Parental Love vs. Meritocratic Love: Reflecting on Brooks
This reflection paper responds to David Brooks' 2015 New York Times op-ed "Love and Merit," in which Brooks argues that unconditional parental love is far more meaningful and effective than meritocratic love — the kind conditioned on a child's performance in school, sports, or social settings. The paper examines Brooks' central distinction, explores the societal harm of love used as a control mechanism, and extends his argument into theological territory by drawing on Christian conceptions of grace and self-sacrificing love. Shakespeare's Sonnet 116 is also invoked to reinforce the idea that genuine love is steadfast and unconditional. The paper ultimately argues that Brooks' insight applies not only to parent-child relationships but to how all people should love one another.
- Introduction: Brooks' Central Argument: Brooks contrasts unconditional and meritocratic parental love
- The Problem with Meritocratic Love: Meritocratic love as manipulation and social harm
- Love, Grace, and Theological Dimensions: Love as divine grace and self-sacrifice
- Conclusion: Love as an Unconditional Gift: Universalizing Brooks' argument with Shakespeare
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper moves logically from summarizing Brooks' argument to analyzing its implications, then extending it into theological and literary territory — demonstrating genuine intellectual engagement rather than mere summary.
- Concrete rhetorical questions ("But who says why that conception is good? What if it isn't?") effectively challenge the premises of meritocratic love and keep the reader actively engaged.
- The closing invocation of Shakespeare's Sonnet 116 serves as a unifying literary anchor, reinforcing the paper's central claim while elevating its tone.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates analytical extension — a technique where the writer not only summarizes a source's argument but pushes it further into adjacent domains (here, theology and literature) to deepen its significance. This moves the reflection beyond mere agreement and shows independent critical thinking.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a four-part structure: an opening paragraph that introduces and summarizes Brooks' argument; a second paragraph that deepens the critique of meritocratic love by questioning its social and moral foundations; a third paragraph that introduces a theological framework (Christian notions of grace and self-sacrifice); and a brief conclusion that generalizes the argument to all human relationships, bookended by a Shakespeare quotation. Each section builds naturally on the previous one.
Introduction: Brooks' Central Argument
David Brooks (2015) makes a valid point in his New York Times article "Love and Merit." His aim is to show that parental love is more important and effective than meritocratic love. The difference between the two is that the former is unconditional and gives the child the sense that he or she is loved no matter what — even if the child fails at everything attempted, the parent still loves them. Meritocratic love, on the other hand, is based on the child's success at various tasks, whether in school, sports, or social life. Meritocratic love, Brooks argues, reinforces the wrong ideas in the child — namely, that the child is only valuable so long as he or she performs well.
This notion sets up a false idea within society. It props up a person's sense of self-worth by gauging that person's value according to standards that do not transcend to the higher realm of truth, beauty, goodness, and love. Love, Brooks argues, especially from a parent, should be akin to charity: it should not judge or be discriminatory. It should see goodness everywhere it looks. Children, Brooks suggests, need such unconditional love so that they can grow up feeling whole and secure. If the love they receive is only meritocratic, they will always feel pressure to perform and never truly understand what real love is.
The Problem with Meritocratic Love
This article is significant in the sense that it drives home a major point about love and how it should be shown. Love should not be "a tool to exercise control," as Brooks contends. It should be something that comes from a parent's heart without regard to what a child does. Whether a child is good or bad should make no difference in how a parent displays love. Love that is rooted in the "culture of meritocracy" is not real love — it is a manipulation, an exploitation of love for an end situated within the parent's conception, or within a societal conception, of the way a child should be.
But who determines whether that conception is good? What if it isn't? And why should a parent's love be conditional upon a child's adherence to that conception? As Brooks notes, "parental love is supposed to be oblivious to achievement." What he means is that love is most efficacious when it is blind. And when it is blind, it most resembles that supernatural gift which the Old World identified as grace — which comes from God and builds upon our human natures, allowing people to grow toward perfection.
Conclusion: Love as an Unconditional Gift
Brooks makes a serious point about the nature of love and how we should think about it in our society. It is not just a point about a parent's love for a child. It is about how all of us should love each other — about what love truly is. Love is not something that asks for favors in return. It is not something to be withheld when conditions are not met. As Shakespeare wrote in Sonnet 116, "Love is an ever-fixed mark" that "looks on tempests and is never shaken." Love, from all of us, should mirror and reflect that greater love which we sometimes sense that God has for us — that love which we call grace.
References
Brooks, D. (2015). Love and merit. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/opinion/david-brooks-love-and-merit.html?smid=pl-share
Shakespeare, W. (n.d.). Sonnet 116. Shakespeare Online. Retrieved from http://www.shakespeare-online.com/sonnets/116.html
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.