THE MOVEMENT IS EXAMINED FROM A MARXIST PERSPECTIVE THROUGH FOUR KEY FIGURES: TWO FROM THE JURISPRUDENTIAL TRADITION, ROSCOE POUND AND KARL LLEWELLYN, AND TWO FROM THE SOCIOLOGICAL TRADITION, EMILE DURHEIM AND MAX WEBER. THE INTERRELATIONSHIP OF THE TWO TRADITIONS IS ASSESSED AND IT IS ARGUED THAT DESPITE THEIR DIFFERENT INTELLECTUAL ORIGINS, THERE IS AN IMPORTANT UNITY AND CONTINUITY BETWEEN THE TWO. THE SOCIOLOGICAL MOVEMENT IS SHOWN AS A RESPONSE TO A GENERAL CRISIS OF THE LEGAL SYSTEMS IN CAPITALIST DEMOCRACIES. THE IMPACT OF THESE KEY FIGURES ON SUBSEQUENT WORK UNDER THE LABEL OF THE SOCIOLOGY OF LAW IS DESCRIBED, ALONG WITH THE WAY IN WHICH THE MOVEMENT HAS REMAINED RESTRICTED WITHIN AN APPROACH WHICH INHIBITS THE STUDY OF LAW AS AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT IN THE MAINTENANCE OF CAPITALIST SOCIAL ORDER. IN PARTICULAR, IT IS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE MUCH-CRITICIZED WORK OF WEBER RAISES QUESTIONS REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP OF LAW TO DOMINATION AND ITS RELATIONS TO THE STATE AND TO THE ECONOMY, WHICH MUST BE OF CENTRAL CONCERN TO THE CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGY OF LAW, BUT WHICH ARE ABSENT FROM THE JURISPRUDENTIAL TRADITION OF THE SOCIOLOGICAL MOVEMENT. REFERENCE NOTES ARE PROVIDED, ALONG WITH A BIBLIOGRAPHY NOTING SOURCES BY CHAPTER. AN INDEX IS ALSO INCLUDED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFED--KBL)