The Role and Structure of Theory in Big Picture Historical Theorizing

This chapter examines the role and nature of theory in big picture analysis. It argues that while Buzan-style big picture analysis necessarily engages a specific perspective, it does not tell us anything about the nature of the theory used. That is, what concepts does it consist of? How are they organized? And what kind of inner mechanisms make it tick? This chapter demonstrates that Buzan-style big picture analysis is enabled by a theory quite distinct from other standard types of theorizing in International Relations. Uniquely, Buzan understands theory as a network of concepts, hierarchically organized, that allows a mapping of issues and thus corresponding to the mindmapping© technique. As such, theory does not have a lasting form, but shifts in accordance with empirics. In Buzan’s case, most of the key concepts come from the English School (within International Relations), mixed up with standard terminology from macro-history and historical sociology. Beyond that, I argue, that Buzan – like many in IR – has evolved through an engagement with Waltzian neorealism. I examine to what extent traces of Waltz remain in Buzan’s approach and go on to suggest that there is space within Buzan’s framework for developing theories in the Waltzian sense as pictures mentally formed, sporting a constant form holding across space and time.