Key Terms

ICT: Information and Communications Technology. Modern technology that allows for fast and easy communication, such as cell phones and the Internet.

Equality of outcome: As a policy goal, seeks to intervene with both the rich and the poor to reduce the income gap via direct intervention with taxes and welfare.

Equality of opportunity: As a policy goal, targets the poor and tries to give them the means to help themselves, in principle giving everyone a shot at striking it rich.

Digital divide: A gap between those who can access ICTs and use them effectively and those who cannot.

Information society: one where access to and manipulation of information becomes the key determinant of one’s place in society.

Meritocracy: a “fairer” society where an individual’s social status is determined on the basis of merit. Complex and varying definitions of “merit” complicate things, and a true meritocracy is not really feasible.

Summary

Worldwide and within countries, there is a huge gap in wealth. As a result of this, there is also a huge gap in the availability of Information and Communications Technology, and many governments are trying to close this gap by providing access to ICTs in public places like libraries. Ideally, by closing this digital divide, societies can reduce inequality by allowing everyone to participate equally, creating a meritocracy. In this ideal, meritocratic information society, an individual’s power depends on “access to knowledge and the skills to select and manipulate that knowledge” (204). In principle, someone with little or no education but who has knowledge and access to the Internet can compete with large corporations. However, simply increasing access to ICTs will not necessarily lead to a reduction of inequality, and the idea that it will rests on two major arguments, which Lax rejects.

The first is the assumption that technology itself is mainly responsible for driving social change. However, even with ready access to ICTs, many people may not know how to use them (or use them effectively) and so cannot take advantage of them. Lax argues that technology does not drive social change, citing studies showing that access to ICTs doesn’t impact people’s participation in politics or education, for example; only people already interested in these areas take advantage of ICTs to aid in their participation, so the availability of the technology is not causing social change to get more people involved. Rather, society drives technological growth, as new technologies must have some kind of potential market in place before they are developed.

The flaw of meritocracy is that it relies on a truly level playing field, which is nearly impossible to achieve in practice. Image credit DuneyBlues, wrongplanet.net.

The second argument is, as Lax sees it, an overstatement of the social change to begin with. Some authors argue that in an information society, boundaries between different sections of society can be dissolved, putting everyone on a level playing field so that everyone can be judged on their merits. Lax points out that even in industries unique to information societies, old distinctions persist, for example between labor and management in a call center. He also reveals the flaw intrinsic to meritocracy: even if it starts off as egalitarian, it quickly becomes stratified. Those at the top conclude that they deserve to be there based on merit, that those at the bottom deserve to be there based on merit, and, consequently, that those at the bottom do not deserve assistance.

Lax concludes that providing access to ICTs to create equality of opportunity is not sufficient to actually reduce inequality, and that if reducing inequality is the goal, it requires a closer look at the basic ways in which society is divided.

Discussion

The following video describes “The Myth of Meritocracy” as it applies to Canadian society. Does it also apply to American society? I think it does. In fact, I think in some ways it is even more relevant to American society, considering the argument Lax cites in his essay that the wealthy often believe the poor are not worthy of assistance.  There is a long history in America of demonizing welfare programs and blaming the poor for being poor. American society holds individual liberty as a very important principle, even if it comes at the expense of others. This is why there is such opposition to any perceived imposition by the government into people’s choices. Most of us believe, at some level, that everyone should be given some baseline from which to navigate society. The problem is that we can’t agree on where that baseline actually is. Some, for example, believe that healthcare is a basic human right, and others believe it is a privilege.  This specific issue, at least, is settled in Canada, where healthcare is socialized. American society is still divided on the issue. Maharaj’s point about inherited advantages also applies to America, as many of our country’s wealthy people have inherited at least a major part of that wealth from their parents.