Can incrementalism work?

All change requires first incrementalism and then a surge of momentum.

Question: Can incrementalism work?
Position‹3 of 3: Incrementalism works, but not by itself.
Argument: All change requires first incrementalism and then a surge of momentum.

If you look at big changes that have occurred you will see that they resulted from the combination of years of incremental steps and then a surge of progress.

The argument

Substantial changes are made through years of incremental steps and then a sudden dramatic surge of progress. If you look at effective social movements, such as the civil rights movements or the women’s suffrage movements, you will see that they were going on for many years before they gained widespread traction. It may seem like the legislation that passed because of these movements happened suddenly, but that is because you did not see all the work that was occurring behind the scenes. There are years of incremental progress that then lead to a massive public movement that demands a surge of change such as the passage of legislation that allowed women the right to vote.

Premises

[P1]Major social change historically begins with years of quiet, incremental groundwork by activists and reformers. [P2] That incremental work eventually builds enough public awareness and pressure to trigger a sudden surge of momentum that produces dramatic reforms. [P3] Movements like civil rights and women's suffrage illustrate this pattern, where landmark legislation only became possible after long incremental buildup. [C] Therefore, incrementalism works, but only when paired with the surge of momentum it ultimately produces.

Counter-arguments

Critics reply that this pattern is retrofitted onto the cases that fit it while ignoring those that do not. Some transformative changes arrive suddenly through shocks, revolutions or technological disruption, with little decades-long groundwork; and far more incremental campaigns simply stall, get co-opted, or are reversed without ever producing a surge. The model risks being unfalsifiable, since any success can be narrated after the fact as 'incremental work plus a surge.' It also understates the opposite dynamic, in which small concessions defuse the very pressure needed for large change, entrenching the status quo rather than building toward a breakthrough.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Not all major change is preceded by years of incremental groundwork; some reforms follow sudden crises, shocks or revolutions with little gradual build-up. [Rejecting P2] Incremental work does not reliably build toward a surge — it often dissipates, is co-opted, or defuses the pressure needed for dramatic reform, so the causal link the premise asserts is unreliable.