Foucault states:

"The great obsession of the nineteenth century was, as we know, history: with its themes of development and of suspension, of crisis, and cycle, themes of the ever-accumulating past, with its great preponderance of dead men and the menacing glaciation of the world. The nineteenth century found its essential mythological resources in the second principle of thermodynamics. The present epoch will perhaps be above all the epoch of space. We are in the epoch of simultaneity: we are in the epoch of juxtaposition, the epoch of the near and far, of the side-by-side, of the dispersed. We are at a moment, I believe, when our experience of the world is less that of a long life developing through time than that of a network that connects points and intersects with its own skein." 

So Foucault talks about the cognitive progression of space:

1. Medieval Space - Space as Emplacement

In the medieval era, space was hierarchal, chosen, and divinely ordained. People lived where they did because it was believed to be chosen by God. This perpetuated a hierarchical power system: a royal or pope was ordained by God, while a farmer was also divinely assigned their position. Breaking out of these roles was seen as blasphemous.

2. Galileo - Space as Extension

Galileo's era introduced the idea of space as extension—a thing’s place being where it is now, subject to change. His heliocentric model unsettled the medieval notion of emplacement, replacing it with the concept of infinite, open space. A thing's position became defined by its current spot and its movement. This was deeply offensive to the Church as it challenged the notion of Earth—and humanity—being chosen by God. Religion had to adapt to accommodate this paradigm shift.

3. Contemporary - Space as Site

Today’s understanding of space focuses on its relational properties. Space is defined by its relationships—proximity, interaction, and roles. This view of space reflects a broader understanding of relativity: identity, history, and geography are all studied through their connections to other things. No longer defined by divine path or personal history, space is now understood through roles and relationships.

This shift invites reconsideration of how we understand space. It can encourage architects, planners, and analysts to justify decisions through Foucault’s narrative. However, this perspective is limiting because it often reflects only Eurocentric histories. For example, how did Arabs navigating barren deserts understand space? Their geometry would be celestial, not terrestrial, relying on the sky to map and orient themselves.

This raises the question: can Foucault’s model be applied to non-Western contexts? In barren landscapes like deserts, plains, or seas, navigation depends on larger-scale celestial or meteorological maps. These landscapes demand a different psychology of wayfinding and timetelling, where shifting projections, not linear landmarks, define space.

Time and Space

Foucault also touches on the interplay between time and space:

"Time probably appears to us only as one of the various distributive operations that are possible for the elements that are spread out in space."

This raises another important point: how time and space are understood and represented depends on cultural contexts. Western interpretations often detach the sacred from time and space, reducing them to measurable constructs. However, non-Western traditions often embed sacredness in their understanding, blending time, space, and the divine seamlessly.

Ultimately, applying Foucault’s model universally risks erasing diverse ways of understanding space and time. Landscapes like deserts, oceans, and plains offer alternative psychologies and geometries of orientation that deserve exploration. These perspectives enrich our understanding of humanity’s interaction with the environment, offering lenses that are “strange” yet beautiful in their divergence from Western norms.