The Social History Behind Handshakes

It was late October 1837 on the Liverpool docks, wind slicing through coats, when two men—one a merchant smelling faintly of warehouse dust, the other a captain whose hands still carried the tar of a three-month voyage—locked palms without ceremony.

No fanfare, no witnesses beyond a few idle stevedores. Just that quick, deliberate clasp, eyes meeting for half a breath, then the low murmur of numbers and promises about tea and tariffs.

In that ordinary moment, something larger was happening: trust being manufactured on the spot, skin to skin, because parchment and ink alone never felt solid enough.

Fifteen years of chasing these small gestures through archives, court records, and half-forgotten travelogues have convinced me that the handshake is never innocent.

It pretends to be simple equality, yet it has always carried the scent of calculation, power, and the quiet fear that the other person might still be hiding a knife.

The social history behind handshakes is really the history of how humans learned to fake vulnerability long enough to get what they wanted.

Keep reading the article!

Why did an open palm once feel dangerous enough to matter?

Go back to the limestone reliefs of Ashurnasirpal II’s palace, ninth century BCE.

Two kings, stiff and bearded, grip right hands in front of an audience of soldiers and priests.

Scholars call it the earliest visual record of the gesture. What they rarely say aloud is how theatrical it was.

In a landscape of constant rebellion and shifting city-state loyalties, showing an empty right hand publicly wasn’t politeness—it was political performance.

You forced the other man to mirror your disarmament, turning a private risk into a shared spectacle. The crowd saw alliance; the kings saw leverage.

That tension between display and danger never quite disappeared.

Xenophon, writing in the fourth century BCE, describes Greek mercenaries sealing mercenary contracts with handshakes after drinking bouts.

The gesture had already slid from royal propaganda into the rougher world of soldiers and traders.

By then it carried an unspoken contract: if you break this, everyone will know you broke the oldest visible promise there is.

There’s something quietly unsettling about how little has changed. We still use the handshake to paper over unequal power.

The merchant on the Liverpool dock in 1837 wasn’t meeting the captain as an equal; he was reminding him who controlled the ledgers back on shore.

++ Why We Eat Three Meals a Day

The grip said partnership while the cargo manifest said extraction.

++ The Untold History of Common Household Objects

When did the battlefield truce become polite society’s password?

Medieval chroniclers loved describing knights clasping forearms after tournaments or border skirmishes—sleeves pulled back, mail glinting, no hidden blade in sight.

Chaucer drops casual references to it in tales where honor hangs by a thread. But the real migration happened off the battlefield.

++ The Hidden Origins of Modern Work Schedules

As Italian city-states swelled with long-distance trade in the fourteenth century, the handshake slipped into counting houses and guild halls.

It became the physical signature when most people still couldn’t write their own name.

Picture Tomas, maybe nineteen, standing in a Genoa market square around 1350.

The Black Death had taken his parents; he’s trying to apprentice with a Venetian spice buyer twice his age.

His hand shakes when he extends it. The older man’s palm is cool, steady, faintly scented with clove.

That single clasp is Tomas gambling everything—reputation, future, survival—on a stranger’s word.

No contract on paper yet, just skin and eye contact.

The social history behind handshakes is full of these invisible bets, the kind that built the early modern economy one anxious grip at a time.

Then the Quakers arrived in the seventeenth century and turned the whole thing inside out.

They refused bows, hat-doffing, any gesture that smelled of hierarchy.

The handshake became their weapon of radical plainness: man to man, no titles, no deference.

When William Penn crossed the Atlantic and clasped hands with Lenape leaders in 1682, the act looked like mutual respect.

Look closer and the story sours—those “equal” handshakes paved the way for treaties that were honored mostly in the breach.

Even egalitarianism, it turns out, can be wielded asymmetrically.

Why does the gesture still feel different depending on who’s shaking whose hand?

Cross the Mediterranean or the Bosphorus, and the handshake fractures. In much of South Asia the namaste keeps palms apart, honoring distance and divinity at once.

Ottoman envoys in eighteenth-century Europe offered wrists instead of full palms, dodging what they saw as intrusive Western familiarity.

Gender was always the silent partner in the room.

Until well into the twentieth century, a woman’s handshake was usually reduced to gloved fingertips—a brush, never a clasp—preserving the fiction of separate spheres.

Emmeline Pankhurst changed that in public. Her grip during suffrage rallies wasn’t polite; it was occupation of space long denied.

Even now, the data is stubborn: women in mixed professional settings tend to squeeze harder, compensating for the half-second doubt that still flickers across some faces.

The gesture pretends universality, but it remembers every exclusion it once enforced.

Think of Layla, Syrian-born, newly arrived in Berlin in 2016. At her first office orientation, the German manager extends his hand without hesitation.

She pauses—the reflex for cheek kisses clashes with this stranger’s expectant palm. She takes it anyway.

The squeeze lasts maybe two seconds, but it carries the whole journey: displacement, adaptation, the small violence of conforming to someone else’s ritual.

That instant of hesitation is where the social history behind handshakes lives most honestly today.

Period	Dominant Social Pressure	What the Handshake Actually Did	Echo Still Heard Today
Ancient Near East	Alliance in a world of permanent war	Public performance of disarmament	Diplomatic photo-ops
Late Medieval Europe	Commerce outrunning literacy	Tactile substitute for written contract	“Let’s shake on it” in casual deals
17th–19th centuries	Enlightenment equality vs. old rank	Quaker-led push for horizontal trust	Corporate “firm handshake” mythology
20th–21st centuries	Global migration + pandemic hygiene	Contested symbol of intimacy vs. risk	Elbow bumps, fist bumps, virtual emojis

What are we really holding onto now?

After two world wars the handshake became almost compulsory—an American export wrapped in the myth of the self-made man.

Post-2008 it started to feel brittle; you could sense the skepticism in every squeeze on trading floors.

Then 2020 arrived and the gesture vanished almost overnight. We traded palms for elbows, waves, namaste salutes borrowed from yoga classes.

The shift wasn’t only sanitary. It was psychological: we had spent decades pretending touch was neutral, and suddenly it wasn’t.

What lingers is the awkwardness of the return.

Some people lunge for the old ritual like it’s proof everything is fine again; others hang back, hands in pockets, suddenly aware of how much unspoken negotiation was always folded into five seconds of contact.

Corporate handbooks now talk about “consent-based greetings.”

The phrase is bloodless, but it points to something real: the old autopilot version of the handshake is dying, and what replaces it will have to be more deliberate.

Maybe that’s the point we’ve reached.

A gesture born to prove you weren’t about to kill someone has spent three thousand years learning how to disguise every other kind of violence—economic, cultural, gendered.

Now it’s being asked to justify its own existence. In rooms where people still shake hands, the act feels heavier than it used to, like a choice instead of a reflex.

I still offer my hand sometimes, out of habit, mostly.

But I notice the micro-second of calculation on both sides: Is this safe? Is this welcome? Is this still worth doing?

The answer isn’t clear yet, and perhaps that uncertainty is the most honest thing the handshake has carried all along.

Frequently Asked Questions

Was the handshake ever really about trust, or just about not getting stabbed?

Both, and the second came first. It began as a literal weapons check. Trust was the useful story we told ourselves afterward.

Why do some cultures avoid it altogether?

Touch carries different meanings depending on who you are, who the other person is, and what gods or ancestors might be watching.

A bow or namaste can say “I respect you” without risking the complications of skin contact.

Did women always get the short end of the handshake?

For centuries, yes—fingertips at most, preserving distance. The full palm only became normal after women forced their way into public life and refused to be brushed aside.

Is the handshake actually disappearing?

Not entirely, but it’s no longer automatic. Pandemics, migration, and shifting ideas about consent have turned it into something people think about before they do.

Can a bad handshake still ruin a first impression?

Yes, depressingly. People read character into grip strength, duration, eye contact—the works. It’s unfair, outdated, and still true.

Tell me one handshake that really changed history.

Penn’s 1682 clasp with Lenape leaders looked like peace on earth. It bought Philadelphia—and set the pattern for centuries of broken promises dressed up as mutual agreement.

For anyone who wants to see what those Assyrian kings actually looked like mid-grip, the British Museum has digitized the relief: Ashurnasirpal II relief detail.

Stare at it long enough, and the stone starts to feel less distant than you’d expect.