This study is based on the argument that neo-evolutionary sociology, by distancing itself from old deterministic polarizations in the 21st century and adopting a more careful synthesis of biological and sociological data, provides an indispensable methodology for re-examining the dualisms of human-nature and nature-culture. However, a comprehensive theoretical analysis of neo-evolutionary sociology extends beyond the scope of this study and constitutes a distinct research inquiry in its own right. In this context, the relevance of neo-evolutionary sociology is considered exclusively through its intersections with Lévi-Strauss’s inverted anthropological approach, which critiques the Western tendency to evaluate both Western and non-Western societies through the binary opposition of self and other. This approach serves an explanatory function in understanding how neo-evolutionary sociology, which reflects the contemporary reconceptualization of the long-standing relationship between sociology and biology, situates itself within academic discourse. In other words, this study is structured around the objective of substantiating this claim and elucidating the relevant connections in a concrete manner. Throughout the 19th century, Darwin’s theory of evolution, which fundamentally transformed the prevailing definition of humanity, began to exert its influence on sociology as well. It is no coincidence that the founding figures of modern social sciences, particularly in anthropology and sociology, were deeply influenced by evolutionary thought when constructing their theories. However, from the early 20th century onward, this initially welcomed approach gradually acquired negative connotations. Nevertheless, deterministic attempts to explain human nature and society through biological and evolutionary theories continued to be strongly emphasized. A reaction to this perspective was inevitable. Alternative models emerged, seeking to define human beings and the foundations of their social relations primarily through cultural and social determinants. Consequently, within the scientific paradigm of the 20th century, two polarized and equally deterministic camps emerged, each attempting to dismiss the other, thereby obstructing the possibility of a holistic evaluation that incorporates both biological and sociological data. Moreover, the neglect of certain data led to rigid and incomplete assessments, rendering them susceptible to ideological interpretations. From the second half of the 20th century onward, the idea that the relationship between the social sciences and biology could be reconsidered within a non-deterministic framework gained increasing acceptance. This development was further reinforced by the accumulation of new empirical findings in both biology and sociology, which increasingly contradicted the positivist and deterministic scientific paradigms of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century. In other words, the realization that nature does not consist solely of predictable and identifiable regular laws contributed to the maturation of the idea that humans and societies do not operate according to rigid and unchanging principles. In this regard, employing the methodology of neo-evolutionary sociology to examine the dualisms of nature-culture and human-nature, along with integrating Lévi-Strauss’s anthropological and social perspectives, constitutes a functional effort to concretize these contexts. Lévi-Strauss’s sensitivity to paradigm shifts in the second half of the 20th century, his critique of orthodox models in anthropology, and his proposal of a new perspective provide a dynamic framework that can deepen both constructive and critical thought in contemporary discussions on neo-evolutionary sociology. Lévi-Strauss occupies a unique position within the anthropological tradition due to his unconventional perspective on the modern-primitive and nature-culture dualisms produced by Enlightenment and modern scientific thought. He positions himself at the intersection where Western identity, initially constructed through encounters with non-Western civilizations before the 19th century, was reconstructed in the second half of the 20th century using the same methods but in an inverted manner. His primary aim was to question whether the model of the Western individual and society—constructed as progressive, evolutionary, rational, advanced, knowledgeable, and capable of mastering nature—truly corresponded to the semantic patterns associated with these concepts. Thus, one of the fundamental premises of Lévi-Strauss’s thought is that the distinction between modern and primitive, as well as between nature and culture, is itself a product of the Western human and societal model developed from the 19th century onward. This foundational idea was not exclusive to Lévi-Strauss but became increasingly significant within the social sciences in the second half of the 20th century. Until humans learned to coexist with nature rather than struggle against it, they lived within nature. Humans produce culture through their interaction with nature. Over time, when this culture is positioned in opposition to nature and becomes strong enough to shape human existence, it transforms into a second nature. However, since this second nature is human-made, it inherently contains contradictions. Calling it a second nature does not render it truly natural, as the fundamental characteristic of the first and true nature is its indifference to human affairs. Nature’s indifference to humans is its defining quality, as it liberates human existence from the limitations of artificial structures. Culture, on the other hand, is directly tied to how humans construct reality. It changes dynamically as humans attribute new meanings to it and has no independent agency beyond human influence. Because culture is an artificial nature dependent on human agency, it is perpetually embedded in ideologies, conflicts, and competition. Consequently, the idea that human nature is inherently based on competition and conflict remains functional within naturalist and orthodox evolutionary thought. Lévi-Strauss, as an anthropologist who directly engages with the observer-observed distinction, offers a methodology applicable to all sociological concepts. In particular, his approach provides a useful perspective for the contemporary trend of re-evaluating sociology and biology together within the framework of neo-evolutionary sociology. Unlike past positivist approaches that adhered to evolutionary and universal laws, this contemporary trend represents a more complex and reflexive convergence of sociology and biology, raising the question of whether this intersection symbolizes a new epistemological shift. Thus, reconsidering Lévi-Strauss within this current context allows us to interpret him as a methodological guide in the synthesis of sociology and biology. Lévi-Strauss fundamentally opposed the evolutionary and social Darwinist perspectives that dominated the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century. In this respect, he aligns with the reversal efforts undertaken by neo-evolutionary sociology in the 21st century. While 19th century evolutionary thought was often infused with universal, ideological assumptions, neo-evolutionary sociology seeks to establish itself as a new and productive interdisciplinary branch. Given that this approach aims to escape the determinisms of both evolutionary and social constructionist perspectives, reconsidering Lévi-Strauss within this framework becomes particularly meaningful. The paradigm of evaluating human societies through the lens of development and progress within the framework of modernization has become so dominant that it continues to exert influence even in the 21st century. Similarly, past understandings of biological and sociological evolution legitimized hierarchies between modernized societies and so-called primitive communities by grounding them in the supposedly objective knowledge of modern natural sciences. Neo-evolutionary sociology emerged precisely as a critical response to such ideological and deterministic perspectives, aiming to offer a more holistic synthesis. In this regard, the fundamental concerns and objectives of both perspectives are similar: while Lévi-Strauss critiques the deterministic and ideological narrative of modernization and modernity based on the nature-culture dualism, neo-evolutionary sociology questions the hierarchical structures imposed on societies through a rigid and reductionist link between biology and sociology. Recognizing the significance of these discussions is crucial for the theoretical development of sociology. Rather than avoiding such syntheses due to past deterministic concerns, it is necessary to engage with these issues more closely.