I believe it is possible to identify, among many factors, at least two essential components contributing to shaping the way public figures (or, perhaps, everybody?) perform greetings. The first one regards the intrinsic nature of the person shaking hands – as it concerns their personality and the sum of experiences and events which have moulded their ego, it is the less tangible aspect hence the most arduous to control. We could say that this agent is operating unconsciously and represents the more spontaneous and genuine approach one may have towards greetings. The second element derives from the superstructures pressuring society. According to these forces people behave accordingly to what is deemed “most appropriate” based on their position within society. Contrary to the former component described above, people are mostly aware of this latter element – i.e. the network of social expectations and structures that organize life. Hence, being aware of how different greetings carry different societal meanings and implications, they are quick at adapting adapt their greetings in response to varying environments and circumstances.

As to delineate a theoretical framework which we need to make sense of greetings as performative acts of political power displays, we could say that the first component is an endogenous factor, whereas the latter one is exogenous. It might also be argued that someone’s personality traits have been shaped throughout time by external stimuli – this however is the thoroughly debated “nurture vs nature” dilemma, which however sits outside the scope of this paper. Hence, for the sake of the reasoning at issue, we will consider all traits ingrained in one’s individuality, their “essential characteristics” we shall say, as internal and relatively stable – i.e. unaffected by the external circumstances.

A clarifying example may be worthwhile describing as to dispel any doubt. Let us consider Donald Trump: his personal history, what he represents in the American culture, the way he speaks and how he poses himself – one would opine that his famously intimidatory handshake is a natural manifestation of these traits, i.e. of his personality. Nonetheless, the fact that he was the president of the First World Power adds new values and reading levels to his attempt to prevail on his interlocutor in the had-shaking moment. Therefore, we could hypothesize that the reason why Trump greets people in such an idiosyncratic way is not only a planned strategy dictated by his influential position, but also an authentic and sincere expression of his state of being.

As it became evident, the boundary between these two perspectives of looking at handshakes is quite blurred. They often overlap and concurrently participate to outline the performance of greeting. Because of this fluid dualism a further layer of complexity is added to this phenomenon. In Laser’s art piece the choreography of gestures employed by the politicians assumes the form of a uninterrupted stream; it is seamless and it does not envisage any counter-reply as it is displayed during a speech, hence an occasion where the orator is the only active player. This fundamental feature is the reason why Laser’s transposition of the speeches to body language expressions only is so effective and powerfully conveys the critical position of the artist. In the case of the handshake, conversely, we witness a dynamic performance where both players are readjusting their movements in real time, simultaneously intending to convey their personal intensions while attempting to navigate their “gestural interlocutor”. A strong capacity to improvise is required by the players – often, both actors attempt to prevail, and this leads to an awkward and mute power-play, where the handshake appears to be unspontaneous, clumsy and embarrassing as it lasts too long as neither party wants to loosen their grip. Commenting her project, Laser underlines the issue of the performance as a form of social interaction. In an interview dated […] she states:

“We are living in strange days where performance itself has become the dominant instrument of power. The style of someone’s delivery ends up foreclosing the real content. As spectator we are being treated as lab rats to be impressed. I am asking myself: Can we reclaim some agency by getting our hands on the tools of mass communication?”.Leaving aside the affirmation of the audience as test subject, which I consider a bit sensationalist and reductive of the audience’s role, I believe the most intriguing aspect of Laser’s message to be her analysis of the performance as a crucial constituent of our society, and that the performance’s persuasive power in politics has been amplified in direct correlation to the rise of mass communication. This assumption is satisfactorily expressed in Laser’s work, and I believe it perfectly applies to my investigation too. Indeed, we can easily ascertain that the photos of politicians’ handshakes present a more artificial and constructed structure compared to the ones of their predecessor from before the Second World War. (maybe I could show a picture here) Moreover, something that is not covered in Laser’s project and which emerges in my investigation is the variety of power dynamics that can be established through the performance of hand-shaking. As I previously mentioned, the performance that Laser analyses is unidirectional: from the orator to the audience, hence it involves only one kind of relationship. Instead, the phenomenon of the handshake gives form to a dialectical and mutating relationship between the two players, which eventually results in a plethora of possible dynamics of power.