Goldstemn (2UUY), on the other hand, focuses on and questions the unilinear ion of the secularization process. He identifies three different camps within the larization paradigm: the functionalists namely Talcott Parsons, Robert Bellah, as Luhmann, the phenomenologists such as Peter Berger, Thomas Luckmann, d Schutz, and the dialectic theorists involving Bryan Wilson, David Martin, rd Fenn, whom he associates himself with. Goldstein challenges Stephen iarrative of the old paradigm as “secularization” and the new paradigm and routinization.” He argues that the secularization theories in the old 'o not follow a linear process and may even follow other patterns that are stical, and paradoxical. Goldstein offers a dialectical understanding of the n process that is marked by contradictions, progress, and reversals where ovements in the direction of rationalization, and social movements in of secularization, spawn religious counter-movements in the direction n and dedifferentaiation” (p. 175). From a dialectic understanding of views, the tensions brought byt he contradictions between the sacred d the religious and the secular, are viewed as factors that drive furtherFigure 7.3 Gorski (2000, p. 142)'s Schematic View of the Secularization Paradigm ‘Transformation Privatization (Parson) (eenann) Goldstein (2009), on the other hand, focuses on and questions the unilinear conception of the secularization process. He identifies three different camps within the old secularization paradigm: the functionalists namely Talcott Parsons, Robert Bellah, and Niklas Luhmann, the phenomenologists such as Peter Berger, Thomas Luckmann, and Alfred Schutz, and the dialectic theorists involving Bryan Wilson, David Martin, and Richard Fenn, whom he associates himself with. Goldstein challenges Stephen Wamer’s narrative of the old paradigm as “secularization” and the new paradigm as “revival and routinization.” He argues that the secularization theories in the old paradigm do not follow a linear process and may even follow other patterns that are spital, dialectical, and paradoxical. Goldstein offers a dialectical understanding of the secularization process that is marked by contradictions, progress, and reversals where “religious movements in the direction of rationalization, and social movements in the direction of secularization, spawn religious counter-movements in the direction of sacralization and dedifferentaiation” (p. 175). From a dialectic understanding of secularization views, the tensions brought byt he contradictions between the sacred and profane and the religious and the secular, are viewed as factors that drive further rationalization of religion and the society. The secularization paradigm is a family of theories that vary in terms of the extent of the decline or displacement of religion, the direction of the process, and the driving forces they ascribe to the secularization. The paradigm, however, has confronted challenges in its relevance and validity especially due to the emergence of, armed conflicts fought under the banner of religious beliefs as seen in the key events such as the Iranian Revolution, the Solidarity and the Polish Revolution, and the September 11, 2001 tragedy (Thomas, 2005). This brings us to the field of inquiry on the resurgence of religion in the era of globalization. 137Gorski, P. (2000, February). rustureiciig we vecusauization Deb Society in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe, ss ate; te Sociological Review, 65(1), 138-167. a 1300 to Ny Haynes, J. (2006). Review: Religion and International Re} Century: conflict or co-operation? Third World Qu lations doi:10.1080/01436590600589289 arterly, ag Huntington, S. P. (1993). The Clash of Civilizations? Foreign Affairs, 71 718).