Rotting Beams and Fresh Paint: The Illusion of Incremental Social Progress

When a house’s foundation is cracked, one does not simply buy new furniture or repaint the walls. While these ‘reforms’ may hide the decay for a season, they cannot prevent the structure from eventually collapsing under its own weight. In Separation of Church and Hate, author John Fugelsang argues that the modern Catholic Church suffers from precisely this kind of structural failure: after centuries of biblical literalism, institutional power accumulation, and moral gatekeeping, the Church has drifted so far from the radical compassion and humility at the core of Jesus’s original teachings that superficial reform can no longer revive its spirit. To Fugelsang, attempting to “fix” such an institution through minor doctrinal adjustments is akin to reinforcing rotting beams with fresh paint—it preserves appearances while ignoring the collapse beneath the surface. In the realm of social change, humanity often finds itself clutching a paintbrush when it should be wielding a sledgehammer. 

Much like an aged home, social groups’ intrinsically dynamic nature requires careful maintenance. Professor of Evaluations Jean A. King describes incremental change as “the concept that programs and organizations develop over time by making small alterations” and revolutionary change as “[the way] in which people are encouraged to question basic assumptions about the program and its structure, activities, and outcomes”. Over the course of human civilization, struggles of power and injustice have been a common symptom.  Responses to these struggles often exist at the intersection of revolutionary and incremental ideals. While incrementalism is often the human preference for stability, independently it is an ineffective tool for dismantling deep-seated systemic issues; revolutionary methods are an essential component in achieving true social transformation.

In a study conducted surveying 124 students at Cambridge Rindge & Latin High School across grade cohorts, over 70% of respondents preferred incremental approaches to everyday dilemmas over more radical, transformative solutions. The survey posited three seemingly mundane scenarios. The first, concerning a run-down but historically valuable home in desperate need of repairs; the second a favorite sweater with multiple holes; lastly a dysfunctional student-led organization facing efficiency and organizational issues. For all three scenarios, respondents were given two choices: an incremental, continuous approach, such as continuing repairs on the old home indefinitely, or a more radical approach such as demolishing and rebuilding the home altogether. Across all three unique scenarios—completely blind to what is being studied as they were asked to answer according to their intuition—respondents overwhelmingly favored the slower, more continuous approaches.

The reason for this attraction towards slow and steady progress originates from the human desire for safety and familiarity. The prospect theory—as observed by psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky—explains that when faced with high-risk decisions the vast majority err on the side of caution, consistently valuing the prevention of potential losses over equivalent gains. All animals are inherently risk-averse—that fact is fueled purely by natural selection; without risk aversion, an animal is more likely to put themselves in dangerous situations and die before successfully reproducing. But humans most of all, given evolved intellect and capacity for logical reasoning and risk comparison, wrestle with this even outside of life-or-death contexts. Although the natural tendency is understandable, in the case of social change it is abhorrently misguided. 

Rosa Luxemburg’s 1898 Reform or Revolution supplies the major theory behind the need for revolutionary overhaul. As a written response to socialist peer Eduard Bernstein’s popular rhetoric of “social revisionism”, Luxemburg highlights the trends of injustice that occur as a result of slow-moving incremental reform. She argues that Bernstein’s approach to social reform—a steady and amendable process of meticulous reforms—is not only ineffective but leads to an entirely different destination, positing that in the end, focusing on solely incremental reforms leads not to a demolition of capitalism but instead a stamped management system. In terms of capitalist reform, Luxemburg further contends that the governing body is a capitalist organ and therefore will never be reasonably “convinced” to implement social initiatives; using the government’s own “tools” (abiding by the restrictions of existing legislation) to achieve true lasting change is as effective as a sieve to hold water. This same principle can be applied beyond the bourgeoisie and proletariat; in every case of social reform, using the tools already at one’s disposal is an ineffective method of amelioration. In every case, clear and direct intent to revolutionize is paramount in establishing a line of action that demands immediate improvement.  

In the modern climate, the shortcomings of incremental approaches can be seen across fields and cultures. Among others, the racial caste system of India, the damaged American criminal justice system, and climate injustice worldwide perfectly exemplify this tension. In an undelivered speech written by Minister of Law of India Dr. B. R. Ambedkar in 1938, Ambedkar criticizes existing Hindu social reformists for not addressing the issue of racial caste at its core. He explains that the racial caste system of India transcends societal stigma and instead is deeply embedded in the foundation of Indian culture: from religious practices, to historical understanding, to actual codified legislation, the ethnic caste system is not something that can be mended by slow and steady alterations. He argues that because the caste system is sanctified by the Shastras (the sacred texts of Hinduism), it functions as a divine legislation that cannot be altered through incremental secular shifts. For Ambedkar, true annihilation requires a total rejection of the scriptural authority that justifies this hierarchy, asserting that “it is not possible to break Caste without annihilating the religious notions on which it… is founded”. Similarly, the American criminal justice system has long since been a source of discrimination and deeply entrenched inequalities. In Reform or Revolution: Thoughts on Liberal and Radical Criminologies, criminology professor Alessandro De Giorgi explains there are two theories behind system reform—liberalism and radicalism. The theory of liberal reform operates under the assumption that hyper-capitalism indirectly leads to elevated rates of crime and those suffering the consequences of late stage capitalism must be supported through means such as stronger social programs, while the radical theory opposes this notion altogether.  In De Giorgi’s interpretation, the radical approach is to acknowledge that capitalism and crime are intrinsically intertwined—without addressing the root cause of the former (eradicating capitalism-first ideals), the latter will never truly be solved.

Finally, in their study Four Principles of Transformative Adaptation to Climate Change-Exacerbated Hazards in Informal Settlements, environmental scientist Ben C. Howard—among other colleagues—explores the outcomes of differing solutions to climate change in the context of the poor and unhoused. In the paper, it is found that unhoused individuals are much more susceptible to the disease and environmental ruin that is exacerbated by rising global temperatures and climate alterations. To solve this inequality, four methods of response are established: coping, incremental, reformist, and transformative. While these climate scientists recognize that incrementalism and reformist measures are somewhat effective, they lack the definitive and preventative qualities of the transformative approach. All three of these current social conflicts demand radical solutions; while meticulous reform can be a valuable helping hand, it has proven to be ineffective independently. 

Conversely, fingers can be pointed to revolutions backed by radical spirits in history that have failed. From the French Revolution, to the Iranian Revolution of 1979, to the 1956 Hungarian uprising, there is no shortage of cautionary tales in the context of social revolution. Oftentimes, the “new and improved” governing body that takes the place of the enemy government turns out to be just as oppressive and tyrannical as the last. However, contrary to what some may believe, this is not a failure of the spirit of revolution but instead the result of negligent planning and lackluster political organization. The French Revolution—born out of the substantial class divide and socioeconomic inequities prior to 1789—is a prime example of irresponsible leadership and excess violence leading to a revolution’s own demise. Maximilien Robespierre, the man at the forefront of the French Revolution and the French National Convention, mobilized an uprising that murdered thousands accused of opposing the party in the span of just a few months. This ultimately led to inexcusable amounts of unjustified bloodshed—what once started as an attempt to take back control from an oppressive, class-guided aristocracy instead descended into a far more violent and unorganized period of pure anarchy. Had Robespierre and his colleagues prioritized a plan for the inevitable transfer of power and committed acts of rebellion intentionally, it is likely the French Revolution could have had a similar outcome to that of the American: true upwards transformation. George Orwell’s Animal Farm provides a further literary example of these historical failures, illustrating how revolutions driven by genuine intention can quickly divulge into further oppression when revolutionary fervor is not wisely paired with intentional structure and accountability. In the short story, the animals on a farm overthrow their caretaker Mr. Jones in pursuit of equality and collective liberation on the farm, only to find themselves ruled by pigs—particularly Napoleon—whose leadership develops to be dictatorial. What begins as a revolt against exploitation eventually reproduces the very hierarchy it aimed to dismantle, as the pigs slowly consolidate power, manipulate language, and erase the ideals of the original revolution. Orwell’s allegory—contrary to popular belief—does not condemn revolutionary or socialist ideals but instead serves as a cautionary tale against rash movements and blindly trusting new leadership in times of crisis.

Truly, proper planning and nuance are the cornerstones of effective social change. Incremental change can be useful and is oftentimes needed once a revolution has gotten off the ground. But without that initial spark of revolutionary spirit, nothing will ever truly get done. In an interview with my father, Terry Nichols, who holds a master’s degree in philosophy from Harvard University with a focus on political theory, he expresses a similar sentiment in arguing that “what you need is a combination of mass popular movement that is always pushing the issues forward [alongside] politicians who are willing to be motivated or influenced by that popular movement”. In other words, the revolutionary spirit resides in popular sovereignty, but that same spark among stable governing bodies can lead to instability; they are not opposites but essential counterparts. Nichols further emphasizes that gradualism matters not because injustice warrants patience but because “if the reform takes place in a more gradual way, you’re able to make course corrections [and] get people accustomed to new ways of doing things,” preventing a new order from collapsing under the weight of its own precipitousness. Even so, his model does not excuse timidity; it clarifies the key mechanism of momentum. “It’s the popular movement that keeps the pressure [on lawmakers] and motivation going strong,” Nichols explains. The most meaningful progress is neither pure revolution nor pure reform, but without that driving force of radical revolutionaries—the spark that forces the old structure to crack—the progress will never be conceived.

Ultimately, while incremental reform offers comfort, familiarity, and the illusion of control, it serves as insufficient means to accomplish change when confronting a system whose flaws are structural rather than cosmetic. As demonstrated through psychological theory, historical precedent, and contemporary case studies, societies repeatedly favor cautious reform even when such restraint perpetuates injustice. Revolutionary approaches, when paired with intentional organization and ethical leadership, provide the necessary instability to dismantle stubborn systems of oppression and rebuild them on far more equitable foundations. Incremental measures may stabilize progress after the true transformation begins, but they cannot initiate it independently. Without the willingness to question and grapple with longstanding cultural foundations, reform becomes little more than maintenance of an already broken system. True social change, therefore, demands courage. When the foundation itself is cracked, no amount of repainting can save the structure of a flawed institution—only the willingness to face discomfort and tear down the structure as a whole can prevent inevitable collapse.

By: Josephine Nichols

January 31, 2026