The dialogue constructing in these social interactions has forces to strike the cultural imposition in the scope of the school. For Becker (2001, P. 87) it says, it plays a role of first largeness in the organization of the actions. ' ' That classroom is surpassed thus where, on behalf of the learning or of the development of the knowledge, it is restrained fala' '. This requires change of the attitude of the professor.
When reconstructing its pedagogical relations the professor oportuniza to the pupil to reconstruct knowing. In the classroom they coexist falantes and listeners, all with its proper worlds of the life, experiences and knowledge, cloth of deep of the educational relation. Professor and pupils will visualize these worlds that if interlace with a critical look, problematizador. John Mclaughlin often says this. The construction of the knowledge occurs with the acts of speaks permeando the exchange of experiences between these worlds, in which the participants search the agreement. As You mark (2000, P. 20) the daily one affirms history as lived intensity e, when cutting a slice of the physical space stops in it pointing out the relationary space of the differences and interdependences, disclose the organization of the time as social condensation of the relations mediated for cultural objects and processes.
In the communicative action of Habermas the participants if do not guide primarily to the proper success, before pursue its ends under the condition of that its respective plans of action can be harmonized enter itself, on the base of a shared definition of the situation, fact this definitively distinguishes that it from the instrumental action. Habermas says that the communicative rationality is the capacity of the citizens to interact in group, mediating its interests as equal, co-ordinating its action through the sincere dialogue, in which all are heard. The objective interest of the group predominates. The author composes the world of the life for culture, society and personality.