‘Twisting the Wrist’: Teaching South Asian Religions in the Contemporary Academy Jacqueline Suthren Hirst* and John Zavos* University of Manchester Abstract Research into South Asian religious traditions has developed rapidly over the past two decades or so, contributing to and reflecting both a critical reflexive turn in the discipline of Religious Stud- ies, and the growing influence of Postcolonial theory in the Humanities and Social Sciences. In this article, we explore the implications of these developments for teaching about South Asian religious traditions in the contemporary academy. We argue that a particular challenge is presented by the persistent influence of the world religions paradigm in Higher Education teaching environ- ments, notwithstanding the emergence of new research agendas. We review the approach taken towards concepts of ‘religion’ and ‘religions’ in a series of recently published volumes directed at students of South Asian religious traditions, and ask how these approaches are reflected in the organisation and pedagogic concerns of these volumes. We then go on to suggest particular strate- gies for approaching teaching about South Asian religious traditions, emphasising the importance of multiple ways of contextualising data, and encouraging critical reflection on this multiplicity. We use the metaphor of the kaleidoscope to explain this approach, encouraging students to ‘twist the wrist’ in order to view case studies in different contexts, and so build up nuanced, critically aware pictures of the diverse traditions they are studying. Introduction Most of those involved in research, teaching and learning about South Asian religions in the contemporary academy are familiar with Donald Lopez’s quip about the ‘overdevel- oped pectoral muscles’ of scholars of Hinduism, their bodily development the result not of an enduring pursuit of yogic practice, but rather of the repeated action of ‘tracing quo- tation marks in the air whenever they have mentioned ‘‘Hinduism’’ ’(2000, p. 832). Lopez’s laconic remark indicates the sense of pervasive awareness amongst researchers in this field of the fragility of the category with which they daily seek to wrestle. Even as they explore and discuss the many traditions of the region of the world known as South Asia, they reflexively acknowledge the limitations of one of the central categories used to effect this exploration: Hinduism, a category which for quite some years now has been critiqued and deconstructed, laid bare as a phantom of modernity, unable to embrace what Julius Lipner (2010) refers to as the ‘polycentrism’ of the ‘ancient banyan’ of Hindu traditions. Of course, not all scholars are wedded to the ‘constructionist’ argument which sees Hinduism as a product of the last two or three hundred years (for a reprisal of differ- ent positions, see Pennington 2005). At the same time, the debate over this idea of con- struction has encouraged a critical reflexivity to become embedded as central to research in this area, in a way which just 25 or 30 years ago was by no means the case. Although Lopez was particularly concerned about the bodily inflections of scholars of Hinduism, the critical reflexivity so indicated is symptomatic of a broader trend, through Religion Compass 6/2 (2012): 125–135, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2011.00332.x ª 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd