IN THE MOST GENERAL TERMS, THE ANCIENT CONFRONTATION BETWEEN THE 'CONFLICT-COERCION' AND THE 'INTEGRATION-CONSENSUS' THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES APPEARS IN THE SOCIOLOGY OF LAW AS A STRUGGLE BETWEEN OPPOSING ACCOUNTS OF THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG LAW, CONFLICT, AND SOCIAL ORDER. FORMULATED AS RIGOROUSLY AS POSSIBLE, CONFLICT-COERCION THEORY DEFINES LAW AS POWER, CONFLICT AS UBIQUITOUS STRUGGLE, AND ORDER AS BALANCE OF POWER, WHILE INTEGRATION-CONSENSUS THEORY DEFINES LAW AS AUTHORITY, CONFLICT AS UNNECESSARY STRUGGLE, AND ORDER AS VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION. IN SO FAR AS CONFLICT-COERCION THEORY IS ESSENTIALLY 'STATISTICAL' AND 'EMPIRICAL-SCIENTIFIC' AND POSTULATES CONFLICT AS THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL SOCIAL PROCESS, WHILE INTEGRATION-CONSENSUS THEORY IS ESSENTIALLY 'ANALYTICAL' AND 'EMPIRICAL-NORMATIVE' AND POSTULATES COOPERATION, THE THEORIES ARE NOT STRICTLY COMPARABLE. HOWEVER, BOTH THESE THEORIES APPEAL TO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. STUDIES BY ROSSI AND OTHERS, MCDONALD, AND HAGAN ARE USED AS VEHICLES FOR DRAWING SEVERAL METHODOLOGICAL AND SUBSTANTIVE IMPLICATIONS FROM THE PRECEDING FORMULATIONS AND CHARACTERIZATIONS OF THE COMPETING THEORIES. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT)...DMC