HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

There is concurrence among writers that ideology is a vague concept. Though it has been described as one of the most equivocal and elusive concepts in the social science and that its growing popularity was matched only by its growing obscurity, the explanatory value of ideology and the need for the concept in political analysis was reiterated (See J. Larrain. The Concept of Ideology, Bombay B.I. Publication, 1980. P. 13). Taking into account the great explanatory value of the concept and its historically inherited obscure nature, the explication and conceptualization of the term ideology has to be linked to its historical background by tracing the evolution of mentalities associated with the term. Hence here an attempt is made to study ideology by placing it in a historical perspective.

Ideology has a historical anchorage. An important historical change preceded the origin of ideology. The rise of ideology corresponded to the breakdown of the traditional perspectives which characterized ‘Ancien Regime’ (W.A. Mullins. “On the Concept of Ideology in Political Science” American Political Science Review, Vol.66. No.2. (1972). P.503). During the age of monarchical absolutism, when the national interest was often identified with the personal interests of the ruler, there was no significant role for public opinion in life. But the political transformation from absolutist monarchy to liberal democracy provided ample scope for popular participation in political life. Thus, national interest began to reflect the interest of different groups. People got a chance to determine their own destiny. They also got the opportunity to shape their society according to their own plans. Thus, there arose a feeling that history could be created through men’s purposeful collective action. Political leaders began to use idea systems to motivate people and mobilize their support for collective action in order to attain certain common objectives. Thus, ultimately the historical transformation of politics from absolutist monarchy to liberal democracy or from ‘interests’ to ‘incorporation’ and ‘incumbency’ generated the need for mobilizing popular support by appealing to the collective interest people. (W. Calsnaes. Ideology and Foreign Policy: Problems of Comparative Conceptualization, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986. PP.164-165). Thus, significance of ideology as a modern political phenomenon has to be seen in the concomitant development of new forms of political life and the growth and fruition of the mobilizing potential of ideational activism. (Ibid. P.142; See also D. McLellan. Ideology. Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1986. P.2).

CONTEMPORARY DEFINITIONS OF IDEOLOGY

The positive concept of ideology can be fruitfully used in political analysis if it is conceptualized with reference to the cognitive, affective and action- oriented parameters (W. Carlsnaes. 1981. Op. cit. P. 246.) In order to conceptualize in such a way, it is necessary to examine and analysis the earlier articulations of the concept in this direction. Some of them are given below. According to Z. Brzezinski, ideology is an Action -program suitable for mass consumption derived from certain doctrinal assumption about the general nature of the dynamics of social reality and combining some assertions about the inadequacies of the past and / or present with some explicit guides to action for improving the situation and some nations of the desired eventual state of affairs (Z. Brzezinski. Ideology and power in Soviet Politics. New York: Praeger, 1962 PP. 5-6). According to D. bell, ideologies are “World views (Weltanschuungen) that mobilize their believers for a “cause” and provide a set of justifications on the basis of the higher goals (D. Bell “As we go into the Nineties: Some Outlines of the Twenty First Century” Dissent, (Spring 1990). P. 172). G. Sartori conceptualized ideology as a “           Belief system based on i) fixed elements characterized by ii) strong effect and iii) closed cognitive structure” (G. Sartori. 1962, op.cit. P.405). According to McClosky, “Agreement on the meaning of the term (ideology) is far from universal, but can be discerned among contemporary writers to regard ideologies as systems of belief that are elaborate, integrated and coherent that justify the exercise of power, explain and judge historical events, identify political right and wrong, set for the interconnections (casual and moral) between politics and other spheres of activity and furnish guides for action” (M. McClosky .“Consensus and Ideology in American Politics” American Political Science Review.Vol. 58.No.2. (1964). P. 362).

In C. Geertz’s opinion, ideology is a “Cultural symbol- system that aims to guide man in his political life…. It is through the construction of ideologies, schematic images of social order that man makes himself for better or worse a political animal” (C. Geertz. “Ideology as a Cultural system” In Ideology and Discontent. Edited by D.E Apter. New York: Free Press, 1964, PP. 63-64). In J.S. Roucek’s opinion, “ideologies contain Programs for the future improvement of society (the community, the nation, the state or the world) together with quasi- scientific explanations of social facts, so interpreted that the desired future state is covertly or overtly scheduled to come about either logically, morally or from the point of view of “natural laws” …. Every ideological construction involves the projection of a certain ideal into the future, into the evaluation of the present and into the past. (J.S. Roucek. 1944. op.cit. P. 479).

According to Heeger, ideology is “i) A set of convictions that is held by ii) a large social group and that iii) contains values and factual conceptions that co-vary and that iv) fills political functions and that v) contains elements of action- oriented political thought” (Quoted in W. Carlsnaes. 1986. op.cit. P.154).            In T. Parson’s opinion, ideology is a “system of beliefs held in common by the members of a collectively, i.e., a society or a sub collectivity of one – including a movement deviant from the main culture of the society- a system of ideas which is oriented to the evaluative integration of the collectivity, by interpretation of the empirical nature of the collectivity and of the situation in which it is paced, the processes by which it have [sic] developed to its members are collectively oriented, and their relation to the future course of events” (T. Parsons. The Social System. New York: The Free Press, 1951. P.349). For W.A. Mullins, ideology is a “Logically coherent system of symbols which within a more or less sophisticated conception of history links the cognitive and evaluative perception of one’s social condition-especially its prospects for the future – to a program of collective action for the maintenance, alteration or transformation of society” (W.A. Mullins. 1972 op. cit. P. 510). According to La Palombara, ideology involves “A philosophy of history, a view of man’s present place in it, some estimate of probable lines of future development, and a set of prescriptions regarding how to hasten retard and/ or modify that developmental direction” (La Palombara. “Decline of ideology: A Dissent and an interpretation” American political Science Review. 60. No. 1 (1966). P.7).

ANALYSIS OF THE DEFINITIONS OF IDEOLOGY

As is obvious from the definitions, ideology is a system of beliefs or convictions of a group of people. It is a coherent cultural symbol system and a cultural product. It has a conception of history. It projects an ideal into past, present and future. Ideology makes a cognitive and evaluative perception about the present social conditions and man’s present place in history. Thus, it makes an interpretation about the nature of the collectivity and the situation in which it is placed. It explains how the society has developed to its given state of affairs. It evaluates and judges the inadequacies of the past and present in the light of a conception of certain desirable state of affairs or ideals. Hence it makes estimates about the probable lines of future development and identifies certain goals for the collectivity. In order to attain these goals for the collective interest of the people, it prescribes a program of collective action

Thus, ideology is aimed at attaining certain goals or “ends” An “end” can be understood as an “Anticipated future state of affairs which is either not yet in existence and which would come into existence if something were not done about it by the actor or if already existence would not remain unchanged” (T. Parsons. The Structure of Social Action. Illinois: The Free Press, 1949.op. cit. PP. 44-45). Similarly, a goal is an “imagined state aspired to as the outcome of an action” (M.V. Cranach. “The Psychological Study of Goal – directed Action: Basic Issues” In the Analysis of Action. Edited by M.V. Cranach and Harre Rim. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. P.40). The attainment of the goal is made possible through the instrumentality of action.

THE PROCESS BEHIND THE ORIGIN OF IDEOLOGY 

A group of people could become motivated, mobilized and oriented towards certain deliberate actions only if they are, generally dissatisfied with their existing conditions of life and speculate scope for some kind of an improvement in the society. An actor or the people as a whole can realize the need for an improvement in the existing conditions only if they perceive the situation and evaluate it in the light of their historical experience and expectations. The way an actor perceives a given situation depends on the nature of the actor. The actor has its prepossessions and predispositions determined by its historical experience, culture, values, beliefs and expectations. These prepossessions and predispositions of the actor which constitute its very essence and identity might be called the historical consciousness of the actor. It refers to all the attributes and awareness that the actor possesses in relation to its past, present and future. An actor’s perception of a given situation is determined by its historical consciousness. It is through the prism of the historical consciousness that the actor perceives a given situation. Hence that the actor gets as a result of its perception of given situation is its “image” of the situation rather than the “objective reality” (if my) of the situation. The actor’s evaluation of its image of the situation generates certain interests for the actor. Hence the actor formulates precise goals and objectives, the attainment of which could fulfill its interests. Thus, the actor orients itself to certain actions which, according to it, are efficacious enough to attain its objectives in the given situation. Action follows from the action orientation of the actor.

Thus, an ideology comes into existence as a result of a social process. Here the actor perceives a given situation in and through the prism of its historical consciousness and generates not only an image of the situation but also certain interest, the fulfillment for of which could be considered as essential for its well-being and security. Hence in order to attain its objectives and fulfill its interests, the actor orients itself towards certain courses of actions in that particular situation. Action result from its action orientation of the actor. Thus, the major aspects or   stages in the process of the evolution of an ideology, as emerging the analysis of ideology, are historical consciousness, perception of the situation, action orientation and action. A detailed explication of the interrelationship among the various aspects of ideology is necessary.

THE MAJOR ASPECTS OR THE STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS OF IDEOLOGY

The structural elements of ideology include historical consciousness, perception of the situation, action orientation and action.

HISTORICAL CONSCIOUSNESS

In the present study, state considered as the actor. Hence it is the historical consciousness of a people or of a state which is of relevance here. An actor could be an individual or group of individuals which might be taken as a point of reference for analysis of the modes of its orientation and of its process of action in relation to objects. (See T. Parsons and E.A. Shils (eds). Toward a General Theory of Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959. P56.) History is considered as aspects of time. Consciousness denotes conscious existence. Hence in the study the concept of a people or of a state, being conscious of or affected by its past, present and future aspects of life. The historical consciousness of a state at any given time encompasses all the prepossessions and predispositions inherited from its historical experience, its perceptions about the present and expectations about the future. In more specific terms, the historical consciousness of state is constituted of its culture, values, belief system and expectations about the future.

The culture of a particular society at any given point of time is the product of its past experience. Culture is a historically transmitted pattern of meaning embodied in symbols, which include the underlying assumptions, taken-for-granted wisdom, ways of looking at particular time and place share. (G.M. Marsden. Religion and American Culture. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers, 1990. P.4). Culture is the social heredity- the total legacy of the past human behavior effective in the present, representing the accumulation through generations of artifacts, knowledges, beliefs and values, by which man deal with the world (R.M. William. Jr. American Society: A Sociological Interpretation. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1968. p.22).

Culture includes the total man-made environment, patterns of behavior, capabilities, belief system and values of a society. It is the product of the society’s shared way of life and the hallmark of its existence as a group. In Tylor’s opinion culture is “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief art, morals law, custom and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society” (E.B. Tylor. The Primitive Culture. New York: Harper, 1958. p.1). Hence Culture is the basic elements of the historical consciousness of a state. The belief systems, values and expectations of a people are generated in and through the cultural life of a society.

The belief systems and values are the core of any culture. The belief system of a people is constituted of their traditional ideas and images about past, present and future. It also includes all the accumulated knowledge the society has about itself, about the outside world. Within it in some organized psychological but not necessarily logical form, each and every one of a person’s countless beliefs about physical and social reality. (M. Rokeach. Beliefs, Attitudes and Values: A Theory of Organization and Change. San Francisco: Jossey – Bass, 1972. p.2). Such belief systems of individuals commonly shared by the members of a society makes up the belief system of the society. It forms the basic structure of a society’s conception or view of the world. Thus, the belief systems form the basic cognitive structure of a society within which its perceptions about the world occur and orientations towards actions determined.

While belief system refers to those conceptualizations which are considered as “factual”, values refer to those conceptualizations which are considered as “desirable”. A value can be considered as “A conception explicit or implicit, distinctive of an individual or characteristic of a group, of the desirable which influences the selection from available modes, means and ends of action” (T. Parsons and E.A. Shils (eds). 1959. Op. cit. P.395). A value can be understood as a “Single belief that fundamentally guides action across specific objects and situations and beyond immediate goals to more ultimate end- state of existence … an imperative to action, not only a belief about the preferable, but also a preference for the preferable” (M. Rokeach. 1972. Op.cit. p.160).       Thus, Values are the focal products of a society’s historical experience. They are a society’s estimates of significance developed as generalizations from some social experience. They serve as criteria for evaluating objects and evens and alternative course of action. Members of a society would necessarily have a positive commitment to their values. Values can stimulate individuals towards action. Hence values are “determinants of virtually all kinds of behavior that could be called a social behavior” (M. Rokeach. The Nature of Human Values. New York: The Free Press, 1973. p. 24).

A society with its culture, belief systems and values generate certain expectations or calculations about the desirable future state of affairs. These expectations can influence the society’s preference for certain alternative courses of action.

Thus, the historical consciousness of a state at any given point of time includes its prepossessions such as its culture, belief systems, values and expectations. It constitutes the predispositions of a people or state at a given point of time. It also constitutes the very essence and identity of the state, encompassing all the identifiable aspects unique to it. It constitutes the society’s consciousness or view about the world. These cultural elements become incorporated and internalized in the individual members of the society through the constant process of socialization. When these cultural elements of personalities and gradually become institutionalized in the society (For details see R. Linton. The Cultural Background of Personality. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., 1968; T. Parsons. The Social System. New York; The Free Press, 1951). The political leaders and decision makers who enter the governmental decision-making system possesses three cultural attributes of the larger social system. Thus, the decision maker can be considered as a “political bearer” (R.C. Snyder, H.W. Bruck and B. Sapin (eds) Foreign Policy Decision Making: An Approach to the Study of International Politics. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962. P. 156).  Hence the historical consciousness shared by the members of a society has a decisive impact on the perceptions and decisions of the decision makers of the state. Moreover, it should be in consonance with the aspirations of the larger sections of the people. Hence foreign policy analysis has to be necessary based on the historical consciousness of the concerned state.

PERCEPTION OF THE SITUATION

As noted earlier the historical consciousness of a nation determines how a state perceives a particular situation. As state is considered as the actor in the study, it is the state’s perception of the situation which is of interest here. The decision makers, who act in the name of the state, are considered as the state. Decision makers perceive a particular situation on behalf of the state. The nature of the decision makers is determined their historical consciousness. The manner in which the decision makers perceive and define the situation depends on the nature of the decision makers. The state action flows only from the decision makers’ perception and definition of the situation (Ibid. pp. 65, 64). The nature of the actor is consciousness is the framework within which the actors’ perceptions occur. The decision makers perceive, define and evaluate a situation in the light of their historical consciousness. Now it is possible to identify how the various constituent aspects of historical consciousness such as culture, belief system, values and expectations determine the actor’s perception of the situation.

Culture is an important factor which influences a decision maker’s perception of a particular situation. The decision maker’s outlook is conditioned by the cumulative historical experience of their state. Culture, as the total legacy of the past includes all knowledges, beliefs, values, and artifacts of the society. Individuals from concepts about these cultural elements and internalize and integrate them with their personalities. Thus, when a “concept has been created as a memory trace it becomes a basis for making perceptions” (W.P. Handwerker. “The origins and evolution of culture”. American Anthropologist.Vol.91 (1989) p.317). Moreover, culture is generated and shaped by biological imperatives, while biological traits are simultaneously altered by genetic evolution, in response to cultural innovation. (C.I. Lumsden and E.O. Wilson. Genes, Mind and Culture: The Co- evolutionary process. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981. p.1).

Thus culture constitutes the very nature and character of individuals and determines how he perceives the world. Men’s culture and his prepossessions have such a decisive impact on how he understands and views the world that “No matter how hard man tries it is impossible for him to divest himself of own culture, for it has penetrated to the roots of his nervous system and determines how he perceives the world” (E.T. Hall. The Hidden Dimension. New York: Doubleday and company Inc., 1996. p.177).

Every group of people or nation, due to their unique life situations, experiences and practices develop their own preconceived ideas, habitual ways of looking at life and human conduct and their own views of what is natural, proper and desirable. These prepossessions of the people determine how they perceive a particular situation. (See N.J. Padelford. And G.A. Lincoln. The Dynamics of International Politics. New York: MacMillan. 1967. P. 307)

Belief system plays an important role in the process of human perception. The belief system serves the policy maker “As a means of originating him to the environment; as a lens or prism through which information is processed and given meaning; as a diagnostic scheme; as one means of coping with the cognitive constraints on rationality; as a source of guidelines that may guide or bound but not necessarily determine policy prescriptions and choices” (O. Holsti. “Foreign Policy formation viewed cognitively”, in Structure of Decision: Cognitive maps of Political Elites. Edited by R. Axelrod. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1976. P.34).

Belief system also serves as a “Prism or filter that influences the actor’s perception and diagnosis of political situation and that provide norms and standers to guide and channel his choices of action in specific situation” (A.L. George Presidential Decision- making in Foreign Policy: The effective Use of information and advice. Boulder: Westview Press, 1980. P.45). Thus, the belief system of the decision makers performs a crucial function in their perception of a given situation. (For details see S.G. Walker “The Motivational Foundations of Political Belief Systems: A Re – Analysis of the operational Code Construct” International Studies Quarterly. 27 (1983) PP. 179- 202; P.E. Tetlock.  “Cognitive Style and political Ideology”. Journal of Personality and social Psychology. Vol 45. No.1 (1983). PP.118-126).

The values of decision makers constitute a powerful factor which determine their perception of a particular situation. The values can shape the definition of situation and contribute to the process of selective perception. Values function as screens at the information processing stage and thereby produce selective exposure. As the value- screen selectively perceives stimuli, the stimuli which are congenial to the values are accepted and others are screened out. (For details see J. Wilkenfed G.W. Hopple, P.J. Rossa and S.J. Andriole (eds). Foreign Policy Behavior: The Inter- States Behavior Analysis Model. California: Sage, 1980. P.205. See also D.J. Devine. The Political Culture of the United States. Boston: Little Brown, 1972. P.10; M.L. Cottam. Foreign Policy Decision- Making: The Influence of Cognition. London: Westview Press, 1986).

The expectation of the decision makers also can influence their perceptions. Expectations of decisions makers can create predispositions which would tend them to observe certain things and to neglect others, and thereby draw certain selective inferences from what is noticed. Moreover, intelligent decision making is possible only if the information is assimilated to the pre – existing beliefs.

The historical consciousness of the decision makers which include their culture belief system, values and expectations influences the process of perceiving a given situation. In perceiving a given situation, the decision makers assimilate the information about the situation to their pre- existing beliefs. (See R. Jervis. Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton. N.J. Princeton University Press, 1976.P.145) The perceptual predispositions and assumptions of the decision makers cause to screen out what seems to be contradictory to the pre- existing images. Thus, the decision makers try to fit the incoming information to the pre- existing beliefs. Hence, what the decision makers get s result of their perception of the situation is only an “image” of the situation. Thus the “objective reality” of the situation if any, remains inaccessible to the actor or the perceiver. Because, through perception the decision makers can contact the situation only through the subjective medium of their own historical consciousness. Thus, it is quite natural that people who are having different historical consciousness might perceive a single situation, but come out with different conclusions or images. (For a similar expression see Harold and Margaret Sprout. The Ecological Perspective on Human Affairs with Special Reference to International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965.P28).

As a result of the perception of a situation the decision makers generate not only an image of the situation but also certain interests. The basic interest of the decision makers is the protection and promotion of what they value. What the decision makers value most is their values. Because “Interest can be seen as application of values in context: values applied in the light of situations as they appear to people involved in them” (A.L. George. 1980. Op. cit. P. 221).

Thus, in the context of any particular situation, the interests of an actor or a state is what it feels essential for its security and well-being. When these interests are applied to more specific and evolving conditions, there emerge precise objectives for an actor or state to be attained. Due to the internal compulsion of the decision makers to protect and promote their values by fulfilling their interest in a situation, they orient themselves towards certain courses of actions which are efficacious enough to attain their specific objectives in that context situation. In order to make unfavorable situations favorable or favorable ones perform certain actions. Thus action- orientation follows naturally from the decision makers’ perceptions of the situation.

ACTION ORIENTATION

Action orientation refers to the actor’s (decision makers’) tendency to act in a particular situation in order to fulfill its (their) interests by bringing about adequate and favorable changes in the situation. The actor orients towards actions because it has no other choice expect depending on its own instrumentality in attaining its specific objectives in the situation. The decision makers’ action orientation is directed towards heir “image” of the situation, which they have received as a result of their perception of the situation. It is this image which determines the behavior of the decisions makers. Because objective facts of the situation. Man’s response is not to an immediate stimulus but to an image of the future, filtered through an elaborate value system. Men behave according to some image of the consequences of their acts. What determines their behavior is what they think the world is like and not what it is really like. Moreover, actor’s action orientation depends on what meaning an actor gets or formulates from its image of the situation. Because often men respond primarily, to the meaning the situation has for them (K.E. Boulding. The Image: Knowledge in Life and Society, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 1968. PP.26, 115-116; see also W. Carlsnaes. 1986. Op. cit. P.96).  In short, action orientation refers to the actor’s tendency to orient itself towards certain courses of action for maintaining, altering or transforming the situations which caused the image which the actor had received from its perception of the situation, in order to bring about for itself a favorable future state of affairs. The historical consciousness of the actor would determine its choice among the various alternative courses of action to be undertaken in he given situations.

ACTION

Actor’s (decision maker’s) perception of the situation and the resulting action orientation lead to certain courses of action by the actor (decision makers). Thus, the predispositions of the decision makers influence their perception of the contemporary problems and their choice of policies and actions. For the actor, action is a means to attain its objectives. At this stage the need or tendency for action is translated into actual action (See J.S. Burner and L. Postman, “Cognition and Behavior”, Journal of Personality, 18 (1949).

THE ACTION PROCESS AND THE IDEOLOGUY FRAMEWORK 

It is obvious from the above explanation that a social action results from a social process. The process through which the action comes into existence might be called the action process. According to the action process, as was explicated in the study, action results from the actor’s orientation to act in order to attain the objectives and fulfill the interests of the actor, which were generated from the actor’s evaluation of the image of the situation. The actor’s image of the situation is, in turn, generated through its perception which is caused, guided and determined by the historical consciousness of the actor. Hence the major elements or stages which could be identified in the action process are historical consciousness, perception of the situation, action orientation and action. As action is the product or the final stage in the action process, the various other constituent elements or stages of the action process are inherent in the action. Hence could be analyzed by identifying the elements of the action process. 

Moreover, every social action could be considered as being constituted of the major elements of action process. Hence, every social action could be analyzed by identifying the elements of action process inherent in the action. This framework for the analysis of the action might be called the Ideology Framework, because it is essentially formulated with the help of the major aspects of ideology identified as a result of the analysis of the concept of ideology. Moreover, as the action process is constituted of the major aspects of ideology, the Ideology Framework could be applied for analyzing social actions by identifying the elements of the action process in the actions. Hence, as foreign policy actions are also social actions, the Ideology Framework could be applied for analyzing the foreign policy actions by identifying the various elements of the action process in them. 

APPLING THE IDEOLOGY FRAMEWORK FOR FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS 

Foreign policy action is a species of the genus action. When an action is undertaken by a state (its decision makers) in order to attain certain objectives beyond its territorial boundaries, it becomes a foreign policy action. Polices are courses of actions aimed at achieving specific objectives, in a particular situation. Foreign policy is generated in actions. The things acted upon in foreign policy are those things which are lying beyond the direct control of the state. (C.B. Marshall. The Exercise of Sovereignty:  Papers on Foreign Policy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965. P.39) Writers have defined foreign policy variously. According to Lentner, Policy is a form of action which involves (1) selection of objectives (2) Mobilization of means for achieving those objectives and (3) implementation or the actual expenditure of efforts and recourses in pursuit of the selected objectives …… In so far as polices are directed to other countries or have an impact on other countries, they fall within the meaning of foreign…. (H.H. Lentner. Foreign Policy Analysis. Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1974. PP. 3-5). According to Marshall foreign policy consists in the Courses of action undertaken by authority of the state in intended to affect situations beyond the span of jurisdiction (C.B. Marshall. The Limits of Foreign Policy. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1954. P.14). According to J. Wilkenfeld et al, foreign policy can be viewed as Those official actions (and reactions) which sovereign states initiate (receive and subsequently react to) for the purpose of altering, or creating a condition (or problem) outside their territorial sovereign boundaries (J. Wikenfeld et. Al. 1980. Op. cit P.22). According to Carlsnaes Foreign policy consist of those actions which expressed in the form of explicitly stated directives and performed by governmental representatives acting on behalf of their sovereign communities, are manifestly directed toward objectives, conditions and actors – both governmental and non- governmental – which clearly lie beyond their sphere of territorial legitimacy. (W. Carlsnaes. 1986. op cit. P.70). 

In short foreign policy consists of those courses of actions which result from a state level decision by decision maker of the state in order to attain objectives beyond the territorial boundaries of the state. An objective can be defined as an Image of a ‘future states of affairs’ – a set of conditions to be fulfilled or a set of specifications when met are to be regarded as the achievement of what was desired by the decision makers. (R.C. Snyder et. Al. op.cit. P.82).   When the interests of a state in a particular situation are delimited and particularized in the light of more specific conditions, the state gets precise objectives. Interests are generated from the decision makers’ ‘image’ of a situation through their perception of the situation which is caused, guided and determined by the decision maker’s historical consciousness. The foreign policy decision makers orient their actions towards this ‘image’ of the particular external situation. A decision maker acts not upon the ‘objective reality’ but upon his ‘image’ of the situation. As decision maker can perceive the external situation only through the prism of his historical consciousness, he cannot get the ‘objective reality’ but just the ‘image’ of the given situation. Thus, the foreign policy of a nation is addressed to the decision to the decision makers’ ‘image’ of the situation is more relevant than the ‘reality’ of the situation if any. Therefore, the decision makers’ ‘image’ cannot be considered as less than the reality of the situation. (O.R. Holsti. “The Belief System and National Images: A Case Study”. In International Politics and Foreign Policy: A Reader in Research and Theory. Edited by J.N. Rosenau. New York: The Free Press, 1969. P. 544; See also L.J. Halle. American Foreign Policy: Theory and Reality. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1960. P.316- 318; W. Carlesnaes. 1986. Op. cit. P.12) Thus it could be aptly said that Foreign policy decisions are often not so much direct reactions to what has actually happened in the international environment as they are responses to inferences about the meaning of what has happened. (S.J. Thorson. International inferencing in Foreign Policy: An A I Approach”. In Foreign Policy Decision Making: Perception Cognition and Artificial Intelligence. Edited by D.A. Sylvan and S. Chan. New York: Praeger, 1984. P.280). Decision maker’s perception of the situation, the image he gets from his perception of the situation, the meaning he gets from the evaluation of the image of the situation, all are determined by the historical consciousness of the actor or the perceiver. Hence, as all the elements of the action process such as historical consciousness, perception of the situation, action orientation and action are identifiable in foreign policy actions, the Ideology Framework can be applied for foreign policy analysis.

SUBSTANTIATING THE VIABILITY OF THE IDEOLOGY FRAMEWORK FOR FOREIGN POLICY ANAYSIS. 

In order to substantiate the viability of the Ideology Framework for foreign analysis, the case of American foreign policy in Vietnam war 1950-1975 is studied. The ideology framework is applied for analyzing the American foreign policy in Vietnam war 1950-1975 by identifying the historical consciousness of America by 1950, the American perception of the international communism as a threat with special reference to Vietnam, America’s action orientation towards the perceived threat of international communism with special reference to Vietnam and the American foreign policy actions in Vietnam war 1950- 1975. The details of these elements are given in the following chapters.