This article reflects on Hayden White's understanding of the subject and explores how best to move forward discussions in theory of history after his arguments about narrativity. To do so, I reconsider his arguments in light of more recent feminist and queer theorizations. Through a reconstruction of the current international new wave of feminism and LGBTQ+ activism as a rich and complex social movement that involves a narration of its own (practical) past, I will recontextualize and revaluate White's insight from the perspective of Judith Butler's theory of subject formation. The argument will unfold in four parts. First, I will recall White's ironic and existential stance on language and narrativity in the representation of reality and in relation to social beliefs. Second, I will again raise the question of the value of narrativity, as framed by White, in the context of the publication of a recent feminist manifesto. It is here that another issue will emerge as crucial: the relationship between the limits of linguistic self-consciousness and the question of the subject. In the third part, my argument will take a partial turn “against White” and toward Butler's subject formation theory. My claim will be that there is a residue of the belief in the sovereign individual in White's insistence on self-consciousness. However, I will also show that his suspicion regarding the psychological impulse toward narrative closure can be re-elaborated as the challenge Butler is facing with their theory of subject formation: that of critically resisting the belief in our being coherent and self-sufficient individuals. In the fourth part, I will present Butler's refiguration of the thesis of the subject's opacity in terms of the primary relationality that binds human beings to one another, and I will offer a new understanding of the individual, norms, agency, infancy, and ethics. Finally, I will conclude that we are bodies in history and that theory of history can find a promising line of research through this conception of the subject, a conception that reframes how we understand the intimate links between political consciousness, historicity, and embodiment. I also claim that this line of research constitutes an ethics for our historical undoing.

中文翻译：

---

支持还是反对海登·怀特？对历史理论和学科形成的反思

本文反思了海登·怀特对该主题的理解，并探讨了在他关于叙事性的论证之后如何最好地推进历史理论的讨论。为此，我根据最近的女权主义和酷儿理论重新考虑他的论点。通过将当前国际女权主义新浪潮和LGBTQ+行动主义重构为一场丰富而复杂的社会运动，涉及对其自身（实践）过去的叙述，我将从朱迪思·巴特勒的主体形成理论的角度重新语境化和重新评价怀特的见解。论证将分四个部分展开。首先，我将回顾怀特对现实表现中的语言和叙事以及与社会信仰的关系的讽刺和存在主义立场。其次，我将在最近发表的一份女权主义宣言的背景下再次提出怀特所提出的叙事价值的问题。正是在这里，另一个至关重要的问题将出现：语言自我意识的界限与主体问题之间的关系。在第三部分中，我的论点将部分转向“反对怀特”并转向巴特勒的主体形成理论。我的主张是，怀特对自我意识的坚持中残留着对主权个体的信仰。然而，我还将表明，他对叙事结束的心理冲动的怀疑可以重新阐述为巴特勒在他们的主体形成理论中面临的挑战：批判性地抵制我们是连贯和自给自足的个体的信念。在第四部分中，我将提出巴特勒根据将人类彼此联系在一起的主要关系对主体不透明性的论点的重新诠释，并对个人、规范、能动性、婴儿期和伦理提出新的理解。 。最后，我将得出这样的结论：我们是历史中的实体，历史理论可以通过这一主题概念找到一条有前途的研究路线，这一概念重新构建了我们如何理解政治意识、历史性和体现之间的密切联系。我还声称，这一研究方向构成了我们历史毁灭的伦理道德。