The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Expressive Theories of Law: A General Restatement
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“The expressive meaning of a norm does not inhere in that norm in isolation, but is a product of interpreting the norm in the full context in which it is adopted and implemented.”
From Why Yellow Fever Isn't Flattering: A Case Against Racial Fetishes (2016) · cites this paper as Anderson and Pildes (2000)
In the citing paper
“Expressive meanings are socially constructed.”
From Why Yellow Fever Isn't Flattering: A Case Against Racial Fetishes (2016) · cites this paper as Anderson and Pildes (2000)
In the citing paper
“Racialized preferences for a specific out-group possess what Elizabeth Anderson and Richard Pildes (2000) call 'expressive meanings':”
From Why Yellow Fever Isn't Flattering: A Case Against Racial Fetishes (2016) · cites this paper as Anderson and Pildes (2000)
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Achieving Compliance when Legal Sanctions are Non‐deterrent*
Tyran, J., & Feld, L. P. (2006) · Scandinavian Journal of Economics · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9442.2006.00444.x · Cited by 394
Deterrence and Morale in Taxation: An Empirical AnalysisPreprint
Frey, B. S., & Feld, L. P. (2002) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.341380 · Cited by 270
More than just a game: ethical issues in gamification
Kim, T. W., & Werbach, K. D. (2016) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-016-9401-5 · Cited by 314
Lippert‐Rasmussen, K. (2018) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316675847 · Cited by 283
Feld, L. P., & Frey, B. S. (2006) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.900366 · Cited by 201
Metadata
- Authors
- Anderson, E. S., & Pildes, R. H.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- New York University (US)
- Venue
- University of Pennsylvania Law Review
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 2000-05
- Volume
- 148
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1503
- ISSN
- 0041-9907 (ISSN-L)
- 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