Suppose, for a moment, the world were to agree that a person is oppressed if and when something (such as another person, a government, or a society) causes them to become alienated from themselves. That is, prevents them from being true to themselves. If the world understood that to be oppression, then what might be the consequences?
In practice, I think there might be quite a few problems with defining oppression in those terms unless we were to also distinguish between necessary and unnecessary oppression. Thus, necessary oppression could be defined as oppression that is necessary to prevent one person from unjustly harming another, while unnecessary oppression could be defined as oppression that serves no such purpose.
For instance: Let’s say that, in stealing from others, I am in some significant sense being true to myself. Any person, government, or society that tried to prevent me from stealing would, by our definition of oppression, be oppressing me. So, if oppression is morally wrong, then I could argue no person, no government, nor any society had a moral right to prevent me from stealing.
On the other hand, if oppression is morally right whenever it is done to prevent one person from unjustly harming another, then in so far as stealing from someone harms them, it is moral for others to prevent me from stealing even though doing so also prevents me from being true to myself.
All of the above seems simple enough, but does it work? Is it an adequate definition of oppression? If not, then what is oppression?