The Deconstructive Angel by M.H. Abrams
M.H. Abrams’ essay The Deconstructive Angel responds to debates about how we interpret literature and history. It focuses on the differences between two major ideas: pluralism and deconstruction. Abrams argues in favour of pluralism but warns that deconstruction can go too far, making it hard to study texts meaningfully
The Background:
This essay was first presented in 1976 at a meeting of the Modern Language Association. It grew from a debate between Abrams, Wayne C. Booth, and J. Hillis Miller. The debate started when Miller reviewed Abrams’ book Natural Supernaturalism. The discussion became bigger than just that book—it turned into a conversation about how we understand literature and history as a whole.
Pluralism: The Value of Many Perspectives
Abrams supports pluralism, the idea that we can interpret texts from different perspectives. For example, one historian might focus on a text’s historical context, while another might look at its moral themes. By combining these views, we get a fuller understanding of the text. Abrams believes pluralism is essential because it allows us to see literature and history from many angles, like looking at all sides of a sculpture.
Deconstruction: Endless Interpretations
J. Hillis Miller, inspired by philosophers like Jacques Derrida and Friedrich Nietzsche, supports deconstruction. This is a method of reading that questions everything we assume about a text’s meaning. Deconstruction suggests that texts don’t have a fixed or single meaning. Instead, every reader brings their own perspective, which means a text can be interpreted in endless ways.
For example, if a poem seems to be about love, a deconstructionist might argue that it’s also about power, language, or something entirely different. They believe no one interpretation is more “correct” than another.
Abrams’ Critique of Deconstruction:
While Abrams agrees that texts can have multiple meanings, he believes deconstruction takes this idea too far. He makes three key points:
1. Authors write with the intention of communicating specific ideas. For example, when Shakespeare wrote *Hamlet*, he wasn’t writing random words—he was creating a story with a purpose.
2. Historians and readers can understand these intended meanings well enough to interpret them accurately. While no interpretation is perfect, we can get close enough to understand what the author meant.
3. Some interpretations are better than others because they are grounded in evidence, like the language of the text or its historical context.
Abrams warns that if we follow deconstruction too strictly, we might lose the ability to say anything concrete about a text. Without shared meanings, it becomes impossible to have discussions or study literature in a meaningful way.
A Practical View of Language:
Abrams also disagrees with the deconstructionist view of language. Deconstructionists, like Miller, believe language is unstable and can never fully capture reality. Abrams, however, sees language as a practical tool. He argues that while words can have multiple meanings, they are still used to communicate specific ideas. For example, when someone writes, "The sun is rising," they are directing attention to a real event, not creating endless ambiguity.
DETAILED SUMMARY
M. H. Abrams’s 1977 essay The Deconstructive Angel is one of the most famous early responses to Jacques Derrida’s theory of deconstruction. Abrams begins by pointing out that Derrida belongs to a group of modern thinkers who believe that language is not just a tool for expressing ideas but the very basis of all thinking - a shift often called the “linguistic turn.” But Derrida, Abrams says, takes this idea much further than others. For him, what truly matters is not speech or thought, but écriture - the written word itself. Meaning, according to Derrida, lives only in the text, in the black marks that stand out against the white page.
Abrams finds this view both bold and puzzling. Traditionally, philosophers believed in logocentrism - the idea that truth and meaning lie in the spoken word, in human reason, or in the author’s mind. Derrida turns this belief upside down. He replaces it with what Abrams calls graphocentrism, where only writing — the visible marks on paper — is considered real. Abrams patiently explains how Derrida starts every question about meaning with a deeper question about language itself. This is part of a larger modern movement that other thinkers, like Richard Rorty, also discuss. But Derrida’s version is much more radical. His idea of écriture - “a text already written, black on white” - removes the need for an author’s intention or a fixed meaning. What remains is the text alone, open to endless readings and interpretations.
Logocentric vs. Graphocentric Models
Abrams explains that Derrida’s first major step is to reject the old belief that speech is superior to writing. For centuries, Western philosophy followed what Derrida calls logocentrism - the idea that spoken language is primary and closer to truth because it seems to come directly from human thought or a divine source. This belief, found in Platonic and religious traditions, assumes that meaning flows from a higher “presence” - something pure, original, or absolute. Derrida completely overturns this assumption. He shifts attention from speech to writing, claiming that only the written text - what he calls écriture - truly exists for analysis.
Abrams calls this radical move graphocentric, meaning that writing becomes the center of meaning. In this model, there are no hidden truths behind words, no authorial voice waiting to be uncovered. What actually exists are the visible “marks on a page” - the black letters, white spaces, margins, and gaps that together create a text. Derrida’s vivid language - his references to “black on white,” “marks,” “spaces,” and “differences” - pushes readers to see language as something material and constructed, not as a transparent channel from an author’s mind. Meaning, in this view, is not stable or singular; it arises from the endless play of these marks and the differences between them. Derrida invites readers to let go of the old logocentric faith in a single origin of meaning and to recognize instead that what is truly present is only the text itself - a living network of signs, open to constant reinterpretation.
Effects of the Graphocentric Premises
Abrams goes on to highlight another striking consequence of Derrida’s focus on the text: the instability of meaning itself. If there is no author, no speaker, and no fixed reference outside the text, then meaning can never be fully pinned down. Every word, every mark, gains significance only in relation to the others around it, in an endless chain of differences. This idea later becomes Derrida’s famous concept of différance - the notion that meaning is always deferred, never fully present, always postponed to the next word, the next mark, the next reading.
In this system, traditional ideas of authority and interpretation are turned upside down. Critics can no longer rely on the author’s intention or on familiar rules of grammar and syntax. Every reading is provisional; every interpretation is just one possibility among many. Abrams notes that while this approach can open up fresh ways of thinking about texts, it can also feel dizzying or even self-contradictory, because it seems to leave no stable ground at all.
Signs, Difference, and the Play of Meaning
Abrams then explains how Derrida thinks about meaning once we focus entirely on the text itself. Even though a text is made up of textual signs, Derrida stresses that these signs are not random scribbles; they are meaningful units. Following Ferdinand de Saussure, a famous linguist, every sign has two parts: the signifier - the physical sign or word on the page - and the signified - the concept or idea the sign represents. But in Derrida’s view, because we are looking only at the text, the signified - the actual idea - is never physically present. The text does not carry a fixed concept; it only contains textual signs that point toward ideas we imagine.
To explain how meaning can exist without a real presence, Derrida borrows another insight from Saussure: a sign’s meaning comes from its difference from other signs, not from an independent essence. Abrams makes this clear: a sound, word, or textual sign does not have a meaning of its own. It gains meaning only by being distinct from other signs. Within the text, some signs repeat while others differ, and it is these patterns of similarity and difference that allow meaning to emerge.
Derrida goes further, treating difference as an active, dynamic force. Abrams compares it to Hegel’s idea of “negativity” - a process that keeps everything in motion rather than fixed. Because each textual sign gains meaning only in relation to others, meaning is never stable or final. Instead, difference, sets off a continuous play of signification (jeu), where meanings shift, change, and multiply endlessly. Even though the textual signs seem static on the page, language itself is always alive and in motion, constantly producing new interpretations.
Trace, Différance, and Deferred Meaning
Abrams then explains some of Derrida’s key ideas about how meaning works in language. First is the concept of the trace. A trace is like a leftover imprint of past uses of a sign that continues to influence its meaning in the present text. When a textual sign has been used before, its previous appearances leave an echo — a trace — that contributes to how we understand it now. Importantly, this trace is not a fully present meaning; it behaves as if a meaning were there, but it is always slightly out of reach. Every new context both reveals and erases it at the same time.
Next is the idea of endless deferral. Any interpretation of a text is really just replacing one chain of textual signs with another. But each substitution pushes the meaning further along, never letting us fully capture it. The promise of a stable or fixed meaning is always postponed; the moment you try to pin it down, it slips away.
To describe this process, Derrida coins the term différance — a French pun that combines the ideas of differing and deferring. Abrams explains that différance refers to the endless play of meaning in language. Because meanings arise from differences between signs and traces of past uses, there can never be a central or ultimate meaning outside this network. As Derrida concludes, the absence of any “ultimate signified” allows the play of meaning to continue indefinitely.
Abrams’s Critique of Derrida’s Logic
While Abrams recognizes the brilliance of Derrida’s analysis, he raises serious concerns about its logic and consequences. First, he argues that Derrida, despite claiming to reject metaphysical assumptions, ends up relying on a new ideological system — the graphocentric premises themselves. By starting from a closed system of texts and textual signs, Derrida’s conclusion that meaning is always deferred and unstable seems predetermined. Abrams describes this as a “foregone conclusion,” where meaning is reduced to mere “echolalia” or “ghostly nonpresences.”
Abrams also criticizes what he calls the “sealed echo-chamber” effect of Derrida’s model. In his vivid imagery, Derrida’s system is like a locked room where words endlessly bounce off each other, but there is no real voice, intent, or reference behind them. Meaning, in this picture, simply reverberates “from sign to sign” with “no voice, intended by no one, referring to nothing.” Abrams suggests that this creates a bleak, almost nihilistic view of language — a world where communication is like “bombinating in a void,” echoing endlessly without ever conveying anything real.
Derrida’s Alternative and Conclusion
Finally, Abrams describes Derrida’s response to traditional ways of interpreting texts and Abrams’s reaction to it. Derrida rejects the idea of fixing meaning through authorial intent, calling it a “mirage.” Instead of trying to pin down a text’s meaning, he encourages readers to join in the text’s infinite play of signs. Readers should embrace what Abrams calls a “joyous affirmation of the play of the world” — a Nietzschean-style acceptance, meaning accepting uncertainty, rejecting fixed truths, and enjoying the creative, playful nature of language. Derrida explicitly urges us to affirm “a world of signs without error…without truth, without origin,” a radical break from the notion that texts communicate stable ideas or moral truths.
Abrams points out that Derrida also warns against longing for a lost security of meaning — a “Rousseauistic nostalgia” for something that never existed. Instead, we must accept that language is fundamentally indeterminate.
In his final observation, Abrams notes that Derrida’s system paradoxically produces a kind of new metaphysics. The endless unfolding of différance creates a vision of the world that can only be glimpsed from outside language, since language itself relies on presence — which Derrida rejects. This world, as Derrida describes it, remains “as yet unnamable,” a mysterious and even frightening concept he calls a “monstrosity.” In other words, Derrida’s philosophy concludes on a radical and enigmatic note: a realm of meaning too formless to define, yet endlessly alive in its play.
Comments
Post a Comment