Interpretive Pedagogies for Higher Edu-cation: Arendt, Berger, Said, Nussbaum,and their Legacies. By Jon Nixon. NewYork, N.Y.: Continuum, 2012. xii + 166pages. ISBN 978-1-4411-1715-1. $130.00.

Interpretive Pedagogies for Higher Educa-tion – the third and last of its series –examines the situation of higher educationin the twenty-first century. Jon Nixonskillfully organizes the present study inthree sections that display his perspica-cious and thorough research as well as hishumanistic perspective on the current stateof higher education. In the first section,the author identifies the broader context ofhigher education inviting readers to reflecton the purpose of such institutions. Hefurther argues that these institutions havebeen greatly impacted by the privatizationand marketization of the educational enter-prise in which students become less likeapprentices and more like customers andinstitutions more like a marketable com-modity (7). Thus, Nixon’s voice calls fortha pedagogy that, inserted in a globalcontext, bears an “educationally purpose-ful practice” as well as a practice that hasthe ultimate commitment not to reproduce“the masses” but to engender a “remakingof ‘the public’ ” (30). Such pedagogywould be unequivocally committed to apublic education that is inclusive and par-ticipative in its orientation and outreach.

In the second portion of the study,Nixon analyzes the significant works ofHannah Arendt, John Berger, EdwardSaid, and Martha Nussbaum in order toprovide a reflection on how their legaciesand scholarship can contribute to thereframing of pedagogical practices in uni-versities. Nixon argues that the question ofthe purpose of higher education within thecontexts of globalization is a crucial one

to address if these institutions are toremain germane. In this section, a refer-ence to critical pedagogy as developed byauthors such as Freire, hooks, Giroux, andMcLaren certainly would provide interest-ing points of intersections and valuablecritical analysis to accomplish his purpose.

In the chapters that follow, the authorstresses the necessity of re-envisioningpedagogy defined in a broader context ofinstitutional and civic interconnectivity.He pursues this by focusing on three dif-ferent topics organized through the threelast chapters: Open Futures, EducatedPublics, and Pedagogic Spaces. Recogniz-ing that “the future requires us both toacknowledge our differences and to recog-nize our shared humanity” (110), Nixoninvites the reader to think critically aboutthe social role of higher education in ademocratic society in which a pedagogythat is “ethically and politically under-stood” aims to sustain an educated publicto engage in a world of cosmopolitan plu-rality and difference. Nixon concludes thebook inviting everyone concerned withhigher education to create an egalitariansystem of public higher education thatallows for social mobility, equal opportu-nities, flexibility, and creativity, all indis-pensable concepts for a global citizenshipmindset. In an attempt to overcome thechallenges imposed by the era of cosmo-politanism, he encourages the “privilegedWest” to look and learn from otherregions of the world. One could argue thatthe pedagogical understanding Nixon isenvisioning for universities should beginin elementary schools. Perhaps, creating anew mentality among students, teachers,and administration in a much earlier stageof the educational process would prompt acritical understanding of the social role ofeducation in democratic societies.

REVIEW

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons LtdTeaching Theology and Religion, Volume 16, Issue S1, July 2013 e105

This book is indeed an invaluable readfor anyone concerned about the future ofhigher education in the twenty-firstcentury. Although this book is notintended for theological education audi-ences, I believe they can use Nixon’spointed insights to reflect on the chal-lenges of globalization and its dehumaniz-ing ethos for higher educational contexts

and for theological schools in particular.Theological schools are not exempt fromthese challenges and they offer both acapacity for embracing that which is justand resisting with hope that which is not.

Débora B. Agra JunkerChristian Theological Seminary

Review

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltde106