The Social Contract Theory Philosophy Essay

The Social Contract Theory Philosophy Essay The term social contract describes a broad class of philosophical theories whose subject is the implied agreements by which people form nations and maintain a social order. In laymens terms, this means that the people give up some of their rights to a government in order to receive protection and social order. Social contract theory provides the rationale behind the historically important notion that legitimate state authority must be derived from the consent of the governed. The starting point for most of these theories is a heuristic examination of the human condition absent any social order, termed the state of nature or natural state. In this state of being, an individuals action is bound only by his or her conscience. From this common starting point, the various features of social contract theory attempt to explain, in different ways, why it is in an individuals rational self-interest to voluntarily give up the freedom of action one has under the natural state (their so called n atural rights) in order to obtain the benefits provided by the formation of social structures. Common to all of these theories is the notion of a sovereign will, which all members of a society are bound by the social contract to respect. The various types of social contract theory that have developed are largely differentiated by their definition of the sovereign will, be it a King (monarchy), a Council (oligarchy) or The Majority (republic or democracy). Under a theory first articulated by Plato, members within a society implicitly agree to the terms of the social contract by their choice to stay within the society and receive protection. Thus implicit in most forms of social contract is that freedom of movement is a fundamental or natural right which society may not legitimately require an individual to surrender to the sovereign will. The social contract theory has some basic features where it says- firstly. State is an artificial institution signifying that it is a means to an end, secondly, it is created by human beings with the help of a contract, thirdly, the contract must be based on the consent of one and all, and lastly that prior to formation of state me lived in a hypothetical situation known as state of nature. Thomas Hobbes (1651), John Locke (1689), and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762) are the most famous philosophers of the social contract theory, which formed the theoretical groundwork of democracy. Although the theory of natural rights influenced the development of classical liberalism, its emphasis on individualism and its rejection of the necessity to subordinate individual liberty to the sovereign will stands in opposition to the general tenets of social contract theory. According to Hobbes theory, without society, we would live in a state of nature (a hypothetical situation since it cannot be supported by historical data), where we each have unlimited natural freedoms. The downside of this general autonomy is that it includes the right to all things and thus the freedom to harm all who threaten ones own self-preservation; there are no positive rights, only laws of nature and an endless war of all against all. In other words, anyone in the state of nature can do anything he likes; but this also means that anyone can do anything he likes to anyone else. The state of nature according to Hobbes is presocial and pre political in nature and there is no scope for development to take place. To avoid this, we jointly agree to a social contract by which we each gain civil rights in return for subjecting ourselves to civil law or to political authority. In Hobbes formulation, the sovereign power is not a party of the contract but instead the sovereign is its c reation, and so is not bound by it. The command of the sovereign is law and the contract is irrevocable. Alternatively, some have argued that we gain civil rights in return for accepting the obligation to respect and defend the rights of others, giving up some freedoms to do so; this alternative formulation of the duty arising from the social contract is often identified with militia, or defense activity. State of nature is a term in political philosophy used in the social contract theories to describe the hypothetical condition of humanity before the states foundation and its monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. In a broader sense, a state of nature is the condition before the rule of positive law and order comes into being. In some versions of social contract theory, there are no rights in the state of nature, only freedoms, and it is the contract that creates rights and obligations. In other versions the opposite occurs: the contract imposes restrictions upon individuals that curtail their natural rights. Hobbess philosophy English philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his famous work Leviathan first posited the concept of a state of nature in the 17th century. Hobbes described the concept in the Latin phrase bellum omnium contra omnes, meaning the war of all against all. In this state, any person has a natural right to do anything to preserve his or her own liberty or safety. Hobbes believed that human beings in a state of nature would behave with cruelty towards one another. Yet Hobbes argued that people had every right to defend themselves by whatever means necessary in the absence of order. He believed that such a condition would lead to a war of every man against every man and make life solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. He believed that in the international arena, states behave as individuals do in a state of nature. Rousseaus theory Hobbess view was challenged in the 18th century by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who claimed that Hobbes was taking socialized persons and simply imagining them living outside of the society in which they were raised. He affirmed instead that people were born pure and good; men knew neither vice nor virtue since they had almost no dealings with each other. Their bad habits were the products of civilization specifically social hierarchies, property, and markets Natural rights are those universal rights that are seen as inherent in the nature of people and not contingent on human actions or beliefs. One theory of natural rights was developed from the theory of natural law during the Enlightenment in opposition to the divine right of kings, and provided a moral justification for liberalism. The concept of natural rights can be contrasted with the concept of legal rights: A natural right is one that is claimed to exist even when the government or society as a whole does not enforce it, whereas a legal right is a right specifically created by the government or society, for the benefit of its citizens. Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher who influenced nearly all-western political philosophy. He is best known for his contribution to the social contract theory of origin of state. Hobbes was greatly influenced in his ideas by the English civil war that broke out in 1642. This led Hobbes to produce a book to set forth his theory of civil government in relation to the political crisis resulting from the war. It was based on an unpublished treatise of 1640. The State, it now seemed to Hobbes, might be regarded as a great artificial man or monster, composed of men, with a life that might be traced from its generation under pressure of human needs to its dissolution through civil strife proceeding from human passions. The work was closed with a general Review and Conclusion; in direct response to the war, which raised the question of the subjects right to change allegiance when a former sovereigns power to protect was irrecoverably gone. In addition, he criticized religious doctrines on rationalistic grounds in the Commonwealth. Hobbess Leviathan had immediate effects because of its secular nature and he had to appeal to the revolutionary English government for protection, which explains his fondness for monarchy and gratitude for royal patronage. Leviathan was written during the English Civil War; much of the book is occupied with demonstrating the necessity of a strong central authority to avoid the evil of discord and civil war. Any abuses of power by this authority are to be accepted as the price of peace. In particular, the doctrine of separation of powers is rejected: the sovereign must control civil, military, judicial, and ecclesiastical powers. Hobbes explicitly states that the sovereign has authority to assert power over matters of faith and doctrine, and that if he does not do so, he invites discord. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a Genevan philosopher whose political ideas influenced the French Revolution, the development of socialist theory, and the growth of nationalism. Rousseau had lived a poor life full of hardship and travelled all over observing the inequalities among the rich and poor and the different lifestyles. This led him to write a famous book of his known as Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality among Men. Rousseau saw a fundamental divide between society and human nature. He contended that man was neither inherently good nor bad when in the state of nature (the state of all other animals, and the condition humankind was in before the creation of civilization and society), but is corrupted by society. This idea has often led to the attribution to Rousseau the idea of the noble savage. He held that humans are good because they are self-sufficient and thus not subject to the vices of political society. He viewed society as artificial and held that the development of society, especially the growth of social interdependence, has been inimical to the well-being of human beings. He claims that as humans were forced to associate together more closely by the pressure of population growth, they underwent a psychological transformation and came to value the good opinion of others as an essential component of their own well-being. Rousseau associated this new self-awareness with a golden age of human flourishing. However, the development of agriculture, metallurgy, private property, and the division of labor led to humans becoming increasingly dependent on one another, and led to inequality. The resulting state of conflict led Rousseau to suggest that the first state was invented as a kind of social contract made at the suggestion of the rich and powerful. This original contract was deeply flawed as the wealthiest and most powerful members of society tricked the general population, and thus instituted inequality as a fundamental feature of human society. Rousseaus own conception of the social contract can be understood as an alternative to this form of associatio n. In his famous work The Social Contract, he begins by saying, Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. One man thinks himself the master of others, but remains more of a slave than they are. Rousseau claimed that the state of nature was a primitive condition without law or morality, which human beings left for the benefits and necessity of cooperation. As society developed, division of labor and private property required the human race to adopt institutions of law. In the degenerate phase of society, man is prone to be in frequent competition with his fellow men while at the same time becoming increasingly dependent on them. This double pressure threatens both his survival and his freedom. According to Rousseau, by joining through the social contract and abandoning their claims of natural right, individuals can both preserve themselves and remain free. This is because submission to the authority of the general will of the people as a whole guarantees individuals against being subordinated to the wills of others and ensures that they obey themselves because they are, collectively, the authors of the law. While Rousseau argues that sovereignty should be in the hands of the people, he also makes a sharp distinction between sovereign and government. The government is charged with implementing and enforcing the general will and is composed of a smaller group of citizens, known as magistrates. Rousseaus ideas were influential at the time of the French Revolution although, since popular sovereignty was exercised through representatives rather than directly, it cannot be said that the Revolution was in any sense an implementation of Rousseaus ideas. In Thomas Hobbes book Leviathan- Parts One and Two, he presents a commonwealth ruled by a sovereign leader that is based on the laws of nature and the kingdom of God. At the root of the commonwealth is a social contract, which is a covenant binding the individuals of the society to wills and judgments of the sovereign leader. The contract explores the asociality of the human species and self- preservation, which is fundamental to the human drive. Influenced by Hobbes social contract, Jean Jacques Rousseau published On the Social Contract presenting his theory of the social contract that both expanded and differed from Hobbes principles. Rousseaus social contract presented the governing factor to be the general will. Although Hobbes and Rousseau have differing Social Contracts they each are represented by the phrase, A kingdom divided cannot stand; for, the former is a reference to a monarchy and the latter is a reference to the general will. In Hobbes Leviathan, he presents the asociality of human nature. Because, he notes, human kind is equal in both the body and the mind, men are in a constant state of war with one another. For, from equality arises the desire to attain our goals, which leads to competition between men who are seeking the same end. Thus, out of equality develops diffidence and war. In this state of war men, live without any common power and thus, every man is enemy to every man. Their only security is their strength compounded with the strength of their associates. Because man has no common strength or power, there are no governing laws; hence, there are no injustices. Accordingly, there is no place in the state of war for rights and wrongs. Hobbes notes, Force and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues, both of these virtues are unjust. He concludes that the only motivation man has to seek peace is the fear of the consequences of war. The motivation of fear does not connote social tendencies of the human specie to aid one another; instead, it clearly notes humankinds selfish disregard of each other. In addition to humankinds tendency towards asociality, Hobbes presents people as being inclined towards self-preservation above all other concerns. The theme of self-preservation is presented in what Hobbes calls the right of nature. He explains this fundamental concept to be, the liberty each man has to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature- that is to say, of his own life, meaning that any man can go to whatever lengths necessary in order to preserve his own life. Furthermore, an additional law of nature notes that, as a rule, a man is prohibited from behaving in a manner that is destructive to his life. Hobbes also supports what the Christian bible has entitled the golden rule, or the declaration that one should behave, as he or she would wish to be treated. This is a law of self-preservation, which, if ardently followed, would greatly increase peace. Yet, the golden rule is not often followed in the state of war; for, one is disinterested i n any other mans desires besides his own. Thus according to Hobbes, in a state of war man is allowed to behave in any manner he wishes; however, his primary interest and natural guide are the rules of self-preservation. Both humankinds nature of asociality and tendency towards self-preservation are incorporated into Thomas Hobbes social contract. His social contract presents a commonwealth in which there is one sovereign leader, to which all of his subjects have pledged a covenant to surrender their judgments to those wills and judgments of the sovereign. The covenant between the subjects and the sovereign entails very specific rules of conduct. First, the subjects are bound to maintain the same form of the government. They cannot lawfully make a new covenant among themselves; nor, can they break their covenant to the sovereign in any form. For, if one man dissents all of the other subjects should leave the commonwealth and return to a state of war, but this is a great injustice. In addition, they cannot try to replace their covenant to the sovereign with a covenant to God, for a covenant with God must be a lie, unless God, himself, contacted a subject, which, one must admit, is highly unlikely. Sec ond, a sovereign cannot break the covenant with his subjects. Thus, none of his subjects can be freed from his discretion and will. Third, the subject is never endowed with the power to punish the sovereign. Fourth, the roll of the sovereign is to perform whatever is necessary in order to maintain a state of peace and to defend for all of his subjects. In addition, the sovereign determines what doctrines are appropriate to teach his subjects. Fifth, the sovereign is endowed with the right to create governing rules. According to such rules, subjects must lead his life. Furthermore, he has the right to declare peace or war. Lastly, he develops a hierarchy within the subjects, pending on their level of honor. Thus, the sovereign has ultimate control. Hobbes believed that the sovereign ruler must be endowed with utter control; for he believed, a kingdom divided in itself cannot stand. He recognized that often the dissolution of a commonwealth occurs due to the division of the sovereign power. For instance, if two states join, yet each maintains their previous rulers, the subjects will never have a definitive ruler or social code. Dissolution of the commonwealth is also spurred by abuse of power, monopolies, conquering of a state during wartime, and private judgments of good and evil. Although it is always an injustice if a subject questions the rulings of the sovereign, Hobbes occasionally acknowledges that it is necessary. Thus, the premise of Hobbes social contract lies in a single leader with entirely obedient subjects. It is clear that Hobbes Leviathan influenced the social contract put forth by Jean-Jacques Rousseau entitled On the Social Contract. At the onset of his book, Rousseau presents the fundamental problem for which he has developed his social contract: Find a form of association which defends and protects with all common forces the person and goods of each associate, and by means of which each one, while uniting with all, nevertheless obeys only himself and remains as free as before. Rousseau presents the predicament of an association, which protects each associate, while heeding the common good, yet still obeys each associates judgment and will. To this, he proposes a social contract, which is composed of clauses defined by the nature of the act. These clauses are generally accepted and thus sprout from ones reasoning. A violation of this social contract leads to each person regaining their liberty established prior to that association, but losing the liberty the association provided. Rousseau further simplifies his social contract by explaining that these clauses are reducible to one clause. This simplified clause states that the man who breeches the contract from each associate in the community, shall incur alienation from all associates. Rousseau finally condenses his social contract into one statement: Each of us places his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will; and as one we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole. Rousseau is concluding that each man places his power under the control of the general will or the balance of the sum of private wills with the sum of general interests. The largest difference between Rousseaus social contract and Hobbes is the state of nature. For, as previously stated, Hobbes state of nature between men was that of war and diffidence. Additionally, Hobbes believes that social order is a state of nature. Yet, Rousseau diverts from Hobbes on this matter. At the onset of his book, Rousseau notes that although the social order is sacred it is not a natural order. In addition, Rousseau explains that the state of war cannot exist solely between individuals, but a private war is one between two states. In such a case, individuals are enemies only due to the nature of war, not due to the nature of mankind. This gap is the primary reason that Rousseau and Hobbes social contracts differ. For, Hobbes social contract is pendent on the natural, perpetual state of war between men. Because of such a state, Hobbes feels that it is necessary to implement the strongest form of government, Monarchy. Accordingly, because Rousseau does not believe in t his natural state of war, he finds the people more capable of reasoning the publics best interest. Thus, he relies on the general will of all to determine the actions of the governing body. Despite this difference, Rousseaus social contract is very similar to that of Hobbes. They each are rooted in the principle of a divided kingdom cannot stand. It is clear that Hobbes social contract upholds said principle for it is based on the premise of the one sovereign leader. Additionally, Rousseaus social contract unifies the kingdom differently. For, according to Rousseau, the unity of the citizens lies in their general will. Thus, the government will act in a manner favorable to the general will and accordingly, the public is united. Hobbes Leviathan: Parts 1 and 2, presents a moral code of conduct established through prudence and science. His proposed commonwealth attempts to protect men from one another by unifying a group of subjects under one sovereign leader. His theory, however, does not account for potential lunatic dictators who incur mass genocide on their people or develop a state of divided classes, with an extremely impoverished lower class and an unnecessarily wealthy upper class, or overall misuse of their ultimate control. Yet, Rousseaus social contract has its negative points too. As Rousseau admits, the public does not have the intellectual capability to rationalize the general good. Individuals may maintain the best intentions of determining the general will, yet each response will be skewed. Thus one needs to take into account only their intentions; yet, it is impossible to accordingly determine the general will. Hence, neither Hobbes nor Rousseaus social contract is perfect.

Superstition in Huck Finn Essay examples -- essays research papers

Superstitious Times Some say that superstition is an impractical way of looking at life but the characters in Mark Twain’s, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn beg to differ. Examples of superstition are abundant throughout the novel. Allowing characters in a novel to have superstitions makes their lives more realistic and the reading more enjoyable. Huck and Jim’s superstitions cause them grief, help them get through, and sometimes get them into trouble in their lengthy runaway journey. Although both of these characters tend to be quite rational, they quickly become irrational when anything remotely superstitious happens to them. Superstition plays a dual role: it shows that Huck and Jim are child-like in spite of their otherwise extremely mature characters. Second, it serves to foreshadow the plot at several key junctions. For example, spilling salt leads to Pa returning for Huck, and later Jim gets bitten by a rattlesnake after Huck touches a snakeskin with his hands. Superstitions let t he reader feel more connected with the characters in the novel and give the characters more of a human persona that makes the novel incredibly pleasurable. â€Å"Critics argue that superstition is not based on reason, but instead springs from religious feelings that are misdirected or unenlightened, which leads in some cases to rigor in religious opinions or practice, and in other cases to belief in extraordinary events or in charms, omens, and prognostications. Many superstitions can be prompted by misunderstandings of causality or statistics† (Haun). Superstitions take the place of reason, where no other explanation is possible. The explanation that is ultimately accepted is one that’s based on one’s own experiences and travels. In the first chapter, Huck sees a spider crawling up his shoulder, so he flicks it off into the flame of a candle. Before he could get it out, it was already shriveled up. Huck needed no one to tell him that it was a bad sign and would give him bad luck. This whole event scared Huck so he shook his clothes off, and turned in his tracks three times. He then tied a lock of his hair with a thread to keep the witches away. "You do that when you've lost a horseshoe that you've found, instead of nailing it up over the door, but I hadn't ever heard anybody say it was any way to keep of bad luck when you'd killed a spider"(5). This was all too much... ...de up my mind I wouldn’t ever take a-holt of a snake-skin again with my hands, now that I see what had come of it†(52). Eating the head of a poisonous snake to help cure you seems ridiculous because the snakes head is where the venom is, but a superstition is a superstition. Huck would never let Jim know that he had set the snake on Jim’s bed in the first place out of the growing respect Huck had for Jim. As the examples above have shown the characters in this novel rely on superstition to help them understand the world around them which would otherwise be inexplicable. Without these beliefs the characters would be lost in thought of the unknown and would be less able to function in the world. The superstitions that get them through life are not accepted by the established society and are consistent with their status as rebels. The absurdity of their belief system not only makes the characters more human, but also makes them more likeable and funny. In other words the superstition that plays throughout the novel serves multiple functions. It helps the characters negotiate their lives and allows the reader to thoroughly enjoy their adventures and relate to them in a realistic way.

Importance of Verbal vs. Non Verbal in Cross Cultural Communication

Is verbal communication more important or non-verbal in cross-cultural communication? This debate has ignited the scholars all over the globe. Many theories and studies have been conductive to find their relative importance. Words are used to express whatever one wants to say but they can have different meaning and connotation across various languages, countries and cultures and therefore can be misleading. On the other hand body movements, expressions and gestures have generally the same connotations across cultures but can also contrasting meanings.This paper will attempt to prove it through scholarly articles, authentic research and examples. In order to understand the topic and elaborate on the essay, first some key words shall be defined: Culture is defined as everything which is socially learned and shared by the members of a society. Everything in this definition includes a vast range of topics such as knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, values, ideas and many other c apabilities (Horton & Hunt, 2004).According to Lustig and Koester (1993), communication is defined as ‘symbolic, interpretive, transactional, contextual process in which people create shared meanings’. Therefore cross cultural communication or inter culture communication refers to sharing of ideas, values etc. amongst people from various cultures. This means that people from different cultures seek to understand what others communicate and what their messages signify (Reisinger, 2009). On the other hand, intra-cultural communication refers to sharing and understanding of messages of people within a culture.Verbal communication is the use of spoken words to convey a message whereas non-verbal communication as the movement and use of the body parts to express a message. Verbal Communication leads to misunderstanding and misinterpretation: Verbal communication generally leads to misunderstanding and misinterpretation. Mostly every culture has a different language, dialect, accent and jargon. Therefore, cultures differing in language will tend to make different sounds while speaking and sequencing of words will also vary (Reisinger, 2009).For example, Australians pronounce the word ‘chips’ as chip i. e. exactly how it is spelt (from an Australian perspective) , however in comparison , natives of New Zealand pronounce chips as heard by an Australian as ‘chaps’. The word ‘chaps’ has a different meaning to an Australian, compared to a New Zealander and thus will lead to inappropriate communication. Also one idea or product may be described by different words across different cultures. For example what Britishers call chips, the Americans call French fries (Reisinger, 2009).Employing translation experts in international communication is a common practice but there are many words that when translated to another language loses their real meaning (Browaeys, 2008). For example the sentence ‘My name is Lars, I live on the second floor’ when translated to German is ‘Mein Name ist, ich leben im zweiten Stock Lars’ which when translated back to English is ‘My name is, I lives in the second stick Lars’. This shows that due to translation many words can lost their meaning and communication would not be effective.Also sometimes people can easily translate one language from the other but they do not understand the true meaning of the word used. For example, Japanese seldom use the word ‘no’ in their conversations but use ‘yes’ (hai) a lot in their conversations. Here using of ‘yes’ means that they’ve heard what has been said rather than agreeing with what has been said (Knotts & Hartman, 1991). The same words can also have different meanings in different cultures (Reisinger 2009). For example, an American electronics firm marketed a photocopy machine in Chile with the name ‘Roto’.It was learned afterwards that ‘Roto’ means broken in Spanish (Ferraro 2010). Literature is filled with examples of global organizations with international communication blunders. The example discussed above highlights that translator knew the language but then even unintended messages were communicated to the local people. The grammatical and translation rules were followed but then even blunders were made. According to Ferraro (2010), in order to effectively communicate in international environment, there is no solution other than to learn the language.Complexities of Non-Verbal Communication: According to a study, only seven percent of communicated meaning is from verbal communication, the rest is from non verbal communication. This factor highlights the importance of using non-verbal cues in successful communication (Shick, 2000). Many facial expressions such as anger, fear, happiness etc. are universal. Therefore many people believe that non-verbal cues are excellent source of communicating int ernationally. The facial expressions must be same but the cause of these expressions may vary from culture to culture.Also many gestures and body movements have different meanings across different cultures (chapter 14). For example, in France firm handshakes are considered to be impolite whereas in Brazil handshakes are firm and exuberant. In order to give emphasis, Italians and Israelis use hand gestures a lot whereas Chinese do not use gestures at all (Shick, 2000). Silence is also a form of non verbal communication (Shick, 2000). In some cultures using verbal communication is more important than using non-verbal communication. Western cultures use direct words and explicit meaning that show true intentions and desires.While in East Asian countries such as Japan, Korea and China, an indirect style of verbal communication is used and they instead resort to non-verbal signal. Asians emphasize silence over words whereas Americans believe words are very important. Western cultures pla ces due emphasis on choosing words appropriately whereas in eastern culture people believe that silence is a form of communication. They communicate by saying as less as possible and at times nothing as well. The meaning is in silence or saying as little as possible (Reisinger 2009).Culture variations exist regarding ‘touching’ in personal interaction. In Middle East and Latin America people prefer high physical contact while people in Northern Europe and America prefer low physical contact. Culture also differs as to where people can be touched. For example in China and many western countries, shaking hands among opposite gender is a norm whereas in Muslim countries it is not (Reisinger, 2009). Therefore in inter cultural communication it is important to understand the meaning of each gesture before using it. The same gesture can have very contrasting meanings across cultures.For example, pulling one’s eyelid with forefinger in France means, ‘I don’ t believe you’ whereas in Italy it means ‘I’m keeping an eye on you’. Conclusion: Verbal and non verbal both have their pros and cons. The positives of one can translate into the negatives of the other. Therefore, excellence in both verbal and non verbal communication is required foe effective cross cultural communication. In this era of globalization, no business can sacrifice on inappropriate communication. Even if one universal language is used throughout cultures then even dialects and accents would vary which will lead to misinterpretation.

All About the British Princess Who Defied Her Father

Known for: her second marriage in which Joan rebelled against protocol and expectations; supposed miracles at her grave Occupation: British princess; countess of Hertford and Gloucester Dates: April 1272 - April 23, 1307 Also known as: Joanna Background and Family Mother: Eleanor of Castile, Countess of Ponthieu in her own rightFather: Edward I of England (ruled 1272-1307)Siblings: sixteen full siblings (of whom five survived to adulthood), at least three half-siblingsJoan was descended on both sides from King John of England; on her mothers side, through Johns daughter Eleanor of England.Husband: Gilbert de Clare, 7th Earl of Gloucester, 5th Earl of Hertford (married April 30, 1290, died 1295)children: Gilbert de Clare, Eleanor de Clare, Margaret de Clare, Elizabeth de ClareHusband: Sir Ralph de Monthermer (married 1297)children: Mary de Monthermer, Joan de Monthermer, Thomas de Monthermer, Edward de Monthermer Birth and Early Life Joan was born the seventh of her parents fourteen children, but only one older sister (Eleanor) was still alive at the time of Joans birth. Four of her younger siblings and one younger half-sibling also died in infancy or childhood. Her younger brother, Edward, born 12 years after Joan, became king as Edward II. Joan of Acre was called by that name because she was born while her parents were in Acre at the end of the Ninth Crusade, during the year before Edward returned to England to be crowned as Edward I on his fathers death. A sister, Juliana, had been born and died the year before at Acre. After Joans birth, her parents left the child for a time in France with Eleanors mother, Joan of Dammartin, who was the Countess of Pointhieu and widow of Ferdinand III of Castile. The little girls grandmother and a local bishop were responsible during those four years for her upbringing. First Marriage Joans father Edward began to consider marriage possibilities for his daughter while she was still very young, as was common for royal families. He settled on the son of Germanys King Rudolph I, a boy named Hartman. Joan was five years old when her father called her home so that she could meet her future husband. But Hartman died before he could come to England or marry Joan. Conflicting reports at the time had him dying in a skating accident or drowning in a boat accident. Edward finally arranged for Joan to marry a British nobleman, Gilbert de Clare, who was the Earl of Gloucester. Joan was twelve and Edward in his early 40s when the arrangements were made. Gilberts previous marriage ended in 1285, and it took another four years to get dispensation from the Pope for Gilbert and Joan to marry. They were married in 1290. Edward struck a hard bargain and got de Clare to agree to a large dower for Joan, with his lands held jointly with Joan during their marriage. Joan gave birth to four children before Gilbert died in 1295. Second Marriage Still a young woman, and one controlling quite a lot of valuable property, Joans future was being planned by her father again, as he sought out a suitable husband. Edward decided on the Count of Savoy, Amadeus V. But Joan was already secretly married by then, and likely quite fearful of her fathers reaction. She had fallen in love with one of her first husbands squires, Ralph de Monthermer, and had urged her father to knight him. A member of the royal family marrying someone of such a level was simply unacceptable. First Edward found out about the relationship itself, not knowing it had already progressed to marriage. Edward took possession of Joans lands that she had as dower from her first marriage. Finally, Joan told her father that she was already married. His reaction: to imprison Sir Ralph. By this time, Joan was noticeably pregnant. She wrote her father a letter which contained words that have come down to us as an early statement protesting the double standard: It is not considered ignominious, nor disgraceful for a great earl to take a poor and mean woman to wife; neither, on the other hand, is it worthy of blame, or too difficult a thing for a countess to promote to honor a gallant youth. Edward gave in to his daughter, releasing her husband in August of 1297. He was given her first husbands titles -- though at his death they went to a son of her first husband, not one of Ralphs sons. And while Edward I accepted the marriage and Monthermer became part of the kings circle, Edwards relationship with Joan was cooler than it was towards her siblings. Joan was also close to her brother, Edward II, though she died earlier in the year he became king, and so was not around through his more scandalous escapades. She did support him through an earlier episode when Edward I took away his royal seal. Death History does not record Joans cause of death. It may have been related to childbirth. With Joan and then Edward I dead, Edward II took the title Earl of Gloucester from her second husband and gave it to her son by her first husband. While we dont know her cause of death, we do know that after her death, she was laid to rest at a priory in Clare, established by her first husbands ancestors and to which she had been a benefactor. In the 15th century, a writer reported that her daughter, Elizabeth de Burgh, had her mother disinterred and inspected the body, found to be intact, a condition connected with sainthood. Other writers reported miracles at her burial site. Â  She was never beatified or canonized.