By the time a child is three years old, he can be given a corner of the garden and encouraged to plant seeds in it. When they come up and blossom, his own flowers seem precious and wonderful ; then he can appreciate that his mother's flowers also must be treated with care.
Source: On Education, especially in early childhood, 1926, by Bertrand Russell
More info.: https://russell-j.com/beginner/OE06-030.HTM
* a brief comment:
When reading works written before the Second World War -- or even a hundred years ago -- such as Bertrand Russell's On Education (1926), one must be careful not to misread them through the lens of contemporary sensibilities.
For example, one might wonder why "a child," which itself has no gender distinction, is referred to as "he" (why not "he or she" or simply "person"?), or why, after using "they" (perhaps imagining a plural or mixed-gender case), the text then returns to "he" again.
This kind of usage of pronouns is not merely a matter of grammar or style -- it is also tied to the historical and social context of the English language and to changes in gender consciousness over time.
So I asked ChatGPT about Russell's use of pronouns, and the following points were offered in response. (The reply was long, so I quote only the beginning.)
In 1926, "he" served as a gender-neutral pronoun in general usage
At the time Russell wrote On Education (1926), it was common in English to refer to an unspecified singular person -- such as "a child" or "a person" -- using "he" or "his," regardless of actual gender.
A child should be taught to respect others. He must learn the value of kindness.
This was considered perfectly normal and not seen as discriminatory. "He" was regarded as a grammatically neutral pronoun.
However, "they" was also occasionally used for stylistic reasons
Although "they" is originally a plural pronoun, the use of singular "they" to refer to an unspecified individual has existed since Middle English. For example:
If anyone calls, tell them I'm out.
In such cases, "they" was naturally used to refer to a person whose gender was unknown or irrelevant.
★ In Russell's writing, alternating between "he" and "they" was not considered unnatural
Even if a sentence began with "he," switching to "they" later on was acceptable and reflected the stylistic conventions of the time. It's likely that Russell prioritized readability and conversational naturalness over strict grammatical consistency. // (End of quotation)
