Peta Social Capital

Social capital connections have three elements: (1) Networks, (2) trust that is specific to the networks, and (3) access to resources that are enabled by the network. When an organization or a friend helps someone access resources needed to meet their goals, positive social capital is represented.

Throughout the past decade, as PETA has grown and raked in an ever- increasing number of donations, another leitmotif on its website has been its unabashed self-aggrandizement. In this chapter, I discuss the self-promotional language used by PETA and demonstrate that the focus of its discourse has not solely been to sell “cruelty-free” products, but to sell itself to potential supporters (i.e. donors) as a victorious and effective nonhuman animal rights organization that is superior to other nonhuman animal rights groups. I argue that the consistency of the language is evidence of a concerted discourse strategy devised by PETA, a powerful social actor in the nonhuman animal rights movement, which seeks to convey a certain ideology that abides by a competitive neoliberal form of social activism in order to attract more donors.

Social capital emcompasses the links, shared values and understandings in society that enable individuals and groups to trust each other and work together. The benefits of Social Capital arise from the trust, reciprocity, shared information, and cooperation associated with social networks. Societal value is created through connection between people.

Social structure is the way society is organized into predictable relationships. There are five elements when you break down social structure. The first being status. We usually associate having a status to the amount of influence, wealth and fame. But sociologists use the term status to refer to any of the full range of socially defined positions within a large group or society, from the lowest to the highest. Examples of this are being a son or daughter, dental technician or the president of the United States. Sociologists also see some status to be achieved or ascribed and an ascribed status is when a person is assigned to it by society without regard for the person 's unique talents or characteristics. But the achieved status comes to

Social capital refers to the resources available in and through personal and business networks. Social capital defines that social networks have value. Social capital also refers to collective value of all “social networks” and the fact arise from the things doing for each other in networks. The term Social Capital emphasizes not just feelings but, a wide variety of benefits which flow from trust, reciprocity, information, and cooperation with social networks. Michael woolock states in his papers that among the people working in the field, there has been a visible convergence towards something like its definition he offers. Networks have the value for the people who are in them, and they have. There are both public and private faces of social capital. Putnam in social capital largely focusing on the external returns, the public returns to social capital, but Putnam think that is not at all inconsistent with the idea that there are also private returns.

Social capital for him is inherently functional and social capital is whatever allows people or institutions to act. Social capital is therefore not a mechanism, a thing, or an outcome, but simultaneously any or all of them. Coleman sought to link the ideas of economic and sociology theory. His way of study leads to a broader view of social capital. According to him social capital is not a stock owned by elite groups but also the benefits of all commodities can be utilized by the marginalized and

A multidimensional and complex theory, political scientist Robert Putnam (1993) defines social capital as, “features of social organizations such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Colton et al., 2015). Subsequently, sociologist Alejandro Portes (1998) defines individual social capital as, “the ability of actors to secure benefits by virtue of membership in social networks or other social structures” – and encompasses the concept through cognitive social capital (the perception of trust, belonging, and reciprocity) and structural social capital (via societal participation, involvement, and volunteering) (Colton et al., 2015). Another effect on overall social capital is time and trust poverty, or the lack in time and trust management needed to secure social capital (Colton et al., 2015). Furthermore, other implementations of social capital involve social cohesion and informal social control being the process of closeness within a community dependent on connection and willingness, and community actions to sustain order and closeness – whereby both lead to greater social accessibility (Barnhart & Maguire-Jack,

PETA (2017) takes a mass market approach in their tactics. Consequently, target audiences will be

Social capital is a set of relationship rules between the parties that make up a society. These rules define the participation, the organization and the power of action of individuals with common goals. Although the concept of "Social Capital" is not new, it became known only from the work of Robert Putnam, published in 1993: Making Democracy Work: Civic Tradition in Modern Italy. Initially the concept had been defined as "a set of social relations marked by goodwill and friendliness, very close attributes of goodwill used to define public relations in its origin".

A Comparison of Theories of Social Capital by Pierre Bourdieu and James Coleman Social capital is a sociological theory which has gained increasing attention in recent years. Whilst Bourdieu can be credited with introducing the term to sociology, it was James Coleman who allowed the concept to gain widespread recognition, highlighting its importance as an individual notion. For Bourdieu social capital forms a part of an overarching theory of ‘fields’, ‘capital’ and their relation to class reproduction. The key importance of social capital for Bourdieu is its relationship with economic capital, whilst for Coleman, social capital is seen to lead to human capital. It seems that both Bourdieu and

Social capital refers to the quality of interactions among people and whether they share a common perspective. The culture of an organization contributes to the level of social capital an organization can achieve. When social capital in an organization is high you will find strong positive relationships built on honesty, trust, respect and mutual understanding. This motivates people to

Putnam focused on the idea of reciprocity through civic engagement. ‘[N]etworks and the associated norms of reciprocity have value’. (Putnam: 2001: 1) He believed the main cause in the decline of social capital is the ‘long-term decrease in participation in voluntary associations’. (Ellison: 2006: 8) Resources accrue because of trust at a community level. He relates to the networks individuals make through bonding and bridging ties. His idea was centralised on the notion that social capital should be a set target that individuals should achieve. Membership in community led organisations brings people together and creates community networks. Putnam (2007) stated that social capital can be measured through how many friends an individual has and how many organisations they actively participate in. ‘The emphasis in modern societies on consensus [is] based on interconnected networks of trust among citizens, families, voluntary organisations, religious denominations, civic associations’. (Siisiainen: 2000: 1)

Social capital is the combination of two types of resources. One is tangible resources and another one is intangible resources. The tangible resources are public spaces and private property and intangible resources are actors, human capital and people (Wikipedia, 2017). Social Scientists divide social capital in two parts. One is bonding and the other one is bridging. This bonding and bridging help to improve firm’s internal ties (Adler & Kwon, 2002; Leanna & Van Buaren, 1999). Social capital create network among society, makes bonding with same people and makes bridge for diverse people. This work is done by norms and reciprocity (Dekker & Uslaner, 2001). Social capital is horizontal association among people for firm’s productivity and well-being which build by social network and social norms (World Bank, 1998).

Social capital is one piece of overall social cohesion (Putnam 2004 p3). Social capital is the social network that allows members to achieve more together (Carrasco 2016 p128). It is the trust and norms of a single group of people. Social cohesion speaks about the larger community, and uses more broad terminology about the relationship of members in a community. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development offers a comprehensive definition, saying a cohesive society is one that "works towards the well-being of all the members, fights exclusion and marginalization creates a sense of belonging, promotes trust and offers members the opportunity of upward social mobility” (OECD 2011 p51). Social cohesion can be broken into four categories: positive relationships, equal life chances, civic

Social capital :is the way to secure benefits via social networks. These benefits include gaining knowledge about network norms. It also represents the benefits of the benefits of members of human networks and communities.