Not also

The usage of "not also" in the last line of the following context seems confusing to me. Does the sentence containing it mean "This is to say that the contents of the unconscious are historically and culturally compromised, that is, the process of revelation is more or less compromised"?

Context:
Yet, against the idea that the Pure Gold advertisements represent no more than postmodern eclecticism or historicism, I would argue that the archetypal subliminal content that Jobling and Crowther identify suggests otherwise, at least in certain cases. Moreover, the claim that a faux-Surrealism is in play assumes that Surrealism, rather than suffering internal disputes and contradictions, was somehow a unified movement, and that Surrealist artefacts always had a deep and genuine connection to the unconscious. The rather obvious way in which Salvador Dali and Max Ernst, for instance, grafted Freudian ideas onto their familial or interpersonal relationships – for example, Dali’s The Lugubrious Game (1929) or Ernst’s Oedipus Rex (1922) – demonstrates that the unconscious was sometimes consciously, if not prescriptively, channelled through some fairly obvious psychoanalytic models rather than represented directly and spontaneously, as might more credibly be argued for automatists such as Masson and Miro. This is not to say that the contents of the unconscious are not also historically and culturally compromised, only that the process of revelation can be more or less compromised (Art and Advertising by Joan Gibbons).