Since its emergence over a decade ago as a distinct theoretical framework, critical medical anthropology (CMA) has engaged in debate and dialogue with various other perspectives within medical anthropology, particularly clinical anthropology, medical ecology, and, to a lesser degree, postmodernism. While at least two genres of CMA have emerged, both of which are involved in a dialogue with each other, proponents of other perspectives often misread or "misconstruct" the agenda of CMA as both a theoretical framework and a strategy for health activism. This essay in particular critiques this process among proponents of the interpretative or cultural constructivist perspective. On a positive note, however, I urge critical medical anthropologists and cultural constructivists within medical anthropology to enter into a dialogue with each other because their two perspectives, despite the presence of obvious epistemological differences, share commonalities.