Literary Critiques of Oppression: Rights, Justice, and Resistance

Posted on Jan 23, 2026 in Philosophy and ethics

Literature, Human Rights, and Social Resistance

The relationship between literature and human rights is deeply interconnected, as literature has historically functioned as a powerful medium to represent, question, and challenge violations of human dignity, freedom, and justice. While human rights provide a legal and moral framework for protecting individuals, literature humanizes these abstract principles by narrating lived experiences of suffering, resistance, and hope. Through storytelling, poetry, and fiction, literature transforms human rights from mere declarations into emotionally resonant realities.

Literature engages with human rights in several primary ways:

Giving Voice to the Marginalized and Oppressed: Literary texts often represent those whose voices are silenced by dominant political, social, or cultural systems. By foregrounding experiences of racial discrimination, political repression, gender violence, and social injustice, literature exposes the gap between the ideals of human rights and their actual implementation. In this sense, literature becomes an ethical witness to injustice.
Medium of Resistance: Literature acts as a medium of resistance by questioning authority and power structures. Dystopian narratives, political novels, protest poetry, and testimonial writing challenge authoritarianism, censorship, and state violence. Through symbolism, satire, and metaphor, writers critique oppressive systems in ways that are often more impactful than direct political discourse. Literature encourages readers to think critically, resist conformity, and recognize the dangers of unchecked power.
Creating Social Awareness and Empathy: Unlike legal documents or policy texts, literature appeals to emotions and imagination, allowing readers to experience injustice from the perspective of others. This empathetic engagement fosters moral responsibility and a deeper understanding of human rights issues. By personalizing suffering, literature universalizes human rights concerns and makes them relatable across cultures and historical contexts.

Literature also complements international human rights frameworks such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) by illustrating their relevance in everyday life. While the UDHR outlines universal principles of equality, freedom, and dignity, literary texts reveal how these rights are violated or defended in specific social realities. In doing so, literature bridges the gap between theory and practice.

In conclusion, literature and human rights share a mutually reinforcing relationship. Literature not only reflects human rights concerns but actively participates in their promotion by resisting injustice, raising social consciousness, and affirming human dignity. As a form of cultural and moral expression, literature remains an indispensable tool in the ongoing struggle for human rights and social justice.

Literary Narratives: Understanding Freedom and Oppression

Literary narratives play a crucial role in deepening our understanding of abstract human rights concepts such as freedom, dignity, justice, and oppression by presenting them through lived human experiences. Unlike legal or philosophical texts, literature captures the emotional, psychological, and social dimensions of human rights, allowing readers to witness how these ideals operate—or fail—in real-life situations. Through characters, plots, and symbolic settings, literature makes human rights concerns tangible and relatable.

Key concepts explored through literature include:

Freedom: In George Orwell’s 1984, freedom is systematically destroyed through constant surveillance, censorship, and ideological control. The absence of freedom of thought, expression, and privacy illustrates how authoritarian regimes negate basic human rights. Orwell’s dystopian narrative demonstrates that freedom is not merely physical liberty but also intellectual and emotional autonomy.
Human Dignity: In Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, the denial of dignity to Tom Robinson due to racial prejudice exposes the deep-rooted inequalities within society and the legal system. The novel emphasizes that dignity is closely tied to equality and respect, and its violation reflects broader social injustice. Similarly, Maya Angelou’s poem “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings” highlights the struggle to reclaim dignity in the face of racial oppression, using the caged bird as a metaphor for silenced and marginalized communities.
Justice and Injustice: Literature offers sharp critiques of justice and injustice. The courtroom trial in To Kill a Mockingbird reveals how legal institutions can perpetuate injustice when influenced by prejudice and power. Atticus Finch’s moral stand underscores the ideal of justice rooted in fairness and empathy, even when societal structures fail to uphold it.
Oppression: The theme of oppression is powerfully represented in the short stories from Freedom: Short Stories Celebrating the UDHR. In Nadine Gordimer’s “Amnesty”, political oppression under apartheid is portrayed through personal loss and sacrifice, revealing how systemic injustice affects ordinary lives. These narratives show that oppression operates not only through violence but also through fear, silence, and denial of rights.

In conclusion, literary narratives enrich our understanding of freedom, dignity, justice, and oppression by situating these ideals within human stories. By exposing injustice, evoking empathy, and questioning power structures, literature transforms human rights from abstract principles into lived realities. Thus, literature serves as an essential medium for both understanding and advocating human rights.

Relevance of the UDHR in Literary Studies

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the United Nations in 1948, provides a foundational framework for understanding and evaluating human rights across cultures and societies. Its relevance to the study of literature lies in the fact that many literary texts explore themes directly connected to the rights and freedoms enshrined in the UDHR, such as equality, freedom of expression, justice, dignity, and resistance to oppression. Literature, therefore, serves as a critical lens through which the principles of the UDHR can be examined, questioned, and contextualized.

The UDHR is relevant to literary study because:

Literature gives a human face to the abstract ideals of the UDHR. While the declaration outlines universal rights in legal and moral terms, literary texts portray how these rights are experienced or violated in everyday life. Through narratives of discrimination, political repression, racial injustice, and gender-based violence, literature reveals the gap between the ideals of human rights and social reality. This makes the UDHR more accessible and meaningful to readers by grounding its principles in lived human experiences.
Many texts in the syllabus reflect key articles of the UDHR. George Orwell’s 1984 illustrates the violation of rights such as freedom of thought, expression, and privacy, showing the dangers of totalitarianism when these rights are denied. Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird highlights the denial of equality before the law and fair trial, both of which are central to the UDHR. Similarly, the short stories in Freedom: Short Stories Celebrating the UDHR explicitly engage with political oppression, displacement, and personal suffering, reinforcing the universality of human rights concerns.
The study of literature also helps in critically engaging with the UDHR rather than accepting it as a static document. Literary texts question whether human rights are truly universal or whether they are shaped by historical, political, and cultural contexts. By presenting voices from different regions and backgrounds, literature expands the understanding of human rights beyond Western legal frameworks.

In conclusion, the UDHR is highly relevant to the study of literature as it provides a moral and ethical framework for interpreting literary representations of injustice and resistance. Literature, in turn, complements the UDHR by transforming its principles into powerful narratives that promote awareness, empathy, and critical reflection. Together, literature and the UDHR contribute to a deeper understanding of human rights as lived, contested, and continually evolving realities.

1984: Totalitarianism and Human Rights Violations

George Orwell’s 1984 stands as one of the most influential literary critiques of totalitarianism in modern political literature. Written in the aftermath of fascism and Stalinist authoritarianism, the novel explores how absolute political power results in the systematic destruction of human rights. Orwell presents a dystopian society where the state, embodied by the Party, exercises complete control over individuals through surveillance, censorship, and psychological domination, thereby eliminating freedom, dignity, and individuality.

The totalitarian system in 1984 violates human rights through:

Constant Surveillance: The core of the system is constant surveillance, symbolized by the omnipresent figure of Big Brother. The telescreens installed in homes and public spaces monitor citizens at all times, ensuring that no private life exists. This permanent observation destroys the right to privacy and generates an atmosphere of fear, where even facial expressions or subconscious gestures can be punished as “thoughtcrime.”
Censorship and Manipulation: Censorship and manipulation of information form another crucial mechanism of domination. The Party controls all forms of communication and historical records through the Ministry of Truth. By erasing inconvenient facts and rewriting history, the regime denies citizens access to truth. This systematic falsification of reality violates the right to information and freedom of expression.
Control of Personal Life: Totalitarian control extends beyond public life into personal relationships and emotional bonds. Love, family, and loyalty to anyone other than the Party are treated as acts of rebellion. Winston and Julia’s relationship is ultimately destroyed, illustrating how even intimate human emotions are subordinated to political ideology.

Through these mechanisms, Orwell reveals that totalitarianism results in the total dehumanization of individuals. Human beings are reduced to obedient subjects stripped of autonomy, memory, and moral judgment. 1984 thus functions as a powerful warning against political systems that prioritize power over human dignity. The novel highlights that when surveillance, censorship, and state control become absolute, human rights cease to exist, and freedom becomes impossible.

Manipulation of Language, Truth, and Memory in 1984

In 1984, George Orwell presents language, truth, and memory as central instruments through which a totalitarian state achieves absolute control over individuals. The Party’s dominance does not rely solely on physical repression but on the systematic manipulation of thought and perception. By controlling how people speak, remember, and understand reality, the state eliminates the possibility of resistance and ensures complete ideological submission.

The Party achieves control by:

Reshaping Language (Newspeak): Language is deliberately reshaped through Newspeak, the official language of Oceania. Newspeak is designed to reduce vocabulary and eliminate words associated with rebellion, freedom, and independent thought. By narrowing linguistic expression, the Party restricts the range of ideas individuals are capable of thinking, representing an attack on intellectual freedom.
Controlling Truth: Truth in 1984 is not an objective reality but a political construct controlled entirely by the Party. The slogan “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past” encapsulates this idea. Winston’s work at the Ministry of Truth involves altering historical records so that the Party is always portrayed as infallible. This systematic falsification destroys critical thinking.
Undermining Memory: Memory, which forms the foundation of personal identity, is systematically undermined. Since the past is continuously altered, individuals are forced to distrust their own memories. The practice of doublethink—the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs simultaneously—becomes essential for survival, destroying rational thought and replacing it with ideological obedience.

Ultimately, Orwell demonstrates that the manipulation of language, truth, and memory leads to total psychological domination. The Party’s goal is not merely to control actions but to reshape consciousness itself. By corrupting the fundamental tools of human understanding, 1984 portrays a society where individuality and freedom are completely annihilated. The novel serves as a profound warning about the dangers of linguistic, historical, and ideological manipulation in any political system.

Destruction of Individuality and Freedom in 1984

George Orwell’s 1984 presents a dystopian society in which individuality and personal freedom are systematically destroyed by an all-powerful totalitarian state. The novel illustrates how absolute political authority seeks not only to control the actions of individuals but also to dominate their thoughts, emotions, memories, and identities. Orwell’s dystopia demonstrates that the destruction of individuality is central to the functioning of totalitarian regimes, as independent thought poses a direct threat to absolute power.

Individuality is destroyed in Oceania through:

Surveillance and Fear: The omnipresent telescreens and the figure of Big Brother ensure that citizens are never free from observation. This permanent monitoring eliminates the possibility of private life, a basic condition for the development of individuality. Fear of the Thought Police leads individuals to suppress personal desires and opinions, replacing authentic selfhood with enforced conformity.
Ideological Indoctrination: Freedom of thought is annihilated through ideological indoctrination and psychological manipulation. The concept of thoughtcrime criminalizes dissent at the level of the mind, making personal belief itself an act of rebellion. Winston Smith’s initial acts of individuality—keeping a diary, questioning the Party, and engaging in a romantic relationship—are portrayed as dangerous attempts to reclaim his humanity.
Control of Language and Memory: Newspeak eliminates words that enable independent thinking, while constant alteration of historical records erases personal and collective memory. Without memory, individuals cannot form a coherent sense of identity. The practice of doublethink further weakens rational thought.

The Party’s ultimate goal is revealed in the Ministry of Love, where torture is used not merely to punish but to reshape consciousness. Winston’s breakdown in Room 101 signifies the complete annihilation of individuality. His forced betrayal of Julia demonstrates that even the deepest personal loyalties are subordinate to the Party. By the end of the novel, Winston no longer possesses a private self; he loves Big Brother, symbolizing total psychological submission.

In conclusion, 1984 presents a bleak vision of a world where individuality and freedom are entirely eradicated. Orwell warns that when the state controls thought, language, and memory, human beings are reduced to instruments of power rather than autonomous individuals. The novel remains a powerful critique of political systems that sacrifice personal freedom in the pursuit of total control.

To Kill a Mockingbird: Racial Injustice and Rights

Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird is a profound exploration of racial injustice and the denial of basic human rights in the context of the American South during the 1930s. Through the trial of Tom Robinson and the social dynamics of Maycomb, the novel exposes how prejudice, inequality, and systemic racism undermine justice, dignity, and equality before the law. Lee presents racial discrimination not as an individual flaw but as a deeply entrenched social structure.

The novel critiques injustice through:

The Trial of Tom Robinson: The most significant representation of racial injustice is the trial of Tom Robinson, a Black man falsely accused of raping a white woman. Despite clear evidence of his innocence, Tom is convicted solely because of his race. This miscarriage of justice reveals the failure of the legal system to uphold the fundamental human right to a fair trial.
Denial of Human Dignity: The novel highlights the denial of human dignity to Black characters. Tom Robinson is dehumanized and treated as inherently guilty, reflecting the broader social belief in white supremacy. His death while attempting to escape prison underscores the fatal consequences of racial oppression.
Atticus Finch’s Moral Resistance: Harper Lee further critiques racial injustice through the character of Atticus Finch, who represents moral courage and ethical resistance. Atticus’s defense of Tom Robinson is an assertion of human dignity and equality, even in the face of social hostility. His belief that justice should be blind to race challenges the moral hypocrisy of Maycomb society.
Childhood Perspective: The use of Scout’s childhood perspective strengthens the novel’s critique of racism. Through her innocent observations, the irrationality and cruelty of racial prejudice become evident. Scout’s moral growth reflects the possibility of social change through empathy and education.

In conclusion, To Kill a Mockingbird powerfully exposes racial injustice as a violation of fundamental human rights. By depicting how prejudice corrupts both law and society, Harper Lee emphasizes the need for empathy, moral integrity, and courage in the pursuit of justice. The novel remains a timeless critique of racism and a strong affirmation of human dignity and equality.

Atticus Finch: Symbol of Justice and Human Dignity

Atticus Finch stands at the moral center of Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird and functions as a powerful symbol of justice, ethical integrity, and respect for human dignity. In a society deeply divided by racial prejudice, Atticus represents a rare commitment to fairness, equality, and compassion. Through his words and actions, Lee presents Atticus as an embodiment of the ideals of human rights, particularly equality before the law and the inherent dignity of every individual.

Atticus symbolizes these ideals by:

Unwavering Commitment to Justice: As a lawyer, Atticus demonstrates an unwavering commitment to justice, accepting the Tom Robinson case not because he believes he will win, but because his conscience demands it. His belief that justice should not be influenced by race directly challenges the racist foundations of Maycomb’s legal system.
Moral Strength and Empathy: Atticus’s moral strength is evident in his refusal to hate or demean others, even those who oppose him. He teaches his children that true morality lies in empathy—“standing in someone else’s shoes.” This philosophy reflects a human rights perspective that recognizes shared humanity beyond social divisions.
Affirming Human Dignity: Atticus symbolizes human dignity by treating Tom Robinson with respect and belief in his humanity at a time when Black individuals are systematically dehumanized. His courtroom defense restores Tom’s voice and dignity, even though the verdict denies justice.

In conclusion, Atticus Finch represents the conscience of a flawed society. Through his commitment to justice, moral courage, and human dignity, Harper Lee presents him as an ideal figure who exposes the moral failures of institutional racism. Atticus reminds readers that true justice lies not in law alone but in ethical responsibility and respect for human rights.

Prejudice in the Legal System: Tom Robinson’s Trial

The trial of Tom Robinson in To Kill a Mockingbird serves as a powerful indictment of racial prejudice embedded within the legal system of Maycomb. Harper Lee uses the courtroom setting to reveal how justice is compromised when law is influenced by social bias, racial hierarchy, and collective prejudice. The trial becomes a symbol of the systematic denial of human rights to African Americans in a racially segregated society.

The trial exposes prejudice because:

Racial Bias Overrides Evidence: Despite overwhelming evidence proving Tom Robinson’s innocence, the jury convicts him solely because he is Black. Atticus Finch’s logical defense exposes the inconsistencies in Mayella Ewell’s testimony, yet the verdict demonstrates that racial prejudice overrides reason and truth, highlighting the failure to ensure equality before the law.
Intersection of Power and Race: The trial reveals how power and race intersect within judicial institutions. Mayella Ewell, though poor, is believed simply because she is white. Tom Robinson, despite his honesty, is presumed guilty due to entrenched racial stereotypes.
Physical Segregation: The courtroom itself mirrors the racial divisions of society, with Black spectators forced to sit in the balcony. This physical segregation reinforces the symbolic exclusion of Black individuals from justice and civic equality.

Tom Robinson’s eventual death after the trial further emphasizes the devastating consequences of judicial prejudice. His loss of hope and fatal attempt to escape prison underline the emotional and psychological toll of systemic injustice.

In conclusion, Harper Lee uses the trial of Tom Robinson to expose the deep-rooted prejudice within the legal system. The novel demonstrates that when law operates within a biased society, justice becomes an illusion. Through this critique, To Kill a Mockingbird powerfully highlights the violation of human rights and the urgent need for moral reform.

Freedom Stories and the Spirit of the UDHR

Freedom: Short Stories Celebrating the UDHR is a collection that powerfully illustrates the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights through personal narratives of suffering, resistance, and hope. Rather than presenting human rights as abstract ideals, the stories depict their violation and defense in concrete social and political contexts. Through individual experiences, the collection emphasizes the universality and urgency of human rights.

The collection reflects the UDHR spirit through stories like:

Nadine Gordimer’s “Amnesty”: This story reflects the UDHR’s commitment to political freedom, dignity, and resistance to oppression. Set against the backdrop of apartheid South Africa, the narrative portrays a mother whose son sacrifices his freedom for political resistance. Gordimer emphasizes the personal cost of political struggle, showing how human rights violations deeply affect family life and emotional bonds.
Ishmael Beah’s “ABC Antidote”: This story focuses on the rights of children, particularly protection from violence and exploitation. Through a narrative shaped by trauma and survival, Beah exposes how war destroys childhood innocence and violates fundamental human rights. The story emphasizes memory and storytelling as acts of healing and resistance.

Together, these stories demonstrate that human rights are not merely legal guarantees but lived realities. By presenting individual experiences within broader political contexts, Freedom transforms the UDHR into an emotionally powerful and morally compelling framework.

In conclusion, the stories in Freedom reflect the spirit of the UDHR by highlighting dignity, freedom, and resistance against injustice. They remind readers that human rights gain meaning only when recognized, defended, and lived in everyday human experiences.

Oppression, Suffering, and Resistance in “Amnesty”

Nadine Gordimer’s short story “Amnesty” is a powerful literary exploration of political oppression under apartheid South Africa and its devastating impact on personal and emotional life. The story reveals how state violence, racial discrimination, and denial of political rights penetrate the most intimate spaces of human existence. By narrating the story through the voice of an ordinary Black woman, Gordimer transforms political struggle into a deeply human narrative, highlighting the relationship between oppression, suffering, and resistance.

The story examines these themes through:

Political Oppression: The political background is apartheid, a system institutionalized on racial segregation and state control. The narrator’s son is imprisoned for activism, symbolizing the state’s use of law as an instrument of repression. The denial of political freedom and the criminalization of dissent reflect a clear violation of UDHR principles.
Personal Suffering: Gordimer’s focus is on personal suffering. The mother’s life is marked by fear, loss, and emotional displacement. Her anxiety represents the silent trauma experienced by countless families under oppressive regimes. Gordimer shows that political struggle comes at an immense personal cost, especially for women who bear emotional burdens alone.
Moral Resistance: Resistance in “Amnesty” is subtle and non-heroic. The mother does not actively participate in political movements, yet her endurance, loyalty, and refusal to condemn her son’s actions constitute a form of moral resistance. By continuing to live with dignity despite injustice, she resists the dehumanizing effects of oppression.

In conclusion, “Amnesty” powerfully demonstrates how political oppression operates not only through laws and institutions but through emotional suffering and fractured personal lives. Gordimer presents resistance as an act of survival and dignity, emphasizing that even under severe injustice, human beings retain the capacity for moral strength. The story stands as a compelling literary testimony to the human cost of political repression and the enduring struggle for human rights.

Personal Narratives and Universal Human Rights Issues

(With reference to Ishmael Beah and Paulo Coelho)

Freedom: Short Stories Celebrating the UDHR uses personal narratives to communicate the universality of human rights and the shared human experience of suffering, oppression, and resilience. Rather than presenting human rights as abstract legal principles, the collection grounds them in individual lives, thereby making their violation and significance emotionally immediate and morally compelling. Through storytelling, the collection demonstrates that human rights are lived realities rather than distant ideals.

Specific examples include:

Ishmael Beah’s “ABC Antidote”: This story foregrounds the psychological impact of war and violence, particularly on children. The narrative reflects violations of fundamental rights such as the right to life, security, education, and childhood innocence. Beah emphasizes how trauma continues long after physical conflict ends. By narrating personal pain, Beah universalizes the suffering of war victims across different geopolitical contexts.
Paulo Coelho’s “In the Prison of Repose”: This story explores a different form of oppression: mental and emotional confinement. The narrative critiques conformity and social pressure, highlighting the human right to freedom of thought and conscience. Coelho suggests that societies can deny freedom even in the absence of overt violence, reminding readers that human rights violations are not limited to authoritarian states.

Both stories demonstrate how personal narratives humanize the UDHR. By focusing on individual voices, the stories generate empathy and moral engagement. Readers are invited to experience injustice through the eyes of the oppressed, fostering awareness and ethical responsibility. The universality of human rights emerges precisely because the stories are deeply personal.

In conclusion, Freedom uses personal narratives to bridge the gap between global human rights ideals and individual lived experiences. Through memory, emotion, and storytelling, the collection affirms that human rights are meaningful only when understood through human lives. Literature thus becomes an essential medium for sustaining the moral force of the UDHR.

“I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings”: Freedom and Oppression

Maya Angelou’s “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings” is a deeply symbolic poem that explores the tension between freedom and oppression, particularly in the context of racial discrimination in American society. Through the extended metaphor of the free bird and the caged bird, Angelou presents a powerful critique of systemic inequality while simultaneously celebrating resilience, voice, and hope.

The poem uses contrasting symbols to convey its message:

The Free Bird: Represents those who enjoy privilege, mobility, and opportunity. It symbolizes unchallenged access to rights and self-expression.
The Caged Bird: Stands for marginalized communities whose freedom is systematically denied. The cage symbolizes social, racial, and economic barriers that restrict movement and opportunity. The clipped wings and tied feet emphasize enforced powerlessness.

Despite its confinement, the caged bird sings. This song is central to the poem’s meaning. It represents resistance, memory, and the refusal to be silenced. Angelou suggests that voice itself becomes an act of freedom when physical liberty is denied. The song travels beyond the cage, asserting presence and dignity in a hostile world.

Angelou’s poem also connects oppression to psychological suffering. The caged bird’s fear and longing reflect the emotional impact of systemic injustice. Yet the poem refuses despair. By emphasizing endurance and voice, Angelou transforms suffering into strength. Freedom, in the poem, is not only physical escape but the ability to assert one’s humanity.

In conclusion, “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings” is a powerful poetic articulation of human rights and resistance. Through rich symbolism and emotional intensity, Angelou highlights the enduring human desire for freedom and dignity. The poem stands as a testament to the resilience of oppressed communities and the transformative power of voice.

June Jordan’s “Poem About My Rights”: Feminist Assertion

June Jordan’s “Poem About My Rights” is a powerful and uncompromising poetic assertion of feminist, racial, and political rights. Written in a direct and confrontational style, the poem challenges systems of patriarchy, racism, and state violence that regulate and violate the bodies of marginalized individuals, particularly women of color. Jordan transforms personal experience into political protest, demonstrating that violations of the female body are inseparable from broader structures of power and oppression.

The poem asserts rights by:

Defining the Body as a Political Site: Jordan connects sexual violence against women to state-sanctioned violence, arguing that both are rooted in domination and control. The poem refuses to treat assault as isolated personal crimes; instead, it situates them within a continuum of political aggression.
Critiquing Patriarchal Systems: The poem critiques patriarchal legal and social systems that deny women agency and consent. Jordan highlights how women are blamed for the violence inflicted upon them, forced to justify their existence, clothing, movement, and desire. This constant demand for justification mirrors how authoritarian states demand obedience.
Using Language as Resistance: Language and tone play a crucial role in the poem’s power. Jordan employs repetition, fragmentation, and direct address to convey urgency and anger. The poem rejects silence and submission, asserting that speaking out is itself an act of resistance, challenging traditional expectations of female passivity.
Global Political Dimension: Jordan draws parallels between violence against women and international acts of aggression, suggesting that imperialism and sexism operate through similar logics of domination. This linkage universalizes the struggle for rights.

In conclusion, “Poem About My Rights” is both a personal testimony and a political manifesto. June Jordan asserts that the fight for human rights must include bodily autonomy, gender justice, and racial equality. The poem powerfully demonstrates that freedom begins with the right to one’s own body and voice. Through its fearless articulation of anger and resistance, the poem stands as a landmark text in feminist and human rights literature.

Comparing Freedom and Oppression in Syllabus Texts

(Comparative: George Orwell’s *1984* and Maya Angelou’s “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings”)

Freedom and oppression are central concerns across the texts in the syllabus, addressed through diverse literary forms and political contexts. A comparison of George Orwell’s 1984 and Maya Angelou’s “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings” reveals how literature examines these themes from contrasting perspectives. While Orwell presents oppression as total, institutional, and psychologically destructive, Angelou portrays oppression as social and racial but emphasizes emotional resistance and survival.

Key differences in the portrayal of oppression:

Nature of Oppression: In 1984, oppression is absolute and all-encompassing totalitarianism, controlling thought, expression, and memory. In Angelou’s poem, oppression is deeply rooted in racial and social inequality, symbolized by the physical confinement of the cage.
Representation of Freedom: In 1984, freedom is portrayed as a dangerous and nearly extinct concept. Winston’s brief acts of rebellion ultimately fail, reinforcing the novel’s pessimistic outlook. In Angelou’s poem, freedom is imagined as both a physical and symbolic ideal. Though denied materially, freedom survives through voice, memory, and expression (the song).
Resistance: Orwell suggests that resistance is impossible against total state power, leading to psychological submission. Angelou emphasizes the persistence of voice and hope, asserting dignity and resilience even in confinement.

Despite these differences, both texts reveal that oppression dehumanizes individuals and denies fundamental human rights. Both expose how systems of power restrict autonomy and dignity. Literature, in both cases, becomes a medium of warning and affirmation—warning against unchecked authority and affirming the resilience of the human spirit.

In conclusion, the comparison of 1984 and “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings” demonstrates that while oppression may take different forms, the human longing for freedom is universal. Orwell highlights the dangers of total political control, whereas Angelou emphasizes resistance through voice and hope. Together, the texts underscore literature’s vital role in exploring, critiquing, and defending human rights.