"...the lesson for us in criticism of this kind may well be, among other things, that: that a materialist or dialectical historiography does its work ultimately by undermining the very foundations, framework, constitutive presuppositions, of the specialized disciplines themselves by unexpectedly demonstrating the existence, not necessarily of 'matter' in that limited sense, but rather in general of an Other of the discipline, an outside, a limit, the revelation of the extrinsic, which it is felt to be scandalous and unscholarly to introduce into a carefully regulated traditional debate."

"...Barthes's reversal is useful in that his problematic (which is essentially that of the Sartre of What Is Literature? is the most distant from the rhetoric of materialism and necessarily selects a particular readership for itself and thereby symbolically endorses the inevitable blood guilt, and as that necessary and inevitable violence of the relationship of any group to the others which we call class struggle. Both writers -- Sartre and Barthes -- reverse our placid conceptions of literary history by demonstrating how every individual text, by its institutionalized signals, necessarily selects a particular readership for itself and thereby symbolically endorses the inevitable blood guilt of that particular group or class.

emphasis/underline mine.