In various places Deleuze expressed the desire to construct a “pop-philosophy”. Deleuze’s demanding books show that to desire to elaborate a pop-philosophy does not mean being committed to a demagogical anti-intellectual hostility to theory, concepts or erudition. A pop-philosophy in Deleuze’s terms is the same thing as pragmatic philosophy, meaning a thought that has an immediate appeal to readers who find in it something useful for their lives and thinking.
This is not an apology for unbridled freedom of opinion or narcissistic self-expression, which is something that Deleuze abhorred. A pop-philosophy must have enough analysis, argument, and conceptual backbone to make it a real contribution to philosophy, and not just a licence for opinionating or free-associating or superficially commenting on a theme.
Deleuze and Guattari propose the term “deterritorialising” to express the fact that all interpreting is re-appropriating, and that a useful reading involves suspending the implicit limitations that a given context can place on words and expressions that are capable of resonating on many different levels and in many different contexts. This is not a case of giving words arbitrarily just any meaning, but of freeing them from their stereotypic acceptions in the discourse of the One (including the One of academic scholarship and collective closure).
So a “close” reading as a deterritorialising reading captures what I admire in many thinkers who creatively engage with the tradition. A contemporary example would be the creative practice of Bruno Latour, whose readings of James, Souriau, and Whitehead, or even of Greimas, do not respect the hermeneutical closure of the interpretive schools that have grown up around them, but take them off in surprising directions.
Deleuze and Guattari often condemn the sort of superficial commentary that we can find in many intellectual discussions, and so they call for a relation to the outside, not closure. Their slogan is “Don’t interpret, use!” Closure is the opposite of what is needed if you are writing a pluralist text, which calls for the adhesion and the collaboration of the people who encounter it: it requires democracy.
This is why Deleuze and Guattari call for a relation to the outside, against the hegemony of special groups and against un-democratic closure. To be sure, some closure is necessary to avoid chaos, pointless polemics and superficial bickering. But more generally closure is one possible result, it is not the condition of a fecund inquiry,