unreliable narrator complicates this.

His eventual remorse highlights his awareness of his actions.

It challenges the idea that he's merely shaped by societal norms. Priestley uses his complexity to critique the influence of societal structure, of social structures on individual behaviour, while encouraging audiences to consider personal responsibility.

So really interesting idea here, that, yes, might want to see himself as a victim, but that's again too simplistic.

And actually we can't really trust him as a narrator.

His view on his affair of Eva is very one-sided.

So yes, we can see there is remorse, we can see there is guilt.

So maybe we can argue, yes, societal expectations have had a negative impact on him, but it is complex, okay? It's complex, it's not quite as simple as us feeling kind of that he's completely the victim here.

You know, definitely argue that he has some agency and his decisions have resulted in the guilt and the remorse he feels.

So true or false then? Gerald could be considered an unreliable narrator.

Pause the video, select your answer, and think about why you selected that response.

Yeah, well done if you said true.

Why is that true? Well, we could say that Gerald's version of events may be biassed because he wants to preserve his reputation and justify his actions.

For example, he describes his affair with Eva as inevitable, which suggests an attempt to excuse his behaviour rather than to accept full accountability.

Alright, over to you then for our final activity in today's lesson.

And you are going to do a similar activity now, but for Eric.

So we're gonna be looking at act three from page 51 in the Heinemann version of "An Inspector Calls" from where the inspector says "don't" to page 53 where Eric ends his piece of speech with "told." I want you to complete a paragraph on the following slide.

So I'm gonna give you the start of this, and I want you to complete that paragraph.

And I want you to consider the following things.

How Eric conforms to or challenges ideals of masculinity, how sympathetically or unsympathetically Eric is presented, how different audiences might perceive him.

And I want you to evaluate and critique this interpretation.

Remember to use tentative language and evaluative phrases to develop your interpretations.

So here's the start.

And if you need to flick back in the video to go back to our success criteria, you can, but I'm gonna leave this on the screen.

It could be argued that Priestley is critiquing the impact of societal structures like class and gender, and demonstrating how characters like Eric become victims of societal expectations.

Over to you to finish this paragraph.

Pause video, press play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, welcome back.

Here's Laura's paragraph.

Let's have a quick look at it.

Eric's guilt, highlighted in words like ashamed, presents a sympathetic portrayal of a character burdened by his actions.

However, his early denial and defensiveness complicate this interpretation.

His use of words such as chap and squiffy could be seen as him downplaying the assault on Eva and establishes him as an unreliable narrator.

Different audiences might view him as a product of his environment or as someone struggling with personal accountability.

Priestley invites the audience to consider Eric's agency emphasising that while he's shaped by his circumstances, his actions are not purely dictated by them.

Okay, can you identify what Laura has done well? Pause video, give this a go, and press play when you're ready to continue.

And now I want you to finish this lesson by assessing your work.

Use the following questions to help you.

Pause video, give yourself some time to self-assess, and press play when you are ready to continue.

Okay, that's it.

We have reached the end of today's lesson.

You have done a fantastic job today as we've really thought about the Edwardian ideals of masculinity.

We've thought about our three key characters, and think about how they assert authority in different ways and how they conform to these Edwardian ideals of masculinity.

But we've also started thinking deeper about Priestley's critique, what's he saying about societal norms and how he uses his characters to say these things.

Great job today.

I hope to see you in one of our lessons again in the future.

See you all soon.

Bye-bye.