SISTER ALOYSIUS: These three students with the highest marks. Are they the most intelligent children in your class?
SISTER JAMES: No, I wouldn’t say they are. But they work the hardest.
SISTER ALOYSIUS: Very good! That’s right! That’s the ethic. What good’s a gift if it’s left in the box? What good is a high IQ if you’re staring out the window with your mouth agape? Be hard on the bright ones, Sister James. Don’t be charmed by cleverness. Not theirs. And not yours. I think you are a competent teacher, Sister James, but maybe not our best teacher. The best teachers do not perform, they cause the students to perform. 
SISTER JAMES: Do I perform?
SISTER ALOYSIUS: As if on a Broadway stage. 
SISTER JAMES: Oh dear. I had no conception!
SISTER ALOYSIUS: You’re showing off. You like to see yourself ten feet tall in their eyes. Another thing occurs to me. Where were you before?
SISTER JAMES: Mount St. Margaret’s.
SISTER ALOYSIUS: All girls.
SISTER JAMES: Yes.
SISTER ALOYSIUS: I feel I must remind you. Boys are made of gravel, soot and tar paper. Boys are a different breed. 
SISTER JAMES: I feel I know how to handle them.
SISTER ALOYSIUS: But perhaps you are wrong. And perhaps you are not working hard enough.
SISTER JAMES: Oh. 
(Sister James cries a little.)
SISTER ALOYSIUS: No tears.
SISTER JAMES: I thought you were satisfied with me.
SISTER ALOYSIUS: Satisfaction is a vice. Do you have a handkerchief?
SISTER JAMES: Yes.
SISTER ALOYSIUS: Use it. Do you think that Socrates was satisfied? Good teachers are never content. We have some three hundred and seventy-two students in this school. It is a society which requires constant educational, spiritual and human vigilance. I cannot afford an excessively innocent instructor in my eighth grade class. It’s self-indulgent. Innocence is a form of laziness. Innocent teachers are easily duped. You must be canny, Sister James.

Guiding question:  Consider how and to what effect the relationships in this extract are explored.

Guiding question: Consider how and to what effect the relationships in this extract are explored.

In this extract from Doubt: A Parable, John Patrick Shanley explores the hierarchical relationship between Sister Aloysius and Sister James, using dialogue to reveal differences in temperament, experience, and educational philosophy. The exchange is marked by a dynamic of authority and submission, with Sister Aloysius positioning herself as both mentor and moral judge, while Sister James adopts the role of the uncertain novice. In setting this dialogue within a school, the playwright presents us with a scene that explores multiple relationships: the relationship between the two nuns, the relationship they have with their pupils, and the relationship between teachers and their students more broadly. While the exchange is mildly humorous on one level, the tension between innocent optimism and a more cynical worldview in the context of education – and religion - is ultimately unsettling,

The relationship between the two nuns is defined primarily through power and contrast between the way they perceive their roles as teachers. Sister Aloysius speaks in declarative, clipped sentences, asserting strong opinions with absolute confidence, for example when she declares that “Satisfaction is a vice.” Her tone is didactic and forceful, and it is clear from the outset that her view of teaching is rooted in discipline, vigilance, and suspicion of “cleverness” and innocence. Her only moment of positivity in the extract comes at the beginning when Sister James tells her that the three students with the highest marks were the ones who “work the hardest” rather than being the “most intelligent.” Sister Aloysiuis’ response  - “Very good! That’s right! That’s the ethic!” – makes her values clear to the audience, while the swiftness with which she moves from this into criticising Sister James illustrates how she holds and maintains the power in this relationship. She commands Sister James not to be “charmed by cleverness” of her students, with the addition of “And not yours” succinctly conveying how she perceives the younger nun, suggesting both naivety and complacency. Her critique of Sister James’ youthful enthusiasm and emotional engagement with her students continues in her statement that “the best teachers do not perform, they cause the students to perform,” which may contain some wisdom on its own but here seems to be part of an attack on Sister James, following as it does Sister Aloysius’ assessment that she is “a competent teacher…but maybe not our best teacher.” Through the opening exchange, the author clearly establishes the power dynamic between the two, with Sister Aloysius seizing any opportunity to exert her power and put Sister James in her place.

Sister James, in contrast, is portrayed as gentle, emotional, and idealistic; it is clear she wants to please Sister Aloysius and seems dependent on her for reassurance and guidance. Her tentative question – “Do I perform?” – and her dismayed reaction to the accusation of “showing off” (“Oh dear. I had no conception!”) underscore her vulnerability and the sincerity of her intentions. When she tries to assert herself by saying she feels like she knows “how to handle” boys, she is unable to respond further, only uttering a simple “Oh” in the face of Sister Aloysius’ sustained attack, even though this consists of little more than speculation - “perhaps you are wrong. And perhaps you are not working hard enough.” The author develops a contrast between the absolute conviction of Sister Aloysius and the more thoughtful uncertainty of Sister James; as an audience, we are more attracted to the latter, even as we can see it is powerless in the face of such dogmatism. Our sympathy and empathy are evoked further when she is visibly shaken by Sister Aloysius’ criticism, with her tears revealing her shock at what she has heard. This instinctive emotional response, though humanising, positions her as ill-equipped in the context of this relationship and the standards demanded by Sister Aloysius, whose lack of empathy is captured by the curt “No tears”, and further underlined when she asks Sister James if she has a handkerchief and then commands her to “Use it.” This moment highlights the power imbalance between the two: Sister Aloysius uses Sister James’ emotion as a weapon to further assert her authority, visibly destroying Sister James’ confidence and reinforcing her subordinate role within both the personal and professional hierarchy.

Shanley’s portrayal of this relationship also suggests the relationships they have with their students and raises important questions about the role of emotion in the context of teaching and learning. Sister Aloysius’ vision of education is unyielding, even adversarial: she expects her teachers to resist “satisfaction” and maintain “constant educational, spiritual and human vigilance” in the face of potential misconduct or weakness. Her rhetorical question, “Do you think that Socrates was satisfied?” elevates teaching to a philosophical and moral mission, but it also reveals her traditionalism and intolerance of what she perceives as mediocrity. By contrast, Sister James represents a more compassionate, emotionally engaged mode of teaching – one that may resonate more with contemporary ideas of student-teacher relationships, but which is depicted by Sister Aloysius as dangerously naive. The idea that “innocence is a form of laziness” reflects Sister Aloysius’ belief that moral and professional openness are deeply intertwined, and equally unacceptable. In this context, she sees Sister James’ enthusiasm and gentleness as a potential liability, threatening the moral authority of the institution.

Through this extract, Shanley effectively uses the relationship between the two nuns to portray competing ideologies within both education and religion. Sister Aloysius embodies certainty, control, and cynicism, while Sister James stands for openness, empathy, and a belief in the goodness of others. Their relationship embodies a clash between two worldviews: one that values fear and discipline as necessary tools for order, and another that prioritises care and emotional honesty. The dramatic tension lies in the fact that neither worldview is presented as entirely sufficient: while a modern audience might be drawn to Sister James’ attitude towards education, it is clear that she lacks the experience and resilience to stand up to Sister Aloysius and that her idealism will not survive in such a context.  The tension is mirrored in the title of the play itself – Doubt – and the relationship between Sister Aloysius and Sister James echoes the famous line from ‘The Second Coming’ that “The best lack all conviction, while the worst/ Are full of passionate intensity.” Ultimately the relationship as portrayed in this extract will leave an audience feeling unsettled by the world portrayed, where to express doubt is seen as weak and dangerous.