The claim of speaking in the name of a large or small collectivity veils the acceptance of a strong delimitation between the speaker and that collectivity he invokes.
Each time when we speak in this way, we implicitly consider that we are somehow apart from the rest of people.
There are many possibilities of interpreting such an attitude: we renounce to ourselves for the others, we are able to speak what everyone would speak, even if others cannot actually do this because of their own faults.
Thus, we may accuse them for being unskilled speakers or for being deaf to their inner discourses.
Any of these accusations or explanations assumes a distance between the individual speaker and the community that he represents, even if there is a contradictory to the declared purposes.
It could not be easily erased this sort of contradiction. It results from the common language practice to speak in a general manner.
There is seemingly questionable if the problem could be solved without a change of the topics that incite the speaker to pretend he represents others’ point of view.
We do not distinguish ourselves from the rest when we stop discussing human beings in their social character. There are also to be omitted all the matters involved by a social approach.
Just for the sake of using labels, we may call these other topics as ‘metaphysical’. They bridge the above mentioned separation, because the metaphysical subject transgresses both the speaker and the community in the name of which he speaks.
Anyway, the obscurity proper to metaphysical topics can easily to drive the speaker to another contradiction, which is that of speaking in the name of some inexistent and general realities.