**Pluto was arbitrarily labelled a ‘dwarf’ planet, due to education/political reasons and not due to scientific criteria.** Michel Foucault once argued that a scientific discourse and their conceptual structures are not the simple product of an objective study of phenomena but is rather the product of systems of power relations struggling to create fields of knowledge within a society. The way we organize and theorize science is generated from a [complex relationship between science and politics](https://philosophynow.org/issues/127/Foucaults_Elephant#:~:text=Importantly%2C%20Foucault%20argues%20that%20a,of%20knowledge%20within%20a%20society). Mere observation of a phenomena isn’t enough to legitimize objectivity, it needs be mobilized by a certain power or influence to establish boundaries and avenues to define and direct all possible choices and outcomes. Pluto, our faithful 9th planet, was declassified and designated the arbitrary label “dwarf planet” not because its lack of merit as planet, but because of the complex yet political conversations that happened in that 2006 IAU conference. The dramatization and concern by the IAU came from the discovery of several planets much larger, including Eris led to the arbitrary classification. However, this process of changing Pluto’s status was not conducted strictly through scientific criteria on what constitutes a planet, but rather it was decided over a democratic vote, [which is probably not the best way to classify scientific concepts](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2021/02/15/yes-pluto-is-a-planet-says-nasa-scientist-at-the-site-of-its-discovery-91-years-ago-this-week/?sh=66f7a0ab68df). [Planetary scientist Dr. Alan Stern expressed his concern over the issue](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2021/02/15/yes-pluto-is-a-planet-says-nasa-scientist-at-the-site-of-its-discovery-91-years-ago-this-week/?sh=66f7a0ab68df): “Voting is a terrible mechanism of doing science […] We don’t vote on the theory of relativity. We don’t vote on quantum mechanics. The image of the IAU taking a vote was the single most damaging pedagogical event in science in probably a century, because to many people it was easy to reach the conclusion that science is arbitrary or political, which it is not.” Its no rumor that the purpose of the IAU in creating a new definition was to limit the number of planets in our Solar Systems so that school kids wouldn’t have to memorize long lists of planets. [Most planetary researchers ignore the IAU definition preferring to use a more geophysical definition](https://www.ucf.edu/news/pluto-planet-research/): 1. It has enough mass (and therefore gravity) to be round. 2. It has insufficient mass to undergo nuclear fusion in its interior.

**TL;DR- A planet's defining qualities should rest upon its being, not on the capacity of what it can do, therefore Pluto's absent ability to force objects out of its orbit, causing its revoked planetary status to hold no merit.** For nearly 80 years, Pluto was one of the essential nine planets of our solar system, becoming declassified only after a revision of the criteria requirements, so what protects the other eight planets from meeting the same fate? In 2006, the [three deciding factors](http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/our-solar-system/56-our-solar-system/planets-and-dwarf-planets/general-questions/229-what-are-the-requirements-for-being-a-planet-beginner) that were chosen to as the parameters set forth as the required criteria for a celestial body to be deemed a planet included: 1. It must orbit the sun. 2. The mass must be so substantial that the gravitational pull gives it a rounded shape. _To help visualize the [comparison in size](https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/dwarf-planets/pluto/in-depth/) to other planets, imagine Earth being the size of a nickel, to which Pluto would be the size of a popcorn kernel._ 3. It must have a clear ‘neighborhood’. That last, slightly confusing and most recently added requirement, is where Pluto falls short, as it lacks the gravitational dominance needed to clear its orbit of all other objects. These selected criteria were [authored by non-experts](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2021/02/15/yes-pluto-is-a-planet-says-nasa-scientist-at-the-site-of-its-discovery-91-years-ago-this-week/) diminishing the legitimacy to use it as a planet's set standard. Outside that, some [additional facts](https://www.philipmetzger.com/nine-reasons-why-pluto-is-a-planet/) that support Pluto being a planet include: → Its atmosphere is [multilayered](https://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-administrator-jim-bridenstine-says-pluto-is-a-planet). → Organic compounds are present. → It undergoes changing weather. → It has its own moons.

**Pluto does not meet the criteria set out by the International Astronomical Union to be classed as a planet.** - The International Astronomical Union (IAU) has three criteria for [planet classification](https://www.loc.gov/everyday-mysteries/item/why-is-pluto-no-longer-a-planet). These are: It is in orbit around the Sun. It has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium. It has “cleared the neighbourhood” around its orbit. - Pluto does not meet the third point. It has not “cleared its area” of other objects. This has something to do with its gravitational dominance, or lack of, due to its size. - Pluto does not meet the criteria needed to be a planet, hence it cannot be classed as a planet, only a dwarf planet.