Abstract
The ability of critical health psychology to deliver on its implicit promise to link social and biological processes is compromised by: (1) a morally superior stance of being critical of rather than being critical for other disciplines; (2) insufficient pluralism in its concepts and methods; and (3) unwillingness to engage with more ‘distant’ disciplines that are salient to its goals; particularly economics, management and law. The global health movement offers critical health psychology an avenue to develop its project, especially in low-income countries, where a pragmatic approach to the interconnectedness of poor health and inequality is needed.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
