Institutions and Extreme Public Events. Introducing Institutional Numbness

How do extreme events shape institutions and public organizations while responding to a common public threat? The unprecedented impact of COVID-19 brought renewed attention to the role of the World Health Organization (WHO), particularly when it announced its intention to modernize its governing structure before all member states. WHO’s move sparked debates about institutional sovereignty, preparedness, and the frameworks that govern formal and informal collaborative obligations. This research examines institutional reactions within the UK Parliament, where growing scepticism emerged regarding the necessity and broader implications of this seemingly benign structural reform. A textual analysis reveals that institutional attempts to extend control are often met with suspicion perceived as potential gateways for broader institutional influence. In advancing a theory of the in-between institutional response-state shaped by overlapping pressures this study introduces the concept of institutional numbness. We argue that such a response-state serves as a mechanism for reconciling moral imperatives with the pragmatic and constitutional demands necessary for maintaining institutional stability. Furthermore, the study suggests that public health challenges acquire power to redefine relationships between public organizations and institutions. This occurs through the negotiation of competing interests where the need for conformity is framed as a normative imperative, encouraging a homogenized collective response. However, institutional efforts to achieve such homogeneity are themselves met with scepticism, as they may be perceived as covert mechanisms for consolidating and extending institutional control.