Intelligent gibberish?

Here’s a sample of a part of my readings for one of my classes:

This contention suggests, at least, that space may be the template from which the secrets of reality are to be read… However, Soja, similarly drawing on Lefebvre but also more on Foucault, does not see space as so passive, undialectical. Both Soja and Jameson share a common concern for spatiality, partly because this term is designed to reinstate space at the heart of a dynamic conception of time-space relations. But Soja wants to locate his argument on different terrain from Jameson; while Jameson sees space as a process of distance, Soja would rather treat distance as a dialectic between separation and desire to be close. This leaves the question of the individual’s occupation of subject positions in a different conceptual place. For Jameson, the individual is to be mapped by the spatial specificity of their subject positions, in order to uncover the hidden human geography of power, but Soja’s schema suggests that even this dynamic understanding of the situation is too solid; space is not an innocent backdrop to position, it is itself filled with politics and ideology.
The course is called “Global Media and Local Cultures.” I thought we’d talk about the media in other countries, globalization, etc. I'm still hoping we will. I suppose I shouldn't be drawing any conclusions yet, as the class just started. Sometimes when I read stuff like the above, I wonder if the authors' actually know what they're talking about.