I am currently taking an adult education course that often uses the word ‘andragogy,’ which refers to teaching strategies developed for adult learners. Thus, I am also familiar with the term ‘pedagogy’ as it refers to the method and practice of teaching. I find Fee and Flick’s term of Coyote Pedagogy quite relatable and adaptable to what we’re studying right now because the lessons we learn from the coyote is quite educational.
According to Warn in her article “A Trickster Paradigm in First Nations Visual Art: A Contemporary Application,” native reality “is best understood through the trickster, who has always been known to First Nations people through oral traditions, and who is best described as a creator that is constantly transforming and shape-shifting” (Warn, 4). With that being said, I think the role of the coyote in this sense is to unsettle the preconceived notions of the history of Canadian literature and even native studies, and truly try to understand what the motive of the Coyote wants the readers/audience to see. As Fee and Flick point out in their article, “King’s strategy for writing for an audience primarily composed of the uniformed is not to pander to its preconceptions or to produce explanations, but to entice, even trick this audience into finding out for themselves” (Fee and Flick, 132).
My understanding of the Coyote as the trickster is to intervene in the story to get readers to perceive stories from a new perspective, or to ask readers to consider old stories with different outcomes. For example, when the coyote cannot interpret a story or misreads it, this misunderstanding of the Coyote is similar to our own interpretation a story from one perspective only. As readers, we are often told old stories once as a very young age and most probably have stuck to that specific telling of a story. What the Coyote does is complicates our understanding by making us question the truth and falsehood.
Perhaps what the Coyote asks us to do is consider stories from different perspectives, and don’t always base your understanding according to one viewpoint. Most importantly, the role of the coyote is to give readers the freedom to make their own interpretations and conclusions. For example, Alberta begins to explain to her students about the four Indians, Robinson Crusoe, Ishmael, Lone Ranger, and Hawkeye. Suddenly, they are brought to a different century where they try to change the world. Alberta continues to teach her lesson, asking students to come up with meanings to the drawings. However, none of the students understood a thing, which signifies that the students are not culturally educated. The Coyote is significant because he is tasked to bring these two different worlds together, that of the European invaders and the Native population. The purpose of the Coyote as a trickster is to tie the two worlds together in the form of a story, to promote critical thinking between Canadian literature and Native studies.
Fee, Margery and Flick, Jane. “Coyote Pedagogy: Knowing Where the Borders Are in Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water.” Canlit.ca: Canadian Literature, 2012. Web. 9 Mar. 2014.
King, Thomas. Green Grass Running Water. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc., 1993. Print.
Warn, Jaime Dawn-Lyn. A trickster paradigm in First Nations visual art: a contemporary application. Diss. Lethbridge, Alta.: University of Lethbridge, Faculty of Arts and Science, 2007, 2007.