This chapter revisits debates on the nature of securitization from the perspective of big picture theorizing. Proponents of the sociological approach led by Thierry Balzacq argue that the original Copenhagen school approach to securitization lacks in detail, ignores context and undertheorizes the role and nature of the audience. This chapter shows that this lack of detail was – following Waltz - informed by a deliberate choice for a parsimonious theory that does not offer 1:1 mapping of each case of securitization, but rather one that offers a broad and generic view of securitization simpliciter reminiscent of Buzan’s big picture theorizing. This is not surprising, after all, the Copenhagen school’s securitization theory facilitated the analytical step of capturing theoretically the broadened security landscape to include alongside states a myriad of other actors (as both referent objects and securitizing actors). Nowadays, however, the sociological strand is more popular than the original philosophical strand. This chapter examines not only why this is, but also what is lost if we don’t do securitization theory as big picture theorizing, and finally whether big picture theorizing in securitization studies has a future? It is argued that nothing less than the discipline of IR is at stake.