In The New Social Theory Reader by Steven Seidman and Jeffrey C. Alexander, one of the most pivotal figures explored is Jürgen Habermas—a philosopher and sociologist whose theories on law and democracy continue to shape contemporary discourse. His work, featured in Chapter One, unpacks the complex relationship between democratic governance and the legal system, offering a powerful framework for understanding how modern societies function (and do not).
At the heart of Habermas’s philosophy is the concept of communicative action—the idea that rational discourse and mutual understanding are essential for democracy to thrive. In his view, democracy is only as strong as the public’s ability to engage in meaningful, reasoned dialogue. The law, then, becomes more than a set of rules—it transforms into a reflection of collective will and a safeguard for justice and equality.
As Habermas puts it:
“What makes communicative reason possible is the linguistic medium through which interactions are woven together, and forms of life are structured.”
The Public Sphere and Deliberative Democracy
A key component of Habermas’s theory is the concept of the public sphere—a space where individuals gather as equals to discuss shared concerns. This concept is central to how he defines democracy: a system where deliberative democracy can flourish, diverse viewpoints can be expressed, and consensus can be reached through open and inclusive discussion.
In this setting, the law serves as a codification of the collective dialogue that takes place within the public sphere. It formalizes shared norms into structures that govern social behavior, ensuring that society reflects the values that its people have negotiated.
However, Habermas’s optimism is tempered by realism—especially given the historical context of post–World War II Europe. As he observed:
“Just when it could emerge as the sole heir of the moral practical self-understanding of modernity, it lacks the energy to drive ahead with the task of imposing social and ecological restraints on capitalism at the breathtaking level of global society” (Seidman, 2008, p. 35).
Critique of Modernity: Technology, Power, and the Lifeworld
Habermas is sharply critical of how money, power, and technology distort public discourse. In his view, these forces create deep divides and diminish the public’s ability to engage in authentic communication. He warns of what he calls the “colonization of the lifeworld”—when bureaucratic systems and instrumental logic invade everyday human interaction, stripping individuals of autonomy and meaning.
He is particularly wary of how technological advancement can reinforce social inequality. Access to information, platforms for discourse, and the ability to participate meaningfully in democratic processes are increasingly tied to power and privilege.
“The systemic integration attained through money and power must retain its dependence upon socially integrative processes of civic self-determination in accordance with the Constitutional understanding of the legal community.” (Seidman, 2008, p. 42).
Why Habermas Still Matters
Habermas’s work continues to influence a wide array of disciplines, including legal theory, political science, and media studies. His ideas have sparked critical conversations about deliberative democracy, legal pluralism, and the role of civil society in democratic engagement.
For researchers and practitioners alike, Habermas offers more than theory—he offers a roadmap for reform. Policymakers, educators, and activists can draw from his work to promote transparency, accountability, and inclusive civic participation. His framework enables us to assess whether our institutions genuinely serve democratic values—or merely simulate them.
Final Thoughts
Habermas reminds us that democracy isn’t just about laws. It’s about voices. It’s about creating spaces where people can speak, be heard, and reach a mutual understanding. As we continue to confront digital influence, economic inequality, and political division, his vision of the public sphere and communicative rationality becomes more urgent than ever.
In an age where algorithms often replace dialogue, Habermas calls us back to conversation.
So, here I am. Just sitting with my thoughts. Feeling okay. Not great, not awful. Just okay.
Lately, I’ve found myself ruminating. About everything and nothing at the same time. The paradox of politics has been especially loud in my head. We live in a moment where standing for something should matter more than ever, and yet we’re watching people fall for anything.
The divide between left and right feels enormous, but maybe we’re looking in the wrong direction. Perhaps it’s not about the dichotomy between what’s left or right. There has to be something else.
I look over at the book I’ve been reading, Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire. Suddenly, the thought bubble is taken over by the little speck of light you see when you’re floating to the bottom of the sea. Small, but bright.
Maybe we should be looking up and down.
Because let’s be honest: we’re not on the up and up.
Many millennials—often burdened by debt, high rent, and economic instability—are living in multigenerational households. As of 2021, approximately 18% of millennials (ages 27–42) were living with their parents or other older relatives (Pew Research Center).
Millennials have lived through wars, pandemics, and now the normalization of fascist rhetoric in American public life. From 9/11 to Iraq and Afghanistan, to COVID-19, to the destabilizing effects of misinformation and mass surveillance, we’ve been through it. And now Gen Z is dealing with it too. And so will Gen Alpha, which is a shame.
Coming together still feels like a dream. But dreams don’t happen unless we make moves. And the community needs to hit the ground running. We’re all going to have to pick up the slack.
Time does not stop for anyone.
Idiocracy, In Real Time
Photo Courtesy of The Guardian
I finally watched Idiocracy the other day. It’s satire. But barely. It’s a little scary how books and movies help us make sense of our present day.
In the U.S., most adults read at a 7th to 8th-grade level, according to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Post-pandemic studies have shown a decline in literacy, particularly among young people.
This is why my son has a “banned books” shelf, for all stages of his life. I am afraid that this type of information might slip through his tiny hands if I don’t provide it. So I will. I will teach him. The most radical thing I can do, as a parent, is teach my son what the schools will not.
Knowledge is the last vestige of reality. We’re watching it slip through our phone screens. Anti-intellectualism, algorithm-driven thinking, and an overreliance on AI-generated content have reshaped how we think, what we value, and how we interact. Like Baudrillard predicted, we’ve become a nation of simulations.
We’re watching the downfall of the United States in real time.
And then there’s still half of America that doesn’t realize that. Still.
What We Need: Community, Care, and Clarity
However, there is hope.
Creator: Jae Hong | Credit: AP
Copyright: Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved
In California, we’ve seen mutual aid in action—from organizing during ICE operations to recovering from catastrophic wildfires. In July 2024, reports of targeted ICE activity in Los Angeles renewed the urgency around community defense, and the response was swift: neighbors supported one another. Legal aid groups mobilized. Volunteers stepped in.
We’re more than just voters. We’re protectors of the community. There may be a drastic digital divide that the wealthy abhorrently take advantage of — and people are starting to see it.
This isn’t just about left or right.
It’s about transcending fascism. About resisting late-stage capitalism. About caring for one another in a system that’s tried everything to convince us that care is a weakness. It’s about a community of care.
It’s about grassroots organizing, building community resilience, and mitigating misinformation. It’s about refusing to back down even when things feel impossible.
The population is waking up and putting their foot down. Enough is enough.
The rise of compulsory coding in education is more than a tech trend; it’s a philosophical shift. Rooted in yes-case/no-case theory, this evolving mandate reveals deeper questions about who decides what knowledge matters, and how that knowledge shapes society.
At the heart of this analysis are two key theorists: Jean Baudrillard and Michel Foucault, whose frameworks challenge how we define “truth” in a hyper-digital age. The “yes case” reflects State-sanctioned knowledge: structured, standardized, and enforced through educational policy. The “no case,” by contrast, represents self-selected, personally valued knowledge: the kind that escapes mainstream narratives.
This study asks a fundamental question: Are we becoming more like machines, or are machines becoming more like us?
Coding as a Philosophical Shift
Kissinger (2018) explored how the rise of artificial intelligence and compulsory coding in schools introduced new “habits of mind” into public discourse. This isn’t just about tech skills, it’s about technology taking on a dominant cultural role, shaping how we think, communicate, and learn.
Baudrillard and Foucault wrote their theories long before the full impact of digital competency and AI became visible. Yet, their work, particularly Baudrillard’s ideas on digital abstraction and hyperreality, helps explain what’s happening now.
Coding for all is framed not only as a digital literacy movement but as a “transfer effect” from the digital abstractions Baudrillard warned about back in 1993 and 1995. Computational thinking, ethical dilemmas, and unintended social consequences all converge to shape a world where technology isn’t just a tool; it becomes a worldview.
Digital Shadows and Hyperreality
One striking comparison from the study is Baudrillard’s “digital Plato’s Cave.” In this metaphor, reality is no longer perceived directly, but through Digital Shadows. He asks, “Why speak, when we can communicate?” A line that underscores how interfaces and platforms mediate our human experience.
The study also connects to David Harvey’s ideas on postmodernity, pointing to a major shift in culture, politics, and economics since the 1970s. As Harvey explains, communication has become more fragmented and complex, shaped by meta-languages, meta-theories, and shifting narratives. These trends are especially visible in how different industries, including education and media, engage with coding, AI, and tech policy.
A Personal Connection
My dissertation research focuses on technology access at Hispanic-Serving Institutions, particularly for students from marginalized communities. It’s a topic informed not just by theory but by lived experience, including my time as a journalist and opinion writer.
Today, the media landscape is saturated with content; a lot of it AI-generated, rarely reviewed by humans. This shift changes not only how we communicate, but what we communicate. Trust in sources has eroded. The American perspective on global issues is often misaligned with how the rest of the world sees us. And in many cases, digital “truths” have replaced real-world understanding.
Final Thoughts
As Elon Musk warned in his own discussions about AI, digital trickery is no longer science fiction. It’s already here. I know, me quoting Elon Musk is out there, but the quote fits. Musk’s concerns mirror Baudrillard’s fears that media and machines increasingly mediate reality until the real and the artificial are indistinguishable.
As schools incorporate coding into their curricula and AI continues to evolve, we must ask: Are we equipping students with tools for empowerment, or are we embedding them even deeper into a system of abstraction?
It’s a deeply philosophical issue. It gets bigger the more the digital divide grows.
References Cited
Baudrillard, J. (1995). Simulacra and simulation. In Body, in theory: Histories of cultural materialism. University of Michigan Press.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. Translated by Alan Sheridan Smith. New York: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. (1981). The order of discourse. In R. Young (Ed.), Untying the text: A post-structuralist reader (pp. 48–78). Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Harvey, D. (2008). The Condition of Postmodernity. In S. Sideman & J. Alexander, The New Social Theory Reader (pp. 235–242). New York: Routledge.
Schroeder, J. (2018). Toward a discursive marketplace of ideas: Reimaging the marketplace metaphor in the era of social media, fake news, and artificial intelligence. First Amendment Studies, 51(1–2), 38–60.
Tamatea, L. (2019). Compulsory coding in education: liberal-humanism, Baudrillard and the ‘problem’ of abstraction. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, pp. 1–29.
Print Capitalism, National Consciousness, and the Problem with Imagined Unity
Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism explores how nationalism itself is not an organic development, but a socially constructed phenomenon—an “imagined community” built through shared language, culture, and crucially, the rise of print capitalism.
It’s a fascinating idea: that nations are not bound by physical borders but rather by the stories we tell ourselves and each other. Citizens build a sense of belonging through newspapers, novels, and other printed materials, one that gives people the illusion of unity with others they would never meet in person. Anderson argues that this shared sense of identity, while powerful, is imagined. And like many imagined ideas, it can be wielded for both cohesion and control.
From Anderson’s perspective, the press plays a key role in this construction. Journalism becomes not just a source of information, but a vehicle for reinforcing nationalism. At its best, the media is supposed to serve as a societal watchdog. However, under capitalism, and particularly when a handful of billionaires control the press, those ideals are often replaced by narratives that serve power, not the people.
In the same way state-run media has shaped public perception in countries like North Korea, Vietnam, or China (as Anderson notes on pages 282–283), Western media, though less overtly controlled, often operates in similar ways. Ownership, agenda, and ideology filter what gets published, and who gets heard. The result? A narrative that normalizes colonization, glorifies the past, and renders oppression and exploitation invisible to the mainstream.
And even though much of the media we consume today is digital rather than printed, the impact remains. Words are still “printed” on screens, and they still construct a national identity; one that often leans heavily into conservative values, especially in the U.S., where Christianity and nationalism frequently go hand in hand.
Now, to be clear: having pride in your country isn’t inherently problematic. However, when a selective history and curated information shape national pride, things become murky. For example, in certain rural or conservative parts of the U.S., public school curricula are shaped by school boards that may actively omit or distort historical realities, glossing over colonization, slavery, and the actual mechanics of war. Omission doesn’t just limit education; it undermines the national consciousness that Anderson described. Without honest reflection, the “imagined community” becomes more myth than memory.
Capitalism and the Narrative of Truth
Ideologies such as Marxism and socialism were founded on principles of equity and solidarity. However, when capitalism becomes the dominant force behind the circulation of information—especially when profit and power are involved—those ideals can be easily co-opted. Greed alters the public narrative, and we see this play out in real time through today’s media coverage.
A Case Study in Media Framing
Take, for example, the ongoing starvation of Palestinian infants and children. A leaked internal memo from The New York Times in 2024 reportedly instructed journalists not to refer to Palestine as an “occupied territory” or to use terms like “genocide” in their reporting. Regardless of where one stands politically, it’s clear that such editorial decisions shape public perception. When specific terms are off-limits, it becomes harder for readers to access the full scope of the issue, and easier for a particular narrative to dominate the conversation. In this case, media objectivity is compromised in favor of language that supports nationalist or colonialist perspectives.
It’s not just about one conflict and its framing. It’s about how newsrooms, under the pressure of corporate and political interests, contribute to constructing national identity in ways that may exclude or silence others. They become complicit. When journalism becomes selective in its truth-telling, it undermines its purpose and reinforces a worldview that favors power over people.
The Tech-Nationalism Feedback Loop
Nationalism, as Anderson reminds us, is a modern invention. It evolves alongside technology, and as our means of communication become faster and more centralized, so too does the spread of nationalist ideology. We see this not just in the U.S., but in places like China, where digital firewalls and media censorship shape the public’s perception of national identity. There, access to platforms like Facebook or Instagram is restricted not only for security, but also to protect a specific narrative.
Secular Allegiance and the Flattening of Identity
Anderson also notes how nationalism can take on secular forms, replacing religious or ethnic affiliations with allegiance to the nation-state. In theory, this could be a unifying force; something that helps people move beyond divisions and find common ground. In practice, though, it often flattens identity, pushing marginalized communities to conform to dominant norms or risk exclusion.
Conclusion: Who Gets Left Out?
This tension between imagined unity and lived reality is perhaps the most pressing issue with nationalism today. When media and technology become tools of influence rather than inquiry, they no longer create bridges between people. They create barriers.
Anderson’s work doesn’t just help explain the origins of nationalism; it offers a lens for questioning the stories we’re told and the systems that tell them. It invites us to ask the following question: Who benefits from these imagined communities? Who gets left out of the story?
“Justice is possible without a knowledge of God’s Law.” — Alasdair MacIntyre “Struggles for recognition occur in a world of exacerbated material inequality.” — Nancy Fraser
We like to think justice is simple. Fair. Earned. But what if the systems we rely on to define justice were never built for everyone in the first place?
In my studies, I found myself pulled between two powerful voices: Alasdair MacIntyre and Nancy Fraser. They don’t write textbooks. They write blueprints for understanding who gets to decide what’s fair—and who’s left out.
MacIntyre speaks in traditions. He says justice is shaped by culture, by religion, by inherited values. Justice, for him, isn’t universal—it’s rooted in communities shaped by Puritanism, Catholicism, and Judaism. If those are the traditions you’re part of, maybe his logic feels familiar. But for others, it can feel exclusive. It left me wondering: if your history isn’t part of those narratives, do you still get to belong?
Fraser, on the other hand, meets us in the present. She writes about what we can see: food insecurity, health gaps, systemic racism, and gender-based violence. Her lens is urgent, intersectional, and sharp. She says it’s not enough to redistribute wealth—you must also recognize identity. You can’t discuss equality without addressing visibility.
When Tradition Doesn’t See You
MacIntyre’s work made me pause. He believes we inherit rationality through community. That truth is shaped by tradition. The liberal media and secular politics have lost sight of deeper values. He’s not entirely wrong.
However, I don’t come from the traditions he centers on. And I don’t believe justice should be reserved only for people who follow a specific moral lineage. Justice, to me, can’t be something you earn through inheritance. It has to be something we build—together.
Irene Chu calls MacIntyre’s logic deeply institutional. He’s focused on structure. On moral blueprints. But I kept asking myself: what about people who are navigating systems that were never made with them in mind?
Seeing Ourselves in the Struggle
Fraser is different. She calls out material inequality—not just in paycheck size, but in access to healthcare, housing, and even clean air. Her work hit home. As someone who has lived through environmental racism and felt the physical cost of inequality, her ideas weren’t just theory. They were familiar.
Fraser argues for two kinds of justice: redistribution (who gets what) and recognition (who gets seen). She says you can’t have one without the other. Pride parades, she notes, aren’t just celebrations—they’re statements. Visibility is political.
She also doesn’t let systems off the hook. Fraser is critical of neoliberalism, identity tokenism, and top-down reform. She’s grounded in feminist theory and understands that structural change requires cultural and symbolic transformation too.
Where They Meet—and Where They Don’t
Both MacIntyre and Fraser believe justice isn’t working. But their solutions come from different places. One looks to the past; the other looks to systems and structures that still dominate the present.
They both criticize liberalism’s failures. Both challenge how Enlightenment ideals left out too many people. But only one of them, in my opinion, shows a path forward that includes all of us.
MacIntyre invites us to consider what we inherit. Fraser challenges us to change what we’ve normalized.
Why It Matters to Me
As a doctoral student researching the digital divide, I witness these frameworks being played out every day. Some students never had access to laptops or high-speed internet. That’s not just a tech issue—it’s a justice issue. Fraser’s lens helps me see that clearly.
But I also understand how culture shapes belief. That’s MacIntyre’s territory. Why some still resist digital learning. Why access isn’t just about money, but mindset.
Ultimately, both theorists provide tools. Fraser equips me to fight for equity. MacIntyre reminds me that beliefs are inherited—and that means they can be challenged.
Justice Isn’t Neutral. It’s Personal.
I’ve spent years trying to understand why justice seems so distant for some and so readily assumed for others. This journey through MacIntyre and Fraser didn’t provide me with a single perfect answer. But it gave me a better question:
Whose justice? Which rationality?
I think we’re all still trying to figure that out.
Ashlyn N. Ramirez is a doctoral candidate, writer, and researcher who explores media, identity, and access in the digital age.
Exploring the Impact of Technology Access on the Educational Success of Disabled Latino Students in Community Colleges
May 10, 2024
ABSTRACT
Southern California’s Hispanic and Latino population is among the most highly enrolled in college institutions, partially due to their involvement in Hispanic-serving duties (Tagami & Reagan, 2022). However, graduating, especially when a disability is involved, is not often discussed (Tagami & Reagan, 2022). This conference proposal addresses the exceptional progress in educational disparity experienced by disabled Latino students in community colleges, with a primary focus on the profound impact of digital media. Incorporating theoretical insights from critical scholars such as Jean Baudrillard, Laurence Tamatea, Michel Foucault, Tom Shakespeare, and David Harvey, this research examines the delicate balance of access to technology, disability, ethnicity, and academic outcomes within the framework of community colleges in the contemporary postmodern era. The disabled community benefits from online educational communities through videos, language, and discussion (Narciso Jr., 2023). This study aims to explore how disabled Latino students navigate the digitally mediated educational environment, drawing on Baudrillard’s analysis of hyperreality and Harvey’s examination of globalization. Simulated environments and global reciprocity influence this era, which remains characterized by images. Understanding the benefits of this demographic in utilizing and accessing technology is crucial.
The research question of this study concerns how digital media in the classroom positively impacts the educational success of Latino students with disabilities in community colleges. Some ways include flexible classwork, online educational digital media, and finding community through discussion boards and online classes (Narciso Jr., 2023). This pivotal research question on the ubiquity of digital media seeks to explore the intersectionality of technology access, disability, ethnicity, and higher education outcomes within the context of community colleges. As researchers delve further into artificial intelligence, it is more crucial than ever to investigate the ongoing impact of technology on educational success. The research question aims to explore how access to technology can facilitate remarkable educational success for disabled Latino students, particularly in the postmodern era characterized by hyperreality, simulations, and the proliferation of digital media. By examining the impact of digital media on an online community of education, one can see the benefits for community college students. The frameworks of Jean Baudrillard’s hyperreality and David Harvey’s globalization provide a comprehensive understanding of the implications of these phenomena on the educational experiences of disabled Latino students.
There are strategies and interventions that community colleges can implement to bridge the digital divide and significantly enhance the educational success of Latino students with disabilities within the context of postmodern social, economic, and technological dynamics. If effectively implemented, these strategies can offer a brighter future for these students and improve their educational outcomes. This study will employ a qualitative methodology, focusing on small cluster groups to interview students about how online coursework has changed their perception of schooling since the advent of online education. The study could include an end-of-year survey, in addition to interviews, to understand how the online course benefited the students. Other methods include mixed methods, utilizing an instrument to understand the GPA of students who enroll in online classes, primarily using digital media to teach their students.
The digital divide uniquely manifests among disabled Latino students in community colleges. They harbor specific upsides in accessing and utilizing technology for educational purposes. Jean Baudrillard’s theories of simulacra and simulations apply to the digital experiences of disabled Latino students, influencing their engagement with academic content and digital media. Hyperreality and hyperrealism refer to Baudrillard’s concept of living in a technological simulation, unlike nature (Baudrillard, 1994). With so much hyperreality and hyperrealism existing in our modern world, it is clear that there is a crisis of representation where traditional forms of knowledge, authority, and truth remain in question, and that crisis manifests itself according to Harvey in various domains, such as art, literature, and politics (2008). However, through the crisis, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. An analysis of interviews will reveal the conditions of postmodernity, as described by David Harvey (2008), that influence the educational experiences and opportunities available to disabled Latino students in community colleges, particularly in terms of globalization, consumerism, and cultural fragmentation. Community colleges bypass the problems of postmodernity and utilize them to their advantage, pushing forward certificate completion and two-year degree programs at the student’s pace (Tagami & Reagan, 2022; Narciso Jr., 2023).
There are two theoretical concepts that Baudrillard and Foucault have based on social truths, representing state-sanctioned knowledge and individually, self-selected valued knowledge (Foucault, 1972, 1981; Baudrillard, 1994). Some studies raise one fundamental question, such as Tamatea’s compulsory coding and education (2019). The question to consider in this study is whether we are becoming more like machines or machines are becoming more like humans. With the rise of artificial intelligence and technological advances in education and the media, Baudrillard wrote that the vast influence of digital competency was tangible (1994). However, the study aims to challenge the downsides Baudrillard felt were probable in his analysis of simulacra. Tamatea’s ‘yes theory’ points towards technological success in early schooling through coding, a way of simulation by machine (2019). Community college success remains significant to specific theories that consider this framework. The research question and its subsequent sub-genres aim to make a unique contribution to the broader discourse on educational equity, access to technology, and social justice. By drawing insights from Baudrillard and Harvey, we aim to comprehend the complexities of contemporary digital media proliferation, particularly in the form of online communities, highlighting the urgency of the issue and the necessity for ongoing action. Furthermore, it aims to highlight the strategies and interventions employed by these institutions to continue bridging the digital divide and promoting educational equity.
Introduction
This research paper aims to shed light on the composite directions at play, contributing to the discourse on inclusive education, informing policy and practice to foster digital inclusivity, and gathering data on educational outcomes for disabled Latino students in community colleges. There is an intricate web of individual and environmental factors in the lives of disabled people, along with marginalized groups. When one adds more of a marginalized community to that fact, it becomes so much more of a topic to discuss, and social models for disabilities are often separate (Shakespeare, 2010). Minorities’ issues cannot undergo naivety, however. It creates a slightly different topic because it is a universal experience shared by all humanity. The world as it is currently known is defined by what Jean Baudrillard calls “Simulacra and Simulation.” While Baudrillard considered hyperrealism a detriment to society and globalization, there are strengths in digital educational communities (1994). The way education looks today is shaped by technology, moving beyond technological convergence and addressing the digital divide. Unfortunately, marginalized communities will be the most affected by this digital divide and will likely find the most success in technological use as a result. Simulacra is especially important in combating the digital divide and promoting educational success among community college students. Understanding how the digital community helps students is one of the main questions to ask during a qualitative study.
Literature Review
The proposed qualitative study challenges the concepts of meaning and truth, making it clear that individuals must possess the literacy necessary to see through traditional notions of meaning and truth. In a world dominated by simulacra, meaning becomes arbitrary, and truth becomes relative. However, communities can come together to determine what is accurate, truthful, and not. David Harvey’s “Condition of Postmodernity” focuses on cultural fragmentation and how traditional structures and identities are stabilized (2008). Cultural fragmentation refers to the combination of multiple cultures rather than maintaining many separate versions, which often occurs in digital communities. Various aspects of society are reflected through culture, economics, and politics, indicating instability and fluidity behind identities and their meanings, which is further exacerbated by the proliferation of media, consumer culture, and globalization. Hispanic and Latino students in many counties across California make up most enrolled students completing their academic careers (Tagami & Regan, 2022). However, many do that part-time through a community college (Johnson, 2016). When researchers add the disabled community, it becomes apparent that this is even harder to achieve, especially when disabled people are not a community that defines itself through culture, gender, or race. Theoretically, individuals in college or community college may have a different viewpoint and success rates due to the use of hyperrealism and its impact on the conditions of postmodernity’s cultural fragmentation and globalization. In Baudrillard’s “Simulacra and Simulation,” it is clear that there are four orders of simulation, defined by hyperreality. The death of the real and simulacra serves as a control mechanism, contributing to the critique of postmodern society (1994).
Theoretical Framework and Methodology
According to Tom Shakespeare, people with disabilities come from an oppressed viewpoint. A social model is proof of that, and it is logically impossible for a qualitative researcher to find disabled people who are not facing oppression, meaning that all marginalized communities have the disabled community within them, meaning that they are within and without accommodations universally because all disabilities are different (Shakespeare, 2010). Therefore, while a college can cater to the Hispanic community, they are not going to necessarily cater to the disabled community, creating a world that has a lack of free space. Only “barrier-free enclaves are possible,” which community college creates through the ease of digital courses. Researchers indicate that most accommodations occur at the community college level (Narciso Jr., 2023). This universal experience of humanity is shaped by the role of globalization in postmodernity. As Harvey argues, capitalism and its endless expansion and accumulation drive spatial and temporal restructuring processes that underpin the postmodern condition (2008). The restructuring process is evident through the expansion of the World Wide Web and the ability to connect with others who are not physically nearby. When one ties this in with Baudrillard’s concepts and framework behind hyperreality, it becomes clear that the significance of urbanization and the built environment helps individuals understand postmodernity and how there are focal points for the concentration of capital, culture, and power (Harvey, 2008; Baudrillard, 1995). How we view those things through digital media is significant for qualitative discussion. Capital culture and power find themselves through the digital connection of others and the sharing of capital experiences.
Conclusion
Therefore, the emergence and development of AI have accelerated the Age of Reason through the digital community. With the rise of online courses, educational digital media, including video content, online meetings, and discussions, are beneficial for student success at the community college level. As the work is decades old, being able to relate simulacra (simulation) to digital abstraction was an unintended beneficial consequence for individuals and society (Baudrillard, 1994). Digitalization’s existential status unknowingly brought educational ubiquity to the table. Ultimately, hyperrealism influences what people see and know, as well as how nature is perceived versus what the media wants us to see. However, it also creates an even digital playing field, where students can be part of a community while living their personal lives outside of school. Students should be able to distinguish between what it means to be digitally literate and what it does not. Baudrillard relates to David Harvey’s study of the “Condition of Postmodernity” because Harvey states there has been a change in cultural and political-economic practices since 1972 (Harvey, 2008; Baudrillard, 1994).
Furthermore, there are differences in communication, as well as the complexity and nuances of the industries of interest and the cultures. Consider a digital Plato‘s Cave, where reality is discernible through a digital shadow; therefore, Baudrillard notes, “Why speak when we can communicate” (1995). Their place in the simulacra brought them in contact with modernist theories and narratives. The success of community college students remains enhanced through communication technology.
References
Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and Simulation. Ann Arbor. University of Michigan Press.
Baudrillard, J. (1995). Simulacra and simulation. In Body, in theory: Histories of cultural materialism. University of Michigan Press.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. Translated by Alan Sheridan Smith. New York: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. (1981). The order of discourse. In R. Young (Ed.), Untying the text: A post-structuralist reader (pp. 48–78). Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Harvey, D. (2008). The Condition of Postmodernity. In S. Sidema, & J. Alexander, The New Social Theory Reader (pp. 235–242). New York: Routledge.
Shakespeare, T. (2010). “The Social Model of Disability.” The Disability Studies Reader. Ed. Lennard J. Davis. New York: Routledge. 266–73. Print. (Pre-print copy.)
All's Well That Ends Well 