Interview
iDENTITY, aPPEARANCE, AND pERFORMANCE: AN INTERVIEW WITH pEDRAM nAVAB
BY Samantha fOTOS
2016
|
What is Identity and how does one claim it? What are the benefits and costs of claiming identity? We believe without anesthesia answers these questions aesthetically through its remarkable narrative. However, we would like to see the conversations of the text in a practical lens. How do we put into practical words the emotion of without anesthesia and in effect the emotion of a social world hung up on our identities? Perhaps its author Pedram Nevab, has the best insights as he has lived in the narrative and has invested time to its social commentary.
|
Glassworks Magazine (GM): One of the first claims of identity is outside of one’s control. A wipe board addresses the medical identity of patients, particularly in their most current state of health. This suggests that outside forces define identity. What do you believe is the role of the medical wipe board?
Pedram Navab (PN): The role of the medical wipe board is an interesting one and I’m glad that you picked up on this. You’re right. One has no control over what the doctor or nurse has written on the board and, yet, the words already signify that the name or identity of the person on the board “means something.” In medicine, and as medical students and physicians, we are told that the diagnosis of the patient’s illness can be gleaned primarily from the patient’s history, rather than from the physical exam. In other words, history trumps (in most instances) examination. When one glimpses, for example, that the wipe board has a 65-year-old woman with chest pain, as opposed to a 20-year-old woman with chest pain, different histories and diagnoses are conjured. Already, based on the names and diagnoses, certain perceptions are brought to the forefront, and an identity and history are formed. The wipe board is dangerous insofar as it has already selected a history or narrative for you before the doctor or nurse has examined you, as the patient. In medicine and in pretty much everything else, a conception or image is already formulated by words and categories alone. Sometimes, it works in one’s favor, and at other times, one is just out of luck.
Pedram Navab (PN): The role of the medical wipe board is an interesting one and I’m glad that you picked up on this. You’re right. One has no control over what the doctor or nurse has written on the board and, yet, the words already signify that the name or identity of the person on the board “means something.” In medicine, and as medical students and physicians, we are told that the diagnosis of the patient’s illness can be gleaned primarily from the patient’s history, rather than from the physical exam. In other words, history trumps (in most instances) examination. When one glimpses, for example, that the wipe board has a 65-year-old woman with chest pain, as opposed to a 20-year-old woman with chest pain, different histories and diagnoses are conjured. Already, based on the names and diagnoses, certain perceptions are brought to the forefront, and an identity and history are formed. The wipe board is dangerous insofar as it has already selected a history or narrative for you before the doctor or nurse has examined you, as the patient. In medicine and in pretty much everything else, a conception or image is already formulated by words and categories alone. Sometimes, it works in one’s favor, and at other times, one is just out of luck.
GM: It may be then, that we alone do not construct our identities but rather others design our histories and narratives or at the very least provide the tools for us to do so. This begs us to discuss the manufacturing world of design and fashion as it provides us with our own choices, albeit limited and burdened by stereotypes created by others. I can’t help but think of characters in your novel Without Anesthesia, particularly Tess and her tie to Carissa’s fashion. Tess believed her clothing connected her to Carissa, a goth patient who self-harmed for an audience reaction. It seems clothing has the ability to change people and how they act and how they are perceived. In the novel, even Death him/herself changes their sexual identity when clothing choices are altered. What is going on to these characters when they change clothing, hair, makeup? Are their identities changing because of their clothing changes? Or are clothing and appearance simply tools to aid claims of identity?
PN: I think this is the perfect place to discuss Judith Butler’s notion of performance and parody, which is pretty central to my novel. As Butler suggests, parody does not assume an original that the parodic identities simulate, but is rather a parody of the notion of the original itself. In other words, parody reveals that there is no original identity. Fashions and identities are always already imitations without an origin. The proliferation of bodies and fashions constitutes a fluidity that is open to destabilization precisely because it shows that the notion of an original is always a copy of a copy, a mise-en-abyme upon mise-en-abyme, ad infinitum. The characters of this novel are all situated in this masquerade that reveals itself to be a nothingness from which everything emerges, an unoriginality that always hearkens to an originality that doesn’t, and cannot, exist.
Clothing, hair, and make-up are such strong signifiers anywhere, and especially in this novel, because they imply power and an ability to change whom one is, so that others see you differently. In other words, they are able to allow an escape of sorts from the nature with which one has been bestowed, and although they may posit an original—such as when Adriana copies Tessla—they also problematize the notion of an original because Tessla is always already a copy of another role that she plays or has played.
PN: I think this is the perfect place to discuss Judith Butler’s notion of performance and parody, which is pretty central to my novel. As Butler suggests, parody does not assume an original that the parodic identities simulate, but is rather a parody of the notion of the original itself. In other words, parody reveals that there is no original identity. Fashions and identities are always already imitations without an origin. The proliferation of bodies and fashions constitutes a fluidity that is open to destabilization precisely because it shows that the notion of an original is always a copy of a copy, a mise-en-abyme upon mise-en-abyme, ad infinitum. The characters of this novel are all situated in this masquerade that reveals itself to be a nothingness from which everything emerges, an unoriginality that always hearkens to an originality that doesn’t, and cannot, exist.
Clothing, hair, and make-up are such strong signifiers anywhere, and especially in this novel, because they imply power and an ability to change whom one is, so that others see you differently. In other words, they are able to allow an escape of sorts from the nature with which one has been bestowed, and although they may posit an original—such as when Adriana copies Tessla—they also problematize the notion of an original because Tessla is always already a copy of another role that she plays or has played.
"When one no longer can “read” the body or the body becomes different, because of a change in eye color, as in Adriana’s case, one’s perceptions, both from the perspective of the one who views or is viewed, are altered. Reality becomes problematic because one can no longer distinguish between the real and unreal."
GM: Scars, it would appear, play a role in our histories and the projections and judgments of them. For example, Adriana desires to alter her eye color. To the clerk providing contacts, Adriana's eye would simply change to blue, but for Adriana, she would claim "a new set of eyes altogether."
What then does this say about Adriana who is willing to gauge her eyes (perception) out?
PD: I think Judith Butler’s notion of the reality of gender is very relevant to this question. When one no longer can “read” the body or the body becomes different, because of a change in eye color, as in Adriana’s case, one’s perceptions, both from the perspective of the one who views or is viewed, are altered. Reality becomes problematic because one can no longer distinguish between the real and unreal. The real can become as changeable as the unreal, and it no longer seems as natural as we one thought it to be. In this sense, one can think of the possibilities of this subversion, which is inherent in Adriana’s narrative. What can she hope to produce by assuming another’s identity? Is she producing another version of Tessla or a better, more genuine version that is more real than Tessla herself could hope for? In this version, can the copy trump the original and, as I have suggested, does an original even exist? I think these are all super interesting questions with which the characters in the novel try to grapple.
However, Adriana’s desire to gouge out her eyes for Tessla, in my conception at least has less to do with identity and more to do with desire. She is literally willing to do whatever she can to identify and play out a role for this actress. Identity is always implicated in desire, but here it’s about a desire that is always short-circuited and can never be attained. Adriana desires and attempts to identify with a simulacrum that cannot and does not truly exist, a desire that will be perpetually deferred. She desires a being that is always already someone else, a core that doesn’t exist.
GM: With the role of desire and motive disclosed, we are drawn to the fascinating moments when characters perform in wildly absurd ways for the desire of recognition. In his excerpts, Anton provides several narratives of role playing and acting. His narrative suggests that the actions one takes, including the time and location it has been done, will lead others to assume identity. Anton asks "Can someone love me for myself and not for what I have done to myself?" What constitutes self; is it the actions one does or is it how we alter the appearance of a self? Do actions speak louder than anything else?
PN: Anton is an interesting character in the novel, because he is the actor par excellence. His ability to succeed and obtain his psychological gratification is tied to how others perceive him. He is a short-lived actor, because he can never allow others to glimpse his inner self, which, again, does not exist. He desires, always, to play the sick role, because that is who he is. His actions are therefore a way to keep his identity alive. The two are mutually inclusive, because without his actions and bodily self-inflictions and mutilations, he cannot attain that role that has been thrust upon him, which goes back again to the core identity with which we are all born, and our need to either re-package ourselves to align with this self identity or package ourselves to make ourselves more compatible with what society desires for us.
Anton clearly wants to be loved for who he is, but what he doesn’t realize is that he, too, like Tessla, can only be loved for the actors that he plays. His core identity is thus an amalgam of all those. He is a product of his actions and what he does to himself. His need to play the sick role is what allows him to live. He would like to sever this relationship, but he will never be successful because the two are so inextricably linked, as we learn. In short, his actions constitute his self, and, to return to Butler once again, the production of his numerous and varied roles, suggests that the original core — or his true identity, as he conceives it — is always an imitation of the roles that are out there and not intrinsic to him. His “identity” exists through a set of dramatic acts that can only be situated in an exterior space.
What then does this say about Adriana who is willing to gauge her eyes (perception) out?
PD: I think Judith Butler’s notion of the reality of gender is very relevant to this question. When one no longer can “read” the body or the body becomes different, because of a change in eye color, as in Adriana’s case, one’s perceptions, both from the perspective of the one who views or is viewed, are altered. Reality becomes problematic because one can no longer distinguish between the real and unreal. The real can become as changeable as the unreal, and it no longer seems as natural as we one thought it to be. In this sense, one can think of the possibilities of this subversion, which is inherent in Adriana’s narrative. What can she hope to produce by assuming another’s identity? Is she producing another version of Tessla or a better, more genuine version that is more real than Tessla herself could hope for? In this version, can the copy trump the original and, as I have suggested, does an original even exist? I think these are all super interesting questions with which the characters in the novel try to grapple.
However, Adriana’s desire to gouge out her eyes for Tessla, in my conception at least has less to do with identity and more to do with desire. She is literally willing to do whatever she can to identify and play out a role for this actress. Identity is always implicated in desire, but here it’s about a desire that is always short-circuited and can never be attained. Adriana desires and attempts to identify with a simulacrum that cannot and does not truly exist, a desire that will be perpetually deferred. She desires a being that is always already someone else, a core that doesn’t exist.
GM: With the role of desire and motive disclosed, we are drawn to the fascinating moments when characters perform in wildly absurd ways for the desire of recognition. In his excerpts, Anton provides several narratives of role playing and acting. His narrative suggests that the actions one takes, including the time and location it has been done, will lead others to assume identity. Anton asks "Can someone love me for myself and not for what I have done to myself?" What constitutes self; is it the actions one does or is it how we alter the appearance of a self? Do actions speak louder than anything else?
PN: Anton is an interesting character in the novel, because he is the actor par excellence. His ability to succeed and obtain his psychological gratification is tied to how others perceive him. He is a short-lived actor, because he can never allow others to glimpse his inner self, which, again, does not exist. He desires, always, to play the sick role, because that is who he is. His actions are therefore a way to keep his identity alive. The two are mutually inclusive, because without his actions and bodily self-inflictions and mutilations, he cannot attain that role that has been thrust upon him, which goes back again to the core identity with which we are all born, and our need to either re-package ourselves to align with this self identity or package ourselves to make ourselves more compatible with what society desires for us.
Anton clearly wants to be loved for who he is, but what he doesn’t realize is that he, too, like Tessla, can only be loved for the actors that he plays. His core identity is thus an amalgam of all those. He is a product of his actions and what he does to himself. His need to play the sick role is what allows him to live. He would like to sever this relationship, but he will never be successful because the two are so inextricably linked, as we learn. In short, his actions constitute his self, and, to return to Butler once again, the production of his numerous and varied roles, suggests that the original core — or his true identity, as he conceives it — is always an imitation of the roles that are out there and not intrinsic to him. His “identity” exists through a set of dramatic acts that can only be situated in an exterior space.
"Tess functions more like a mirror and reflection that allows others to see themselves as they are. That is precisely the reason that she and Anton are so problematic for one another and cannot coexist, because Tess’s gaze will always reflect Anton to him, an identity that he will not, and cannot, see."
GM: Tessla, too, is an actor. She is able to switch roles between movies as though a chameleon. Is this also true for her identity? Or does she keep parts of her roles forever inside of her? Is this true for other characters as well, such as Tess who becomes a goth cutter by performing the role?
PN: Tessla Ferrara is probably one of the more interesting characters in the novel about whom we know so little, precisely because she is an actress and also because she cannot express herself in the narrative, except in one small portion where her superego speaks for her. An actor and actress’s identity is problematic because they play roles on screen that often have nothing to do with their off-screen persona. Audience members will have a perception of them based on their on-screen identities, interviews, and articles written about them, and as a result, to invoke Walter Benjamin’s term, a certain “aura” is attached to them. However, the actor’s or actress’s success and prowess lies in their ability to elude and allow others to believe that they can be anyone, a tabular rasa, if you like. However, precisely because they can be anyone, they are really no one, or everyone simultaneously.
As you read in one section of the narrative, Tessla doesn’t really know who she is, because she has been devoid of any identity based not only on her on-screen person, but also off-screen. She is a hollow shell, and even when she is not on-screen, she desires to project an image to create an “aura” about her, as in the hotel lobby scene, for example.
GM: Does this or a similar matrixes of identity manifest in other characters as well, such as Tess who becomes a goth cutter by performing the role?
PN: What is interesting about Tess is that she is not just a female version of Anton. In fact, she is probably its direct opposite. Although she, too, desires to mutilate herself, this is more of a need to identify and empathize with the victims of illness, than to actually play a “sick role.” Her intense desire to feel what others are feeling is a desire to mirror others. I don’t want to give too much away, and certainly not the “secret” of the novel, but Tess functions more like a mirror and reflection that allows others to see themselves as they are. That is precisely the reason that she and Anton are so problematic for one another and cannot coexist, because Tess’s gaze will always reflect Anton to him, an identity that he will not, and cannot, see.
GM: Adrianna speaks with Adrien's mother in a supermarket and some interesting things happen. Because Adrien's mother notices she is talking a lot, she calls herself a Chatty Cathy, a name given to her because of her talkative behavior. This act of addressing identity suggests that actions indeed are important in claiming identity. When Adrianna answers in a much less talkative fashion and in the Italian language, Adrien's mother recognizes the use of Italian and assumes Adrianna is native from Italy, asking what her origins are. Does the language along with the actions one take define our identities? Or are these simply tools, part of the mystery and complexity of identity?
PN: Language plays an interesting role in this novel. And I define “language” very broadly, whether this is the language that one speaks or the set of words that construct a discipline. For example, notwithstanding the Italian language that Tessla and Adriana speak, there is also the language of the medical and film world, two very distinct languages that, at first, have nothing to do with one another. However, one quickly realizes, that Tess imagines the medical world to be very close to film and that the two languages coincide very nicely with one another. In fact, although Adriana has a difficult time grappling with the medical words in the films that she views, she also realizes that the medical terminology is well depicted in images.
So, although, for Adriana, the Italian language is a tool that she can utilize to show that she is Italian or can play the Italian role, we realize that this language doesn’t confer her any more Italian identity than one who cannot understand or speak the language. As Adriana correctly notes in one section of the novel, words will always be lost in translation and that she can never truly get her points across to a native speaker, even if she were to speak Italian like a native. The point is that we are born into a native language and that will situate us in a certain time and place in history. For instance, the language in the middle ages is not completely the language that we speak today, because language evolves and circumstances change. Language will always be nestled in this zone of incomprehensibility and identity.
GM: We are tackling boldly with identity’s truths, realities, projections and perhaps existentialism. Using your characters, we have learned so much by theorizing in tandem with analyzing very human behavior. We’d like to end by asking one final question.
When she was a child, Tess was left-handed. But when she wrote with her left hand she was criticized, even condemned. Through indoctrination she emerged right-handed. Her identity had been changed by the people who criticized and condemned her. Do you think oppressive nature of indoctrination of value and custom represents or speaks to the action of claiming identity and how it is approached in society?
PN: This question hearkens back to the notion of how far we will go to re-identify with something with which we may not necessarily connect. It is about an identity that can be molded to fit what society wants of us. It also is relevant to the question of how much one will allow herself to be involuntarily changed (indeed subjected to), despite the genes that one may have, or, conversely, how much one will try to consciously overcome her genes to become someone whom the genes didn’t originally intend.
The former is forced and the latter is more of a natural progression. But, in the eyes of the spectator who cannot know the intention of the individual, both scenarios appear somehow unnatural, and parodies of other roles.
PN: Tessla Ferrara is probably one of the more interesting characters in the novel about whom we know so little, precisely because she is an actress and also because she cannot express herself in the narrative, except in one small portion where her superego speaks for her. An actor and actress’s identity is problematic because they play roles on screen that often have nothing to do with their off-screen persona. Audience members will have a perception of them based on their on-screen identities, interviews, and articles written about them, and as a result, to invoke Walter Benjamin’s term, a certain “aura” is attached to them. However, the actor’s or actress’s success and prowess lies in their ability to elude and allow others to believe that they can be anyone, a tabular rasa, if you like. However, precisely because they can be anyone, they are really no one, or everyone simultaneously.
As you read in one section of the narrative, Tessla doesn’t really know who she is, because she has been devoid of any identity based not only on her on-screen person, but also off-screen. She is a hollow shell, and even when she is not on-screen, she desires to project an image to create an “aura” about her, as in the hotel lobby scene, for example.
GM: Does this or a similar matrixes of identity manifest in other characters as well, such as Tess who becomes a goth cutter by performing the role?
PN: What is interesting about Tess is that she is not just a female version of Anton. In fact, she is probably its direct opposite. Although she, too, desires to mutilate herself, this is more of a need to identify and empathize with the victims of illness, than to actually play a “sick role.” Her intense desire to feel what others are feeling is a desire to mirror others. I don’t want to give too much away, and certainly not the “secret” of the novel, but Tess functions more like a mirror and reflection that allows others to see themselves as they are. That is precisely the reason that she and Anton are so problematic for one another and cannot coexist, because Tess’s gaze will always reflect Anton to him, an identity that he will not, and cannot, see.
GM: Adrianna speaks with Adrien's mother in a supermarket and some interesting things happen. Because Adrien's mother notices she is talking a lot, she calls herself a Chatty Cathy, a name given to her because of her talkative behavior. This act of addressing identity suggests that actions indeed are important in claiming identity. When Adrianna answers in a much less talkative fashion and in the Italian language, Adrien's mother recognizes the use of Italian and assumes Adrianna is native from Italy, asking what her origins are. Does the language along with the actions one take define our identities? Or are these simply tools, part of the mystery and complexity of identity?
PN: Language plays an interesting role in this novel. And I define “language” very broadly, whether this is the language that one speaks or the set of words that construct a discipline. For example, notwithstanding the Italian language that Tessla and Adriana speak, there is also the language of the medical and film world, two very distinct languages that, at first, have nothing to do with one another. However, one quickly realizes, that Tess imagines the medical world to be very close to film and that the two languages coincide very nicely with one another. In fact, although Adriana has a difficult time grappling with the medical words in the films that she views, she also realizes that the medical terminology is well depicted in images.
So, although, for Adriana, the Italian language is a tool that she can utilize to show that she is Italian or can play the Italian role, we realize that this language doesn’t confer her any more Italian identity than one who cannot understand or speak the language. As Adriana correctly notes in one section of the novel, words will always be lost in translation and that she can never truly get her points across to a native speaker, even if she were to speak Italian like a native. The point is that we are born into a native language and that will situate us in a certain time and place in history. For instance, the language in the middle ages is not completely the language that we speak today, because language evolves and circumstances change. Language will always be nestled in this zone of incomprehensibility and identity.
GM: We are tackling boldly with identity’s truths, realities, projections and perhaps existentialism. Using your characters, we have learned so much by theorizing in tandem with analyzing very human behavior. We’d like to end by asking one final question.
When she was a child, Tess was left-handed. But when she wrote with her left hand she was criticized, even condemned. Through indoctrination she emerged right-handed. Her identity had been changed by the people who criticized and condemned her. Do you think oppressive nature of indoctrination of value and custom represents or speaks to the action of claiming identity and how it is approached in society?
PN: This question hearkens back to the notion of how far we will go to re-identify with something with which we may not necessarily connect. It is about an identity that can be molded to fit what society wants of us. It also is relevant to the question of how much one will allow herself to be involuntarily changed (indeed subjected to), despite the genes that one may have, or, conversely, how much one will try to consciously overcome her genes to become someone whom the genes didn’t originally intend.
The former is forced and the latter is more of a natural progression. But, in the eyes of the spectator who cannot know the intention of the individual, both scenarios appear somehow unnatural, and parodies of other roles.
Hungry for more? Read Samantha Fotos' review of Navab's novel Without Anesthesia
