Technological innovations in the field of information and communication have transformed the nature of the spatial realm. The spatial realm has been engaged with the virtual realm, where a new approach has been mandatory for a possible and productive interrelation between the two. On the other hand, new technologies have affected architectural drafting, representation, construction and most significantly architectural design to generate remarkable conveniences and unnoticed interfaces for architects. New technologies offer a common arithmetical medium where a new augmented relationship between sciences and architectural design is enabled. All these transformations prepared the basis for a redefinition and reevaluation of the surrounding realm that is referred to as the context of architectural design. The recurrence of contextualist and de-contextualist debates and attitudes show that context is dealt with as a multi-layered concept in architecture. Within all above mentioned transformations, the issue of contextualism in architecture is reopened up where the definition of context is seen to be in a process of constant renovation, inheriting the complexities new technologies and design methods based on interdisciplinarity have brought. This thesis looks into this transformating status of the concept of context and argues for its productivity in architectural design.

Toxicomanie, anorexie, boulimie, tanorexie, nomophobie, bigorexie. Ces mots disent nos addictions, à la drogue, à l’alimentation, au soleil, au téléphone, au sport. Mais la liste de nos dépendances est plus longue encore : travail, jeu, sexe, amour. Le XXIe siècle a son fléau, la drogue. Selon les acteurs de la politique de santé publique qui sonnent le glas dans le Plan gouvernemental de lutte contre les drogues et les conduites addictives 2013-2017, nous serions tous concernés. Dans ce travail, à l’appui des concepts psychanalytiques, nous proposons d’analyser, pour le déconstruire, le discours qui sous-tend cette politique : celui des addictologues. Nous tenterons d’apporter la preuve par la clinique qu’une autre façon de penser est possible, loin de l’approche objectiviste, normalisante et pathologisante. Notre hypothèse est que ce discours fait une promesse toxique, encourageant ce qu’il dénonce, mais plus encore, qu’il fait de nous tous des drogués. Il entretient la logique addictive du sujet toxicomane et s’étend au-delà des frontières de la toxicomanie. Parvenant à essaimer ses signifiants et à infiltrer sa langue techniciste chez le commun de tous les mortels, il façonne la pensée allant jusqu’à transformer l’amour en une addiction. Le sujet, ainsi suggestionné, s’en remet aux experts addictologues, illusionné par la promesse de guérison d’une maladie qu’il n’a pas. Comment en sommes-nous arrivés là ? Que veut dire être drogué ? L’histoire des drogues et de leurs consommations nous apprend que la toxicomanie est née au XIXe siècle, au temps des avancées de la chimie et de l’avènement du capitalisme. Considérée comme une nouvelle maladie, la dépendance aux drogues fait l’objet de théorisations du côté de la pathologie. Ignorant les théories freudiennes et lacaniennes défendant la notion d’« indépendance », à entendre dans le sens d’un désir qui libère de « la peine de désirer », notre époque contemporaine verra naître de nouvelles théorisations et encouragera l’expansion de la notion de dépendance aux comportements n’impliquant pas la consommation de substances, comme l’amour. Nous verrons que le discours de l’addictologie, avatar du discours capitaliste, pétri d’une idéologie scientiste, doit son succès à la logique sur laquelle il est fondé : une logique de l’ordre du démenti. / Toxicomania, anorexia, bulimia, tanorexia, nomophobia, bigorexia: these words describe our addictions to drugs, food, sun, cell phones and sports. But the list of our dependencies has become even longer and includes work, gaming, sex and love. The twenty-first century has its scourge, and its name is addiction. According to the leaders of public health policy who sound the alarm in the 2013-2017 governmental plan against drugs and addictive behaviors, we are all concerned. In this research, we will rely on psychoanalytical concepts to analyze and deconstruct the discourse of the addictionologists underlying this policy. We will attempt to provide proof through clinical means that another way of thinking is possible, far removed from the approach that objectivizes, normalizes and pathologizes. We will support the hypothesis that this discourse is based on a toxic promise that not only stimulates what it is meant to denounce, but makes addicts of us all. It encourages the logic of addiction with respect to the addicted subject and extends beyond the limits of toxicomania. Having succeeded in spreading its signifiers and infiltrating its technical-sounding jargon among ordinary mortals, this discourse shapes thought to such an extent that even love becomes an addiction. Under this suggestive influence, subjects put themselves in the hands of expert addictionologists, lured by the promise of a cure for an illness they don’t even have. How did we get to this point? What does being an addict really mean? The history of drugs and drug use tells us that toxicomania was born in the nineteenth century, at a time when chemistry and capitalism were both making great strides forward. Considered as a new illness, drug dependency was the subject of theories with a pathological orientation. Unaware of the theories of Freud and Lacan that defend the notion of “independence” – in the sense of a desire that frees from the “suffering of desire” – our contemporary epoch has given rise to new theorizing and encourages the extension of the notion of dependence to behaviors, like love, that do not imply the consumption of substances. We will see that the discourse of addictology, an avatar of the capitalist discourse, shaped using an ideology based on scientism, owes its success to the logic behind it, a logic built on denial.