Although almost seventy years has passed since Korea’s liberation from Japanese rule, the issue of collaboration still haunts Korea today. Attempts to resolve this issue have tended to focus attention on the traitorous actions of “collaborators” without considering the gray areas that surround their actions such as the circumstances that influenced the accused to commit their alleged traitorous acts and the intentions that drove their decisions. Helen Kim, as a “new woman” and an educator, valued the necessity of providing education for women. Yet, her efforts to realize this goal, to the contrary, forced her into actions that would later be used to construct a reputation as a Japanese collaborator. Korea’s nationalist historiography has a tendency to polarize this issue by categorizing a “collaborator” as either a traitor or a patriot. However, when we take a closer look at these collaborators’ lives, we discover that most collaboration happened in gray areas where it is often difficult to clearly draw a line between treason and collaboration. Helen Kim’s case suggests that the issue of collaboration cannot be fully explained by nationalist historiography’s framework and we must give attention to these gray areas. Through her story I hope to complicate the issue of collaboration by raising questions that address the gray areas that surround the actions of “collaborators.” In doing so, I hope to challenge the nationalist historiography’s propensity to oversimplify this issue and present a more nuanced understanding of it.

中文翻译：

---

海伦·金作为新女性和合作者：日本殖民统治下韩国合作的综合评估*

尽管朝鲜从日本统治下解放后已经过去了将近七十年，但合作问题今天仍然困扰着韩国。试图解决这个问题的尝试往往将注意力集中在“合作者”的叛国行为上，而没有考虑围绕他们行为的灰色地带，例如影响被告犯下所谓叛国行为的情况以及促使他们做出决定的意图。海伦·金作为“新女性”和教育家，非常重视为女性提供教育的必要性。然而，恰恰相反，她为实现这一目标所做的努力迫使她采取了一些行动，这些行动后来被用来建立作为日本合作者的声誉。韩国的民族主义史学倾向于将“合作者”归类为叛徒或爱国者，从而使这一问题两极分化。然而，当我们仔细观察这些合作者的生活时，我们会发现大多数合作发生在灰色地带，在这些灰色地带，叛国罪和合作往往很难清楚地划清界限。海伦·金的案例表明，民族主义史学的框架无法完全解释合作问题，我们必须关注这些灰色地带。通过她的故事，我希望通过提出解决围绕“合作者”行为的灰色地带的问题来使合作问题复杂化。在这样做的过程中，我希望挑战民族主义史学过于简单化这个问题并提出对它更细致入微的理解的倾向。我们发现大多数合作都发生在灰色地带，在那里很难在叛国罪和合作之间划清界限。海伦·金的案例表明，民族主义史学的框架无法完全解释合作问题，我们必须关注这些灰色地带。通过她的故事，我希望通过提出解决围绕“合作者”行为的灰色地带的问题来使合作问题复杂化。在这样做的过程中，我希望挑战民族主义史学过于简单化这个问题并提出对它更细致入微的理解的倾向。我们发现大多数合作都发生在灰色地带，在那里很难在叛国罪和合作之间划清界限。海伦·金的案例表明，民族主义史学的框架无法完全解释合作问题，我们必须关注这些灰色地带。通过她的故事，我希望通过提出解决围绕“合作者”行为的灰色地带的问题来使合作问题复杂化。在这样做的过程中，我希望挑战民族主义史学过于简单化这个问题并提出对它更细致入微的理解的倾向。通过她的故事，我希望通过提出解决围绕“合作者”行为的灰色地带的问题来使合作问题复杂化。在这样做的过程中，我希望挑战民族主义史学过于简单化这个问题的倾向，并对它提出更细致入微的理解。通过她的故事，我希望通过提出解决围绕“合作者”行为的灰色地带的问题来使合作问题复杂化。在这样做的过程中，我希望挑战民族主义史学过于简单化这个问题并提出对它更细致入微的理解的倾向。