Michel Henry between Krisis and Critique

Carla Canullo

Michel Henry was, fundamentally, neither a thinker of the Krisis, nor a philosopherof “critical” thought. In his Barbarism, however, and his two volumes on Marx,Henry criticized forcefully the culture of his time and place. Culture, Henrysuggests, has brought about an over-turning (rovesciamento) that has obscured life,its inner essence. Henry’s phenomenology, which opposes itself explicitly to thisover-turning, strives to grasp, and to re-turn (controrovesciare) thought again, tothat which, in his view, has been concealed. This doubled turn—an over-turningof an over-turning, advanced in order to restore what modern thought hassubtracted, i.e., life—represents the most fundamental, genuinely, ‘critical’ aspectof Henry’s philosophy. The question here, then, is to see whether and how Henry’sphenomenological proposal can regain (ritrovato) what has been forgotten andconcealed, and how this subtracted (rimosso) element can be returned (ridonato)again to thought. If this can be clarified, the genuinely critical character of Henry’sthought can be constituted, as capable both of protesting against its time and ofproposing elements for its renewal. In this essay, I will introduce certaincharacteristic themes of Barbarism, in order to establish a connection betweenbarbarism and its critique. This connection will be established through aclarification of two such radical reversals in our age; those of culture, on one hand,and psychoanalysis on the other. In order to investigate this connection, and inorder to engage the general theme of a reversal (rovescio), I will take a detour, inorder to begin with what I will define as a forgotten overturning (rovescio).