Care as a relationship › The one-caring and the cared-for

Noddings calls the participants the one-caring and the cared-for. These terms identify positions in a relation. They help her describe what happens on each side without making caring a permanent identity that one person possesses and another lacks.

The one-caring attends to the other and becomes disposed to respond. The cared-for contributes by receiving and responding to the caring. Noddings's claim is stronger than the observation that some helpful acts are appreciated: she treats the other's contribution as part of the completion of a caring relation. An intention to care does not by itself settle whether this relation has occurred.

The contribution need not be an equivalent service in return. A young child cannot reciprocate a parent's work in the same form. The relation can be unequal in responsibility and capacity while still including a response from the child. This makes reciprocity a potentially misleading word unless we distinguish responsiveness from an exchange of benefits.

Noddings also warns against demanding responsiveness from the cared-for. A response that is required as payment would conflict with the receptivity of caring. The one-caring must respect the other's freedom. This leaves a tension in the account: the recipient's response matters to the relation, yet the caregiver cannot simply require the desired response in order to secure completion.

Consider someone who offers practical assistance that a friend declines. The refusal does not automatically prove that the offer was selfish, incompetent, or morally wrong. It does mean that the helper cannot establish a completed caring relation solely by pointing to the effort expended. We need to distinguish the helper's motive, the usefulness of the act, and the relation between the participants. Different judgments about these may be appropriate.