Bernhard Sulzer Mar 2, 2010:

@Ian Thanks for your input. You have the context and will decide what suits best. I just thought it could go beyond the financial aspect because his personal commitment is also part of it. In other words, the socio-economic freedom is a big part of being able to act as he wants.
This quote does indicate it could be understood both ways: http://books.google.de/books?id=FJ8mUCzxV-kC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA1...

Ventnai (asker) Mar 2, 2010:

Whoops! I just re-read what I wrote. I meant the other way round. I think it doesn't mean interpersonal relationships rather a socio-economic context and that's why I wouldn't use 'social independence'. The author is referring to setting up private initiatives rather than relying on the state to do everything.

Bernhard Sulzer Mar 1, 2010:

@Ian In my opinion, this goes more in the direction of being able to act freely, express ones opinion freely and, among other things, support causes one wants to support. In other words, he is not restricted in his social actions by dependency (in any social/societal sense) on other groups.
It is his commitment to the cause that is exemplary for this social freedom or independence if you will. MI also thought of "to act/acting without social/societal restrictions". Just my thoughts.

Ventnai (asker) Feb 28, 2010:

I don't really doubt that much ... It's just tend to get jumped on here in Proz.com so I try to be tentative ...

Ellen Kraus Feb 28, 2010:

isn´t your reluctance and doubt as to the term´s use in this context a matter the author of the text should be confronted with ?

Ventnai (asker) Feb 28, 2010:

I'm not sure but I think social independence refers to interpersonal relationships and not to a socio-economic context, which is the case here.