Barthes

This myth of the human 'condition'  rests on a very old mystification, which always consists in placing Nature at the bottom of History. Any classic humanism postulates that in scratching the history of men a little, the relativity of their institutions or the superficial diversity of their skins, one very quickly reaches the solid rock of a universal human nature. Progressive humanism, on the contrary, must always remember to reverse the terms of this very old imposture, constantly to scour nature, its 'laws' and its 'limits' in order to discover History there, and at last to establish Nature itself as historical

But why the "must"? Barthes doesn't really justify it in the rest of the piece (The Great Family of Man), but as so often is the case, I get the sense that his desire to read Nature as historical is simply of prerogative of his ideology.

Of course, Barthes knows this. You are either on the side of "justice" (a suspect concept perhaps) or not, these questions of "nature" or "history" are simply evasions or justifications (progressive humanism, in his view, has to deny nature). In this game the reader is caught in a either/or situation: he "must" choose between equally faulty positions on tired old ideological grounds. I think I'd rather opt out of this little trap if I can. (Can I? The "third way" in this particular situation is not one that is particularly viable for political change.)