32
per cent of Germans showed unflinching support for Adolf Hitler’, 76 yet the panoptic power of the state also prevents the ten per cent who did not agree with Nazi doctrine from identifying each other and amassing into a stronger, collective resistance. Nor can it be discerned who might inform the Party of any signs of nonconformity, fostering distrust amongst strangers, neighbours, friends, and even families and dissuading individuals from hinting towards their own subversiveness in an attempt to gather support. Hans conveys this anxiety to Liesel when he informs his foster daughter that‘“ If you tell anyone about that man [ Max ]…” / Her teacher. / Rudy. / It didn’ t matter whom. / What mattered was that all were punishable’. 77 Hans warns her that as a consequence of any indiscretion,‘[ t ] hey’ ll drag that man up there away, and maybe Mama and me, too – and we will never, ever come back’ 78. His decision to frighten Liesel into keeping Max’ s existence a secret from those whom children are usually inclined and even encouraged to confide in( such as their best friends and authority figures like their teachers) demonstrates how little trust could be afforded in Nazi Germany. By not specifying who, exactly, will punish them, Hans conveys the omnipresent fear induced by the Nazi state: the indeterminate‘ they’ is enough to coerce both adult and child alike into secrecy. Consequently, every German civilian unwittingly takes on the role of both the supervised and the supervisor within this panoptic society; they cannot trust any of their peers, and conversely, neither can they be trusted by any of their peers. As a result, the individual identity of every German citizen is deconstructed as they are amalgamated into the perceived social group of potential informants.
However, while the nature of the public transcript makes it almost impossible for dissenters to communicate and distribute their subversive counter-narratives amongst other, likeminded individuals, it does not diminish the importance of these small acts of defiance, which challenge and undermine hegemonic ideologies in discrete yet significant ways. Indeed, the very existence of these hidden communities as spaces of ideological resistance facilitate the expression of dissent against state narratives( even if only privately) and enable individuals to safeguard themselves against psychological subjugation. In The Book Thief, the Hubermanns’ harbouring of Max defies Nazi racial ideology, offering a counterpoint to the oppressive public
76
Zusak, The Book Thief, 65.
77
Ibid., 219.
78
Ibid., 220.