While we most certainly don't need ideologies, we still need ideals to push us forward. When robbed of ideals we can easily descend into the vulgar materialism of consumerism or false ideals like Communism and Nationalism. Admittedly, ideals are not for everyone, and neither is anarchism, especially in its demanding the maximum of responsibility and self-reliance. Those who accept only a portion of the anarchist message, say, mutualism, federalism or decentralism, should be called mutualists, federalists and decentralists, not anarchists. This is a problem which haunted the authoritarian and revolutionary radicalisms, but does not have to be a problem for anarchism.
Anarchism is the goal and libertarianism, decentralism, etc. is the process.
No shame nor sectarianism need be implied in not being considered an anarchist. One outcome of this attempt at definition is the realization that most, if not all, supposed anarchist movements were not really anarchist, but at best, libertarian. For the past thirty years I have been making an error one might awkwardly describe as movementism. Anarchism was not born as a mass movement. Neither was Bakunin in a specifically anarchist movement, but was a militant within the First International, and his group was known as Collectivists.