How does collective memory shape politics in the domestic and international spheres? I argue that collective memory—an intersubjective understanding of the past—has no inherent meaning and its salience is entirely contextual. What it means politically depends on the historical trajectory through which it came to form and the political exigency for which it is mobilized in the present. I propose three strategies by which social actors mobilize collective memory: framing—negotiating how the past can be interpreted; accrediting—redefining which narrators are authorized to speak; and binding—enforcing the narrative bounds to which narrators must conform. Using this framework, I reassess the failure of South Korea–Japan reconciliation and find that it has as much to do with the mobilization of collective colonial memory in South Korea over the course of its democratization as with Japanese impenitence. Anti-Japanese memory reflects continued domestic political contestation about how South Korea remembers and identifies itself.

集体记忆如何塑造国内和国际领域的政治？我认为集体记忆——对过去的主体间理解——没有内在的意义，它的显着性完全取决于语境。它在政治上的意义取决于它形成的历史轨迹以及它在当前被动员起来的政治紧迫性。我提出了社会行动者调动集体记忆的三种策略： 框架——协商如何解释过去；授权——重新定义哪些叙述者有权发言；和约束——加强叙述者必须遵守的叙述界限。使用这个框架，我重新评估了韩日和解的失败，发现它与韩国在民主化过程中动员集体殖民记忆的关系与日本的顽固不化同样重要。反日记忆反映了国内关于韩国如何记忆和认同自己的持续政治争论。