The article compares John Dewey’s and Axel Honneth’s approaches to Disability Justice and social conflict, focusing on the resistance to institutionalization within the Disability Justice movement. It highlights that, while Disability Rights movements have developed solid theoretical frameworks, such as Nussbaum and Sen’s capabilities approach, Disability Justice resists formal normativity, viewing it as akin to state violence. This article proposes that the resistance arises from misconceptions surrounding “democracy” and “normativity,” particularly their reductionist understanding. By adopting Dewey’s broader conception of democracy – viewing it as a dynamic form of association rather than a fixed, institutionalized model – the article argues for a more inclusive approach to social organization. Dewey’s theory of social conflict emphasizes the need for democratic norms that allow for diverse, non-institutionalized forms of organization, including those that may resist institutionalization, like Disability Justice. The article concludes by suggesting that Dewey’s ideas on democratic association and social conflict offer a valuable normative framework for evaluating movements like Disability Justice. This approach supports the legitimacy of collective liberation practices without relying on state-controlled solutions. Dewey’s pragmatist philosophy offers a more adaptable, dynamic framework for Disability Justice, contrasting with the limitations of traditional Critical Theory, which fails to challenge the normative legitimacy of ableism.