L.

Law of Kinship Structure is not necessarily phallic by Kaja Silverman

Neither Lévi-Strauss, Freud, Lacan, nor Mitchell, however, adduces any structural imperative, analogous to the incest prohibition itself, which dictates that it be women rather than men-or both women and men that circulate in this way, nor can such an imperative be found. We must consequently pry loose the incest prohibition from the Name-of-the-Father so as to insist, despite the paucity of historical evidence for doing so, that the Law of Kinship Structure is not necessarily phallic. As Rubin points out, “the ‘exchange of women’ is neither a definition of culture nor a system in and of itself”

Kaja Silverman, Male Subjectivity at the margins, New York, Routledge, 1992, p. 37 –
quoted in the 10th footnote by Judith ButlerBodies That Matter – On the Discursive Limits of SexRoutledge, 1993, p. 106

Ni Lévi-Strauss, ni Freud, ni Lacan, ni Mitchell […] n’invoquent d’impératif structurel, analogue à l’interdiction de l’inceste elle-même. qui dicterait que ce soient les femmes plutôt que les hommes – ou les femmes et les hommes – qui soient mis en circulation [en tant que dons échangés], et l’on ne saurait trouver nulle part un tel impératif. Nous devons par conséquent détacher la prohibition de l’inceste du Nom du Père, de façon à souligner que, en dépit de la rareté des éléments historiques à l’appui de cette idée, la Loi de la structure de parenté n’est pas nécessairement phallique.

Kaja Silverman, Male Subjectivity at the margins, New York, Routledge, 1992, p. 37,
cité en NBP 10 par Judith ButlerCes corps qui comptent – De la matérialité et des limites discursives du «sexe» (1993) Editions Amsterdam, Paris, 2018, p. 164

Without any explanation, the footnote in the french edition that we studied was cuted off from its last sentence, precisely the one where Gayle Rubin is quoted by Kaja Silverman. We hope you may understand why better than we did.