This piece begins by outlining a series of anthropological undertakings from the last century that were commonly misconceptualised as being obsessed with the sustained valorisation of binary-oriented thinking (classical structuralism). It is our view that rehabilitating the sensibilities that structuralism endorses might allow us to recognise certain deficiencies with other models of inherited thinking. This piece employs a close examination of extremely popular binaries that are commonly deployed (and frequently cited) in order to better understand ‘populism’ (in the sense intended by Mudde 2015) and in terms of ‘The Clash of Civilisations thesis’ (Huntington 1993). These two ideas are perfect illustrations of the perils inherent to any undertaking that intends to advocate for a better understanding of life as it is lived, but that instead propagate hollow generalisations, the normalisation of competing extremist views, and the complete destruction of the possibility of dialogue.