“Constant Vigilance!”: Instruments of (Counter)Surveillance and the Reconstruction of Hierarchy in Harry Potter
von Ella Keim
In more ways than one, the Harry Potter novels serve as proof that the fantastic as a mode of storytelling never exists independently from the ‘reality’ which it supposedly juxtaposes and “seems to find so frustratingly finite”1. Fantasy literature can never fully escape the context(s) and conventions in which its narratives come to be – and nor does it claim to -, and it therefore both reveals and constructs that which we believe to be possible, and perhaps even more so, true. As for Harry Potter, “clear-cut and simplistic in [its] categorization of good and evil”2 as it is, scholarship abounds with analyses of magical conventions and power structures and in how far these mirror political developments or disputes happening in the real world. The way the competing forces in the novels therefore claim and establish their positions of power, and the means they use to do so, prove as reflective of contemporary cultural and political anxieties3. One such particular issue is the implementation of surveillance technology as means of achieving safety and security. Increasing surveillance measures, or implementing them in the first place, is often criticised as oppressive and limiting freedom, not least because a position of power is necessary to do so4. In Harry Potter, practices of surveillance are as ubiquitous as they are covert. Hogwarts in particular, while initially presented as a positive, utopian space of endless magical possibility, places students under constant monitoring. The function of this is two-fold: On one hand, Dumbledore as kind-hearted and omniscient headmaster renders Hogwarts an affectively safe space that can withstand all forces of evil that try to penetrate it5; On the other hand, practices such as the appointment of prefects and head students or the house point system create a docile student body in the Foucauldian tradition wherein “[students] develop their obedience to rules, competitive spirits and faith in the academic system”6. In both cases, respective practices and concomitant power disparities are never generally questioned, albeit occasionally scoffed at, like when caretaker Mr. Filch and his cat Mrs. Norris’ monitoring of the school’s corridors get in the way of protagonist’s mischievous endeavours. However, because it is exactly these still rather innocent endeavours which constitute a major part of the narratives’ first four novels especially, it is inevitable that characters will try to undermine or contest their being placed under surveillance. By staying constantly vigilant and watchful of their teachers’ gaze, students come to utilise what is termed ‘countersurveillance’- the “intentional, tactical use, or disruptions of surveillance technologies to challenge institutional power asymmetries”7.
This article examines the way in which characters in the Harry Potter novels practice countersurveillance, and the means they utilise to do so. As the series progresses, these practices, which I argue function both through a utilisation of magical objects (such as the Cloak of Invisibility and the Marauder’s Map) and a tactical reclaiming of space, seem to evolve from mere rebellious acts for individualised reasons towards an actual counteraction against forms of surveillance, entailing acts of resistance and vigilance aimed at collective benefit. In so doing, however, one comes to find that countersurveillance as a resistance measure in Harry Potter is reserved for a privileged minority; the narrative thereby fails to realise countersurveillance’s truly subversive potential, ultimately preserving and reconstructing the status quo of a world order of social disparity and strict hierarchies.

To understand the implications and consequences of the practice of countersurveillance in Hogwarts, one must first come to understand how it is defined, practiced, and regarded, and why certain practices of surveillance are contested in the first place. Considering both the covertness and ambiguity of surveillance at Hogwarts, much of the protagonists’ endeavours throughout the novels is dependent on how well they are able to evade, resist, or even counteract (i.e. ‘flip the script’) the ever-present and powerful gaze they find themselves subjected to. The fact that this gaze is enforced through magical means, apparent in instances such as Dumbledore’s assertion that he does not “need a cloak to become invisible”8 or his use of enchanted portraits whose inhabitants are “honour-bound to give service to the present headmaster at Hogwarts”9 to gather information, affirms the notion that the narrative function of magic herein lies in replacing, or at times augmenting, human surveillance technology: Professor Slughorn at one point comments on “these absurd burglar alarms [Muggles] use instead of Sneakoscopes10”11. Magical surveillance therefore operates analogously to human object-bound technology, which suggests that the means available to characters to counteract respective practices and turn against the asymmetry of power in the watched-watcher relation are likewise firstly bound to magical tools and objects. The Harry Potter novels introduce the reader to a plethora of magical artefacts, many–if not all– of whom carry a dimension of visuality and visibility inherent in their function, rendering them ontologically (counter)surveillant. The Cloak of Invisibility for instance, which is given to Harry in the series’ first volume, is regarded as “really rare, and really valuable”12. Its incomparable value, of course, lies in the fact that the Cloak renders whoever wears it completely invisible. This provision of invisibility, placing its wearer in a both physically and visually liminal state and leaving them undetectable to much of the castle’s surveillance network, therefore offers characters the opportunity of (apparently) unfettered evasion of the school’s monitoring gaze and its disciplinary control within the narrative. In its early uses, the Cloak functions primarily to aid Harry and his friends in appeasing their juvenile curiosity or to carry out innocent endeavours. They use it to visit the Mirror of Erised, to help Hagrid’s infantile dragon Norbert in Philosopher’s Stone, to sneak into the forbidden forest to uncover the secret surrounding the Chamber of Secrets, or to help Harry visit Hogsmeade village when the school’s regulations forbid him from doing so, to name but a few instances. On one particular occasion, it also exceeds its function of a mere evasion of surveillance: Harry eavesdrops on his teachers’ private conversation about his relationship to then-fugitive Sirius Black, thereby “turning the tables and surveilling those who are doing the surveillance”13, which, however, stems from a similar motivation of curiosity and juvenile endeavour. Its function of placing the wearer in a physically liminal state between existence and non-existence therein also emphasises the interconnection between disciplinary surveillance practices and the body: French and Smith find that surveillance functions in such a way that it “both reconfigure[s] and recreate[s] bodies”, producing “surveillance bodies”14– disciplinary rules constituting a Foucauldian docile (student) body such as a curfew or forbidden areas within the castle are precisely the means of control the Cloak has the ability to break or evade. Its magical propensity and its permeation of the borders of physical existence therefore counteract the disciplinary surveillance set in place by the school, albeit to accommodate primarily individualised reason.

Similar in function is the Marauder’s Map, a unique object first introduced in Prisoner of Azkaban, which grants its users the ability to bypass the school’s surveillance system by displaying the real-time location of every individual–including animals and ghosts who regularly keep a watchful eye on students–on Hogwarts grounds as well as secret passageways leading in and out of the castle. Though originally created by his father and friends, Harry is given the map by notorious mischief-makers Fred and George Weasley, who describe it as “the secret to [their] success”15. In a manner akin to the Cloak of Invisibility, the Map’s countersurveillant character lies in its ability to evade teachers’ disciplinary gaze, whose surveillance practices function strategically to ensure normative behaviour. What the Marauder’s Map offers its users in addition to the often imperatively spontaneous evasion of teachers wandering the corridors that the Cloak provides, however, is the dimension of tactic. In delineating aspects of reactivity in the relationship between surveillance and countersurveillance, Torin Monahan suggests that
the practices of the dominant dancer clearly would be strategic ones . . . to regulate the activities of those in the field of power, whereas the practices of the defter dancer would be much more tactical, poaching-off the existing structures to create new meanings and possibilities.16
The use of the Map therefore allows Harry to not only circumvent his visibility within the castle by physically evading surveillance’s “dominant dancers”, but also to resist the inherent asymmetry of power by flipping the script on his watchers, reclaiming a sense of agency. Instances of Harry’s use of the map thereafter include sneaking out of bed to solve the Egg’s riddle during the Triwizard Tournament, spending unauthorised recreational time in Hogsmeade village, and keeping tabs on Draco Malfoy’s suspicious activities during their sixth year at Hogwarts. Both the Cloak and the Map therefore allow Harry to counteract the school’s surveillant gaze, becoming indispensable for his endeavours: “the Marauder’s Map, next to the Cloak, was the most useful aid to rule-breaking [he] owned”17. In this respect, the latter primarily enables him to resist surveillance at the site of the body, whereas the former functions through a tactical reclamation of space, with both artefacts affirming Monahan’s notion that “the conflicts between surveillance and counter-surveillance practices today represent a larger struggle over the control of space and bodies”18.

The dimension of spatiality comes to be of particular importance as the narrative’s countersurveillance practices move away from juvenile “rule-breaking” for primarily self-serving reasons and towards resistance of authority and vigilance in service of collective interest of Harry’s fellow students, that is, when Dolores Umbridge becomes headmistress of the school in the series’ fifth volume. Previously a high-ranking functionary in the Ministry of Magic, Umbridge gradually increases the power she wields in Hogwarts by implementing and augmenting certain surveillance strategies. This begins with administering a ‘Ministry-approved’, theory-driven curriculum for her subject of Defense Against the Dark Arts, which significantly limits students’ practice of magic, showcasing the Ministry’s monitoring of magical activity and thus its hegemonial control of the production of knowledge at Hogwarts19. When Umbridge goes on to become head of the school, “the might of the Ministry behind [her]”20, she continuously subjects teachers and students alike to practices of administrative surveillance, increases monitoring of the school corridors, as well inspecting all mail entering and leaving the castle2122. She combines the expansion of disciplinary surveillance practices of the student body with a strategic use of space, ensuring “[the state’s] control of places, its strict hierarchy, the homogeneity of the whole, and the segregation of the parts” rendering it “policed space”23. While the school’s surveillant gaze under Dumbledore in contrast cannot with certainty be described as significantly less exhaustive or comprehensive (and thus oppressive), seeing as he is continuously ascribed a degree of omniscience, he lacks the intimate and negatively connotated ties to the increasingly non-democratic Ministry Umbridge has. Furthermore, he allows students to bend school rules to a certain extent without significant punishment, with Chan asserting that risk-taking is “one of the character traits that Dumbledore helps his students develop”24. The covert and more subdued nature of his monitoring of the school therefore does not penetrates the school’s physical and mental/educative spaces (that is, in the perception of most students) in the same way that Umbridge’s does. His leadership at Hogwarts is then never resisted or counteracted in a significant manner, not least because he fits both the authoritative and ethical ideals of students and wizarding society as a whole. Umbridge’s authority proves a stark contrast to this, and a combination of shared dislike and disapproval of her teaching style in sight of the rising threat of Lord Voldemort then inspires Harry and his friends to contest her surveillant leadership. Within this resistance, both the Cloak of Invisibility and the Marauder’s Map are used repeatedly to observe Umbridge’s movements and evade her gaze; however, they do not prove entirely sufficient for actual counteraction. Thereafter, the resistance group ‘Dumbledore’s Army’ is founded, which utilises and (re)appropriates the Room of Requirement as well as the Hog’s Head pub as spaces from which to counteract Umbridge’s–and, in Deathly Hallows, the Death Eaters’–rule of Hogwarts. These space’s countersurveillant character, in contrast to the Map or the Cloak, thereby functions not directly through counter-watching, but rather on a secondary level by fervently counteracting Umbridge’s gaze. The DA is primarily founded on the grounds of teaching and practicing defensive magic, and thereby draws attention to Umbridge’s increasingly exhaustive surveillance of educative discourses and her domination of the school’s epistemological condition. In his typology of countersurveillance, Gary T. Marx views this exposure as constitutive of the practice, stating that “if countermeasures uncover questionable practices, which are then publicized, it may lead, also, to their moderation or cessation”25. Ultimately, this counteraction through space combined with the use of the Cloak and Map help Harry to both practice resistance against Umbridge and mobilise fellow students for support in the fight against Voldemort, and also to realise the need of political action that goes beyond the Dark Lord’s threat against him individually. He therefore comes to utilise countersurveillance measures to not only be watchful but actually vigilant, employing the means available to him for greater good, that is, at the least on a superficial level.

Upon examining the circumstances of the use of countersurveillance instruments and the implications regarding characters’ attitude towards hierarchy, however, one comes to find that the resistance the narrative displays is, at times, a hollow one. A first indicator which renders clear the fact that what is presented as radical defiance is in its essence only a reification of a world order of social disparity is the question of availability and accessibility of resistance measures, or, more particularly, the instruments of countersurveillance examined above. Throughout the Potter series, it becomes clear that Harry especially is a privileged person in more ways than one, seeing as he a comes from a well-respected wizarding family who have left him a substantial amount of monetary wealth and the fact that his standing in wizarding society as the sole survivor of Lord Voldemort’s wrath affords him significant social capital. Thereafter, he is given the Cloak of Invisibility by Dumbledore–who is aware of its powerful potential of evading the teachers’ gaze–in his first year at Hogwarts, affording him “the luxury of invisibility”26 usually ascribed to persons atop the institution’s (surveillance) hierarchy. Later revealed to be among the most powerful magical objects in existence, and a family heirloom at that, the Cloak being gifted to Harry at Christmas provides a stark contrast to his friend Ron, who comes from a poorer background and states that he “would give anything for one of these [cloaks]. Anything”27. The fact that the narrative hardly invites the reader to evaluate this position critically also becomes evident in Deathly Hallows, when the trio breaks into the–now totalitarian and increasingly fascist–Ministry of Magic to retrieve one of Voldemort’s Horcruxes. Their success in this mission is secured with the use of several countersurveillant objects and practices, among them the Invisibility Cloak. However, the backdrop to this is formed by Muggle-born witches and wizards standing on trial for their circumstances of birth, facing the administrative surveillance of Voldemort’s racist regime through Dolores Umbridge’s ‘Muggle-born Registration Commission’. They do not have means available to resist or counteract this surveillance in the way Harry and his friends do, with their only remaining option being to flee and “get well away from the Ministry”28. As Mendlesohn points out, the novels “argue for tolerance and kindness towards the inferior while denying the oppressed the agency to change their own lives”29.
Furthermore, having concluded in the previous section of this article that much of the trio’s endeavours depend on the use of magical objects, the root of their succeeding and the agency they are afforded lies within the privileged position Harry in particular holds within wizarding society. His social capital (which is also how he acquires the Marauder’s Map, being given it instead of, say, Ron) helps him obtain knowledge on defensive magic via private lessons with his teachers throughout the novels, that is, Lupin in Prisoner of Azkaban, Snape in Order of the Phoenix, and Dumbledore in Half Blood Prince. By forming the DA, he finally seems to use this position of privilege for good. However, this is undermined by Harry discontinuing the meetings in the subsequent school year, stating that there is “no point now that we’ve got rid of Umbridge, is there?”30, despite the increasingly prominent threat of Lord Voldemort and former members of the DA still being very interested and willing to learn31. Harry’s resistance of Umbridge’s surveillance and control is thus not directed against the underlying system that remains intact after she is gone (and is even strengthened by increased surveillance measures32, but rather against her person; Mendlesohn confirms this in her seminal assertion that in Potter, “what is at stake, and potentially vulnerable, is never the hierarchy itself, but only he who occupies its upper reaches”33. Additionally, Gary T. Marx finds that countersurveillance and “the self-interested reasons for evasions [of surveillance] hardly require elaborate ideologies of resistance”34, which is underlined by Harry’s more self-serving use of the objects (Map/Cloak) and the only temporary resistance against the system under Umbridge. Furthermore, surveillance practices under Dumbledore are in contrast generally never questioned, and the rule-breaking occurring with him as headmaster–which primarily serves as “testing grounds for Harry’s ethical choices”35–eventually only functions to maintain his position of power within the school’s hierarchy by earning trust and respect36. In this way, and also regarding the hollow resistance against Umbridge, the characters’ countersurveillance “unintentionally reinforce[s] the systems of social control it seeks to undermine”37, since they only ever use it to resist people personally, but never the surveillance system itself. Ultimately, systematic change fails to happen, and the result of the fight against Voldemort is not a reconceptualisation of the systems that brought him to power in the first place but is rather only a reinstitution of persons who fit mainstream authoritative and moral ideals (i.e. McGonagall as headmistress of Hogwarts and Kingsley Shacklebolt as Minister for Magic) into hierarchical positions. The call for characters to practice “constant vigilance”38 therefore turns out to be a shallow one, ultimately reinforcing a status quo and never problematising the underlying structures. The countersurveillance measures the characters use throughout the series thereby illustrate the narrative’s reification of a world of privilege and social disparity and simultaneously fail to realise their truly subversive potential, (unintentionally) reconstructing the existing hierarchies along the way.
In more ways than one, the Harry Potter novels serve as proof that the fantastic as a mode of storytelling never exists independently from the ‘reality’ which it supposedly juxtaposes and “seems to find so frustratingly finite”…
Works Cited
Butler, Chris. Henri Lefebvre: Spatial Politics, Everyday Life, and the Right to the City. Routledge, 2012.
Chan, Aaron Yu Kwan. “Surveillance in Hogwarts: Dumbledore’s Balancing Act Between Managerialism and Anarchism.” Children’s Literature in Education, Springer, 2019, pp. 417–30.
French, Martin, and Gavin JD Smith. “Surveillance and Embodiment: Dispositifs of Capture.” Body & Society, vol. 22, no. 2, 2016, pp. 3–27, DOI: 10.1177/1357034X16643169.
Jackson, Rosemary. Fantasy – The Literature of Subversion. Routledge, 2009.
Kullmann, Carsten. “Politics of Suppression and Violence in Fantastic Beasts.” The Ivory Tower, Harry Potter, and Beyond, edited by Lana A. Whited, University of Missouri Press, 2023, pp. 305–24.
Marx, Gary T. “A Tack in the Shoe: Neutralizing and Resisting the New Surveillance.” Journal of Social Issues, vol. 59, no. 2, 2003, pp. 369–90.
Mendlesohn, Farah. “Crowning the King: Harry Potter and the Construction of Authority.” Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts, vol. 12, no. 3, 2001, pp. 287–308.
Monahan, Torin. “Counter-Surveillance as Political Intervention?” Social Semiotics, vol. 16, no. 4, 2006, pp. 515–34, https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330601019769.
Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. Pottermore Publishing, 2015. Apple Books.
—. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. Pottermore Publishing, 2015. Apple Books.
—. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Pottermore Publishing, 2015. Apple Books.
—. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Pottermore Publishing, 2015. Apple Books.
—. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Pottermore Publishing, 2015. Apple Books.
—. Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. Pottermore Publishing, 2015. Apple Books.
—. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Pottermore Publishing, 2015. Apple Books.
Sutton-Ramspeck, Beth. Harry Potter and Resistance. Routledge, 2023.
Walsh, James P. “Countersurveillance.” The Handbook of Social Control, edited by Mathieu Deflem, John Wiley & Sons, 2019, pp. 374–88.
Zock, T.H. “Cultural Anxieties in Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince: Evil and the Magic of Human Abilities.” At the Crossroads of Art and Religion. Imagination, Commitment, Transcendence, edited by Zock, Peeters, 2008, pp. 101–16.
Cite this article as: Ella Keim, ‘Constant Vigilance!’: Instruments of (Counter)Surveillance and the Reconstruction of Hierarchy in Harry Potter. In: Vigilanzkulturen, 22.10.2024, https://vigilanz.hypotheses.org/?p=6331.
In more ways than one, the Harry Potter novels serve as proof that the fantastic as a mode of storytelling never exists independently from the ‘reality’ which it supposedly juxtaposes and “seems to find so frustratingly finite”…
In more ways than one, the Harry Potter novels serve as proof that the fantastic as a mode of storytelling never exists independently from the ‘reality’ which it supposedly juxtaposes and “seems to find so frustratingly finite”1. Fantasy literature can never fully escape the context(s) and conventions in which its narratives come to be – and nor does it claim to -, and it therefore both reveals and constructs that which we believe to be possible, and perhaps even more so, true. As for Harry Potter, “clear-cut and simplistic in [its] categorization of good and evil”2…
In more ways than one, the Harry Potter novels serve as proof that the fantastic as a mode of storytelling never exists independently from the ‘reality’ which it supposedly juxtaposes and “seems to find so frustratingly finite”…
- Jackson, Rosemary. Fantasy – The Literature of Subversion. Routledge, 2009, p. 12 [↩]
- Kullmann, Carsten. “Politics of Suppression and Violence in Fantastic Beasts.” The Ivory Tower, Harry Potter, and Beyond, edited by Lana A. Whited, University of Missouri Press, 2023, pp. 305–324, p. 320 [↩]
- cf. Zock, T.H. “Cultural Anxieties in Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince: Evil and the Magic of Human Abilities.” At the Crossroads of Art and Religion. Imagination, Commitment, Transcendence, edited by Zock, Peeters, 2008, pp. 101–116, pp. 104–5 [↩]
- cf. Walsh, James P. “Countersurveillance.” The Handbook of Social Control, edited by Mathieu Deflem, John Wiley & Sons, 2019, pp. 374–88, p. 374 [↩]
- Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. Pottermore Publishing, 2015. Apple Books, pp. 151–52 [↩]
- Chan, Aaron Yu Kwan. “Surveillance in Hogwarts: Dumbledore’s Balancing Act Between Managerialism and Anarchism.” Children’s Literature in Education, Springer, 2019, pp. 417–430, p. 422 [↩]
- Monahan, Torin. “Counter-Surveillance as Political Intervention?” Social Semiotics, vol. 16, no. 4, 2006, pp. 515–34, https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330601019769, p. 515 [↩]
- Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. Pottermore Publishing, 2015. Apple Books, p. 136 [↩]
- Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Pottermore Publishing, 2015. Apple Books. p. 357 [↩]
- A device which has the power to detect ‘dark’ magical activity and alert its user [↩]
- Half Blood Prince, p. 50 [↩]
- Philosopher’s Stone, p. 128, original emphasis [↩]
- Marx, Gary T. “A Tack in the Shoe: Neutralizing and Resisting the New Surveillance.” Journal of Social Issues, vol. 59, no. 2, 2003, pp. 369–390, p. 384 [↩]
- French, Martin, and Gavin JD Smith. “Surveillance and Embodiment: Dispositifs of Capture.” Body & Society, vol. 22, no. 2, 2016, pp. 3–27, DOI: 10.1177/1357034X16643169., p. 10. original emphasis [↩]
- Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Pottermore Publishing, 2015. Apple Books, p. 126 [↩]
- Monahan 2006, p. 528, original emphasis [↩]
- Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Pottermore Publishing, 2015. Apple Books, p. 305 [↩]
- Monahan 2006, p. 530 [↩]
- cf. Kullmann 2023. p. 306 [↩]
- Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Pottermore Publishing, 2015. Apple Books, p. 476 [↩]
- There is an instance in which Draco Malfoy, member of the ‘Inquisitorial Squad’ and thus responsible for keeping his fellow students in check, docks ten House Points from Hermione simply for being a “Mudblood” (i.e. having non-magical parents) (Order of the Phoenix, p. 472) which showcases both the extent of Umbridge’s disciplinary surveillance and underlines the fact that her leadership functions to reinforce the Ministry’s conservative and borderline racist ideology. [↩]
- Order of the Phoenix, p. 476 [↩]
- Lefebvre in Butler, Chris. Henri Lefebvre: Spatial Politics, Everyday Life, and the Right to the City. Routledge, 2012, p. 85, emphasis added [↩]
- Chan 2019, p. 424 [↩]
- Marx 2003, p. 384, emphasis added [↩]
- Walsh 2019, p. 383 [↩]
- Philosopher’s Stone, p. 129, original emphasis [↩]
- Deathly Hallows, p. 180 [↩]
- Mendlesohn 2001, p. 306 [↩]
- Half Blood Prince, p. 95 [↩]
- While the Room of Requirement’s countersurveillant character does not solely rely on Harry’s privilege, seeing as anyone can use it, its subversive potential at this point in the narrative is fully dependent on DA meetings, an opportunity that is now stripped from students without significant rebuttal. [↩]
- cf. Half Blood Prince, p. 115 [↩]
- Mendlesohn 2001, p. 306 [↩]
- Marx 2003, p. 373 [↩]
- Sutton-Ramspeck, Beth. Harry Potter and Resistance. Routledge, 2023, p. 26 [↩]
- Chan 2019, pp. 422–23 [↩]
- Monahan in Walsh 2019, p. 383 [↩]
- Goblet of Fire, p. 271 [↩]
OpenEdition schlägt Ihnen vor, diesen Beitrag wie folgt zu zitieren:
Blogredaktion (22. Oktober 2024). “Constant Vigilance!”: Instruments of (Counter)Surveillance and the Reconstruction of Hierarchy in Harry Potter. Vigilanzkulturen. Abgerufen am 7. Februar 2025 von https://doi.org/10.58079/12jmq