I’ve almost gotten the definition I’ve been looking for. Tell me what you think.
tech·no·log·i·cal en·er·va·tion [tek-nuh-loj-i-kuhl i-nur-vi-shuhn]
The process whereby human interaction is negatively affected by technology, creating disconnection, alienation, malaise, and depression, and attempts to create relationships damaged or non-existent due to technology using technology (vicious cycle)
I think I understand the direction but I’m confused by, “and attempts to create relationships damaged or non-existent”.
Is “damaged” in this context a past-tense verb (“he damaged my car”) or is it an adjective (“the hubcap is lying next to that damaged car”)? Are the attempts damaged or are the relationships damaged?
Mind you, I’m not being pedantic here. You’re a much better writer than I am. I’m just not a very good reader sometimes.
As for the gist of the definition if I may paraphrase, I think you’re saying, “Online relationships are no substitute for real-life relationships and, further, communication technology is often a impediment to both kinds of realtionships.” Perhaps it would be clearer to leave alone the sub par quality of online relationships and limit your definition to the deleterious effect technology can have on all relationships. It is, I think you would agree, the relationships that are being enervated — no matter where or how those relationships are formed. Technology is the agent.
Whew…. uh, I do go on sometimes, don’t I? Don’t mind me. I’m a philosophy major. 😉 If I were a business major I’d want to know where is your mission statement.
Allen:
You may have the gist of the definition I want. Kudos to you. I may have to tweak it, but I’m glad you suggested it. It really helps to have someone else read your stuff…sometimes.
-Ian