Meanings of the Expression Internet as Fifth Estate

Ioan Mircea TURCULET, Roxana ACHIRICESEI, Mihaela MUTU


We live in a world dominated by communicative technologies. Internet used daily is a habit for millions of people. Due to this large number of users the internet is described as the fifth power after the press and the classical state powers. But what kind of power is the internet? According to some scholars, the internet and web.2.0 are just another form of state or commercial surveillance for social safety or power maintenance or economic growth. For others, the internet is just a new form of the fourth estate- the press. The internet, especially the social media is seen as a tool for revolutions in authoritarian regimes and democratization. Nevertheless, the internet may be seen as a new form of technology of the self as seen by Michel Foucault and used by the political or economic power for different ends.

How to cite: Turculet, I.M., Achiricesei, R. & Mutu, M. (2017). Meanings of the Expression Internet as Fifth Estateâ€. Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty, Section: Social Sciences, VI(1), 7-19. DOI:


Internet, Power, Fifth Estate, online communication.

Full Text:



Crouzet, T. (2007). Le cinquieme pouvoir. Comment internet bouleverse la politique. Paris: Bourin Editeur.

Dubois, E., & Dutton, W.H. (2014). Empowering Citizens of the Digital Age: The Role of a Fifth Estate. In Graham, M., & Dutton, W. H. (eds), Society and the Internet, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 238-53.

Dutton, W. H. (2010a). Democratic Potential of the Fifth Estate. PerAda Magazine,

Dutton, W. H. (2010b). The Fifth Estate: Democratic Social Accountability through the Emerging Network of Networks. In Nixon, P. G., Koutrakou, V. N., and Rawal, R. (Eds), Understanding E-Government in Europe: Issues and Challenges, London: Routledge, pp. 3-18.

Dutton, W.H. (2015). The Role of Social Media in Societal Change: Cases in Finland of Fifth Estate Activity on Facebook. Available online:

Foucault, M. (2002). Anormalii, [Abnormal]. Bucuresti: Ed. Univers.

Fuchs, C. (2011). New Media, Web 2.0 and Surveillance. Sociology Compass, 5/2(2011), 134-147.

Gruzini, S. (2005). The concept of power: A constructivist Analysis in Millennium. Journal of International Studies, 33(3), 495-521.

Iftode, C. (2016). Experienta Facebook: Expresivismul digital si cyber-bioputerea, [Facebook Experience: Digital Expressivity and cyber-power]. Revista de Filosofie, Bucuresti, LXIII(5), 555-570.

McGann, J. J. (2016). Think tanks, Public Policy and Governance. Washington, Brooking Institution.

McLean, I. (2009). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. New York, Oxford University Press.

Moor, J. H. (2005). Why we need better ethics for emerging technologies. Ethics and Information Technology, 7, 111-119.

Morozov, E. (2011). The Net Dellusion. New York: Public Affairs.

Mukane, R. (2016). Knowledge is power: The Internet Panopticon as weapon against terror. Available online:

Olsen, M. E., Margew, M. N. (1993). Power in Modern Societies. San Francisco: Oxford.

Pădure, R. (2017). Marele Secret din spatele victoriei lui Trump, [The Secret behind Trump Victory]. Available online:

Popper, K. (2005). Societatea deschisa si inamicii ei, [The open society and its enemies]. Bucuresti: Ed. Humanitas.

Sadan, E. (1997). Empowerment and Community Planning, accessed online may 2017:, p. 35-40

Tuner, B. S. (2006). Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology. New York: Cambridge University Press

Turculet, M. (2014). Ethical Issues Concerning Online Social Networks. Proceedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 149, 967-972.

Vladulescu, G. (1980). Introducere in istoria filosofiei orientului antic, [Introduction to the antic oriental philosophy]. Bucuresti: Ed. Didactica si Pedagogica

Weber, M. (2003). Etica protestanta si spiritul capitalismului, [Protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism]. Bucuresti. Incitatus.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright © LUMEN SS | A LUMEN Peer Reviewed Open Access Journal