Nikolay Mintchev’s (this issue) consideration of the use of psychoanalytic thought as a critical framework for the analysis of racism focuses on the differences between the Kleinian and Lacanian schools. While his depiction of their differences and the relevance of those differences for social theory is fundamentally fair and accurate, he overlooks the fact that as clinical theories, they may indeed have more in common than their apparent differences suggest. Their shared attention to the importance of unconscious fantasy and to the mechanisms of transference or the encounter with the Other in clinical work undermines the rigid distinction between them that is necessary for Mintchev’s thesis. By accepting the common view of their differences, Mintchev assumes a weaker version of each and sacrifices the dialectical dimension of psychoanalytic thought that indeed enhances its utility as social analysis.