Gradualism and the Illusion of Change
This myth corresponds directly to the quantum phenomenon of the quantum leap, or discontinuous transformation. In quantum systems, transitions between energy states don't happen gradually—they occur in sudden, instantaneous jumps when a critical threshold of energy or coherence is reached. The myth of gradual liberation keeps entrepreneurs trapped in incrementalism, unable to reach the threshold (escape velocity) necessary for true transformation. Real shifts are discontinuous, sudden, and profound—not incremental. Thus, the myth of gradualism actively prevents us from recognizing or achieving the quantum leap that real transformation demands.
(Quantum Leap vs. Incrementalism)
The quantum principle of discontinuous transformation—quantum leaps—dramatically challenges the incrementalism myth. The Master's House perpetuates itself through carefully regulated incremental changes, ensuring radical shifts never quite reach critical thresholds of power redistribution. This gradualism is like quantum tunneling's energy barrier: incremental changes keep us trapped inside the energy well of the existing system, never quite gaining sufficient "escape velocity."
Quantum leaps, however, represent instantaneous and radical shifts that arise from cumulative pressure—not linear, gradual steps. TTrue liberation isn't incremental; it's transformational. Recognizing this quantum principle highlights the importance of strategically accumulating "pressure" or coherence, enabling sudden breakthroughs rather than exhausting incremental improvements. Quantum entrepreneurship thus invites entrepreneurs to focus on conditions that catalyze transformative leaps—cultivating systemic coherence, resonance, and networked entanglement—rather than incremental adjustments.
Entrenched powers often promote gradualism – slow, incremental change – as the “reasonable” path forward, in order to preempt demands for fundamental transformation. In theory, gradual progress sounds pragmatic; in practice, it can serve as a stalling tactic to preserve the status quo. Martin Luther King Jr. famously critiqued this in the context of civil rights, noting that calls to “wait” invariably meant “never.” Moderate allies urged patience, but King observed that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”
This insight resonates beyond racial justice: when corporations and political leaders acknowledge problems but insist on baby steps, they often defuse pressure for deeper change. For instance, a company facing criticism over inequality might announce a diversity initiative with distant future goals rather than addressing immediate pay gaps or power imbalances. Such gradualist reforms create a deceptive sense of progress – a belief that the system is slowly self-correcting – even as core power structures remain intact.
Neoliberal ideology reinforces gradualism by narrowing the imagined spectrum of change. Bold alternatives (strong regulation of industry, redistributive economic models, worker cooperatives, etc.) are cast as “unrealistic” or “too extreme,” constraining debate to minor tweaks of the existing system. This reflects what Margaret Thatcher encapsulated as “there is no alternative.” The effect is to inhibit systemic transformation and channel discontent into managed, non-threatening adjustments. When people accept that only incremental change is legitimate, they become less likely to push back against structural injustice. Hierarchies thus maintain control by setting the pace of change – slow enough that their dominance is never truly jeopardized. Gradualism, in sum, acts as a form of denial through delay, acknowledging grievances in words while delaying substantive action until the demand for change loses momentum. It provides cover for power to appease critics with process instead of outcomes, preserving existing economic and social arrangements.