First, I argue that social movements do not simply use disruptive behaviors at times but are naturally disruptive. Social movements usually emerge when the existing institutions — elections, political parties, and government agencies — are unable or unwilling to solve evident issues. As such, social movements serve as an instrument of direct democracy that articulates certain positions and conveys them to authorities. By doing that, social movements disrupt an ideal model of liberal democracy, in which citizens vote for the candidates, who, in turn, represent them in governing bodies.
Therefore, the disruptive nature of social movements allows marginalized and underrepresented social groups to speak and be heard. Moreover, this notion is valid for all sides of the political spectrum, which makes social movements valuable to the democratic political system. For instance, the anti-globalization movement encompasses a variety of issues — while its left-wing aspect is concerned about environment and labor rights, right-wing anti-globalism aims at safeguarding national sovereignty and restricting immigration (Greenberg et al., 2018). In this regard, social movements cover various identities and foster political pluralism.
Secondly, it is necessary to separate the disruptive nature of social movements from specific disruptive tactics that they utilize to promote their agenda. For example, both followers of the Civil Rights Movement and Black Lives Matter (BLM) used disruptive methods in the fight against racism. The difference between them lies in the message — whereas Civil Rights Movement actively sought to attract people from the outside, BLM struggled with the message of inclusion (Clayton, 2018). In the end, Dr. Martin Luther King’s rallying cry “We Shall Overcome” attracted many non-Black sympathizers, so BLM would arguably benefit from a more inclusive approach.