Berger and Luckmann begin with emphasizing strongly on the multiple interpretations of “reality” amongst the “intersubjective world” they share. They argue the meanings that we, as human, interpret from the messages and what we situate ourselves in, is affected by our knowledge, our surroundings and our interactions. And what we interpret corresponds with others’ interpretations. It’s a constant, ongoing paralleling conflict/agreement between your individual meaning and others’ meaning of a message.
Berger accentuates that we take the “reality of everyday life for granted as reality.” I felt in the way that he was criticizing humans for being ignorant and close minded to what more the world can offer and only focusing on the views of our individual society. Human only seek to understand our individual knowledge of a subject, hence that I mentioned before in my interpretations, that our society is constructed by knowledge. I then concluded that Berger was arguing on the concept that we, as humans, are de-humanizing ourselves through our view of society.
He gives off an example, which I completely agree with, to further emphasize on how humans can become oblivious to the world that is outside OUR individual world. He speaks of a case, where an automobile mechanic who knows of only American cars is put in a situation where a customer brings in a