dot, you raise some interesting points, some I've given some thought toward.
Perhaps one major reason for the difficulty of of speaking about anarchy, or really anything at all, in our language is that our language has become so abstract. I don't think this level of abstraction, even in everyday conditions, has always been the case. Old English, for example, was far more conditional than the English of today. Part of this is Religion. Part Philosophy. Part Science. And all techno-Western Civ at this juncture. (for kindling to get the fires of passionate thought going about this very topic I'd recommend 'Don't Sleep, There are Snakes' by Daniel Everett).
Without delving too much into philosophical quicksand, anarchy for me anyway may be analogous, in many ways, to Heidegger's descriptions of 'truth' or 'aletheia,' which he described as more a place, a clearing in the forest, one approaches, than as any 'essence,' or 'substance' that can be seen only from THE correct-view-from-nowhere; you know, that 'real deal' which always lies hidden from 'mere appearance' that's continually vexed the Western mind for centuries. (http://www.ontology.co/heidegger-aletheia.htm
Actually, I tend to think Heidegger's description of 'truth' is only an elaboration of Nietzsche's, but fruitfully illustrative nonetheless)
As such, I see 'anarchy' as a process, an opening of possibilities, some of those possibilities may become *norms* which evolve over time with others. I differentiate norms from morality very simply: norms are emergent (and largely unspoken) modes of sociability un-detachable from the conditions of everyday living-with-others. A deep paradox arises here: a fluidity which may, to the eyes of our brief lives, express a movement and change so slow as to be imperceptible as 'a peoples'' conditions change.
Morals, on the other hand, are abstractions, detachable and conceptually solidified rules requiring a constant belief in their 'universality' (even within a particular society: Rome, the US, UN) which, in turn, requires a body of enforcement, itself detachable (as a 'class') from the rest of its own society (ie; governing body). A deep contradiction arises here: what is held as universally applicable, may be broken at any moment given morality's basis in the arbitrariness of power.
Lawrence's short answer here comes to mind:
Edit for clarity.