This is getting tiresome. You ignore most of what I write so I'm dropping this after this reply. Perhaps she is Hegelian because she uses "quasi-medieval metaphors that Hegel employed", perhaps because she sees a "splitting" of the subject in the performative, perhaps because of the Hegelian master-servant mutated as subject-agent, perhaps because she immersed herself in his writings and has done her thesis (or dissertation?) on Hegel ... see some of the other posts for more details.
I'm not interested in talking about "motifs" and "tropes" (nice of you to casually distill the early part of the "19th century" as "idealism", whatever that is supposed to mean, without providing anything of substance) --- I am not denying that there are important differences between now and then, but to claim that the differences are so immense that an entirely new phraseology must be invented and deployed is, to me, sheer nonsense. And what are you implying about the 19th century ("early" or not, I only referred to the 19th century) "nation-state"? Are you saying that the US was such a place? Great Britain?
Butler is supposedly developing a "theory" of "subjection", and if her focus is so narrow that it applies to little more than New York City lesbian couples (I mean, golly, how do the "motifs" of New York apply to those in Kansas City? Has Butler actually visited Kansas City?) living in 1999 (who understand postmodernist reasoning) it is too narrow to be of any general use, and hardly deserves the word "theory".
Bill