Part of the reason I'm drawn to Individualist Anarchism is very simple. I perceive individuals. I cannot see 'society,' 'humanity,' 'community,' 'morality,' 'ethics,' 'rights,' 'the future,' etc. This may not seem a complex answer, and perhaps will further justify the uncritical notion that I@ only draws unthinking knuckle-dragging primates...as opposed, of course, to more enlightened socially-oriented primates. But, please hear me out...
One might say I see anarchy as a phenomenological process, rather than a program. We already inhabit so many different levels of power relations, and each has its logic of self-justification. In turn, each require, and have a long history of, abstraction, logo-centrism, metaphysical 'truths,' moralities, identities; all which attempt to provide a calculable, digestible, intelligible world in the form of ideology. This provides for some potent barriers of policing, imaginary though they are, between you and I. Some are self-policing and some require cops, most require a mixture of both. They share the common feature, however, of inherently distancing us from the immediately real. We base our judgments of one another on these preconceived standards. We glace askew at one another, if we bother to glance at one another at all. Worse still, we prize these abstractions, which we cannot see, over that which can be seen, touched, smelled, heard, and on occasion, tasted. They are articles of faith by which we come to devalue appearance, presence, embodiment. It's a form of asceticism, world-renunciation. And they always serve the logic of power.
(you) and (i) are bodies. As bodies, living bodies, we act, interact, we relate. you -and - i. 'And' may seem a separation, but in the very activity of perceiving one another, we interact. This interaction, mutual perception, does not precede (you) and (I), as the ideologues would have it, but is possible only on condition of (you) and (i); as different bodies, become a mutually recognized (you and i). Here, 'and' is the very matrix of sociability between (you) and (i), so as to form an instance of (you and i).*
For me, the more socially-oriented anarchists miss the mark much of the time because they place their primary focus upon idealism, and thus distance themselves from the immediately real. Put another way, they tend to mediate reality by way of idealism, lies we tell ourselves in the name of certitude/intelligibility. As stated above, this strikes me as a form of asceticism, and given the history of social-anarchism, has also led the way toward martyrdom and fanaticism which both characterizes and carries on the tradition of ye olde tyme religion in political form. What I can do is encounter you, and from here, we may travel together, part ways, or interact ('socialize') in many other possible ways.
I realize this answer is incomplete. :-)
* So as to ward-off some confusion here, I'm using parenthesis and hyphens in order to make my meaning a bit more perceptible.
Edited to clarify; grammar; typos (again)
