There is no single meaning of the term legal formalism, and no unified theory of the origins or consequences of its variants. Descriptive uses refer to rule systems and to modes of legal interpretation. Procedural, transactional, and administrative formalism, and the general preference for rules over standards, all involve the choice to disregard justice in all the circumstances of the case, for various reasons. Textual, conceptual, and precedential formalism require interpretation according to legal meanings, excluding equity, purpose, policy, and preferences, as does interpretation positing the gaplessness of the system of legal norms. Among critical usages, there is a sharp distinction between formalism as abuse of meaning-based interpretation and formalism as erroneous belief in the possibility of meaning-based gaplessness. Formalism, used descriptively, is an important but problematic term in the sociology of law and in legal history. The critical usages play an important role in the dialectic of critique and reconstruction that characterizes modern legal thought.