Berger and Bauman's Gardener

I see the Gardener model of Modernity and the Game Keeper model of Pre-Modernity as similar to Berger’s idea of construction. That is, we seek to create a patterned consistency out of a life that we do not control. Yet we cannot know that such a pattern or routine is our own construct. Such a realization would allow us to change the pattern since we made it to begin with. Changing it would demean and undermine it. If we really did come up with the rules, then we came up with the meanings, also. We would have shaped and formed the rules to align with the meaning; to align with what we think is right or true or good or moral.
The difference between the Gardener Model and Berger’s model is the element of our own state of meaning and knowing. That is, the Gardener Model assumes individuals’ and groups’ autonomy and freedom to create a reality of their own design and preference; and Berger states that we are to accept what is given, and explain and classify it ways that are in harmony with what is good or moral. Berger claims that we cannot know that we create our own worlds and realities. But as far as we have discussed so far in class, Bauman makes no such claim in his Gardener Model. According to Bauman, we do not need to fool ourselves into thinking that we have no control over our respective realities. In fact, this is counter to the argument behind the design and planned nature to the Garden. We are supposed to come up with a plan. Designing our own societies and cultures is not only expected, but it is the responsible thing to do. Without a plan or a design, we would not be able to differentiate between what is acceptable and helpful to our goals and preferences, and what is detrimental and harmful to our goals and preferences. Such plans and designs give us direction and guidance. They give us freedom to accept or reject new variables that arise during our experience while interacting with others’ “gardens.” Moreover, they force us to make decisions when we do come across something new. We much choose whether that new thing should be a part of our design.
For example, it is very hard to be ambivalent or dismissive of the war in the Middle East. Not necessarily because everyone is forced to decide on the issue of war and violence and its legitimacy in a cultured, refined society. Nor is everyone forced to decide on the merits of this war in particular and the complicated and intricate elements of the war, such as the assumed legitimacy of the Sunnis or Shiites in the region, or the control over oil in the region, or even the conspiracy theories that include the United States long-standing desire to take over the area. The reason that we are forced to choose whether or not the war fits our design may include these. But does someone like Paris Hilton need to make such a decision. With as self-centered a plan as she has, what interest does she have in the war? Perhaps the media is the lowest-common denominator in this case. The war is constantly talked about and reflected on among the media conglomerate. Hilton is also a central figure among the same cohort. If she wants to keep her status and popularity, she should probably know to some extent what her competition is.
The difference is that the Garden has a Game Keeper with which it may contrast itself, while Bauman makes no mention of such a change or dichotomy. I don’t remember studying Berger as a modernist who made the distinction between current and pre-modern societies. Therefore, I don’t know for sure that he would really accept that people can realize their own roles in creating their own realities. However, fooling ourselves into believing that we are more made than makers is explained in the Game Keeper Model, which Berger would be able to accept.