I don't think it can, and I think it does. (how you like that for absolutes?!)
I have things I am absolutely firm about, but when it gets down to brass tacks, my black and whites look like a whole lot of grey areas that blur from a distance.
What is tricky about this is that there are things I would not do, but those things are based on personal experiences and my own ethics (which is always changing and adjusting as my understanding of the world does). This makes me a seemingly shitty person to conspire with about anything, except that part of why I say this is I have far too many people far too close to me that were true to causes, true til death, or would never under any circumstances agree to do/say: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ who at some later point did so either under duress or because, you know, they just had a different worldview now.
When I say my ethics shift with experience, that isn't to say that I am a snitch-in-the-wings, or that I am apologizing for the choices people make, but that it is a bit less clear in the thick of things, and that those ethics aren't the be-all, end-all, rather they are the jumping off point for deciding on strategies and tactics.
Let's think about other places where absolutes come into play in anarchyland...
*voting: I don't, but I don't think choosing to do so would make my beliefs any less than paying taxes or otherwise supporting the state in other ways I already do, I just think that it is insulting to be given this as the one supposedly meaningful choice for participation, thus I don't.
*paying taxes: I do, it has far more concrete impacts on reinfiorcing the state than voting, but I do it, because options to not are limited (though not impossible, I have a friend who is a war tax resistor based on their particular take on anarchism and withdrawing support from the state), however I don't think choosing to compromise on these terms could be argued to make one not-an-anarchist.
*believing in god/a higher power: I am a bit hesitant here. I am godless, and have no spirit. So too for everyone else I know and interact with, because that shit ain't real. Many people I know argue this. They have a spirituality, or they have a (blech) "god". I can hardly say that makes folks who have that shit not-anarchists. Fuck, even my staunch denial could be seen as such by anarchists who see my hatred of spirituality woowoo of any kind as my being still too haunted by the spook of atheism.
A couple last thoughts (with extremely prejudicial privilege to revise after further thought or respond and maybe contradict myself, thus proving some of my point):
When I started to move away from ideas of prescriptive forms of anarchy, I used the term "ethics" to delineate what I saw as things that matter to me making choices, as opposed to "morals" which I saw (still see) as unchanging standards by which we either choose to live or don't.
I am unsure ethics is a good word to use, but it is what I chose here. It could/might be replaced if I come up with better words. What I mean when I am using it here is not something fixed for all time, or applicable to all people, but rather something related to Jason McQuinn's idea of "Critical Self-Theory". I mean it as not-dogmatic, not mired in purely theoretical conjecture.