I found this interesting article about Tokenism, and the description matches HHDL's way of unifying all the traditions together. This is also the same practice that is being done and adopted by people who claims that the only way to be nonsectarian is to practice all traditions and not mastering one. It is also the same thing when HHDL recognized the Karmapa, and accepting Bon and Jonang as Buddhist traditions when they did not previously, and last but not least, the acceptance and tolerance of Nechung in the CTA. Tokenism is the practice of including a marginalized race to appear non racist, but it is actually subtly a form of racism.
Tokenism is the policy or practice of making a perfunctory gesture toward the inclusion of members of minority groups.[1][2][3] This token effort is usually intended to create a false appearance of inclusiveness and deflect accusations of discrimination.[3] Typical examples include purposely hiring a black person in a mainly white group or a woman in a traditionally male occupation. Classically, token characters have some reduced capacity compared to the other characters and may have bland or inoffensive personalities so as to not be accused of stereotyping negative traits. Alternatively, their differences may be overemphasized or made "exotic" and glamorous.
Tokenism in the workplace
In tokenism theory, first articulated by Rosabeth Moss Kanter in 1977, a token is a person who is part of a skewed or minority group, making up less than 15% of the total workplace population.[4] She notes that the minority status of these tokens leads to several issues in the workplace.[4] Tokens are subject to higher scrutiny from coworkers and superiors, and often have stereotypes attributed to them by the dominant group.[4] Tokens also find their individuality compromised as they are viewed as representatives of their group.[4] Kanter breaks these problems down into three terms: heightened visibility, assimilation, and exclusion.[4]
Due to their numerical rarity and the resulting heightened visibility in the workplace, tokens often deal with above average amounts of pressure on their performance and behavior.[4] According to Kanter, tokens are even more visible if (1) the token's social category is physically obvious, as in the case of sex, and (2) the token's social type is not only rare but also new to the setting of the majority group.[5] The increased visibility serves to make mistakes more salient.[4] Those with weaker performances are more heavily reprimanded, and as these minorities are often thought of as representatives of an entire group, rather than individuals, their perceived failures are often attributed to that group.[4]
Due to the small size of the token group, uniqueness from one another is not typically observed by members of the dominant group, who will often apply stereotypical roles to tokens.[4] Though these roles are often misinformed and exaggerated, tokens will often conform to them, as it gives them an identity easily accessible to others.[4]
Perceived differences between the majority group and token group often become magnified as a means of excluding tokens.[4] For example, in a group in which men are the majority, their behavior often becomes much more sexual and aggressive in nature.[4] However, while in a more equally mixed group, interactions come to a medium of shared interests.[4] As a result of this practice, minorities assert themselves as the exception to the rule; women may join in with misogynistic behaviors, and a person from a particular ethnic background and cultural upbringing may mask certain aspects of their character to intentionally conform to the majority.[4] A member of the token group who does not do this may instead conform more closely to stereotypes applied to them, and allow themselves to become a humorous "punching bag", becoming the butt of jokes based on their differences from the majority.[4]
Race
Research comparing the effects of tokenism on individuals based on both gender and race found tokenism can act as an accurate predictor of conditions in the workplace for members of racial minorities.[9] It is common in many professions dominated by white people that racial minorities report high levels of performance pressures.[9]
Kanter's ideas of heightened visibility, assimilation, and exclusion are very applicable to the experiences of racial minorities in the workplace.[4] Many reported problems experienced by non-white people in the workplace involved issues related to the salience of their color. In a study taken measuring stress levels and performance pressures of black American workers in high ranking occupations, people typically reported higher levels of psychological distress when in a work setting that was predominantly white.[9] In settings where there were more equal numbers of black people and white people, there were fewer reports of issues that involved problems directly related to an individual’s identity as a black person.[9] In these situations, black workers felt less as though they were defined by their color, and felt as if there was less of a necessity to prove themselves to others.[9]
In academia, racial minorities also experience heightened performance pressures related to both their race and gender. However, many reported that issues related to the salience of their race were more common than those associated with their gender.[10] In addition, despite credentials, many felt that they were both isolated from their coworkers, and that they were not receiving the respect that they deserved.[10] This caused greater performance pressures in that they felt as though they needed to prove themselves in order to gain respect from fellow faculty members and from students.[10]
It is common for racial minorities in white dominated fields to report that their race becomes a clear part of their identity in the workplace. This illustrates Kanter’s idea of exclusion, that the majority group will heighten boundaries between themselves and members of the minority group, and will exaggerate these differences.[4] For this reason, members of racial minorities often feel as though they need to prove themselves as an exception to stereotypes.
Does it not feel exactly like the "peace" and acceptance policy that the current Tibetan sects are practicing? Isnt that exactly like putting Guru Rinpoche's statue in a Gelug temple when Tsongkhapa is Guru Rinpoche himself? Interesting theory isnt it, this one.
