Abstract
The aim of this paper is to explore the articulation of certain basic concepts in the Whitean theory of historiographical discourse, based on the conviction that by establishing a contrast with a not too developed notion of science and with a narrow concept of ideology, White ends up resorting to tropology as a deep grammar of the ordinary language instantiated in narrative. By exploring and criticizing some of the blind spots of White’s three-cornered approach to narrative, science and ideology, and some of the consequences of this very restrictive use of tropology, this article intends not only to contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the Whitean proposal, but also to encourage its deepening.