In his work The Politics of Aesthetics, Ranciéré turns to Aristotle’s view of the political being as, “a speaking thing” (12). Highlighting, artisans, or the poor, do not have the privilege of overseeing a community because their work will always take priority. This marks a clear distinction between who may partake in political discourse and who may not. However, there is a disjunction between speaking things and the privilege of speaking. Balibar illuminates, citizenship can not be solely based on verbal capacity as speech is both a power relation and a skill (4). If political representation relies on the ability and privilege to speak for oneself, then there will always be subjects who go unheard. As such, communities who are governed by those that have particular functions of speech must be cautious of the “good orator”. Sophists, those who excel in and take advantage of the art of persuasive speaking, have the ability to misuse their abilities to manipulate the public. Taking from Balibar, every individual combines several identities to make one (28). If this is the case, then we must question whether the active political being inherently takes advantage of their speaking skills to serve one or more of their various identities, rather than the whole community.