Leaving allowance for dreamer to respond...
bossel said:
Seems not as interesting as you think, judging from the lack of responses. ☝
To me, the words as such are not that interesting. What I find much more interesting are the underlying concepts. Why is it so hard for a Korean, whose country seems much more collectivist than Germany, to find a fitting expression? Is peer pressure so obvious that words are not needed? Or is peer pressure so internalised that there is no need for words? Maybe peer pressure simply isn't seen as a problem, because it seems so natural in a collectivist society?
Why the apparent lack of such a word in French, which is socially & linguistically much closer to Germany than Korea?
I wouldn't be that interested myself because we lack it, yet it becomes interesting that others have it. As to why, that is definitely more interesting as you say.
1. I don't know. If something isobvious, do we not need a word for it ?
2. Is this a paraphrase of case 1.? obvious = internalised ?
3. This sounds the same to me as cases 1. & 2. Do obvious, internalised, & natural mean the same?
Being a problem is a new idea. Then if something is not a problem, does that mean we don't need a word for it?
As for the counter-questions I raise are not to refute legitimate questions, but to ask you if you are thinking them as sufficient causes or necessary conditions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The real answer is evading me, but I think the concept of a peer, i.e. a true equal, does not exist in Korean society. Friends or alumni can be considered peers, but in a social context rarely has a postive and legitimate existence. A hundred yrs ago, we had the four castes of ﾅｽm, 窶拈, ﾂ工, ﾂ渉､. These were hierarchies fixed by birth. On top of these existed the royalties, and the slave class. Even within one group, the stratification went on to differentiate each relationship into a ﾂ静ｦ窶掣 and a ﾅ津｣窶掣.
Even when two people of same age and class become friends, and forego the use of ﾅ檀ﾅ津ｪ, the senior-junior relationship would remain at least symbolically for indefinite. Having no reality that can be rightfully called a "peer" but only isolated instances of a friend or an alumnus, all of which can be subdivided by birth, rank, wealth, and date of birth, precluded the existence of any word translatable into "peer." The closest possible would be a friend, or friends, but it lacks the generic, natural idea of an equal. This is just my hypothesis.