Ideology is studied by placing it in a historical perspective. Ideology has a historical anchorage. The rise of ideology corresponded to the breakdown of the traditional perspectives which characterized the age of monarchial absolutism. The political transformation from absolutist monarchy to liberal democracy provided amble scope for popular participation in political life. Gradually there arose a feeling that history could be molded and new social conditions could be created through man’s purposeful collective action. Hence political leaders began to use certain idea system to mobilize popular support for collective action in order to attain certain common objectives. Ideology was thus the product of the spread of democratic ideals and the politics of mass movements. The word ideology was coined by Destutt de Tracy in 1796. Originally it meant ‘science of ideas’. The tradition of the critique of religion and of the feudal political system initiated with disintegration of the medieval society, served as a background for Tracy’s introduction of the term ideology. Initially ideology was used as a means for discovering truth and dissolving illusions. But through Napoleon’s contemptuous usage the term ideology began to assume a pejorative meaning. Thus, gradually the original meaning of the term began to recede. Discussions about ideology could generally be classified into two broad domains of ‘ideology in knowledge’ and ‘ideology in politics’. While ‘ideology in knowledge’ is concerned with the ‘truth’ value of ideology, ‘ideology in politics’ is concerned with the functional value ideology. The Marxist conception of ideology or the critique of ideology tradition as a whole fall into the category of ‘ideology in knowledge’. For Marx ideology was a conscious or unconscious distortion of views and facts for making them to serve the interests of the holder of the view or the possessor of the facts. Thus, Marx’s concept of ideology designated a quality of thought. It was the attribute of any thought or idea which distorted reality. But the impact of the Marxist concept of ideology on modern politics cannot be considered profound. This is evident from the fact that even in the Marxist tradition; it was the Leninist rather than the Marxian usage of ideology that had its impact on contemporary political life. The Leninist usage of ideology falls into the category of ‘ideology in politics. In its ideology meant any scheme of thinking characteristic of a group or of a class. For Lenin ideology was a set of cognitions and theories which express the interest of a class. Through the practical political successes of Lenin and through the Leninist usage of ideology historically acquired a positive meaning.

The positive concept of ideology can be fruitfully used in a political analysis if it is conceptualized with reference to the cognitive, affective and action-oriented parameters. An analysis of the various positive conceptualizations of ideology made it clear that ideology is a system of beliefs of a group of people. It has a conception of history. Hence it explains how the society has developed to its given state of affairs. It makes an interpretation about the nature of the collectively and the situation in which it is placed. It evaluates the judges the inadequacies of the past and present in the light of certain ideals and expectations. Thus, it identifies certain goals for the collectivity. In order to attain those goals for the collective interest of the people, it also prescribes a program of action. Thus, historical consciousness, perception of the situation, action orientation and action are generated as the major elements of ideology.

The actors motive themselves for action by perceiving and evaluating the situation in the light of their historical experience and expectations. Thus, the actors, perceptions of a given situation are determined by their prepossessions and predispositions in relation to their past, present and future. These prepossessions and predispositions constitute the historical consciousness of a people or a state is constituted of its prepossessions such as culture, values, belief-systems and expectations about the future. The historical consciousness of a people constitutes their predispositions. The actor’s perception of particular situation is based on their historical consciousness of a society is shared by its members. Hence the way a decision maker perceives a given situation is greatly determined by the historical consciousness of the state or people. Thus, what the decision makers get as a result of their perception of the situation is only an “image” of the situation. The actors’ evaluation of the image of the situation generates certain interests for the actors which are to be fulfilled for their well-being. In order to fulfill their interests in the specific and evolving conditions, the actors formulate certain objectives which are to be attained through certain courses of action. Thus, in order to fulfill their interests, the actors orient themselves to certain courses of action which are efficacious enough to attain their objectives in the given situation. Thus, action orientation follows from the actors’ perception of the situation. Action orientation refers to the actors’ tendency to orient themselves towards certain courses of action for maintaining, altering or transforming a situation which caused the image which the actors have received from their perception of the situation, in order to bring about for themselves a favorable future state of affairs. The actors’ action orientation gradually leads to certain courses of action by the actors. This process through which the action comes into existence might be called the action process.

Thus, the various elements or stages of the action process are historical consciousness, perception of the situation, action orientation and action. Since 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 a particular action could be analyzed by identifying in it the various elements of the action process. This framework for the analysis of action might be called Ideology Framework. Because the framework is essentially formulated by using the major aspects 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. Every social action could be analyzed by using the Ideology Framework. Hence the Ideology Framework can be applied for analyzing the foreign policy actions of a state by identifying the various elements of the action process in them. The section attempts to define ideology from a historical perspective, and formulate a framework for foreign policy analysis with the help of ideology. Ideology is a specific from idea system characteristic of modern politics. Popular support is an important aspect of modern politics. Ideology plays an important role in mobilizing popular support in modern politics. For elites ideologies have become important channels for obtaining political mobilization and mass manipulation. Thus, ideologies could be used as instruments for imposing man’s power over man, which could ultimately lead to undemocratic forms of political systems. On the other hand, ideology can provide the country a psychological unity. It can provide the people a scale of values which would inform them what they should approve and disapprove. Ideology serves also as a prism through which the decision makers perceive the international situation, and help people to make sense out of the otherwise bewildering world by providing them a frame of reference. (For details see G. Sartori. “Politics, Ideology and Belief System”. American Political Science Review. Vol. 63. (1969) PP. 398-411; S. Northedge. The Foreign Policies of the Powers. London: Faber and Faber Ltd., 1968. P. 13.) Thus, the implications of ideology warrant a thorough examination of concept.

THE ACTION PROCESS AND THE IDEOLOGY 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.

APPLYING IDEOLOGY FOR FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS

Foreign policy action is a species of the genus which is 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. Wikenfeldet. 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.

VIABILITY OF THE IDEOLOGY FRAMEWORK FOR FOREIGN POLICY ANAYSIS - IN US CONTEXT

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 sections. The study is divided in to seven sections. The first section covers the introductory part of the study.

The second section attempts to formulate a framework for foreign policy analysis with the help of ideology. Ideology is studied by placing it in a historical perspective. Subsequently ideology is conceptualized as a political doctrine aimed at motivating an actor in order to pursue certain actions in the collective interest of the state. This concept of ideology is then subjected to an analysis. As a result of the analysis four aspect of ideology which are inherent in the concept such as historical consciousness, perception of the situation, action orientation and action are identified. Action is considered as the final product. The process through which action comes into existence can be called the action process. Thus, the various stages or elements of the action process are historical consciousness, perception of the situation, action orientation and action. Social actions can be analyzed by identifying in hem the various elements of the action process. This framework for the analysis of actions can be called the ideology framework, as it is essentially formulated by making use of the major aspects of ideology. The ideology Framework can be applied for analyzing the foreign policy actions of states. In order to substantiate the viability of this framework for foreign policy analysis, the case of American foreign policy in Vietnam War 1950- 1975, is studied.

Section three discusses the historical consciousness of the U.S. by the year 1950. It is studied by delineating the geographical features of the country, the ethnic composition of the people, their frontier experience, religious background, economic system, experience in foreign affairs, political beliefs, national character, values, nature of public opinion and expectations of the people.

Section four discusses how the decision makers of the U.S. perceived the Soviet communist system during the immediate post war period and also how the specific situation in Vietnam was perceived by them. According to the decision makers of the U.S. Soviet leaders and regarded that a conflict between Soviet Union and capitalist powers was inevitable, and were preparing Soviet Union for the clash. Hence the Soviet design posed a direct threat to the security of the U.S. Soviet Union tried to extend its power and influence throughout the world. By 1950, according to the perception of the decision makers of the U.S. Southeast Asia was the area under the most serious threat of communist domination. South Vietnam was perceived as the most strategic and key of Southeast Asia. Hence according to the U.S. perception, the loss of South Vietnam to communism could lead to the loss of Southeast Asia, which would thereby produce both domestic and international repercussions harmful to American interests. Thus, an independent, non – communist South Vietnam was perceived as vital for American security interests.

Section five deals with the action orientation of the U.S. decision makers towards the perceived threat from the Soviet communist system and also towards the specific situation in Vietnam. The U.S. oriented itself towards containing the expansion of the Soviet communist system, reducing the power and influence of the Soviet Union, inducing the Soviet Union to accommodate itself to coexistence on tolerable terms with the non – Soviet world and frustrating the Soviet design for world domination through the strategy of cold war. The U.S. also decided to demonstrate the superiority of the idea of freedom and build up the military, political and economic power of the U.S. and its allies in order to deter a war if possible and to defeat the communist forces if necessary. By 1950 the U.S. was set to block any further communist expansion in Southeast Asia. As South Vietnam was regarded as the most strategic and key area of Southeast Asia, the U.S. policies were oriented towards military victory in Vietnam for achieving the objective of an independent, non- communist South Vietnam and thereby demonstrating the determination of the U.S. to resist ‘communist aggression’.

Section six deals with the American foreign policy in Vietnam War from 1950 to 1975. American involvement in Vietnam War began in 1950 when President Truman decided to provide economic and military assistance to the French to defeat the Vietminh communist forces. But when the French were defeated by the Vietminh in 1954, America began direct economic and military assistance to South Vietnam and also covert operations against North Vietnam. The 1954 Geneva conference had provided for all- Vietnam elections to be conducted in 1956. But the elections were not held. After the Geneva conference America organized Southeast Asia treaty Organization (SEATO) and made commitment to assist its members including South Vietnam in defending against “communist aggression”. Thereafter American presence in South Vietnam steadily increased. In 1964 the congress passed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution empowering the President to take all necessary measures to defined South Vietnam from “communist aggression”. Since then the American military presence in Vietnam began to escalate. But when the costs of the war became unacceptable to the people, the public support began to diminish. The 1968 Tet offensive by the communist forces was a turning point. Thereafter the American objective was disengaging from Vietnam after gaining an honorable peace settlement. In order to attain that objective America continued its war efforts. On January 27, 1973 President Nixon reached a peace settlement with North Vietnam. After promising its support to the Government of South Vietnam, America withdrew its troops from South Vietnam. But America did not provide the promised assistance to South Vietnam. On April 30, 1975 South Vietnam surrendered unconditionally to the communist forces.

Section seven concludes that the Ideology framework can be successfully applied for analyzing foreign policies of states by identifying in them the various elements of the action process such as historical consciousness, perception of the situation, action orientation and action.