Within the framework of the Theory of the Art of Demopraxy, a new term offers an opportunity to further reflect on the identity of Demopractic Works and, above all, on the relationships that can be established among them: inter-autonomy. By inter-autonomy I mean a radically relational conception of autonomy, one that stands in opposition both to liberal models grounded in proprietary individualism and to hetero-directed forms of collective organisation.

Inter-autonomy describes a condition in which the capacity for self-determination is not a pre-existing attribute of the subject, but rather emerges through practices of cooperation, negotiation, and conflict situated within specific social, material, and symbolic configurations.

From this perspective, inter-autonomy does not coincide with independence, but with the possibility of acting politically together with others, within relations of conscious interdependence. Inter-autonomy acknowledges that every form of agency is structurally connected to shared infrastructures, common resources, collective knowledge, and regimes of access, and that freedom of action is constructed through the management and transformation of these relations rather than through their removal.

For Demopraxy, therefore, inter-autonomy assumes a central conceptual function. As we know, Demopraxy is understood as an embodied, non-institutional and non-representational democratic practice, which conceives democracy as a process in becoming, produced through concrete practices of participation, co-decision-making, and self-organisation enacted within its own communities of practice. Within this framework, demopractic art does not represent democracy, but rather practices it, activating contexts in which heterogeneous subjects can experiment with temporary forms of shared governance, common production, and social transformation.

The concept of inter-autonomy finds a clear affinity with theories of the commons, understood not merely as common goods, but as social practices of co-management, self-organisation, and shared production. In this sense, inter-autonomy describes the mode through which individual and collective subjects exercise their capacity for self-determination within common processes, embracing care, responsibility, and conflict as constitutive elements of political action. Autonomy is therefore neither external nor alternative to the commons, but is realised through the commons themselves.

This perspective is particularly relevant for the analysis of participatory and socially engaged artistic practices, understood as practices that operate within the sphere of social production rather than that of symbolic representation alone. In such practices, art does not merely thematise the social, but intervenes directly in the processes of constructing relationships, shared spaces, decision-making dispositifs, and forms of cooperation. Artists, participants, and the contexts involved do not act as separate subjects, but as interdependent nodes within a collective process in which autonomy emerges as a relational and situated effect.

Inter-autonomy thus describes the operational and political condition of these practices: a form of autonomy that does not belong to a single actor, but is generated between subjects, within the relationships and collective dispositifs they enact. In this sense, inter-autonomy can be defined as a mode of distributed and situated political agency, characteristic of demopractic artistic practices, in which self-determination emerges as a shared process oriented towards the construction and transformation of social and cultural commons.