CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 492Comparative constitutional jurisprudence studiesPhilosophical Ethics and TheoryLegal and Social Philosophy

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Expressive Theories of Law: A General Restatement

Anderson, Elizabeth S., Pildes, Richard H.·2000·University of Pennsylvania Law Review
DOI 10.2307/3312748
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Expressive conceptions of practical reason, morality, and law are gaining increasing currency. This article provides the first general statement of the aims and features of expressivism in law and morality. Two central themes structure the analysis. First, what precisely does it mean for action, either of individuals or collectives, such as democratic bodies, to express values? On this point, we distinguish the concept of expression from the narrower concept of communication; actions can express values, attitudes, and purposes whether or not the actor intends to communicate any specific proposition. Second, even if it is appropriate to consider the expressive dimensions of individual action, for both practical and moral reasoning, does it make sense to attribute expressive characteristics to collective agents, such as the State? On this point, we develop a concept of collective agency that justifies holding such agents responsible for the expressive dimensions of their actions. Much of our existing moral and legal evaluative practices are best understood, we claim, through the kind of expressivist perspective developed here. We illustrate this claim with examples from Constitutional Law, including the areas of federalism, interstate relations, equality, and the establishment clause. We also respond to recent critics of expressivism who have raised important challenges to the principles of expressive theories of law and morality.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/3312748

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Anderson, E. S., & Pildes, R. H.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • New York University (US)
ORCID
Venue
University of Pennsylvania Law Review
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
2000-05
Volume
148
Issue
5
Pages
1503
ISSN
0041-9907 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2307/3312748
OpenAlex
W1486791852
Cited by
492
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 72 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 44 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 10
FWCI
22.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • University of Pennsylvania Law Review (publishedVersion)
  • eYLS (Yale Law School) (submittedVersion)
  • Penn Carey Law Legal Scholarship Repository (University of Pennsylvania) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Comparative constitutional jurisprudence studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Legal and Social Philosophy
Keywords
expressivism, practical reason, moral reasoning, collective agency, collective action, moral responsibility, constitutional law, federalism, interstate relations, equality, Establishment Clause, legal evaluation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review