rosa maria lupoify that the opening to transcendence (and thus to God) along Mari-
on’s path is produced by his wish to preserve both the phenomeno-
logical method, i.e. an investigation of phenomena, and its object, i.e.
phenomena in their phenomenality.
It is well known that Marion’s thought plays a central role in the
contemporary phenomenological panorama. One of the most con-
troversial questions about him is whether he, together with Levinas,
Henry, and Chrétien, should be considered a provoker of the so-called
“tournant théologique” of phenomenology.^8 Many agree with this
opinion of Janicaud, but if we accept the principle that every author
has the right to assent or to dissent with someone else’s interpretations
of his own thought, we cannot ignore the fact that Marion himself
keeps a sort of distance from such a reading of his position.^9 We can
- Cf. Dominique Janicaud, Le tournant théologique de la phénoménologie française,
Combas: Éditions de l’Éclat, 1991. For Janicaud the opening to the invisible, to
the Other (l’Autre), as origin of a pure donation (“archi-révélation”) determines
the theological turn, even if he shows the different ways in which this turn works
in various authors. But he specifies at the beginning that such a determination
does not immediately imply any negative or positive judgement (cf., 8). Janicaud
manifestly defends his definition in another work, La phénoménologie éclatée, Paris:
Éditions de l’Éclat, 1998, where he explains the meaning of his expression: “Sans
doute, en toute rigueur, l’épithète «théologique» aurait-elle dû être placée entre
guillemets, puisqu’elle était utilisée ironiquement et presque par prétérition. À
aucun moment je n’ai prétendu que les phénoménologues critiqués étaient dev-
enus, au sens strict ou technique du terme, des théologiens, ni comme exégètes de
la Révélation ni comme s’ils professaient directement une théologie, rationnelle
ou mystique. Si j’ai utilisé une fois «nos nouveaux théologiens», c’est évidemment
cum grano salis. Le sens littéral eût ôté tout le sel de l’affaire qui consistait justement
en ce que le tournant subreptice vers l’Autre, l’arch-originaire, la donation pure,
etc. se produisait au sein même des prétentions phénoménologiques les plus af-
firmées” (9). Regarding the question of the theological turn of French phenom-
enology it is interesting to read the reply of the French authors in the volume
Phénoménologie et théologie, Paris: Clarion, 1992. Both texts are available — as wit-
ness of an intense dialogue — in English translation: Dominique Janicaud, Jean-
François Courtine, Jean-Louis Chrétien, Michel Henry, Jean-Luc Marion and
Paul Ricoeur, Phenomenology and the “Theological Turn”: The French Debate, New
York: Fordham University Press, 2000. - When Marion puts emphasis on the pure phenomenological character of his
work and explains that the eventual theological repercussions initially have no