Research Article

Competing worldviews in AI governance: Directed content and critical discourse analysis of five official documents

Volume: 23 Number: 2026 October 1, 2026
TR EN

Competing worldviews in AI governance: Directed content and critical discourse analysis of five official documents

Abstract

AI-governance documents are often taken to speak for the polities issuing them. Using directed content and critical discourse analysis, we examine five documents issued by two U.S. administrations, China, the EU, and BRICS, along 11 analytical dimensions, asking whether that assumption holds and where they diverge and converge. The assumption fails most clearly when a polity speaks twice: the two U.S. documents, from 2022 and 2025, take opposed positions, and China’s 2017 plan, still operative, asserts sovereignty on its own terms while the 2025 declaration China co-signed centers the United Nations. The U.S. pair shows rival discursive projects contesting the national interest within one state. No dimension yields American-European and Chinese-BRICS blocs: self-narrative comes closest, joining both U.S. documents to the EU’s but splitting China from BRICS. The Biden-era document matches the BRICS declaration on six of the 11 dimensions, and the Trump and EU plans, far apart on regulation, agree on the main risk they identify. Three dimensions, naming an enemy, open source, and environmental limits, are examined in depth as the fault lines dividing the documents. These documents carry competing worldviews of what AI is and the order it belongs in.

Keywords

AI governance, methodological nationalism, digital sovereignty, open-source AI, global AI race

Supporting Institution

No institutional support was received for this study.

Project Number

No one

Ethical Statement

This study rests on the textual analysis of publicly available official policy documents. It involves no experimentation or intervention with human or animal subjects, gathers no data from human participants, and processes no personal data; ethics committee approval was therefore not required. The principles of scientific research and publication ethics were observed at every stage, and every source drawn upon is listed in the references.

References

  1. AI Safety Summit. (2023). The Bletchley Declaration by countries attending the AI Safety Summit, 1–2 November 2023. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ai-safety-summit-2023-the-bletchley-declaration/the-bletchley-declaration-by-countries-attending-the-ai-safety-summit-1-2-november-2023
  2. Akyeşilmen, N., & Akdağ, Y. (2025). Towards global digital governance: Norms, institutions, and challenges of multilateral cooperation. Insight Turkey, 27(2), 313–336. https://doi.org/10.25253/99.2025272.17
  3. Almada, M., & Radu, A. (2024). The Brussels side-effect: How the AI Act can reduce the global reach of EU policy. German Law Journal, 25(4), 646–663. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.108
  4. Balzacq, T. (2005). The three faces of securitization: Political agency, audience and context. European Journal of International Relations, 11(2), 171–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066105052960
  5. Bareis, J., & Katzenbach, C. (2022). Talking AI into being: The narratives and imaginaries of national AI strategies and their performative politics. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 47(5), 855–881. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439211030007
  6. Beck, U. (2007). The cosmopolitan condition: Why methodological nationalism fails. Theory, Culture & Society, 24(7–8), 286–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764070240072505
  7. Boym, S. (2001). The future of nostalgia. Basic Books.
  8. Bradford, A. (2012). The Brussels effect. Northwestern University Law Review, 107(1), 1–67.
  9. Bradford, A. (2023). Digital empires: The global battle to regulate technology. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197649268.001.0001
  10. Brevini, B. (2020). Black boxes, not green: Mythologizing artificial intelligence and omitting the environment. Big Data & Society, 7(2), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720935141
APA
Bilici, M. V., & Karaca, N. (2026). Competing worldviews in AI governance: Directed content and critical discourse analysis of five official documents. OPUS Journal of Society Research, 23(2026), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.26466/opusjsr.2025823
AMA
1.Bilici MV, Karaca N. Competing worldviews in AI governance: Directed content and critical discourse analysis of five official documents. OPUS JSR. 2026;23(2026):1-25. doi:10.26466/opusjsr.2025823
Chicago
Bilici, Muhammed Veysel, and Nurullah Karaca. 2026. “Competing Worldviews in AI Governance: Directed Content and Critical Discourse Analysis of Five Official Documents”. OPUS Journal of Society Research 23 (2026): 1-25. https://doi.org/10.26466/opusjsr.2025823.
EndNote
Bilici MV, Karaca N (October 1, 2026) Competing worldviews in AI governance: Directed content and critical discourse analysis of five official documents. OPUS Journal of Society Research 23 2026 1–25.
IEEE
[1]M. V. Bilici and N. Karaca, “Competing worldviews in AI governance: Directed content and critical discourse analysis of five official documents”, OPUS JSR, vol. 23, no. 2026, pp. 1–25, Oct. 2026, doi: 10.26466/opusjsr.2025823.
ISNAD
Bilici, Muhammed Veysel - Karaca, Nurullah. “Competing Worldviews in AI Governance: Directed Content and Critical Discourse Analysis of Five Official Documents”. OPUS Journal of Society Research 23/2026 (October 1, 2026): 1-25. https://doi.org/10.26466/opusjsr.2025823.
JAMA
1.Bilici MV, Karaca N. Competing worldviews in AI governance: Directed content and critical discourse analysis of five official documents. OPUS JSR. 2026;23:1–25.
MLA
Bilici, Muhammed Veysel, and Nurullah Karaca. “Competing Worldviews in AI Governance: Directed Content and Critical Discourse Analysis of Five Official Documents”. OPUS Journal of Society Research, vol. 23, no. 2026, Oct. 2026, pp. 1-25, doi:10.26466/opusjsr.2025823.
Vancouver
1.Muhammed Veysel Bilici, Nurullah Karaca. Competing worldviews in AI governance: Directed content and critical discourse analysis of five official documents. OPUS JSR. 2026 Oct. 1;23(2026):1-25. doi:10.26466/opusjsr.2025823