Student 48

My first object is a Kenny G and Louis Armstrong CD that my dad first bought as a college student, and has since been on a CD rack in my bedroom. More specifically, my exposure to artists like Kenny is significant as he reinvented the musical convention of playing classic instruments in the midst of the ‘80s roll n’ roll revolution and the ‘90 pop/R&B scene (“Kenny G”).

Although these two decades marked a monumental shift from past knowledge in the music industry with more slow, sentimental songs, Kenny G’s distinct use of saxophone for “What a Wonderful World” with Louis Armstrong, the famed trumpet player and singer, demonstrates parallels between both musicians despite their generational gap.

Their collaboration shows how the superiority of current knowledge, represented by Kenny G’s contributions for this CD, is not solely based on empirical measures, for music poses as a subjective area of study that is interpreted based on an individual’s musical taste and preferences. However, the positive reciprocation of an artist’s fanbase towards their music through more definitive means like fan club numbers, weeks on a music chart, and the total number of albums/singles they have sold can serve as justification to determine whether or not current songs hold greater emotional value than past ones for a contemporary audience.

On the contrary, those that may favor past knowledge and styles of music, like those that resonate more deeply with Armstrong’s original rendition of “What a Wonderful World,” support the notion that current knowledge may not always supersede the legacy of past artists because of the belief and personal connection that individuals previously establish with musical pieces. Thus, the emotional association people have (based on their own culture and life experiences) may overshadow the merit of songs/artists, whether they are new, old, popular, “underground,” traditional, or eccentric, which could otherwise be dictated by aforementioned numerical indicators.

This white scrunchie, which I have had since 9th grade, illustrates a resurrection of fashion trends from past decades, like those deriving from the 2000s Y2K style. Around 2019, regular elastic hair ties came “out of style” due to an awareness about their negative impact on contributing to hair loss. Consequently, this object demonstrates a correlation to the human sciences as it relates to the psychology of having fashion serve as a catalyst for widespread trends.

Being a major accessory for a past generation of teenagers like myself, scrunchies originally presented themselves as an item of “self expression” that ironically boosted conformity to a notable trend, which has manifested itself years after its initial popularity. Such a shift in cultural values alludes to the modern “self-care” movement, which has propagated the idea of taking responsibility for one’s state of mind through one’s well being.

Despite the fact that scrunchies like my own have been of past knowledge, its perception to be of renewed utility in the eyes of consumers based on mainstream information has worked to sway buyers, particularly those in the Western world, that have been conditioned to believe a truth that endorses the idea that elastic hair ties detract individuals from maintaining a quality of life that they are deserving of, as advertised by fashion brands that seek to appeal to the general public with such a message.

Undeniably, marketing schemes exemplify how media that targets multiple demographics impacts the popularity of these trends, as people within society find validation in joining a “bandwagon” because they ironically find safety in showing “membership” in a community of individual thinkers. Though current knowledge about scrunchies may be supported by basic logic with regards to putting pressure on the head, absolutely determining whether new knowledge is an improvement may simply be a matter of what is projected to be “objective” in society.

My hand sanitizer bottle has been something I have consistently used throughout this past school year, as COVID-19 continues to influence the nature of our day to day lives, as well as the medical knowledge we heed based on the natural sciences. Throughout the pandemic, antibacterial products like hand sanitizer have been used heavily in public and private spaces in order to inhibit the spread of sickness.

But, from a more broad context, hand sanitizer containers have been used because of the generalization that like most disinfectant products they are able to kill the majority of germs. Oftentimes, this “majority” is optimistically claimed to be 99.9% of germs, which is a number that is commonly perceived to be a significant amount with consideration of the amount of germs we are exposed to on a regular basis.

This evidence for killing germs may be of past knowledge, but the emphasis of such knowledge as it holds relevance in contemporary times makes it appear to be of current knowledge, for hand sanitizer has served as a symbol of the willpower of society in overcoming sickness. As a result, it can be concluded that past knowledge is the foundation of human thought, for preestablished concepts enable individuals to find security with seemingly objective ideas, which offer safety and hope in times of instability.

The certainty that hand sanitizer has as a germ-killer, though the knowledge it substantiates is not novel with context of existing ideas to maintain good hygiene for cleanliness, proves how the reasonableness of past knowledge does not necessarily have to be undermined by current knowledge for improvement, meaning that new knowledge may not always be needed because past knowledge is innovative in itself, as well as widely credible. Based on circumstance, past knowledge can even be “recycled” and broadcasted as new information based on values presently being upheld socially.