I am confused rejection of Ideology does not contradict the goals of an egalitarian and non-coercive society .
Considering how many non egalitarian and coercive societies we have seen in the history "egalitarian and non-coercive" sounds very idealistic to me. Idealism would sound OK to me if you would admit that these things would be a huge challenge to anarchist society. Or if you would say that it would be "somewhat egalitarian and mostly non-coercive" then the whole thing starts to seem realistic. But it would not be anarchy anymore.
For most of the life of the species all societies were thought to have been "egalitarian and non-coercive", hunter-gatherer cultures tend to be that way. It was not until the agrarian revolution the societal stratification became possible (outside of a few fishing cultures).
You need to have enough extra calories to support a non-productive class.(1) Or if you would say that it would be "somewhat egalitarian and mostly non-coercive" then the whole thing starts to seem realistic. (2) But it would not be anarchy anymore.
1 - Exactly, Equality and non-coercion are goals, choices.
2 - only if you define anarchy in a way anarchists historically don't.