The ways in which social scientists conceptualize the "reflexive" human subject have important consequences for how we go about our research. Whether and how we understand human subjects to be the authors of our own actions helps to structure what we say about health, health care, and the many other topics addressed in qualitative health research. In this article, I critically discuss assumptions of human reflexivity that are built into qualitative social science of health and medicine. I describe three alternative ways of understanding reflexive thought and human action derived from the theoretical works of Pierre Bourdieu, Bruno Latour, and George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, respectively. I then apply these three different ways of thinking about reflexivity and the acting subject to the analysis of an excerpt of participant observation data from a health services research study of transitions from hospital to home, illuminating the different kinds of analyses that arise from each perspective. I conclude with a call for social scientists to commit to the search for better ways of understanding the human subject, resisting the temptation to "settle" on theoretical statements that close down the path to more sophisticated conceptualizations of human thought and action.