Naturalization

“Myth hides nothing and flaunts nothing: it distorts; myth is neither a lie nor a confession: it is an inflexion. [. . .] Entrusted with 'glossing over' an intentional concept, myth encounters nothing but betrayal in language, for language can only obliterate the concept if it hides it, or unmask if it formulates it. The elaboration of a second-order semiological system will enable myth to escape this dilemma: driven to having either to unveil or to liquidate the concept, it will naturalize it.” (129)

Barthes' focus on the myths' propensity to naturalize history, or as I interpret it, make historical context appear at the only possible formation of a system, is particularly interesting. It implies first, and foremost, an instantaneous processing of the myth. One must absorb and accept the sign instantaneously for Barthes' naturalization to occur. While this is a reasonable expectation, it raises the question of whether a myth exists to one who analyzes a form presented to them. Doesn't the act of analysis involve enumerating all the possible concepts embodied in that form, and therefor a blurring of the naturalized history?