In what might be called the first phase of its development, critical medical anthropology struggled with issues of self-definition and acceptance within academic medical anthropology. The primary objectives of this phase were to develop a critique of and alternatives to the concepts, theories, scope, alignments, and selfimage of conventional medical anthropology, and to bring these alternative ideas into the usual forums of scholarly exchange. While this first phase is far from over—there is both much to be resolved among those who have found common cause behind the label critical medical anthropology, much to be clarified with colleagues who do not recognize or are undecided about the advantage of a critical approach, and much to be countered in the recent postmodernist suspension of interest in so-called totalizing paradigms, there is a concern with moving beyond the academy, the scholarly conference, and the academic journal, into the applied field of clinics, health education and development projects, federal health research institutes, international health bodies, private voluntary organizations, health movements, and community based agencies. Simply put, we believe the time has come to ask whether there is life beyond the ivory tower for critical medical anthropology. And, if so, what factors and forces will determine its entry, position, and program within the professional health world.