In every person’s life there are two forms of government: institutional government and the government of practice.
The former consists of the state structures within which we are embedded; the latter is exercised by the group or groups we belong to—whether by professional choice, vocation, or any other reason.

If institutional government is always visible to all—both in democratic societies and in any other form of state organization—the government of practice is almost always invisible. Yet its importance is fundamental: within this second form of government, decisions are made that directly and profoundly influence our lives.

Any organization that brings together its members based on the activities carried out within it is a community of practice. This type of community involves all of us and exerts a decisive influence on us: it defines the rhythms of our daily lives, generates the economic resources necessary for our existence, and contributes to shaping our identity and a significant part of our social life.

The first type of government takes on different forms depending on cultures and historical periods, responding to intellectual, economic, social, and even spiritual dynamics—consider, for example, the relationship between state and church—and over these forms of government we have little or very limited influence. In the best democratic systems, through periodic voting and a public sphere where dialogue and critique are welcomed or encouraged, we can exercise a limited form of participation in the decisions the state makes to regulate collective life.

The second type of government—or government of practice, as it is exercised within communities of practice—precisely because it is not recognized as such, often remains inert, not actively exercised by citizens: the potential for governing our own lives thus remains largely unexpressed.

Cittadellarte has recognized this fundamental nature of the governance of social life and has developed a theory and a method to make it visible and practicable. This theory is called demopraxy, as it acknowledges that the governance of the demos—the kratos of the people—is exercised within the everyday practices of the communities that bring citizens together.

Demopraxy, therefore, identifies communities of practice as communities of governance.

The steps that demopraxy outlines as necessary for the realization of a demopractic society are three:

From communities of practice to communities of governance
The first step is the assumption of a governing consciousness by individual communities of practice. These organizations—indeed, all organizations—must come to recognize themselves not only as economic or associative agents, but also as structured forms through which governance over the lives of their members is exercised. In doing so, they come to understand themselves as Communities of Governance.

From individual communities of governance to networks of shared governance
The second step concerns the connection among different organizations that have acquired this awareness. Their union makes it possible to form networks or platforms of co-governance, in which decisions made within each organization are compared, shared, balanced, and collectively deliberated. This process fulfills two essential functions: it generates the collective intelligence that arises from structured dialogue among individuals and groups, and it ensures the continuous renegotiation of decisions so that they can adapt to evolving conditions. This renegotiation also serves as an antidote to the inevitable tendency toward the rigidification of governance and the emergence of communities whose priority becomes self-preservation at all costs. The risk that an organization may focus exclusively on defending already acquired power—rather than continuously revising it—can be addressed, without dogmatism or authoritarianism, only through ongoing comparison among organizations that bring forward different decisions. This process adopts the method of the formula of creation, or trinamic formula.

From practices to policies
The third step completes the formation of a democratic society: it involves building bridges, channels, mechanisms, and systems of connection between governments of practice and institutional governments.

A demopractic society founded on demopraxy—and thus on these three steps—is called the State of the Art. It is a form of state organization sustained both by governmental institutions and by governments of practice.

The State of the Art does not position itself against existing socio-political systems, nor does it propose their elimination; rather, it offers a mechanism of complementarity—and, where possible, subsidiarity—with respect to the institutional dimension of the state.

The expression State of the Art also seeks to evoke the common meaning of the phrase: how things actually stand. The demopractic State of the Art shifts the focus from the institutions of governance to the fact of governance itself—that is, to the government of practice.

Who, then, truly governs the choices that influence our material condition—our income, our time for living and working—and our inner condition—our sense of serenity or anxiety about the future? Who, if not the governments of practice, namely the organizations and communities in which we spend most of our lives?

It is for this reason that Cittadellarte—after establishing a “City of Art” in Biella within the industrial complex along the banks of the Cervo stream, after contributing to Biella’s recognition as a UNESCO Creative City, and after founding more than 300 embassies in over 50 countries—has come to conceive the demopractic society of the State of the Art.

This society identifies the source of the state dimension not in bureaucratic registration within a civil registry, but in concrete, practical activity within everyday life.

This grounding in practice offers demopractic citizens the possibility to develop their dimension as authors—whether they are factory workers, doctors, teachers, nurses, shoemakers, software developers, or engaged in any other profession or trade. The State of the Art is thus founded on citizens understood as authors and co-authors who, within governments of practice, build and constitute the very reality of the society in which they live.

In the epochal transition toward a society accompanied by artificial intelligence and automata—which, outside of us and soon also within us, will develop our automatic dimension—the State of the Art lays the foundations for a constant dynamic of balance between the society of authors and the society of automata.

Paolo Naldini