How might one summarize Roland Barthes' essay "Science versus Literature"?

In his essay “Science Versus Literature,” Roland Barthes
makes a number of claims, including the
following:

• Scientists treat language as a tool;
  their goal is to make it as clear and as value-free as
  possible


• To scientists, the subject-matter or content
  they wish to communicate is most important; the language in which such messages are
  communicated is unimportant. It should simply be clear and precise and
  objective


• In contrast, in literature, language is
  everything. Its function is not simply to convey a
  message


• Literature is a use of language in which language
  itself becomes the most important element


• Emphasizing the
  centrality of language as language to literature can have radical
  implications for morality and politics


• The contrast
  between science and literature is especially important to
  structuralists


• Structuralist ideas, which grew out of
  linguistics, are especially relevant to literature


• Used
  as a kind of scientific, analytical method, structuralism can help us understand the
  elements of literature and how they work


• Structuralism
  can also be used to classify different types of
  literature


• One of the ancestors of structuralism is
  rhetoric


• At every level of literature, structuralist
  analysis is especially appropriate


• However, structuralism
  should not aim simply to be another “scientific” approach to
  literature.


• Instead, structuralism should
  place

readability="5">

the actual subversion of scientific language at
the centre of its programme . .
.

• Structuralism
  should give up the pretense that language can ever be simply a neutral
  means of communicating
  ideas


• Structuralists should be aware of, and should
  highlight, the paradoxes involved in their own use of language and in any use of
  language


• There is no such thing as a neutral use of
  language, despite the claims of scientists to have achieved such a use; their claims
  must be challenged


• There is no use of language that is
  superior to others; the claim of scientists to have achieved such a language must be
  challenged


• Science suppresses the pleasures of language,
  and these need to be developed and emphasized


• The role of
  literature

readability="11">

is actively to represent to
the scientific establishment what the latter denies, . . . [which is] the sovereignty of
language. And structuralism ought to be in a strong position to cause such a scandal
because, being acutely aware of the linguistic nature of human artefacts, it alone can
reopen today the question of the linguistic status of
science.