Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 14

Robert Putnam

Social Capital and Civic Community


Robert Putnam has been described as the
most influential academic in the world today.
His book “Bowling Alone “
seems to have struck a chord with many
concerned with the state of public life.
Is the hype justified?
We explore Putnam’s contribution
and its significance
for informal educators and animateurs.
Robert D Putnam (1941- ) has made some influential friends in recent
years. He has been the focus of seminars hosted by Bill Clinton at Camp
David and Tony Blair at 10 Downing Street. His ideas have popped up in
speeches by George W. Bush and William Hague. The decline of civil
engagement in the USA over the last 30 years or so, which he charted in
Bowling Alone (2000), has worried a number of politicians and commentators.
Robert Putnam’s marshalling of evidence with regard to this shift; his
identification of the causes; and his argument that within the new
circumstances new institutions of civic engagement can arise has made him
the centre of attention. However, his contribution to thinking about the nature
of civic society – and its relation to political life is based on more than his
analysis of US experience.

Life

Born and raised in Port Clinton, Ohio, Robert Putnam is one of a long series of
writers on community and civic participation that comes from a small town
(John Dewey is a another famous example). His mother was a schoolteacher
and his father a builder. Port Clinton was ‘pretty unremarkable’ but ‘a good
place in which to grow up’ according to Robert Putnam. Like many
adolescents in small town America in the 1950s he found aspects of the life
stifling. His family had been moderate Republican and Methodist, but his
political and religious commitments were to not to be the same. Putnam went
to Swarthmore College, Philadelphia – the Quaker higher education institution
known for its liberalism, commitment to social involvement and intellectual
rigor.

I went to Swarthmore College as a physics major. Swarthmore was the


greatest intellectual influence on my life. It was a small, highly intellectual,
extremely demanding, and politically very engaged place – quite radical, in
fact… I gradually moved from physics to chemistry to biology and finally
majored in psychology, but in my senior year I decided I was really interested
in political science….

At Swarthmore I was taught by two great teachers, the political theorist


Roland Pennock, and a student of American government named Chuck
Gilbert. They were very hard nosed, rigorous, serious thinkers, and that
excited me – that you can apply some of the rigour of the sciences, where I
was coming from, to politics. (Putnam interviewed in ECPR News 2000)

There Robet Putnam met his wife, Rosemary. A sign of the shift in his politics
was that on their first date, she took him to a Kennedy rally (and they were
later to travel to Washington to see the inauguration).

The early sixties were an unusual period in America. There was a great deal
of political discussion and activism – it was the time of civil rights (and we
were all involved in sit-ins and protests to some degree) and of Kennedy's
election to the White House, which had an amazingly strong impact on young
people at the time. I remember we rode overnight on a train – I, and the girl
I was dating, now my wife - to Washington, and stood at the back of the
crowd at the Kennedy inaugural. The language of his speech – 'Ask not what
your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country' – had a
powerful personal impact. (Robert Putnam interviewed in ECPR News 2000)

Rosemary also introduced him to Judaism (her faith). He adopted the faith,
particularly attracted by the ‘unique and intense of community’ he found
among Jews (Appleyard 2001).

Graduating from Swarthmore with a bachelor of arts degree with highest


honours in 1963, Robert Putnam went on to study at Balliol College, Oxford –
where he spent a good deal of time with David Butler and Donald Stokes,
(who were writing Political Change in Britain at the time). He then went to
Yale to do graduate work. There he earned a master's in 1965 and a
doctorate in 1970. He had wanted to do a comparative study covering Britain
and a contrasting country. He chose Italy – partly influenced by Joe
LaPalombara's enthusiasm for the country. This work became the book, The
Beliefs of Politicians. Published in 1973 it was to establish him as a major
figure in his discipline. Robert Putnam's reputation was further strengthened
by studies of political elites (1976) and summits (1984).
Following graduation, he joined the University of Michigan faculty, becoming a
full professor of political science in 1975. In 1979, Robert Putnam moved to
Harvard as a professor of government and subsequently served as
department chair from 1984 to 1988. In 1989, he was appointed dean of the
Kennedy School of Government and Don K. Price Professor of Politics. He is
now the Peter and Isabel Malkin Professor of Public Policy at Harvard
University – and teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in American
politics, international relations, comparative politics, and public policy.

Early in the 1970s Putnam began a collaboration with Robert Lonardi and
Raffaella Y. Nanetti that nearly twenty years later resulted in the seminal
work Making Democracy Work (1993). Based on a study of Italian politics
and, in particular, the experience of the move to regional government post-
1970, this book displays a number of the classic Robert Putnam hallmarks.
These include: sustained and detailed attention to empirical data; a
commitment to producing material that could help with the task of enhancing
the quality of social and political discourse; and grounded and accessible
writing. The book’s concern with civic community and social capital was a
direct precursor to Bowling Alone (1995, 2000) – Putnam’s very influential
study of the decline in civic engagement in the United States.

For many years, I've been worried . . . as a citizen . . . about things like the
collapse of trust in public authorities. When I was growing up in the 1950s
and 1960s, 75 percent of Americans said that they trusted their government
to do the right thing. Last year, same survey, same question, it was 19
percent.
As I was finishing my book on Italy, it occurred to me that what I was finding
out as a scholar of Italian politics was connected to what worried me as an
American citizen -- namely, the sense that our national experiment in
democratic self- government is faltering. So I started digging around about
trends in civic engagement in America… I frankly was astonished. (AHEE
interview 1995)

The original ‘Bowling Alone’ article generated a great deal of interest (see the
Bowling Alone debate below). It is easy to see why when Robert Putnam talks
about the significance of social connectedness and just how pervasive are its
effects.

We are not talking here simply about nostalgia for the 1950s. School
performance, public health, crime rates, clinical depression, tax compliance,
philanthropy, race relations, community development, census returns, teen
suicide, economic productivity, campaign finance, even simple human
happiness -- all are demonstrably affected by how (and whether) we connect
with our family and friends and neighbours and co-workers.

And most Americans instinctively recognize that we need to reconnect with


one another. Figuring out how to reconcile the competing obligations of work
and family and community is the ultimate "kitchen table" issue. As practical
solutions to the problem become clearer -- a radical expansion of the Family
and Medical Leave Act is my current favorite -- the latent public support for
addressing the underlying issue will become an irresistible "market" for
ambitious political candidates. (Atlantic Unbound interview 2000)

Beem (1999: 86-7) makes the point that the astonishing response to the
article revealed that Putnam struck ‘a very raw, very sensitive nerve’. His case
appeared to offer a clear and convincing explanation for the unease that
many were feeling.

As part of his follow-up to the article Robert Putnam launched the Saguaro
Seminars. These were a series of meetings held around the USA at which
‘leaders and intellectuals’ considered how they might ‘build bonds of civic
trust among Americans and their communities’. He is also founder of The
Saguaro Seminar: Civic Engagement in America, a programme that attempts
to bring together leading practitioners and thinkers over a period of time to
develop broad-scale, but actionable, ideas to fortify US civic connectedness.

Following the publication of Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam has been involved
in a major, five year, study and survey of social capital in the United States,
and a joint Harvard/ Manchester University collaboration on social change.
The former explores a number of sensitive areas - such as the impact of
social diversity on social capital (Putnam 2007); the latter focuses on four
areas of social change: immigration; the changing workplace and the
consequences of women moving into the paid workforce; the changing role of
religion in society; and inequality, particularly the mounting evidence of the
inheritance of class and how it restricts social mobility (Bunting 2007).

Robert Putnam has served on a variety of bodies including the staff of the
National Security Council. He sits on the Advisory Council on Environmentally
Sustainable Development at the World Bank and is a member of the Council
on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission and a Fellow of the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Robert Putnam is currently President
of the American Political Science Association (2001 – 2002). He is an
occasional consultant to the Department of State, the Central Intelligence
Agency and The World Bank. He lives in Lexington, Massachusetts, and
Jaffrey, New Hampshire.

Here we will focus briefly on three aspects of his work. These are his
exploration of the nature of civic community, his presentation of social capital,
the Bowling Alone phenomenon, and its aftermath. From there we will turn to
his significance for educators – in particular informal educators.

The civic community

One of the most compelling studies of civic virtue in politics in recent years
was by Robert Putnam and his colleagues in Making Democracy Work (1993:
83-120) (see civic community and civic engagement elsewhere on these
pages for a fuller discussion). Their initial concern was to explore the
relationship of economic modernity and institutional performance. What they
discovered in their investigation of civic traditions in modern Italy was a
strong link between the performance of political institutions and the character
of civic life – what they termed ‘the civic community’ (ibid: 15). Such
communities were characterized by:

Civic engagement

Political equality

Solidarity, trust and tolerance

A strong associational life.

Robert Putnam and his colleagues were able to then take these themes and
to connect them up with a range of data sources for different regions in Italy.
They found that a clear line could be drawn between civic and ‘uncivic’
regions – and that ‘public affairs are more successfully ordered’ in the former
(Putnam 1993: 113). His conclusion was that democracies (and economies)
‘work better when there exists an independent and long-standing tradition of
civic engagement’ (Beem 1999: 85). The book effectively set an agenda for
those wanting to explore the creation of convivial conditions for of democracy
to flourish.

Social capital

The notion of social capital has been around for decades (see the article on
social capital elsewhere on these pages for a fuller treatment). It is with the
work of Jane Jacobs (1961), Pierre Bourdieu (1983), James S. Coleman
(1988) and Robert D. Putnam (1993; 2000) that it has come into prominence.
This is how Putnam (2000: 19) introduces the idea:

Whereas physical capital refers to physical objects and human capital refers
to the properties of individuals, social capital refers to connections among
individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness
that arise from them. In that sense social capital is closely related to what
some have called “civic virtue.” The difference is that “social capital” calls
attention to the fact that civic virtue is most powerful when embedded in a
sense network of reciprocal social relations. A society of many virtuous but
isolated individuals is not necessarily rich in social capital.

In other words, interaction enables people to build communities, to commit


themselves to each other, and to knit the social fabric. A sense of belonging
and the concrete experience of social networks (and the relationships of trust
and tolerance that can be involved) can, it is argued, bring great benefits to
people.
The discussion of social capital in Making Democracy Work while setting out
little that was new or original with regard to the concept, did operationalize it
in an interesting way - and made possible the development of the arguments
in Bowling Alone.

Civic involvement – the Bowling Alone phenomenon

In 1995 Robert Putnam followed up his work on civic involvement in Italy with
an exploration of US experience. He began with the same thesis: ‘the quality
of public life and the performance of social institutions (and not only in
America) are… powerfully influenced by norms and networks of civic
engagement’ (1995: 66). He then went on to demonstrate that on a range
indicators of civic engagement including voting, political participation,
newspaper readership, and participation in local associations that there were
serious grounds for concern. It appeared that America’s social capital was in
decline. He concluded:

The concept of "civil society" has played a central role in the recent global
debate about the preconditions for democracy and democratization. In the
newer democracies this phrase has properly focused attention on the need to
foster a vibrant civic life in soils traditionally inhospitable to self-government.
In the established democracies, ironically, growing numbers of citizens are
questioning the effectiveness of their public institutions at the very moment
when liberal democracy has swept the battlefield, both ideologically and
geopolitically. In America, at least, there is reason to suspect that this
democratic disarray may be linked to a broad and continuing erosion of civic
engagement that began a quarter-century ago. High on our scholarly agenda
should be the question of whether a comparable erosion of social capital may
be under way in other advanced democracies, perhaps in different
institutional and behavioral guises. High on America's agenda should be the
question of how to reverse these adverse trends in social connectedness, thus
restoring civic engagement and civic trust. (Putnam 1995: 77)

The data used was disputed – and there were a number of commentators
who argued that what was being seen was change rather than necessarily
decline (see the Bowling Alone debate below). However, the article was
simply Putnam’s first step.

In Bowling Alone (2000) Putnam followed up with a comprehensive


exploration of a substantial array of data sources. The evidence began to look
convincing. First in the realm of civic engagement and social connectedness
he was able to demonstrate that, for example, over the last three decades of
the twentieth century there had been a fundamental shift in:

Political and civic engagement. Voting, political knowledge, political trust,


and grassroots political activism are all down. Americans sign 30 per cent
fewer petitions and are 40 per cent less likely to join a consumer boycott, as
compared to just a decade or two ago. The declines are equally visible in non-
political community life: membership and activity in all sorts of local clubs and
civic and religious organizations have been falling at an accelerating pace. In
the mid-1970s the average American attended some club meeting every
month, by 1998 that rate of attendance had been cut by nearly 60 per cent.
Informal social ties. In 1975 the average American entertained friends at
home 15 times per year; the equivalent figure (1998) is now barely half that.
Virtually all leisure activities that involve doing something with someone else,
from playing volleyball to playing chamber music, are declining.
Tolerance and trust. Although Americans are more tolerant of one another
than were previous generations, they trust one another less. Survey data
provide one measure of the growth of dishonesty and distrust, but there are
other indicators. For example, employment opportunities for police, lawyers,
and security personnel were stagnant for most of this century - indeed,
America had fewer lawyers per capita in 1970 than in 1900. In the last
quarter century these occupations boomed, as people have increasingly
turned to the courts and the police.
(http://www.bowlingalone.com/media.php3)

He went on to examine the possible reasons for this decline. Crucially, he was
able to demonstrate that some favourite candidates for blame could not be
regarded as significant. Residential mobility had actually been declining for
the last half of the century. Time pressure, especially on two-career families,
could only be a marginal candidate. Some familiar themes remained though:

• Changes in family structure (i.e. with more and more people living
alone), are a possible element as conventional avenues to civic
involvement are not well-designed for single and childless people.
• Suburban sprawl has fractured the spatial integrity of people’s. They
travel much further to work, shop and enjoy leisure opportunities. As
a result there is less time available (and less inclination) to become
involved in groups. Suburban sprawl is a very significant contributor.
• Electronic entertainment, especially television, has profoundly
privatized leisure time. The time we spend watching television is a
direct drain upon involvement in groups and social capital building
activities. It may contribute up to 40 per cent of the decline in
involvement in groups.

However, generational change came out as a very significant factor. A "long


civic generation," born in the first third of the twentieth century, is now
passing from the American scene. 'Their children and grandchildren (baby
boomers and Generation X-ers) are much less engaged in most forms of
community life. For example, the growth in volunteering over the last ten
years is due almost entirely to increased volunteering by retirees from the
long civic generation' (http://www.bowlingalone.com/media.php3). The book
also explores the consequences of a decline in social capital (and the benefits
enjoyed by those communities with a substantial stock of it), and what can be
done (see the discussion elsewhere on social capital).
Various criticisms can be mounted against the argument - and most tellingly,
initially, against the data and its interpretation - however, Putnam has
mounted a very significant and sustained case here (see our social capital
piece) - but it is still open to various criticisms (see, for example, Skocpol
2003).

Social capital and social change

The follow-up US study to Bowling Alone has also stimulated debate. The first
findings from the study found that, in the short run, immigration and ethnic
diversity tended to reduce social solidarity and social capital. In ethnically
diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’.

Diversity does not produce ‘bad race relations’ or ethnically-defined group


hostility, our findings suggest. Rather, inhabitants of diverse communities
tend to withdraw from collective life, to distrust their neighbours, regardless
of the colour of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the
worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to
charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to
agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make
a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television. Note that this
pattern encompasses attitudes and behavior, bridging and bonding social
capital, public and private connections. Diversity, at least in the short run,
seems to bring out the turtle in all of us. (Putnam 2007)

Trust (even of one's own 'race') is lower, altruism and community cooperation
rarer, friends fewer (Putnam 2007).

Robert Putnam has also sought to track emerging, significant generators of


social capital - and to examine some of the qualities that make them
significant. Religion has been a particular focus - not surprising as in his view
religious affiliations account for half of all US social capital. Bunting (2007)
reports him as citing US megachurches which, typically, attract tens of
thousands of members, as 'the most interesting social invention of late 20th
century'.

They have very low barriers to entry - the doors are open, there are folding
chairs out on the patio - they make it very easy to surf by. You can leave
easily. But then they ramp people up to a huge commitment - at some
megachurches, half of all members are tithing [giving a tenth of their
income]. How do they get from the low to the high commitment? By a
honeycomb structure of thousands of small groups: they have the mountain
bikers for God group, the volleyball players for God, the breast cancer
survivors for God, the spouses of the breast cancer survivors for God, and so
on.

The intense tie is not to the theology but in the emotional commitment to
others in their small group. Most of these people are seeking meaning in their
lives but they are also seeking friends. The small groups spend two hours a
week together - doing the volleyball or the mountain biking and praying; they
become your closest friends. These churches form in places of high mobility -
people live there for six weeks and the church provides the community
connection. When you lose your job, they'll tide you over, when your wife
gets ill, they'll bring the chicken soup. (quoted in Bunting 2007)

One of Putnam's conclusions is that this 'low entry/ honeycomb structure'


could be used to reinvigorate many other organisations.

Conclusion: Robert Putnam and informal education

Robert Putnam’s discussion of social capital provides informal educators with


a powerful rationale for their activities – after all the classic working
environment for the informal educator is the group, club or organization. The
evidence and analysis also provides a stunning case against those who want
to target work towards those who present the most significant problems and
tie informal educators’ activities to the achievement of specific outcomes in
individuals. Several points need underlining here.

First, from the material marshalled by Robert Putnam we can see that the
simple act of joining and being regularly involved in organized groups has a
very significant impact on individual health and well-being. Working so that
people may join groups – whether they are organized around enthusiasms
and interests, social activity, or economic and political aims – can make a
considerable contribution in itself. Encouraging the development of
associational life can also make a significant difference to the experience of
being in different communities. Here we might highlight the case of schooling.
Educational achievement is likely to rise significantly, and the quality of day-
to-day interaction is likely to be enhanced by a much greater emphasis on the
cultivation of extra-curricula activity involving groups and teams.

Second, informal education’s longstanding concern with association and the


quality of life in associations can make a direct and important contribution to
the development of social networks (and the relationships of trust and
tolerance that is usually involved) and the strengthening of democracy.
Informal educators interest in dialogue and conversation, and the cultivation
of environments in which people can work together, take them to the heart of
what is required to strengthen and develop social capital. Their ethical
position also demands they attend to the downsides of networks – in
particular, the extent to which they are oppressive and narrowing. A focus on
tolerance and the acceptance, if not the celebration, of difference is required.
There is a place for both bridging and bonding social capital.

Third, there is very strong argument here against those who wish to
concentrate the bulk of resources on groups and individuals who present the
strongest social problems (currently the received thinking among many
policymakers - see, for example, the Connexions strategy in England). If we
follow Robert Putnam’s analysis through then we can see that, for example,
crime can be reduced, educational achievement enhanced and better health
fostered through the strengthening of social capital. Significantly this entails
working across communities – and in particular sustaining the commitment
and capacities already involved in community organizations and enthusiast
groups, and encouraging those on the cusp of being actively involved. The
majority of the people we are talking about here cannot be classified as
suffering from multiple disadvantage, will not be engaged in criminal activity,
and will be (or have been) engaged with education systems and/or the world
of work. In other words, open and generic work needs to be afforded a far
higher priority – and so-called ‘issue-based’ work needs to be more closely
interrogated as to the benefits it brings.

Robert Putnam has done us a great service here, and while aspects of his
argument will no doubt be disputed over the coming years, his central
message is surely true. Interaction enables people to build communities, to
commit themselves to each other, and to knit the social fabric.

Bibliography and further reading

Putnam, R. D. (1993) Making Democracy Work. Civic traditions in modern


Italy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 258 + xv pages. Based on
substantial empirical research, this book argues that the quality of civic life is
central the cultivation of successful institutions in a democratic society. The
book makes particular use of the notion of social capital.

Putnam, R. D. (1995) ’Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital’, The


Journal of Democracy, 6:1, pages 65-78.

Putnam, R. D. (2000) Bowling Alone. The collapse and revival


of American community, New York: Simon and Schuster. 540 pages.
Groundbreaking book that marshals evidence from an array of empirical and
theoretical sources. Putnam argues there has been a decline in 'social capital'
in the USA. He charts a drop in associational activity and a growing distance
from neighbours, friends and family. Crucially he explores some of the
possibilities that exist for rebuilding social capital. A modern classic. Chapter
One of the book is extracted on-line at the Simon and Shuster website
(Bowling Alone).
Putnam, R. D. (ed.) (2002) Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of Social
Capital in Contemporary Society, New York: Oxford University Press. 522
pages. Further exploration of social transformations using the notion of social
capital within 'economically advanced democracies'.

References

Aberbach, J. D., R. D. Putnam, B. A. Rockman (1981) Bureaucrats and


politicians in western democracies, Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University
Press.

Beem, C. (1999) The Necessity of Politics. Reclaiming American public life,


Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1983) ‘Forms of capital’ in J. C. Richards (ed.) Handbook of


Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, New York: Greenwood
Press.

Coleman, J. C. (1988) ‘Social capital in the creation of human capital’


American Journal of Sociology 94: S95-S120.

Coleman, J. C. (1990) Foundations of Social Theory, Cambridge, Mass.:


Harvard University Press.

Fukuyama, F. (1999) The Great Disruption. Human nature and the


reconstitution of social order, London: Profile Books.

Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities, New York:
Random

Putnam, R. D. (1973) The beliefs of politicians: ideology, conflict, and


democracy in Britain and Italy, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Putnam, R. D. (1976) The comparative study of political elites, Englewood


Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Putnam, R. D. (1993) ’The prosperous community: social capital and public


life’ in the American Prospect, 4:13
Putnam, R. D. (1996) ’The Strange Disappearance of Civic America’ in the
American Prospect, 7: 24 and a correction

Putnam, Robert D. (2007) 'E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the
Twenty-first Century The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture', Scandinavian
Political Studies 30 (2), 137–174. [http://www.blackwell-
synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x. Accessed August 8,
2007]

Putnam, R. D. and Bayne,N. (1984) Hanging together : the seven-power


summits, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Skocpol, T. (2003) Diminished Democracy. From membership to management


in American civic life, Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press.

Interviews:

AAHE (1995) An Interview with Robert Putnam Interview conducted by Russ


Edgerton for the AAHE Bulletin.

Appleyard, B. (2001) ‘Joining the team, it’s a better way of life’, Sunday Times
March 25, page 8.

The Atlantic Online (2000) Lonely in America. Interview conducted Sage


Stossel.

Bunting, Madeleine (2007) 'Capital ideas', The Guardian July 18, 2007.
[http://society.guardian.co.uk/communities/story/0,,2128343,00.html.
Accessed July 19, 2007].

ECPR News (2000) Leaders of the Profession: Robert Putnam – Interview with
Ken Newton, ECPR News 11: 2.

The Bowling Alone debate

Putnam, R. D. (1995) ’Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital’, The


Journal of Democracy, 6:1, pages 65-78.

Articles in response to the original ‘Bowling Alone’ article:

Michael Schudson, "What If Civic Life Didn't Die," The American Prospect no.
25 (March-April 1996).

Theda Skocpol, "Unravelling From Above," The American Prospect no. 25


(March-April 1996).

Richard M. Valelly, "Coach-Potato Democracy," The American Prospect no. 25


(March-April 1996).
Robert Putnam, "Robert Putnam Responds," The American Prospect no. 25
(March-April 1996).

William A. Galston, "Won't You Be My Neighbor," The American Prospect no.


26 (May-June 1996).

Alejandro Portes & Patricia Landolt, "The Downside of Social Capital," The
American Prospect no. 26 (May-June 1996).

Nicholas Lemann, "Kicking in Groups," The Atlantic Monthly (April 1996).

Links

Going Bowling. Listen to a National Public Radio on interview by Robert


Siegel.

How to cite this article: Smith, M. K. (2001, 2007) 'Robert Putnam', the
encyclopaedia of informal education, www.infed.org/thinkers/putnam.htm.
Last update:.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi