RECENTLY, in the wee small hours, dozily emerging from a crazed dream world (thank God our brains aren't Wi-Fied to social media yet), I snibbed on the radio to try and get some bearings.
The programme that popped up was a nice little doco about a couple who had started up - somewhat bizarrely some might think - tango dance classes for those in various degrees of, shall we say, marginalisation. People in retirement centres, people who had experienced strokes, and the like.
The interviewer was doing the usual thing, talking to the couple who'd got the programme up and running, talking to the beneficiaries of it (who, to a man and woman, were unstintingly appreciative) and so on. But one of the interviewees - let's call her Lily - had an interesting comment. She was, she said, previously a successful business consultant when, literally in an instant, she was cut down by a stroke.
Lily realised later that, in that moment, she had moved from Lily the professional consultant, to Lily the invalid. In a flash, from an out-there go-getter with life-under-control to suddenly needing a bib to get through her muesli in a reasonably dignified manner.
An instantaneous whole new unchosen "identity". Scary stuff! But Lily's most interesting point was: how come her identity had been so much defined by, in the first instance, what she could do in her professional capacity, and, now, by what she was unable to do? And how these two extremes were, well, so extreme. Given this radical instantaneous transformation, could she actually be the same person if all the previous denominators that helped define her as a person could be so arbitrarily snatched away?