'People-pleasing' sounds like actions or activities that please people.
That's not what it's supposed to mean, though.
What it's supposed to mean is saying 'yes' when you really want to say 'no' or agreeing when you really want to disagree. The reason one might do this is to acquire or retain someone else's approval or to reverse or avoid their disapproval.
Obviously what's going on is a little more complicated than ... pleasing people.
Now, even if we accept the validity of the term, it's still next to useless, because whether something is the defect of 'people-pleasing' depends on whether saying 'no' or disagreeing is valid and appropriate. Each situation must be judged separately, discernment is hard, and there's rarely a pat answer. For example, cordial social relations, good friendships and marriages, and pleasant relations with colleagues require an awful lot of yielding, biting one's lip, and going along with things, because that's what being in society means: give and take. Much more give than take. It's certainly not axiomatic that yielding or agreeing despite one's personal views is universally morally wrong and that resisting, being inflexible, insisting on putting oneself first, and arguing with everything we disagree with is universally morally right. In fact, if there's a default, I suspect it probably lies with being pacific and genial, not refractory and rebarbative. In any case, the point should be clear: stipulating that one has been 'people pleasing' is meaningless. Unless the full situation is presented in a neutral way, it's impossible to judge whether it is the case that one has indeed said 'yes' when one should have said 'no' or agreed when one should have disagreed.
It might be noted that the people who are purportedly pleased are rarely in fact pleased. If one has been people pleasing, and the people are not pleased, one is not a people pleaser. One might be a failed people pleaser. That could be closer to the truth.
The real problem with the presentation of this phenomenon as 'people pleasing' is the inadequacy and, frankly, dishonesty of the terminology.
'People' are good, and 'pleasing' is good. It sounds like this defect is a defect of excessive goodness. This is not remotely the case. Let's unpack it.
When I do or say what is wrong because I want to acquire or retain someone else's approval or to reverse or avoid their disapproval, I am not actually pleasing them. I might be acquiescing, agreeing with them, or obeying them, but I am not giving pleasure. Pleasure is not what the other person feels. When a person expects to be obeyed and is, or expects to be agreed with and is, the feeling, if any, is neutral. It's certainly not the pleasure of a walk in a sunny park or a jam doughnut with sugar on.
The transaction is not about pleasure. And, even if it were, pleasure is the individual's means, not their end. I do not want the other person's pleasure. I want their approval, or the absence of their disapproval. As long as I get my approval, or the absence of their disapproval, I'm good. I do not care two figs about them and their actual pleasure.
In other words, people pleasing has next to nothing to do with people, and next to nothing to do with pleasure.
It has to do with pouring yet more soup through the slotted spoon of my fragile identity, hoping to catch a few morsels before the soup slides on through. It's a feeble attempt by my tattered materialistic self to construct a tissue paper castle of approval and pump my brain with a tiny slug of ever weaker dopamine to ward off the eternal night closing in on me. It's the desperate and ruthless last gasp of the failed system of ego. It's the psychological equivalent of the sex addict wishing to endlessly perform the same lacklustre routine with frankly any body who is up for the transaction to secure a quantum of ersatz satisfaction for an increasingly deadened, frayed, and raddled nervous system.
That's what I'm doing when I'm people-pleasing. When you spell it out, it's not quite so benign-sounding, is it?
So, if we're not going to call it people-pleasing, what are we going to call it? Well, the phenomenon is not new, it's broad in scope, and it is actually a cluster of related character defects. A people-pleasing scenario might involve one or more of the following, which is not an exhaustive list.
- Currying favour: ingratiating oneself with someone through obsequious behaviour
- Sycophancy: obsequious behaviour towards someone important in order to gain advantage
- Self-seeking: seeking approval or the absence of disapproval
- Disobedience: acting against God's will for my own ends
- Exploitation: using other people and scenarios involving them for personal ends
- Manipulation: covertly extracting a commodity from a person
- Corruption: using dishonesty for personal gain at the cost of the common good
What do I do instead?
Ask God for God's will for me, and act for the good of all. Try to get along with others. Find out what they want and think and consult widely. Largely yield and say 'yes' unless the common good is affected. Remain neutral unless disagreeing serves some good, stated, and achievable purpose. Ground my identity, value, and purpose in God. Do what is right regardless of the personal consequences. Stop using the world as a bolster for a failing ego. Instead view the world as a colossal collection of opportunities to channel good and love. That, I have found, actually does please people, and people are thereby genuinely pleased.