The authors point is trying to make, I think, is that a particular form of "self reliance"; that espoused by Emerson (and with far less nuance by Rand) doesn't

The authors point is trying to make, I think, is that a particular form of "self reliance"; that espoused by Emerson (and with far less nuance by Rand) doesn't actually exist, and pretending it does is a disservice. Roughly speaking, I think they would say that the only way you could achieve the state you speak of ('having strength unto one's self but giving freely of ...') is through a complicated web of relationships making you anything but self reliant.