Evangelism vs. Education
The subtle difference on how we can avoid coercive tendencies in blockchain social governance
As the underlying technology of Ethereum continues to improve, the technical prowess will (and in some instances may already) overtake the current societal methods of governance (state level jurisdiction on law, ethics, philosophy) and will push the boundaries where external actors — state governments namely — will form a tension with the technology. Creating a framework for the philosophical governance of the technology will be a necessity. However, no formal structure of social governance has been put in place. The recourse of the technological development has only recently begun to bleed into the realm of true social science and governance frameworks.
For true decentralized governance and decision making to occur, informing the broader community and gathering signals on their intent will be necessary for building interest on how social or philosophical issues will need to be solved. For example, as a public, decentralized, international blockchain, Ethereum currently is not governed by any specific bodies of laws. How then will the community respond if a specific country or governing body questions the viability of transactions or user identity? The rollout of GDPR in the EU is one example as the implications alone on providing the right to remove user history at a transactional level run into the fundamental immutability of blockchain. There will only continue to be more of these philosophical questions that arise given regulations haven’t yet caught up to the use of the technology, let alone the internal philosophical discussions within the Ethereum community.
One question then to address this need for social governance will be how to best inform the community to help choose and signal the intent for proposed governance structures. Two approaches will emerge: Education and Evangelism. These are often used interchangeably, particularly in Tech, but are not synonymous and bear far different results.
Education at its most rudimentary use is defined as information about or training in a particular subject. Education is for the benefit of receiving informed opinions and letting parties understand the uses of a change/decision and how it will impact them. The goal is to be objective, factual, but persuade all participants to take action based on an opinion they derive themselves.
Evangelism is much closer to lobbying, sharing selected information or subjective views based on a distinct opinion that one party wants to give to all participants. In a very technical definition it is zealous advocacy or support of a particular cause. As a term, it has recently gained significant adoption particularly in Tech related work (some even say every company should have an evangelist). However, this ubiquity is often connected with the sub connotation for a role that spends more time selling product than understanding the fundamental technology or community that is built. Evangelism ultimately leads to a more subjective, narrow view of consequences.
For early governance structures, it’s critical that we take specific action to educate the community and avoid the use of evangelism. Evangelism for specific causes or ways of governing will lead down the path of what we’ve seen time and time again in broader society — ill informed decisions, tribalism, and ultimately, a community that is at the whim of the most influential/moneyed/persuasive actors rather than governance based on the collective decision of the community. We may be heading unknowingly towards the path of evangelism if we don’t set up recourse for actual education in governance. Apathy or the lack of action will only progress to sending a signal that in order to cause action, coercion is needed.
