“Anecdotes aren’t as harmless as people think they are.”

One might ask whether certain things happen as frequently as they are retold. Certain stereotypes keep cropping up, too: the poor old lady who can’t pay her heating bill anymore, for example. Historically, the anecdote was a kind of counter-narrative – a way of contradicting the official story. That’s why anecdotes can also be regarded as a kind of guerrilla tactic. This supposed subversive character of the anecdote is very popular among right-wing populist parties. They like to flatter themselves that they “tell it like it is.”

You say that anecdotes can be politically explosive. What do you mean by that?

The thing that makes them most politically explosive, in my opinion, is the fact that anecdotes are hard to recognize as political propaganda. We think of anecdotes as harmless, positive, inclusive. The way they connect us is also a factor. You can participate in the conversation without having to know any of the actual facts or even being able to prove that any such thing ever happened. Anecdotes also work very well in the media, of course. They are short and concise and play on existing plots and stereotypes. This all makes it very difficult to recognize what the speaker’s real intent is. A person who strategically introduces anecdotal evidence like “my nephew is being forced by the university to use inclusive language” can wait and see what happens when the discourse gets started. It may end with something like, “if that’s what everyone says, it must be true.”

Do anecdotes contain a certain element of self-fulfilling prophecy?

I would support the thesis that the constant fiery discourse changes peoples’ perceptions, leading them to believe to some extent that there is no such thing as empirical fact.

If I hear something over and over again, it makes me vigilant, too. And I feel like I need to act on what I have heard and deal with it. Many people are simply overburdened by the multiple crises of our time. Anecdotes, on the other hand, simplify complex problems and they provide a clear plan of action.

How can we avoid confusing anecdotal evidence with facts?

If a politician tells an anecdote, I would remain skeptical at first and closely watch to see whether some patterns repeat – for example stereotypes and demonized opponents – and what debates are presumably to be triggered in this way. So political contextualization is important; anecdotal evidence does not emerge in a vacuum. I also think it’s important to be aware that anecdotes aren’t as harmless as people think they are. It is also not as inclusive as we sometimes assume, as there will always be people who don’t know what’s being discussed but who are being talked about.